The Journal Star reports on a candidates forum that took place last night, sponsored by the Glen Oak Neighborhood Association, that I was unable to attend, unfortunately. As I was reading about it this morning, here are some random thoughts I had about it:
“It’s not (a decision) I was happy about [to downsize Fire Station 11], and I think everyone on the council would like to see the City Council come up with the money,” Thetford told the crowd. “But, I also challenge you, that happened in 2004. This is 2007. If that was a major priority of the council, there has been time to find the funding.”
Great diversion, shifting focus onto the current council. But forgive me for not following the logic. Thetford got us into the mess, the current council hasn’t been able to fix her mess yet, so we should reelect Thetford because…?
Only a few candidates voiced caution over the cost…. “We have to facilitate growth in the community so we’re able to pay for the services our citizens are clamoring for,” Spain said.
Thank you, Mr. Spain. You have provided in that short sentence the very reason I will not be voting for you. You see, it’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us to this place where we’re shoveling money into developers’ bank accounts, but not enough money for fire protection.
No, that statement is completely backwards. We should be providing basic city services in order to facilitate growth in the community. That’s the crux of the difference between what has been termed “progressive” candidates and “basic services first” candidates.
“In my brochure, I say that properly placed fire stations are key to a proper foundation,” said Dan Irving. “We need to start having those discussions right now. When it comes down to finding the money for it, it’s all about prioritization.”
Dan has it right. It is indeed all about prioritization. When the city provides first-class police protection to keep crime down, fully-staffed fire stations to protect citizens’ lives and property, and well-maintained infrastructure such as transportation corridors and sewers, that will be attractive to residents and businesses alike. And if further incentives are necessary to attract some businesses, that can be discussed — but those incentives should never come at the expense of basic city services.
The more I hear about Spain, the less faith I have in him.
* waiting for Emtronics post *
And C.J., we are waiting for the day your name goes on the ballot.
Thetford makes a valid point. If it was such a high priority to re-open station 11, it would be today. That the station remains closed 3 years later suggests to me that re-opening it is all talk and no walk. Same with adequate police resources and the protection of neighborhoods.
That isn’t a case for re-electing Thetford but it sure is damning of those who are on the council now. She is basically saying they are no better than her.
At the end of the day they are still sucking up to developers and institutions.
Remember the Arbors.
I think Thetford makes a very valid point. And at the risk of being labeled a supporter of her (haven’t decided by number last two picks for council yet), I’ll make the following points. Those newly elected in the last election didn’t have to make ANY of the difficult decisions that were necessary to keep the City of Peoria financially solvent – including elminating over 100 city positions and many other substantial cuts in services. However, those cuts were crucial to putting the budget into balance in a sustainable manner.
The fact that the money hasn’t been put back into those areas that were cut is clear evidence that the funds didn’t exist and still doon’t exist to do so. And in a round a bout manner, is acknowledgement that there are other more pressing needs facing our community (if not, why weren’t they funded?).
It’s completely illogical to me to believe that paying more for services in the existing city limits will enable growth to occur. Spain does have a point that additional growth (in the right areas) brings in more tax revenues that it would take to incrementally add additional services. It’s a delicate balancing act that has to be undertaken but services and growth go hand in hand.
Irving may have gathered your support but his statement really says nothing about what he supports. Who is against “properly placed fire stations”? What about the discussion that has occurred over the last five years…I’m not sure more discussion is necessary to solve the issue…the issue is “Is the cost of the additional fire resources (staffing, equipment, etc.) worth the additional cost?” If the answer is yes, we budget for it. If no, it stays off the table another year (just like it has for the last two years despite the rhetoric and campaign promises of those elected the last time around).
Well, at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the current council, I’d say there are a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head. The council has additional financial pressures over which they have no or little control — GASB45 and mandated wastewater treatment improvements. Also, the imposition of the garbage fee and reduction of fire service came about because the money was allocated elsewhere, to things like parking decks and ill-advised development efforts (like MidTown). It’s not like the new council can recall that money after it’s already been spent or committed.
That said, I’m still disappointed that we’re here three years later and nothing has changed. I had high hopes last year when they started the budget process early that they would reprioritize; but in the end, the result was status quo.
So the newcomers to the council haven’t yet made good on their campaign promises. That doesn’t mean we all throw in the towel and go back to the kinds of candidates that brought us the garbage fee to begin with. We just need to keep trying to get essential-services-first candidates onto the council until substantive changes are made.
I will say that there have been some bright spots with this council — rejecting the Civic Center hotel proposal and its accompanying parking deck is a good example. I have no doubt that plan would have gone through unimpeded under the last council.
Hollowing out the urban core of the city while at the same time expanding the northern city limits is not “growth,” but sprawl. If we neglect the needs of those in the existing city limits, costs for services go up, property values fall, crime and vandalism increase, code violations increase — these things offset gains made on the northern fringes of the city. Our whole city needs to be strong, not just the growth areas.
cj, you are coming off as an apologist for the current council. station 11 should have never been closed. but it would take only $600,000 to reopen it — that about a half a percent of the citys budget – less if you count the capitol side.
bottom line is the CURRENT council doesnt think its important to fund, or else they would have done it by now.
cj, when are going to start holding this council accountable for not doing what the people obviosuly want?
I agree that there were some large expenditures that the current council had to address. But these weren’t “surpise” issues, they have known that they are coming for years. If the actions of the prior council hadn’t been taken, there would have been NO way for the current council to have “managed” these costs so easily.
The fact is that saying your for “essential services” is a great campaigning tool. However, it means nothing unless the candidate is able to articulate what it means: does it mean 12 firestations, 13, 14 and why? (let’s look at response times, relocations, etc.) does it mean streets cleaned after snowstorms in 24 hours, 48 hours, ?
I have to disagree that all the problems were based upon money given to developers, parking decks, etc. Nice sound bite but simply not true. I agree that we waste money on these issues but the true cause of the financial difficulties were structural budget problems and the increasing cost of personnel and benefits. Over 80% of the operating budget is personnel costs (think it’s even closer to 90%).
I never said we should “hollow out the core” and sprawl all over. But hunkering down and preventing all growth as bad is a sure way to kill the City. There has to be balance and we have to look at new ways to provide City services — continuing to do what we’ve done for decades will surely doom us to irrelevancy in the region.
“Dan has it right. It is indeed all about prioritization. When the city provides first-class police protection to keep crime down, fully-staffed fire stations to protect citizens’ lives and property, and well-maintained infrastructure such as transportation corridors and sewers, that will be attractive to residents and businesses alike. And if further incentives are necessary to attract some businesses, that can be discussed — but those incentives should never come at the expense of basic city services.”
…and that’s the remark of a voter who will vote for Dan, Dan’ll win, but then realize that it’s not as easy to do what he says he’s going to do during a campaign and it’ll never get done….kinda like the last election.
Station 11 seems to be an awfully hot topic amongst keen followers of Peoria politics. I am ignorant on the details of the matter, and about firefighting in general, but what have we lost since station 11 has been closed?
I am not trying to say that we have _not_ lost anything, I am merely asking for the loss to be quantified. In the area formerly covered by #11, what have been the changes in e.g. property damage since the station was closed? Have there been cases of multiple fires where the formerly-11 area was successfully covered by a neighboring station house, but a concurrent fire in the covering station’s ‘core’ area did more damage because of insufficient manpower? Most importantly, what is the change in serious injuries and deaths-by-fire since #11 closed?
Fires aren’t too terribly common, but 3 years seems to be enough time to get something that at least resembles a statistically significant dataset.
I’m bowing to the wisdom of the citizens of District 3, who chose not to return Thetford to the City Council. She’s a nice lady, but she’s had her time. She won’t be getting my vote.
Ben, with all due respect, I don’t believe that’s the way we want to decide how much fire protection we need. I suppose we could just start systematically cutting fire protection all around the city, then stop once the mortality rate starts to rise and say that’s how many fire stations we need, but I don’t think that would be a wise way to go about it. Perhaps a better idea would be to have someone qualified — like, say, the fire chief — make a recommendation based on his expertise.
I wrote to Barbara Van Auken and asked her view on fire station 11 and the garbage fee and some of the other stuff we’ve been discussing. She had this to say:
I assked the question on staton 11. This is a copy of what I submitted. Little did I know it would be a tender spot.the forum got real interesting .
Question
With the expansion of the civic center, New huge parking deck at OSF, Milestone Project at OSF, planed expansion of Medithdust Medical center, New development at the college of medicine, Downtown museum and other projects in the center of the city how are you going to bring back proper staffing of the PFD. (Station #11) (Most of the developments will not bring in taxes for fire operations). Most stations “backfill†other stations when an alarm is taken which leaves holes of delayed protection. (Especially in the center of the city) Or do you just leave thing as they are and hope to get by and no one dies as a result of lack or extended fire department response?
I know station 11 has not closed but the machine has no water on it so if ther is a fire they can’t do a lot. Fire protection is like insurance, it is there if you need it. If you gamble and choose to have less insurance you might get by. But what if???
Correcton
Martin Palmer.
“(along with properly staffing the Police Department–which has been achieved).”
I would disagree with that conclusion. I think many others would disagree as well.
What would be more acurate is that the police Chief has done a pretty good job with the resources he has. That is very different from saying he has enough to be properly staffed.
There are cities half our size with the same number of police officers. One only has to drive through town to witness open drug dealing, or as I rounded a corner near Butler st. a few weeks ago, some guy walking down the middle of the street with his gun hanging down by his side.
The district officers are running from call to call to call. This does not leave time for proactive policing. We have an officer who drives up and down each street sometime during first shift between calls, if there is a between call time. He tags cars, moves people off the streets and to the sidewalks, actually writes litter tickets to the lazy folks that walk by a garbage can and toss their mess on the ground, knows and talks to the drug dealers if only to let them know someone is watching. They tend to move on or go inside. People feel safer with this type of policing. This type officer would make a huge difference city wide if given the time to do it.
We asked that our district officers be provided cell phones so that we can relay information to them directly, information you wouldn’t call for an officer to come to your house, but needed to be relayed. We were told they are too busy to take such calls. Too busy too recieve information about the area they are patrolling? Clearly there are not enough officers.
RE: Firestation 11. I agree, if the council wanted it re-instated, it clearly would be. $50 million is being spent on three projects in the growth cells. Fireprotection is one reason why we pay collective taxes to the city. It’s a given to be used and immediately ready and available when needed. The Second District has only one firestion for all practical purposes due to the equipment being split between the two stations. The funding of projects and services tells you who is expendable and who isn’t. We are expendable. The new growth cells are going to need a firestation build out there to keep the response time set in live saving minutes. Bet they get theirs and ours will either remain status quo or be closed. Bradley’s expansion was blessed to the destruction of the Arbor District, again I say we are expendable.
GASB 45 and the erosion issues have been years in the making. Instead of preparing for these items, we expanded the Civic center, built the Gateway building, gave money to Campustown and Cub Food TIF’s. Some actions were from previous councils, some still supported today. There has been little repriortization of the city’s budget. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with different priorities. I read in the Paper that East Peoria was looking for developers to meet its needs for a project on their river front just North of the interstate. They wanted someone to meet their needs, not just tossing money at some developer and letting the developer decide what “we want”. That is poor growth management and the result has been what we paid for.
Growth needs to be planned, and we need to search for those who are willing to develop according to our needs and wishes, not pay for something and hoped by golly we need it. We are sprawling to deteriment of the city’s core. As good people run for the hills, they are replaced with some who don’t have a work ethic therefore aren’t going to mow the lawn, pick up the trash, or keep their “gatherings” to a dull roar at 2am cuz they ain’t gotta get up for work. The landlord isn’t going to paint until they are cited and screw around because they know little will happen. They will look the other way when 25 people live in a three bedroom house, or their rentals address appears at least monthly due to drug arrests. We have an ordinance for nuisuance properties, but it isn’t used for neighborhoods, it is enacted for developers near Peoria Heights w/o issue. It’s too hard to get a house seized in a neighborhood despite repeated complaints, arrests, etc. We are expendable.
Some areas are getting some investment. Olde Town South and Lincoln Ave. are getting new sidewalks. This is a good first step, but take a walk down Shelly street south of Lincoln and what is seen. There are no curbs. The dirt is sliding into the street. One lone property has a section of curb. It stands out against the two blocks worth of black dirt like a shining star. Actually is the most rediculous thing I have seen in a long time. Kind of like donating clothes to the needy. Something just not quite falling apart, will be good enough for them. Many other areas of town would be screaming at something like this. Know what, it would be fixed, repaired, or changed. But they are expendable. All the planning for the growth cells that takes up staff time, very little is obviously done for investment and planning in the core. Neighborhoods try, some successful, some not, but as good people leave and disinterested parties take over, fewer and fewer will be able to get anything done. Those that do are aging with little replacement people in sight or are discouraged. Thankfully we’re a fiesty bunch, but when gone then and only then will the growth cells realize what was lost. There will be more and more crime in their areas. The facade is already cracking. I was out on Orange Prairie road today headed to Charter Oak School to pick up a child. My 14 year old truck was being passed by BMW’s and a Mercedes or two. What I noticed was that the trash had changed. This road is generally slighly littered by empty water bottles, most likely from powerwalking suburbanite moms. Today there was a string of empty beer bottles and a smashed 40oz. Not much evidence, but a sign of things to come.
Crime continues openly on streets. Shootings are still happening, thankfully these idiots are poor shots or more would be dead, including people who just wanted to come home from work and watch a little telly before bed.
These are issues that our elected officials are chosen to resolve. Resolve them they must, it’s their job.
When it comes time to vote, guess what, we’re suddenly no longer expendable on election day.
I will still vote for Spain as I have heard from all the other people before and some of the same people like Thetford. I am tired of the garbage fee and do nothing but give excuses people. I thought after the last election Barbara VA would do something along with Mayor Do Nothing and now sadly silent Spears. (I guess Spears is still mad for losing to boy wonder) We could get back to basic services. We get nothing but long drawn out responses (like the one above) which are fine for people who like that but for working folks that just want at least one campaign promised fufilled, it’s just more horseshit. This council has done nothing but provide a $55 million dollar office suite to the sinking Civic Center Authority. They now have a great view.
I don’t speak for Spain but I will vote for him as even though he is young he is smart which I think is sorley lacking on this council. If he is as smart as I think he is, then he can think outside the box. That alone is something that most of this council can not do or will not do and I am tired of the same old same old. How to fix that? Get some new faces and voices in there. Look at what we got now. No Station 11 (which does affect our protection) high crime, a garbage fee and nothing but “gee we just can’t get to that right now” excuses.
I will vote for Spain because although not elected, he is already looking for funding sources for a neighborhood project, he is working on funding sources for the Neighborhood Alliance, he is helping with now two projects for the Mayor’s litter committee, and is working with me on a feasible Neighborhood Stability plan, NO sitting councilperson is working as hard in these areas other than Jacob, despite interesting rhetoric. When there is much talk and little action, it only creates a smoke screen to divert the public’s attention from issues at hand and votes being taken. Both Irving and Spain have taken time to walk with people in their own neighborhoods. It a far cry from walking around one of the two upper districts only and saying one understands the needs of the entire city. One candidate only wants to manage things from afar and has no intentions of rolling up shirtsleeves and getting down to business, yet faired well in the top five. The citizens of Peoria should not be viewed as employees of the council, but the council are the employees of the citizens. This clearly means voters haven’t done their homework. It is going to take action, not only discussion to make changes. Clearly I have three of my votes locked and loaded, Jacob, Spain, and Irving. This is based on discussions and their behavior, what should be the true measure. Let’s see what the others are actually doing and accomplishing in the community.
aside: poster pdw has down perfectly. Contiune to vote for those who rule from a desk, those who don’t get envolved, and what you will get is what we have got. Sure, it’s nice to meet at a blogger bash with a councilperson, that still doesn’t get things done nor does talking away unfair taxes and fees. Bottom line, we still have them. See ya at Campustown or Cubs! Support your local TIF.
Oh, come on, Emtronics. What is all this involvement that Spain has done that the other candidates haven’t?
Spain will get elected, and then about 3-6 months down the road you and pdw and everyone else will be complaining about him and his support for every TIF that comes down the pike.
If Spain does as you say, we will complain, I will complain as any with any of the rest of them. Some will listen, some won’t. Vote out the ones that don’t I am not shy about contacting folks. What I will not do is offer blind support to those who neither fullfill their promises or offer excuses for things not accomplished or who don’t get things done in the first place. It is time to raise our expectations and expect accountablity. Speak to officials before these votes, let your opinions be known, or live with what is done. Spain is involved in things already in my neighborhood and a few others. I can’t predict the future, I can’t guage motives, I don’t read minds, I can see and evaluate behavior, in fact am paid to do so. I can ask questions, listen to and evaluate responses and I can remember what has been promised and expect it to be accomplished. I don’t agree with any candidate’s stance on everything. I look to see who can and will get things accomplished, who will listen to constituents, and who is willing to hit the road and put in some sweat equity. Chose your own criteria on things you feel important and evaluate the progress and results.
CJ CJ CJ You bet your ass I’ll complain if Spain does as you say and I won’t support him again on the council. I was a stark supporter of Mayor Ardis when he was elected because he looked me straight in the eye before he was elected and said the Garbage Fee will be gone and Station 11 will be funded.
Mayor Ardis turned out to be Mayor Do Nothing. As for TIFs. I am basically anti-TIF while Spain may be considered pro TIF even though he hasn’t ever had a hand in voting for one yet. I do like TIFs if they are smart TIFs and not just a handout to some rich developer so the city can get a new toy. Witness the ballpark. Do you see any growth there except parking lots and lighted billboards? So, I’ll keep voting out those that I feel didn’t do the job and complaining to them to be heard, That is basically all I can do. Still, according to you, we should keep the same people on the horseshoe. I disagree. Heaven forbid we try someone young with a different prespective like Ryan Spain. Just say it CJ. You simply don’t like the guy period. While some of these people are trying, most are not trying hard enough to suit me. Everytime I pay my water bill I am reminded of the lies and broken promises and that includes those from Ms Van Auken. Her cure is to dream up a new user fee. Funny, during her election, she said that the garbage fee was unjust and she would do everything she could to get rid of it. Well?
No, but he did say, “I do not support the city council’s decision to eliminate the Civic Center hotel site from the current Warehouse District TIF study. The council needs to remain open to various options regarding an attached Civic Center hotel –especially as surrounding communities become more competitive in the visitor-based convention market.” If he would even consider putting a Civic Center hotel in a TIF, I don’t want him on the council. You talk about the $6/month garbage fee — the civic center takes money out of my wallet in HRA taxes every time I go out to eat or to a movie. They just finished a $55 million expansion — if they didn’t plan for a hotel out of that money, that’s their problem.
He further said, “there are 400 communities pursuing wireless internet strategies in the United States. I am working to facilitate this type of infrastructure in Peoria.” Oh yeah, muni wi-fi is a priority, sure. He doesn’t have to get on the council to make that happen — he can work toward that through the Heartland Partnership, unless of course he’s wanting money from the city for it. In which case, there’s another reason I don’t want him on the council.
I never said we should keep all the same people on the horseshoe. I endorse Dan Irving — he’s young and new. And I’m not endorsing Eric Turner. Nor would I endorse Morris or Grayeb if they were running again. The district council reps aren’t up for reelection.
Yes indeed, heaven forbid we try someone with a different perspective if that perspective is to spend tax money on developers and non-essential services thinking that’s going to help our city. We’ve had enough of that kind of “help.”
I’m sure he’s a very nice person. I would not say that I “simply don’t like the guy period.” But no, I don’t agree with his platform, and thus I won’t vote for him for council. It’s nothing personal. I’m sure he wouldn’t vote for me, either, if I were running. That doesn’t mean we have to be enemies.
Oh, one more quote you may be interested in, Emtronics (emphasis mine):
In other words, he’s going to do the same thing Van Auken is doing now.
This could go all night but I respect your point of view. The quote you posted above: (allow me to snip) “if a suitable revenue replacement could be found.” That line was never used by any council candiate before the last election. Only after they were elected was that line used. A cop out line to me. Seems to me that we here in Peoria got along for years without a garbage fee. But what irks me more than anything about the Garbage Fee is that it neither goes to garbage collection or towards my water service. That to me is a slap in the face to every tax paying Peorian. (at least residental tax paying Peorian) We wouldn’t need the fee if the council hadn’t given money away to the ballpark and various other developer pork projects instead of to city services. If they are going to tax us for police protection and fire services, then at least call it that. I truly believe it is called the garbage fee as (I know this might be a shock)a lot of Peorians really think it is for collection of garbage. In other words and in true George Orwell fashion, fool the people with double speak.