Former County Board member and current Third District City Councilman Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”
On Saturday, March 7, 2009, Friends of Build the Block chairman Brad McMillan stated in the Peoria Journal Star: “If The Block is built, we will be able to experience: (1) A state-of-the-art 3-D IMAX theatre that will allow children to dive into a mystical, undersea world during the day and adults to watch current films in the evening….”
On the “Build the Block” website under “Frequently Asked Questions,” it states, “What will the Peoria Riverfront Museum include? The 81,000-square-foot Peoria Riverfront Museum will feature wide-ranging opportunities for learning, culture and fun, including a digital 3-D IMAX Theatre….”
The January 2009 “Build the Block” Newsletter stated this: “The Block’s IMAX Theatre will be a five-stories-tall, 3-D-equipped classroom kids will love!” And this: “‘At The Block, we’ll have even more to share, including expanded exhibits just for kids, a state-of-the art planetarium and a 3-D, digital IMAX Theatre,’ says Lakeview Museum President and CEO Jim Richerson.”
The March 3, 2009, Attendance Analysis put out by the museum group stated: “When analyzing the museum attendance projections listed above, it becomes apparent that the IMAX Theatre is assumed to be the primary generator of attendance at the new museum.” And this: “…museum planners are projecting 146,000 for annual attendance at the Peoria Riverfront Museum IMAX….”
Pay close attention to this one. The March 9, 2009, Sustainability paper published by the museum group stated:
On average, Lakeview Museum receives approximately $600,000 per year through earned income, including general memberships, gallery admissions, planetarium admissions, museum store, book court and book sales, museum schools and programs, and rental of museum space. This represents approximately 40 percent of total annual income. The remaining 60 percent of annual income, or approximately $900,000 per year, is categorized as support income. The support income is generated from the museum endowment, annual fund drives, exhibit sponsors, other miscellaneous fundraising events, and grants received from various foundations and governmental agencies.
In the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum Pro Forma, the relationship between earned income and support income is shifted, with earned income now representing 65 percent of the total and support income representing only 35 percent of the total. This change is due to the presence of the IMAX Theatre in the new museum, projected to generate almost $1 million per year in operating income. The concessions area adjacent to the IMAX Theatre also would be a new source of income at the Peoria Riverfront Museum and is projected to generate close to $300,000 annually.
Finally, there’s this lengthy report from January 8, 2009, titled, “Report to the County Board – Peoria Riverfront Museum Policy Considerations.” It comes with a cover memo addressed to none other than “Timothy Riggenbach, Chairman, Finance Legislative Study Committee.” In the 241-page document, which I’m sure Riggenbach read, are the results of a phone survey conducted by the County, including the questions asked. Here’s one:
The Peoria Riverfront Museum will enhance educational opportunities for all of Central Illinois. The museum will house collections, a state-of-the-art planetarium, and an IMAX theater [emphasis added]. The adjacent Caterpillar Visitor’s Center will welcome visitors from around the world. The project will create 250 union construction jobs, and upon completion will generate nearly $14 million annually to our local economy. The museum project is 86% funded. To complete the project, would you support an increase in the sales tax of one quarter of one percent in Peoria County? This is 25 cents on every $100 of retail purchases.
The report also includes the “Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year)” which is replete with references to IMAX. Oh, and it also includes the museum’s pro forma which states in no uncertain terms, “IMAX Revenue.”
So, with all due respect, Mr. Riggenbach, yes, we were promised an IMAX, your historic revisionism notwithstanding. It was promised to us by museum officials in official public documents. Furthermore, IMAX was essential to the attendance and revenue projections that were used to sell the museum to the County and the community.
What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article. Promises of an IMAX are so well-documented, I can’t believe anyone seriously believes there’s a question about it. Perhaps Mr. Riggenbach and the Journal Star want us to believe the entire County of Peoria just imagined we were promised an IMAX — that it was some sort of mass psychosis. Maybe we were all hypnotized by aliens.
Are there any ‘omniscient blowhard’ supporters of the museum out there who wish to comment? Jon?
– Really though….maybe we are being a little unfair about this entire IMAX thing. I mean, maybe they just…forgot? It happens.
– You know…when standing before the judge as he asked me to explain myself, I simply said… “I forgot.” “I forgot armed robbery was illegal…..!” See?
He must be on the gallon size extra strength red Kool Aid…
Tim Riggenbach is quoted in the Sunday Journal Star as saying “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”
What you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that Tim Riggenbach is a big fat liar and his pants are on fire.
“What’s most surprising is that Riggenbach’s statement went unchallenged in the Journal Star’s article.”
What you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that The PJStar quit practicing journalism a long time ago and now is just a PR propaganda sheet, reporting whatever anyone wants them to.
Just read “Gulliver of Mars’ and you might find an applicable answer ….. the inhabitants repeatedly drank their blue or pink glasses of “Oblivion” which explained their forgetfulness.
“reporting whatever anyone wants them to”
Correction:
Whatever anyone PAYS them to.
Riggenbach is a joke… no back bone and the strings attached to his hands, feet, and mouth go right up to Mayor Ardis and the rest of his chronies…
I am just dumbfounded that these ‘leaders’ are now claiming one thing when the facts portray something completely different. Don’t they expect anyone to do any real research? Well…I guess the Journal Star isn’t doing their research.
Walkofshame: Perhaps you have not had your daily dose of “Oblivion”?
From a PJStar article written by Scott Hilyard, entitled “IMAX contract could come after museum vote”, posted April 1, 2009:
“Schafer said the museum’s relationship with IMAX dates back to 2003. He and Lakeview president Jim Richerson have visited the company’s headquarters outside Toronto. Andrade, who works out of California offices, not in Canada, has visited Peoria and toured the site. A first draft of a contract has been written up,(Sheldon)Schafer said.”
Full article at:
http://www.pjstar.com/news_county/x148337950/IMAX-contract-could-come-after-museum-vote
Thnaks, C.J. All of these reported on my blog site and LTE delivered personlly to Mike Bailey. I suspect it will appear in the JS shortly.
I have previously commented on Riggenbach. While on the County Board, he didn’t ever disagree with administration or the Board Chair. When I asked him how many times he visted Lakeview Museum,
he held up one finger. Asked which exhibit and his answer was rembrandt. I asked hiomm how his kids enjoyed it? He answered he didn’t take his kids.
And this was the guy on the County Board being the “cheerleader” for the museum? And now he is the conscience of the PRM?
Awww, NV, it’s too bad you apparently weren’t being genuine with your interest in hearing my comments. I was so looking forward to more personal insults.
When the museum funding was up for a vote, so many “movers and shakers” (yeah right) in the community told us we “had to vote for it.” It was our city’s future. I declined, despite their pleas. I still say we need to put money into fixing our basic infrastructure, rebuilding neighborhoods, finding ways to give people hope and ways to educate and feed our children. Whenever I spoke these words, the movers laughed in my face. I just didn’t understand “development.”
The museum ship was sinking long ago, and this is one rat that is glad it jumped off.
Jon,
What are you going on about now…? I just invited you to comment on these new ‘museum’ developments. I don’t know you well enough to consider you an omniscient blowhard….. well, at least not omniscient!
Seriously though, I know you agree with me 100%, so we can call a truce.
By the way Jon, what are YOUR views on this subject?
Well, NV, I’ll probably regret responding directly to you, though I suppose any comment perceived as a defense of the PRM or anyone in favor of it would result in some type of ad hominem from you.
Let’s look at this from Riggenbach’s perspective. What exactly did he say? From the PJStar:
“We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX,” Riggenbach, a former County Board member, said. “We were not promised an IMAX.”
Who is “we” in Riggenbach’s statement? Immediately before that statement, the PJStar stated:
“Third District City Councilman Timothy Riggenbach said during the campaign, there were no IMAX promises for Peorians.”
Well, if you agree with the PJStar assessment that Riggenbach was referring to the general public with that, and perhaps other unquoted, statements, then, sure, that seems like a clear misunderstanding on Riggenbach’s part (I won’t say “lie” – I have no reason to believe he had an intent to deceive). I think it’s clear that the general public rightfully expected an IMAX based on all of the items mentioned by CJ above.
However, if Riggenbach was instead referring to “we” as in the Peoria County Board, then I think the issue is much different. CJ refers to that 241 page Report to the County Board (addressed to Riggenbach, as committee chair, and hi-lites sections wherein IMAX is referred.
1. The Proposed PRM Operating Budget (Stable Year) section does reference IMAX, as CJ pointed out. However, it does so only in comparison to the Putnam Museum, by using Putnam’s attendance for IMAX theater tickets, because Putnam actually has an IMAX. Throughout the rest of the report, when showing ticket sales and revenue projections, it is referred to only as “Theater tickets”.
2. The pro-forma financials at the end of the document do state IMAX Revenue. Conceded.
3. Yes, the telephone survey stated IMAX. Yes, the shows how the PUBLIC would expect an IMAX, not necessarily that the County Board would.
So why might the County Board, and Riggenbach, contend that they were told it “may or may not be an IMAX”? Because the then redevelopment agreement (Dated December 21, 2004 and amended 3 times prior to the referendum – and also included in that 241 page Report) specifically states so and consistently has since that 2004 date. Specifically, it stated:
“The Museum may also include some of the following components, as well as others…
– Special Large Format Theater (IMAX, OMNIMAX, or similar) ”
So, while public perception might understandably expect an IMAX, I would expect the County Board (and that’s precisely who I guess Riggenbach was was referring to as “we” in his statement) to go by the legal documents, which clearly do not and have not required an IMAX. I’m not a fan of Riggenbach, but I think his comment may have been misconstrued.
Wow… I’m getting dizzy…
“We” were not promised an IMAX, but “We” promoted the city of Peoria and the tri-county area the great benefits of an IMAX and included it in the marketing of this project.
So although we had no reason to believe there was going to be an IMAX we told YOU, the public there would be one, or at the very least intentionally implied it.
That is not a lie, it is not deceit, it is not intentional… “it is just good politics”. Sounds very like Theodore Bilbo.
Here’s a flyer the County distributed to residents announcing town hall meetings about the referendum. Note how the theater is labeled.
Jon — The redevelopment agreement to which you refer was the old, defunct agreement between the museum and the City of Peoria. Based on this document, the cost of the project would be $48 million, the City would own the land and lease it to Lakeview, and the building would be 110,000 square feet. If Riggenbach is still relying on this document to determine what was “promised” and what wasn’t, he’s under a false understanding on a number of issues. And it’s rather disconcerting for the chairman of the Finance Committee to still be looking at a 2004 document to determine if this is in the best financial interests of the County in 2009.
CJ – look thru that 241 page document again. While it may have been a 110,000 sf building and a $48MM project at one time, that’s not what it was when the County was approached to be involved in the projected. That’s not what the financials depict at that time.
As for the redevelopment agreement, when did the County first sign one? Wasn’t it only last week? (and, as you know, it doesn’t call for an IMAX, either). Yes, the original agreement was with the City. The point is, the signed legal documents, whether with the City and/or County, have consistently, since 2004 stated that it was not required to be an IMAX. Of course, from the City or County’s point of view, it’s the legal agreement that matters about what was promised – not some flyer or phone survey. And, of course, Riggenbach should be looking at that document – because all of those parties, the City, PRM, CAT have worked out those issues and all would become parties to a new agrement involving the County. For the County, it’s a starting point – and, the County did more than merely look at that document to determine if the project is in the best interests. And, that starting point and the point we’re at now with the latest agreement, does not call for an IMAX, and (to my knowledge) at no point in between has the legal agreement ever called for an IMAX.
So, why all of the IMAX references in the flyers, phone surveys, etc? Yes, IMAX was and still is the standard for giant screen theaters. It has name recognition. I don’t doubt that the PRM has had discussions with IMAX over the years and likely anticipated that a deal would be completed with IMAX.
So why might there not be an IMAX deal now? Well, the Putnam Museum, for one, doesn’t seem to be thrilled with their arrangement with IMAX. IMAX has been focusing more on smaller digital screen in traditional multiplexes. Check out this article on the future of giant screens
http://lfexaminer.com/20100323-Future-of-Giant-Screens-Editorial.htm
A couple of interesting points:
“In short, Imax executives have paid lip service to the notion of supporting the classic giant-screen film theaters that made the company’s reputation in its first 40 years. But they have done only the bare minimum to support them at best, and have broken their word in other cases, while actively pursuing a new business model that trades on the IMAX brand’s reputation for excellence while weakening it with every new small-screen theater.”
and
“Another important point should not go unremarked. Gelfond and chairman Bradley Wechsler have tried on two previous occasions to find a buyer or strategic partner to acquire the company. It is highly likely that they will use its present success and the recent rise in share prices to do so again in the near future. Both previous attempts failed and caused the company serious setbacks. But assuming they succeed this time, we have no idea at this time who the buyers might be, or what goals and objectives they will have for the company.”
It’s very disconcerting to require an IMAX if that that’s not in the best interests of all parties involved. Maybe they will ultimately do a deal with IMAX – hopefully it will be for the right reasons.
Jon,
Ad hominem? Really?
Jon, your defense of the museum was NO defense of the museum. Yes, the IMAX was [is] supposed to be a key ‘selling feature’ of the proposed PRM. So?
Like most of the regulars who post on C.J.’s site, I have been posting my comments since this project [PRM] began a few years back. I laid out my arguments against this particular museum ‘plan’ in a clear and concise manner. I repeatedly submitted my questions and concerns, like many of those who post on this site, to the PRM…these were routinely dismissed or ignored outright. I am sure I am not the only one to make this claim. Needless to say, my argument against the current [or past] museum design has never centered round the IMAX.
In my humble opinion, had this project been handled correctly from the start, the ‘IMAX or no IMAX’ question would not now be causing such a stir. Ad hominem? Again, really?
What Riggenbach [or the rest of the PRM Posse] claim is irrelevant at this point. What IS important is what the public believes. The ‘public’ believes they were promised an IMAX in return for THEIR tax dollars. Now, it would seem that the PRM will not be able to deliver the goods. They have a rebellion on their hands. After reading their last “Our View” on the subject, even the J Star is aware of this fact. I thought it was most interesting that the Star went so far as to list a few blog ‘comments’ posted by their esteemed readership. If the public feels they are entitled to an IMAX, whose fault is that? As C.J. is so fond of stating…bait and switch? Did the PRM intentionally mislead the public into believing an IMAX would be part of the new museum…just to pass the tax, despite the “redevelopment agreement?”
If the public thought the IMAX was a done deal, are you contending that Riggenbach was not aware of this? Duh……
Questionable economic data, closed meetings, a lack of transparency, bait and switch…? What else can PRM & Co. do to sink their own boat? Blowhards? Maybe not. I will say this, the ‘people’ placed in charge of this project have acted and performed more like sophomore business majors than Peoria’s ‘best and brightest.’
If Riggenbach and the rest of the County Board [who supported this project] was a aware of the possibility that IMAX might not be part of the new museum plan, shame on them for not letting the ‘CAT’ out of the bag earlier [pun intended].
If they claim they were not aware of the fact that the IMAX deal was far from a sure-thing, well…. shame on them for being as gullible as the rest of the public. Really doesn’t do much for my confidence in their abilities to ‘run the show’, especially when millions [of tax dollars] are at stake.
See! No personal insults. Bit of advice though…no one likes the condescending, ‘we know whats best’ attitude the PRM & Co. has taken since this project began…….
Jon:
That’s all fine and good, but bottom line… they sold the public on an IMAX and advertised it repeatedly. Okay, so we ALL misunderstood. If that’s the case, the misinformation that was understood was because of false advertisement.
Jon:
Additionally, having pesonally attended many of the Peoria County Committee and Board and COW meetings regarding the museum project, that issue was mentioned many times. When asked why there were still references to GST in the distributed documents, I was told that it was an error (perhaps proofreading error) and GST had not been changed to IMAX. The theater was definitely an IMAX. Only after the referendum did the IMAX references start to slowly wane.
In January 2009, when the referendum petition language was first read in a Peoria County Finance Committee Meeting, I asked about a voter being in the voting booth and how would the voter know that the public facility tax would be used for the museum project. Patrick Urich responded that it was for the museum group to make their case to the voter.
Peoria County Courier February 27, 2009
“Should the referendum pass in April, the County Board will issue up to $40 million in Revenue Bonds for construction of the Peoria Riverfront Museum. The estimated annual payoff on these bonds is $3.6 million. If the sales tax increase fails to raise $3.6 million annually, the burden is borne solely by the bond holders, not the County of Peoria or the tax payers.”
Peoria County PRM Sales Tax Referenum Frequently Asked Questions
7. We’er in a recession and people may not be spending as much as they have in the past. That happens if you cannot raise $3.6 million annually to make your “loan” payment?
Only money collected from the sales tax increase can be used to pay the bonds off each year. If the annual payment cannot be met with the sales tax collection, the bond holders bear the burden, not Peoria County or the tax payers.
Much to some taxpayers surprise those answers do not match what the Peoria County Board approved last Thursday, August 12, 2010.
Museum Bond issue:
Backed by the public facility sales tax AND general sales tax.
Nursing Home Bond issue:
Backed by the nursing home tax AND the public facility sales tax AND general sales tax.
Why not just tell the taxpayers up front?
In my opinion, these omissions (whether intentional or not) further erode public trust in elected officials by an already skeptical electorate.
The story changes, memory lapses and as I have written before, perhaps induced by drinking daily doses of pink and/or blue “Oblivion” which causes forgetfulness.
C.J. beat me to it. Damn! That is what I get for taking so long to reply with an answer.
Now I have Karrie to contend with……………….
jon…”I don’t doubt that the PRM has had discussions with IMAX over the years and likely anticipated that a deal would be completed with IMAX.”
That’s your problem. You don’t doubt. You should. You should question, and suspect that money and power play a much bigger role in this than “the public good”.
Well this all depends what your definition of is…is…
And it also depends what your definitions of one-term-city-councilman, incompetent, and irresponsible-with-taxpayer-money, are as well..
NV/Emerge – I didn’t defend the museum. I defended Riggenbach’s statement. I also stated:
“I think it’s clear that the general public rightfully expected an IMAX based on all of the items mentioned by CJ above.”
but also,
“It’s very disconcerting to require an IMAX if that that’s not in the best interests of all parties involved.”
Yes, the museum group has a PR issue which they need to address.
Jon,
You are correct. Anyway, I think for everyone to state their case for or against the current museum plan AGAIN… would be redundant.
Your not such a bad guy – despite your ad hominem jab. Now I will be in therapy for weeks.
Riggenbach made a stupid statement. And, he hasn’t refuted it yet. That’s much more problematic than the original stupid statement.
Jon:
Thank you for sharing the link.
Wonder if LVM / PRM knew about the IMAX drama in the Fall of 2008 when the Illinois State Legislature was simultaneously passing the change to the public facility sales tax statute to allow that tax to be used for nursing homes and museums?
Jon says, “look thru that 241 page document again. While it may have been a 110,000 sf building and a $48MM project at one time, that’s not what it was when the County was approached to be involved in the projected. That’s not what the financials depict at that time.”
Exactly. In 2004, the project didn’t include an IMAX specifically, but when the County got involved, the project did include an IMAX, as stated in the pro forma and other financial information included in the 241-page document, and as stated in numerous town hall meetings hosted by the County.
I realize you enjoy playing devil’s advocate, but come on, you know Riggenbach’s statement is indefensible.
All I know is that just before the election, the museum advocates came to a West Peoria Residents’ Association meeting. The only question I asked was about IMAX. I reported back to this blog that I was given every assurance that there would be an IMAX–that the contract was more or less waiting to be signed depending on funding (and the “vote” seemed to be heralded as the deciding factor).
CJ says “when the County got involved, the project did include an IMAX”
The County was approached by the museum group in November of 2007. One month prior, IMAX was referred to only as a “possibility”. Who said that? C.J. Summers:
“IMAX still a possibility
Last month, museum officials met with the folks from IMAX to talk about bringing the big screen theater to Peoria.”
from http://peoriachronicle.com/2007/10/12/museum-update-new-markets-and-imax/
Over a year later, in January of 2009, the issue of IMAX was still in doubt. Says who? Why CJ again.
“Ileriet — Is the IMAX a sure thing? They started out talking about an IMAX-like theater, and then they went up to negotiate with the IMAX people, but I haven’t heard that it’s for sure that we would get an IMAX. We might just get a “large-screen digital theater.”
From http://peoriachronicle.com/2009/01/11/questioning-museum-attendance-projections/
So here we are, 14 months after the County first got involved, and you’d think that, rather than Riggenbach, it could just have easily been CJ who said “We were very specifically told it may or may not be an IMAX…. We were not promised an IMAX.”
So what happens next? Well….well…well all you really hear about is how it will be an IMAX, and yeah, that was in the three months leading up to the referendum, but….but I guess you could say Riggenbach’s statement was correct for maybe 14 months? 🙂 The defense was sounding good up until that point wasn’t it? Point conceded – you can have Riggenbach. 🙂
That the moon is made of green cheese is “still a possibility”… When pigs fly.
Until you begin to critically analyze what people with self interests say to those they are trying to get money from, none of it makes sense.
IMAX never had an agreement with PRM or anyone else to come to Peoria. They never had an agreement to consider coming to Peoria. It has ALWAYS been a lie.
Actually Jon,
you made the point. Many questioned the PRM’s presentations when they stated that an IMAX was part of the deal and yet had not formal agreement. PRM insisted that the project would include an IMAX, a state of the art planetarium, among other things which have changed and/or simply never were. So if the Board was aware that there was not an IMAX in deal according to documents which the public neither has no time to read, and relys on presentations, then why didn’t they stand up and include a statement that these things were not the case. If this is not a corrupt process out right then it is by omission, either way addresses trust, misinformation, game playing, and/or perhaps outright falsehoods. Finding the hair to split is irrevelant the public was told they were gettting one thing to get them to vote when actually they are paying for another. Much like we are funding a full service hotel that is only a Courtyard and paying for businesses that fold and so on. am certain that if you went to a Cadillac dealership, test drove, and purchased a nice new sedan, get the financing, sign all the paperwork with the fine print that I bet even you don’t read line by line and when they hand you the keys to your 1979 lime green Ford Pinto, you act surprised. They tell you it’s all in the contract you signed…..
Paul,
Is that you! You rabble rouser!! I may put you back on my Christmas Card list afterall!
By the way, I drive a ’79 lime green Ford Pinto.
You should take it out in traffic and stop real fast.
“You should”
You should be more careful of your passive aggressive tendencies… they will get you into trouble someday. (As if they haven’t already many times)
nontimendum,
I’m sorry. I thought I would dumb-down my posts a little for you. Next time I will try to include pictures. I know you have trouble with BIG words.
No need to thank me.
Yes it’s me. I’m not against the museum. I don’t expect it to make money. It’s an arts-cultural project. It’s value should be used as a tool for education, preservation, etc. what I am against is the process, the misinformation whether deliberate or not, the sidestepping. this project should have been ironed out and finalized before ever going to referrendum. that’s the part that honks me off. there were presentations ad nasuem, there were promises made and broken and major changes that most definately would have effected voters minds.
With the hotel, there wasn’t a process at all and we are spending the same amount of money for a lesser product that cannot possibly do what it was intended to do in the first place. I’m not against a hotel project downtown, but we are providing way too large of an incentive with no guarentee of return and no protection for the taxpayers should it fail.
Promoting businesses growth and retention is fantastic, infact I serve on a commitee designed for that very task, but directly backing substantial loans is the job of the banks not gov’t. Although backing small amounts for business start ups, may not be a bad thing, but there is a difference in the amounts and perhaps the risk. Providing help, guidance, resources is a good use of public funds. In the end we all benefit through taxes generated and retention in the community.
This will pass next week. I can lay out the votes now and who will put up real arguements and who will put on arguements for the audience. It’s unfortunate. At the very least, the city should stay this project until all the ducks are in a row, including the remaining financing, something the county board failed to live up to. This project is a huge matter of public trust that unfortunately the average voter will forget by the week after. I predict it will be grist for those already lining up campaigns for the next sets of elections.
Charlie and NV: My comment was primarily an allusion to the susceptibility of Ford Pintos to explode when involved in a rear-end collision, and only incidentally about any desire to see any such fate befall NV. You see, I very much want NV around to see the museum built.
I used very small words in my comment yet still you were confused.
Paul, The majority of the rooms in the new Pere project are full service. The courtyard has only about 1/3 of the rooms of the entire project. The addition of some Courtyard rooms are a method to give the project more chance of success–which is what most of us want, correct?
nontimendum,
Is this conversation really worth continuing? I am sure we are all aware of the Pinto’s ability to…self destruct? Also, I am beginning to think the museum might not be such a bad idea. Maybe when this multi-million dollar ‘extravaganza’ goes down the tubes, Peorian’s will finally wake up and demand [a little] accountability. Of course, considering our long track record of forgetting past ‘build it and they will come’ projects, I am sure nontimendum will be leading the way to build another…hotel?
“Charlie and NV: My comment was primarily an allusion to the susceptibility of Ford Pintos to explode when involved in a rear-end collision, and only incidentally about any desire to see any such fate befall NV. You see, I very much want NV around to see the museum built.
I used very small words in my comment yet still you were confused.”
No confusion… we “got it”… wink wink
Paul made a reference to not getting what you ordered.. “am certain that if you went to a Cadillac dealership, test drove, and purchased a nice new sedan, get the financing, sign all the paperwork with the fine print that I bet even you don’t read line by line and when they hand you the keys to your 1979 lime green Ford Pinto, you act surprised.”
And NV slyly replied that THAT was the kind of car he drove.
So you make a passive aggressive suggestion he go into traffic and get rear ended (that ubiquitous Republican metaphor)… and now you are claiming it was a vague reference to Ford products built in the 70s???
You are fine student of the Limbaugh Institute of Conservative Studies.
150 the project was sold and pushed with the absolute need for a full service hotel. The Pere already is a full service hotel, we needed more full service rooms. this was the pitch, because, embassy suites is full service to all its rooms, not just 2/3 of them. What we got was what we already have a full service hotel with an attached hotel that is not full service. aka holiday inn or Mark twain, which we already have. The arguement and sales pitch doesn’t match the product we end up with. Why not just renovate the Pere (again) and the Holiday Inn—which could have become a full service hotel with mainly private funding.) Or build a hotel on the civic center lot. It just doesn’t make sense that we spend all this money for something we already have and believe it will be a silver bullet.
see some of my post over on the open thread. Hi Paul!
but i do like the silver bullet idea. Heartland Partnership can market us as 100% werewolf free. Who else can say that? (although actual werewolves would probably make the area more $$$!)
I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
Walking through the streets of Peoria in the rain
He was looking for a place called Lee Ho Fook’s
Going to get himself a big dish of beef chow mein, but……
He found out he would have to pay a sales tax in support of a ridiculous museum project. He then headed across the river to East Peoria, where a little old lady got mutilated late last night…
crummy satirical lyrics for a crummy museum.
The Pere is a broken down old hotel. People weren’t staying there. The pitch was we needed more downtown quality attached hotel rooms. Whether we do or not is up for argument, but the Courtyard product is perfect for this location—Courtyard is a businessmen’s hotel and their new CY model is damn close to a full service hotel–especially when you have the Pere’s full-service amenities actually attached to the Courtyard.
Price points are very important–and the attached hotel will have two price points and the Marriott name and the most powerful reservation system in the world–The Marriott system–will to help sell rooms.
Anytime you go into a project like this you have to remain flexible with design to adjust to the situation. Heck, one of the main complaints here is that the new downtown hotel will be too expensive–the Courtyard model will help address that. Marriott knows what they are doing–and they pushed this concept for the project.
All that said, I am on record saying I wouldn’t have voted for this project without more information—information that isn’t privy to me. However, I think many here would be well served to see both sides of an issue before making up their mind.