I about spit out my soda when I read this in an article about District 150’s board meeting Monday night:
Some, including City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken, asked the board to halt any decisions.
“I’m here to beg you — defer these decision until you have some community outreach,” said Van Auken, who represents District 2, which includes Columbia Middle School, 2612 N. Bootz Ave. “If you have a bad process, you’re going to have a bad outcome.”
Well, I agree with that statement 100%. But I have a few questions: Where was Council Member Van Auken when the City Council rammed through a $39 million hotel deal with only a single business day of public notice and no “community outreach” whatsoever? Where was her concern over “bad process” then? Why didn’t she “beg” the council to defer that decision?
Van Auken’s admonishment kind of reminds me of the Heart of Peoria Plan: something that’s adopted in principle but ignored in practice.
I agree 100%. How easy it is to look at others and tell them what to do but to not do the same. What a joke. Total politics
Refer to my blog about a week back regarding the council meeting. Van Auken is a powerful and very talented speaker….too bad she doesn’t decide to use her powers for good.
I think BVA got caught up in the inner web of the back door workings of Ardis and Co, but it seems as of late with her refocus on Main St and other issues she is coming back to her core beliefs. Let’s see how it plays out the next 2 years. It would be great to see her step up and take a stand on some larger issues hanging out there.
I think BVA has the potential to be a truly great representative for the people of the 2nd district. I truly hope this is the beginning of a re-commitment to the values she espoused when she was first elected and a refutiation of her actions over the past two years.
Hope springs eternal. Replacing Spain and turner on the council may help her see the errors of of her/their actions over the last 2 years.
She is doing nothing but running for election already. You run on a platform to get elected. You change from the platform as soon as you are elected. Two years before your next election and after many votes that were against things to ran on you see potential challengers so you start to change your public talk so that people will forget what you did during the early years of office and just remember what happened recently. She is part of the problem just like most around the horseshoe and needs to go.
I only hope, CJ, when you get elected as an At-Large Councilman, you “get over” any council decisions made you don’t agree with, or you will have a stroke or heart attack(and I wouldn’t wish that on anybody). At least Gary seems to move on after things don’t go his way. I’m assuming Gary will win another term, too, and if Beth gets in, then the 3 of you will form a coalition that mereley becomes an 8-3 vote on matters of the city like the Hotel, right? And, speaking from experience, you will learn a lot about the majority things that get done behind closed doors, a common process of the city political game. Your 100% transparency philosophy allowing every small agenda oriented minority(that’s in number, not race creed)their voice is idealistically to be commended, but the reality is it severely and needlessly bogs the system down in most cases. Look 42 miles to the west, Galesburg, and see the results of that form of governing
Yea, you all vote her back in in the Second again. Gluttons for punishment.
I think we all need to continue to keep our City Council informed of issues of importantance and what we want them to do. As a whole, this city of way too apathetic about local issues, which has alllowed a lot of the weird stuff to happen. I’m going to continue to enourage my 2nd district rep to do the best job possible over the remainder of her term. I hope all my fellow 2nd district folks will do the same.
outsidethebox: I’m hopeful that, if elected, we’ll be able to affect more change than turning 10-1 votes into 8-3 votes. And I wouldn’t characterize my philosophy quite the way you put it. There are already reasonable and workable processes in place to ensure transparency; I simply want to follow them. The problem with the hotel deal was that the public process was completely circumvented. Those involved in circumventing it should be held accountable, in my opinion.
“And, speaking from experience, you will learn a lot about the majority things that get done behind closed doors, a common process of the city political game. Your 100% transparency philosophy allowing every small agenda oriented minority(that’s in number, not race creed)their voice is idealistically to be commended, but the reality is it severely and needlessly bogs the system down in most cases.”
And therein lies the problem which is why more people like C.J. need to be elected. Not citizens who are somehow professionally connected to all the big players in this city and will cave whenever necessary.
I thing “getting over” past mistakes is the absolute wrong thing. Those should be brought up whenever they are relevant to prevent the same future mistakes from being approved. Much like Sandberg does now. I’ll take someone with a long memory over someone who is dazzled by the “next big thing”.
anp has a pretty accurate assessment of Barbara V. She is not to be trusted. Her record speaks for itself.
On the subject of 8-3 votes, if Andre Williams gets in by some miracle, I think he’d vote w/ the other 3 a majority of the time. He seems to have some common sense and appears to think about his decisions before he makes them. 4 yeas on a consistant basis may sway other votes. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Money buys the votes and the people we like have the smallest budgets. Call me cynical, because I am.
The biggest problem with people on the horseshoe now is that they instantly side with whoever backs the bill first because they’re affraid of standing out and being another Sandberg. How sad that questions don’t get asked often enough.
I think there are a few more problems with some of the current group – too many of them demonstrate the adage “that it’s warmer and safer in the middle of the herd”. In general, I think they can all be put into one of the following categories:
1) Little thinkers (or non-thinkers): Some just don’t think for themselves or have the ability to question items critically (meaning probing questions not fluff questions). Some, i’m afraid, just don’t have (or are too lazy to use) the mental capacity to think through some decisions and reach a logical and independent decision. End result: Middle of the herd position siding with majority for safety.
2) Stature Awed. Some are just overwhelmed, awed, and afraid to piss off those individuals who possess power, money, or public stature. They hide behind that individual’s cloak to protect them from making hard decisions. They are paralyzed by the fear of pissing off the wrong person. End result: Supplicants utilizing others to protect them rather than accept responsibility for making tough decisions.
3) String Powered. A couple are nothing more than mere puppets with their strings pulled by their primary supporters or interest group. The strings are readily apparent to all but the one they are attached to. End result: Uncommonly characteristic decision making and positions taken to support their puppet-masters without regard for appropriate decision.
4) Simply clueless. One or two simply can’t demonstrate any true grasp of who they are, what they stand for or even why they are serving. Perhaps upon initial election they had a desire / drive to serve but now they occupy a seat for the benefits and because it’s expected of them. They put in minimal effort to prepare for meetings, look resentful for having to “give up” their Tuesday evenings, and don’t make much rationale sense. End result: Waste of space and lack of constituent response.
Of course they all have good points to, but not as fun to point those out 🙂
I’ll leave it up to you to decide which category (or add your own) each of the 11 fall into.
Peo Proud: It would be very interesting if you put council members into your categories. I would like, for example, to know whom fits into Number 4 on your list. I have an idea but hate to put 10 people into Category 4.
Em, I have a feeling just almost all of them possess categories 1-4.
However, if BVA continues on the path she’s been treading and, even with constituent support and input, refuses to return to “core values,” I’ll be among the first to call for her to step down in 2013.
With Woodruff, The silence from the City was loud and clear. Now the shoe is on the other foot for BVA?
Conrad, you can’t be the first because I already beat you to it, as have many others, I’m sure. Too bad Peoria doesn’t have recalls.
Here’s my report card:
Ardis: 1, 2, 3 & 4
Gulley: 2 & 4
Van Auken: 1, 2 & 3
Riggenbach: 1, 2 & 4
Spears: 1, 2, 3 & 4
Irving: 1, 3 & 4
Turner: 1, 2, 3 & 4
Montelongo: 1, 2 & 3
Spain: 2, 3 & 4
Sandberg: None of the Above
I’d add a #3 for Mr. Riggenbach.
I promised my self that I wouldn’t tag each of them directly in public but, what the hell, I was thinking Spears on #4. Think he started for right reasons but lost all ambition long time ago and I can’t think of one positive thing he’s accomplished in the last 4 years. He’s got a strong #1 streak also.
I was thinking that they should be grouped into only one group based on primary trait. But hey, it was all in fun and not an exhaustive list by far and so many do, as many of you pointed out, demonstrate many traits. All have their strengths – the real(issue is whether they choose to use / demonstrate it anymore.
Riggenbach is absolutely deserving of a 3 and Spain is an Ardis clone so give a 1 to him as well. Montelongo has bucked the group a couple of times so he doesn’t deserve a 2 and Irving has done that as well so he doesn’t deserve the 3.
Would love for one of the “movers and shakers” who are so frequently ridiculed and villified here, if they had the time, which they probably don’t, to evaluate and score all the regular bloggers. It would be fun even just to name the categories! Haha love the thought…
Heh, here’s the difference.
Bloggers aren’t blowing my tax money I pay for living in Peoria.
If you can’t stand the heat…………….
C. J., Beth, Gary, Chuck Weaver, and ??? We don’t need just to fill the two vacancies, but to remove both Spain and Turner, for the reasons stated above, and in consideration of their records. I have spoken personally to Ryan on one occasion, and am convinced that he is fluent in “doublespeak”. Turner? Mostly the record. But why have it 8-3 when it could be 6-5. Two more years and we can work on getting it balanced the other way.
Frederick Smith…. I would say and Chuck Grayeb
Not to hold a grudge – but Grayeb voted for Midtown Plaza.
I’m reluctantly supporting Grayeb for that 5th seat. He’s a lot more unpredictable that the others and supporting someone who’s unpredictable is better that supporting someone like Turner, Spain & Stowell who are always going to vote against my best interests.
See C.J. in action on TV during a Council candidates forum. And you will see he is no fool! Now available on YouTube.
CAPtions City Council Candidates Forum part 1;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqJpswd04m0
CAPtions City Council Candidates Forum part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2qdrA2R4Sc