I listened to “Outside the Horseshoe” on WCBU last night before the city council meeting. One of the guests was Second District Council Member Barbara Van Auken. During the course of the show, she mentioned several times that the city needs to do what any citizen would do when faced with lower income — start cutting expenses, and start with things that are wants, not needs. I completely agree with that kind of thinking.
Unfortunately, this thinking does not translate into action for Van Auken and most of the other council members when it comes to the City’s plan to give $39.5 million to Gary Matthews to build a huge addition to the Pere Marquette and affiliate with Marriott hotels. As much as I opposed the sales tax increase for the proposed downtown museum, at least taxpayers had the consolation of knowing that museums have some civic value. Not so with the hotel.
The city has an opportunity to get out of the deal at this point. The developer is unable to get private financing, and has missed contractual deadlines. The city is in a position to walk away from this deal and save the taxpayers $39.5 million on a “want” that could be repurposed for a “need” elsewhere.
Why is it that the city has no trouble raising taxes to help private developers (which benefits only a few), but wrings its hands at the prospect of raising taxes for basic services (which benefits all)? Why does the city have no problem levying a 2% tax on restaurants to benefit the civic center, but won’t raise taxes 2% on packaged liquor to help plug a $10 million budget gap that affects police, fire, and public works? And they won’t even consider a property tax increase, of course.
The hotel deal needs to be canceled immediately, if not sooner. There’s a reason banks aren’t loaning Gary Matthews the money. The city would do well to heed the banks’ decisions as a warning that this is not a good investment for the city — and by “the city,” I mean the taxpayers, who are ultimately providing the money.
“Everyone has to share the pain.” “We must cut ‘wants’ so we can provide for our ‘needs.'” All these platitudes are meaningless as long as the city council continues to pursue the hotel plan.
Needs vs. wants. Why would the city council even consider a water rate increase …. especially in an economic downturn? Water, Cilco and the CSO problem is avoided. We all need to remember that we are all in this deplorable situation together. The cuts need to done and we need to get serious about needs vs. wants. I feel that it must be painful to cut off developer welfare yet it must be done. The clamor about our future generations paying for the national boondoggles is just as real and tramatic at the state and local levels. I am so looking forward to the garbage talk when the garbage RFP is returned ….
Read my blog today on Fulton County. It explains what politicians understand and don’t understand.
Acdtually, quite a bit or they wouldn’t be in news with deficits and requests for more and more money to operate.
I think we just need to be patient, they are only a few weeks away from getting private financing for this project (the standard response from the developer since the project was announced)!
anp: Ah yes. that infamous insanity cycle — like Cub Foods, ball stadium (Merle knows about that ROI number), the museum — every single use project is the next Peoria miracle to save us from the cliffs of insanity… hasn’t happened and will not happen imho because we simply have our ladder against the wrong wall.
This is a bad idea, or, rather, a good idea gone sour. If the developer can’t come to the table and do his part, then it is time for the City to nix this. It is nice to have, not essential. I can understand that the hotel project could aid in getting more convention business into the Civic Center and the downtown hotels. I think the lower cost alternative would be for the City Council and the Civic Center Authority to declare the Pere to be the official hotel of the Peoria Civic Center and put up some signage directing Civic Center visitors the short walk to the “official” hotel. The Pere is great, close to the PCC and it is a win-win for all concerned. Time for the City to “just say no” to this Edsel of an idea for expansion.
What’s the difference between the developer not getting his money to the table on this city project and the museum people not getting their money to the table on the county project? Anybody else see a correlation here?
You mean someone makes an offer, or a bid without the funds available??? Isn’t that what they call in the gambling business: a welcher? (or swindler; chiseller; chiseler; gouger; scammer; grifter; sharper; sharpie; sharpy)
Shouldn’t government be playing table stacks, since they are playing with our money?