Guest editorial with a little family pride

Jack Smith III

"By raising the taxes on the rich business owners, instead of taking so much of the profits as income, they will be forced to reinvest in there companies. When they do that, it will mean higher pay for their employees, better work environments, more jobs because they will expand. Which means fewer people on welfare and unemployment. Oh, and by the way, the government will also be getting more tax money from the middle class: (1) because of higher wages; and (2) because there will be more of us. The business owners would be making even more money because they will be selling more. So everyone wins when the rich are forced to share!!!!!"

Don't you love it when your nephew makes you proud? The logic here is undeniable, and this scenario would work exactly the way he said it will. To add to his logic, I give you one more fact. If the business owners put more of their profits into reinvestment instead of taking it as income, you guessed it, they pay less tax. Damn, talk about a win-win situation.

We need to pay attention to this next election, folks, if we are ever going to get this country back in the right direction. Just Saying!

A note from Matthew Woodmancy

I often communicate with Matt about various things, since I am part of his campaign staff. But today I received an email I thought I would share with you.

I set out on this journey 14 months ago, and in that time I have been attacked and threatened. I have had my very motivations questioned. I have been called a “radical faggot” and been told I am unfit to hold office. I have had people threaten to kill me, and yet I do not regret my choice to try to serve this country which I still believe to be the last best hope for mankind.

I knew this was going to be an uphill battle, I knew this was going to be hard if not impossible, and yet I continued. The things in life that are worth doing, the truly important things, are the most difficult. Perhaps it would have been easier for me to accept that I have done too much damage to my reputation to my own life to achieve the highest of American goals.

To me there is no higher goal than to serve this country. If I managed to motivate just one person, if I made it possible for just one person to see that they can rise above their situation and can overcome the odds, then I feel I have accomplished something good.

Now ordinarily, I would keep this to myself, but in case anyone out there is wondering why they should vote for Matthew A. Woodmancy next Tuesday, perhaps this is really all that needs to be said. When it all comes down to the "bottom line", Matt is running for office for the right reasons. He isn't in anyone's pocket, refuses big money contributions, and isn't looking for PAC money in exchange for favors down the line. He is in this to represent the interests of the 18th Congressional District in Illinois. He is in this to represent you."

Repeating the same old thing is not news!

A story in the Pantagraph today seems to think it is cutting edge. In Fact, it is old news. Matt Woodmancy has a felony conviction in his past. The part they left out? He has since turned his life around and is currently seeking office as the US Congressional Representative for the 18th District of Illinois.

I am amazed the same people who want to talk about using the system and respecting the law never want to give the guys with obvious errors in their past the benefit of a doubt. Let me clue you in on something. Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up. Officially, this is called recidivism. That's if the man or woman continues to screw up. If they don't, they are deemed fit to return to society.

As far as Matt goes, I can tell you a few things that may or may not surprise you. For one, he isn't owned by anyone. He has no great political favors outstanding, owes no one in politics, and is not beholding to any company, corporation, or PAC for any reason. For another, he went into his race knowing it would be an uphill battle, and is still standing there, with a clearly posted platform he has not backed off on since he started his campaign. Lastly, he is not only running for office and holding down a full time job, but also caring for his invalid grandmother and standing by his mother in her battle against cancer, a battle that recently included brain surgery.

If you want to talk about issues and answers, lets talk about issues and answers. If your only reason to print an article is to further defame someone, then not only are you pursuing the path of sensationalism and dirty politics, but you are obviously unable to cite any real objections to the man's qualifications or platform.

The Business of America is Equality, not Business.

Okay, so back in 1925, a guy named Calvin Coolidge is reported to have said, “The Business of America is Business.” But that is not the case. The actual statement was: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business." However, Coolidge goes on to say that, "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence." So the 30th President of the United States is continuously misquoted by historians and the press, when the actual quote is available to anyone with a web browser. I wonder why that is?

The same is true of the often misquoted line from Timothy in the New Testament, “Money is the root of all evil.” In fact, the statement is : “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV.) I guess something gets stuck in our heads and we just keep repeating it. Or is it something else, something a bit more insidious?

Now, I'm not going to start some great conspiracy theory of the Illuminati or some other secret group that is dedicated to keeping the lower classes in their place. But you have to wonder why thoughts like these are constantly put in our heads. I mean if you take the misquotes as ideals of capitalism, then we must be out of our minds to continue as capitalists. Especially when you consider that money is power in our modern world. An accurate quote from Baron John Acton is:”Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” The baron was speaking of monarchies at when he said this, but the saying can be applied to wealth in this century. And the evidence is abundant.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the latest step of the wealthy and privileged to exert their power in the form of Political Action Committees, or PACs, over the poor by claiming the right to act as private citizens under the First Amendment. This flawed decision means a corporation can spend as much money as it chooses to promote the candidate of their choice, regardless of the qualifications or political affiliation of the candidate. Wealthy individuals as well, although barred by Federal Election rules from making single massive contributions to a candidate, can now give without limitation to these PACs. At the very least, this places the candidates who do not favor corporate policies at a disadvantage, since they will not receive the same funding as the favored candidates. At worst, this allows the wealthy and the corporations to inevitably place a stranglehold on the U. S. Congress that will lead to the only benefits for the wealthy and nothing for the poor.

Am I being an alarmist? Hardly. If you look at the trends around the country to curtail the rights of workers and the middle class, you can see the signs. We now have 23 states with Right To Work laws, laws that prevent unions from building their funds to fight unfair management practices. The argument is that unions are no longer needed to defend workers because the NLRB and OSHA are government agencies with the purpose of protecting labor. But a closer examination of this argument shows these agencies are simply administrative and have no real power to intervene. Their recommendations end at congress, if the corporation is unwilling to accept them, and if the congress is filled with corporate elected representatives, I am sure you can imagine what will happen to those recommendations.

So the bottom line to all this? We need to elect men to office who are willing to re-balance the laws of this nation to level the field for all. In order to do this, three fundamental goals must be accomplished.

1. Term limits must be imposed on all members of congress. Career politicians are much more subject to corruption and are much harder to catch. They learn the “ins and outs” of accepting PAC and Special Interest money without being caught. They learn to deceive, and once they learn that, someone has something over their head. To quote the plaque on Colson's wall during the Nixon administation, “When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

2. The Citizen's United ruling must be overturned. Whether this be by an amendment to the Constitution specifically limiting the rights of the individual to mean the individual citizen, or by an attorney who is capable of arguing this through the Supreme Court, the idea of Corporate Personhood needs to be eliminated.

3. Eliminate the tax shelters and Social Security caps for the wealthy. It seems to me unconscionable those who have benefited most from living in a free nation by the labor of those who have provided their income are unwilling to contribute their fair share of revenues. Exercising our legal right to tax fairly, and eliminating caps on Social Security earnings for the individual will not significantly affect the lifestyle of the wealthy, but it will help this nation to provide vital services which are in danger of being cut to the millions of Americans who need them.

There are other issues to be addressed, but these three will level the field, and return us to what the founders intended … A Citizen Government!

Just a little clarification on my post

Now I dare you to look at this photo and tell me the man does not look like a little light in the loafers. I mean, come on, Aaron, did you get dressed in the dark or do you just not have a mirror in your house? I personally don't care if the man is gay, straight, bi, or a relative of E.T. What I do care about is his "Party Line" politics and his voting record.

Remember the TIGER II funding Aaron railed against in 2010? This is what Rachel Maddow had to say on Meet the Press when Aaron appeared on the show:

"If you vote against the omnibus bill, if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against."

Hypocrisy - noun: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have. Sort of like when you say one thing to get the votes of the people, then do something else to benefit your rich supporters, even if you know it will end up screwing your constituents. I believe that is a character flaw, and while those are sometimes reversible, I wonder just how corrupted Mr. Schock is under the guiding wing of his predecessor and mentor, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood?

Aaron Shock Defends His Voting Record in Congress???

"A recent Chicago Tribune report shows Schock as ranking among the top four congressmen who have skipped or missed roll call votes."

I just got this off the CI News website and just had to share it with you. Schock's defense is that he chose to do "constituent work" rather than attend roll call votes that are "routine".

Gee, Aaron, I think we hired you to do just that. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure we hired you to represent our district in Congress, rather than be back here in Peoria to do favors for your cronies.

Guess I was wrong. I was thinking you cared more about this district and the people in it rather than just your buddies who forked over the big bucks to get you in office. What is that election war chest worth? A little more than two million dollars? And how about that new residence in the 18th? You know the one I am talking about, the one with the circular drive around the fountain, the huge living area, and all those bedrooms? Hey,I guess if I owed so many rich folks my seat in Congress, I'd be back here at their beck and call as well.

Too bad the rest of us don't rate. And by the way, the work you are doing for your constituents? How many new jobs out of the ones Obama's administration have come to Central Illinois in the 18th District? How do you plan to help the President improve our schools, work with our educators, rebuild our infrastructure? Exactly how do you plan to help your constituency? Probably not by being there for anything that doesn't go along with your mandate to serve the rich and the corporations. Hey, what the hell, you only need the rest of us every two years, right?

A Few Thoughts on the State of the Union

Obama hit all the right chords last night, and his plea to the Congress was simple. Let's quit acting in the best interest of our party and start acting in the best interests of the people. Not a hard concept to grasp, is it?

This nation is in trouble, deep trouble, and holding on to the status quo is not going to get it. Clinging to the old ways is simply clinging to the anchor that is slowly and inevitably pulling us under. We need serious changes to the way we operate the system.

Equalizing the tax codes and eliminating shelters will create an influx of income to the government that will allow us to create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, and restore our economy. Strict and enforceable regulation of the financial institutions and Wall Street, not to mention the practice of insider trading by members of Congress, will help to restore the confidence of the American people and force those institutions who received bail out money to repay it to the American people and not stuff their own wallets and accounts with money they did not earn.

A favorite of mine the President did not mention is reforming the Social Security System to restore the rightful benefits to people who have paid into the system all their lives. Rather than raise age limits and reduce benefits, the Social Security System could be saved by removing the employee wage cap on Social Security deductions. Persons earning more than $108,000.00 a year would continue to contribute at the established 6.4%, while employers would contribute their share up to that amount.

Our education system is broken, and we cannot fix it with mandated tests that lead schools to forsake real world education in favor of required scores. Our teachers and school administrators need our support in turning education back to the purpose of preparing our children to succeed in the modern world. Our students and parents must be actively involved in maintaining discipline in our schools and ending the distractions of drugs and violence that serves only to alienate and sway us from the true course. We must work with our educators to build a system of support that provides the finest education we can give, and if we apply ourselves, we can give the finest education in the world.

In short, we must restore the ability of America to provide the American Dream to every man and woman who wants to participate in the economy. We must restore the faith of the American people in the vision of America conceived by our forefathers and their legacy, a nation where discrimination and separatism are never tolerated, where people of all races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and genders are treated with respect and dignity, a nation where a man is truly free.

Affirmative Action is Alive and Well and Living in Peoria

Affirmative action was the result of the Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1964, and enacted into law by President Lyndon Johnson. On September 24th, 1965, he enacted Executive Order 11246 which stated that all government contractors would take “affirmative action” toward the consideration of minority employees. In 1967, the order was amended to include discrimination by gender.

Up until 1997, the Affirmative Action policies were considered the “law of the land”. Less qualified candidates gained admission to colleges, were placed in jobs where better suited candidates were available, were promoted over their more senior co workers, and in general caused the nation to recede in its ability to move forward. Since many candidates for both employment and higher education were clearly unqualified, the claim was made that the tests and requirements for those circumstances were themselves “discriminatory”, based on the quality of an individual's education and social status. This resulted in standards being lowered so that minority candidates could participate.

Affirmative action did more to solidify and establish racism than any prior attempt to equalize the opportunities for all Americans. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 1,002 registered “hate” organizations in the United States, and these are only those organizations who openly admit to their beliefs.

Today, Affirmative Action is alive and well in the City of Peoria. It is called cumulative voting, and it is a front invented to assure people of color that there is some equity provided by allowing voters to cast multiple votes for a single candidate in the “at-large” elections. In fact, according to an article appearing in the Journal Star on November 13th, only one candidate of color has been elected to an “at-large” council seat since the inception of cumulative voting in 1991.

While this councilman, W. Eric Turner, may have been elected based on that system, his subsequent reelection has been the result of his obvious hard work and political abilities, not cumulative voting. The other candidate who benefits from cumulative voting is Gary Sandberg, often described as a thorn in the mayor's side.

Tuesday, the city council heard arguments concerning redistricting. Since I was not able to attend, I am relying here on the minutes of the council meeting, available to anyone at the Peoria City website.

Had the city council chosen to ask voters to move to a 10 district council in order to both relieve the representative burden now borne by 5 districts, the question would be moot. Mayor Ardis, Riggenbach, Spain, and Gulley voted for the 10 district plan. Akeson, Weaver, Irving, Spears, Turner, and Van Auken voted against the plan. Significantly, Sandberg was once again absent.

Had the city council chosen to ask voters to move to an 8 district council with 2 At-Large members without cumulative voting, the question would be moot. Mayor Ardis, Riggenbach, and Van Auken voted to support such a measure. The remainder of the council did not.

The end result of these two actions? We continue to have 5 districts which will be reapportioned to fit within the requirements of representation, and we will continue electing 5 At-Large representatives with cumulative voting. And cumulative voting is Affirmative Action.

According to the representatives who spoke at the meeting, the cumulative voting does not accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. So are we then saying we will accept the insanity of our current system and hope for different results?

The argument of dividing the city into 10 smaller districts had the most merit in my opinion, since this would allow smaller segments of the population to elect representation from their own districts. And at least 3 of those districts would have been areas where minorities are the predominant residents. Now that may or may not make a difference, since the number of minority voters in Peoria elections continues to be low. But since the candidates from a primarily minority area are likely to be minorities themselves, at least the voters who did participate would have the opportunity of being represented by a member of their community.

Even the 8 district plan would have to include at least 3 areas where minority population was larger. And while this would not solve the problem of participation, the above argument holds true. Since residency in your district is a requirement, 3 out of 8 members would be representatives of minority areas. And 4 out of 10 is twice as good as 2 out of 10. (I am assuming that of the two At-Large representatives, Councilman Turner would keep his job. Hoping, actually.)

But this all so many words and not enough action. Since the purpose of all this discussion is to determine how to better serve the citizens of Peoria, why not throw all this effort into educating people about the importance of participation? Why not let people know that, regardless of your race, religion, ethnicity, or social status, you DO make a difference in our community?

We have spent several generations trying to achieve “Equality” in this nation, and have come up instead with a plan that denigrates the inherent ability of every human being to rise above their circumstance and achieve true independence. We have raised generations of people to believe they cannot survive without government assistance, they have no opportunity beyond their poverty, and there is no real help aside from handouts and empty promises. We have created our own underclass, and we insist on allowing them to flourish and grow.

True equality is when you stop thinking of yourself as a victim and start trying to make your life better. Poverty is not a racial condition, nor is despair. The current economic setbacks have affected everyone in this nation with the exception of the very wealthy, the “1%” the Occupy protestors are complaining about. The rest of us, regardless of color or faith or gender, are in the same boat. We are the 99%, and we are all worried, and rightfully so, about the future of the nation, of this state, and of the City of Peoria.

Continuing to follow the same path like lambs to the slaughter is an unacceptable solution to the problem. The city council needs to choose a proposition that allows for more equity and less pandering to the Powers That Be. The citizens of the city of Peoria need to let their representatives know, by email, letters, and phone calls, that this current decision is unacceptable. We need to change the way we elect our representatives. We need to educate our citizens. We need to change.

A few random thoughts about Occupy

So the people of the nation are finally sick and tired of the lack of government action for the people. Hmmmm. Nothing new, really, if you think about it. In the 60's we had sit-ins to protest all sorts of things on college campuses and other places. The anti-abortion folks have staged sit-ins at various clinics over the years. Usually, after the first day or so, the police get involved and the people causing the disruption of businesses or services are usually hauled away in paddy wagons and booked on misdemeanor charges. Sometimes it gets out of hand and the police overreact, and the people overreact, and someone gets hurt.

But here is where it gets interesting. These people are not going away. Why? Because most of them have no where to go! These are the huddled masses, but now they are huddled on the streets and in the public parks and in your face for the world to see. Many of them cannot get work, cannot get help, cannot get adequate medical treatment or health care. Most of them are like most of us. Scared.

And that is the long and the short of it. We are all scared. What will happen next? Our President, hell, our entire legislative and executive branch, is doing nothing to remedy the problem. All that HOPE was an empty promise that has failed to bring us any closer to a solution. I'm not blaming the Dems or the Reps for the current problems. The Dems just happen to be in charge at the moment, and we are an election away from changing that. But one thing is certain. The Status Quo must go.

We are the 99%, the disenfranchised, the abandoned, the citizens who were promised the American Dream. We are the voters, the taxpayers, the parents, the children, the soldiers and sailors and marines and guardians who were told we were fighting to preserve a way of life that is no longer accessible to us. We are the 99% who have no hope of ever achieving the prosperity our parents achieved. We have grown up in a world promising justice and prosperity and hope, and have only apathy and poverty and despair.

We are the 99%. We are the reason the 1% have the wealth and power. Our blood and sweat and labors have created it. And our anger and discontent can take it away. Look around you. Your police and firefighters and emergency personnel are the 99%. Your soldiers and sailors and marines and guardsmen are the 99%. Your average citizens are the 99%. Your factory workers, your government employees, your teachers, your administrators are the 99%. If we choose to stop what we are doing, the 1 % will have NOTHING!

Just a few random thoughts. Take them as you will. But if you take them seriously and are one of the 99%, I can tell you how to get the attention of the world. For a single day, STOP! Bring the money machine to an immediate and screeching halt.

Like I said, just a few random thoughts.

A Peoria Inauguration

Well, not quite as auspicious as all that, perhaps, but for the 200 or so people who crowded into the council chambers to bid adieu to outbound members Montelongo and Jacobs, to congratulate the returning incumbents, Turner, Spain, and Sandberg, and to welcome the newest members, Weaver and Akeson, it must have felt like the podium was smack dab in the middle of D.C. From the moment I walked in, you could tell the air was charged with anticipation. Several occasional visitors to the council chambers we present for the ceremony, and while I will invariably forget to mention someone, I will mention "Mitch" Mitchell, president of the East Bluff United Neighborhood Association, Don Cummings, a resident of the East Bluff and prominent member of American Legion Post #2, as well as many friends and family of the newly elected council members. I sat with several of the East Bluff ladies, and noticed our old friend Savino Sierra was there as well.
The council convened and the business was handled in quick order. City Counsel Ray verified that all incoming council members were eligible to be seated, and this was verified by the City Treasurer. The consent agenda was quickly passed, and Savino was given the opportunity to speak, and did so eloquently and briefly, congratulating the winners, and making a special comment about how happy he was to see Councilman Jacobs recovering.
There was no executive session, and Mayor Ardis quickly moved on to the presentation of thanks and praises to the outgoing members, Montelongo and Jacobs. Montelongo received his parting gift from the council without remarks, and since Jacobs was unable to get to the podium, his son George Jr. accepted his gift for him. Upon the conclusion of Mayor Ardis' remarks concerning Councilman Jacobs' service, he received a standing ovation, the first of several to come.
Next, after a proclamation by Mayor Ardis for both Montelongo and Jacobs, Montelongo gave a speech, a humble and gracious speech, extolling the honor of service and his pleasure to serve the community. Standing ovation again.
Next the 6th grade son of Jacobs, Jake, read a speech prepared by his father, and you could see the pride and humility in Jacobs' eyes as the young boy eloquently and passionately delivered his father's words. Standing ovation.
Next the members of the council, in turn, beginning with W. Eric Turner and working clockwise around the horseshoe, gave their words of thanks to both Montelongo and Jacobs, with the exception of Barbara Van Auken, who declined to speak for fear of becoming too emotional. After all had spoken, Mayor Ardis tendered his comments with passion for the service of these fine individuals. Having closed his comments, the meeting was adjourned.
While the room was reorganized, several people exited the chamber to tender their personal thanks to both Montelongo and Jacobs. I stepped out for a moment and greeted Chuck Weaver and several others, asked John Sharp how his shorthand was going (he also was armed with pad and pen for the event...there are a few of us old timers around), and headed back in to get my seat for the ceremonies.
Mary Haynes, the longest incumbent City Clerk in Peoria, presided over the swearing in. Her words were kind, soft, and enthralling. She spoke with sober tones to the At Large Council Members who were about to be sworn in, telling them that while they had been elected, the seats did not belong to them. They belong to the citizens of Peoria, and they are there to serve those people, and not themselves. The new Council Members were sworn in individually, in alphabetical order, and then seated around the horseshoe. Mayor Ardis convened the council, and asked that all stand while Pastor Cal from the Northwoods Church delivered an invocation. A special session convened and each member of the council was given the opportunity to welcome the returning members and the new officials to the horseshoe. At the close of those remarks, both Beth Akeson and Chuck Weaver gave short prepared speeches thanking the many people who helped them win their seats. Pastor Cal closed with a benediction and the meeting was adjourned.
In the hallway, treats and punch were served, people milled about and congratulated the council members. Smiles and handshakes all around. And people went off to their respective parties or homes.
Just another night in Peoria. But maybe a new beginning. I hope so, I know we could use one.

No poor old seniors at Sheridan and War Memorial - The City Gets its TIF

C. J. Summers of the Chronicle did a live blog from home of the council meeting tonight, so rather than repeat his excellent reporting, I'll just give you the highlights of what I heard.

You got to hand it to Barbara Van Auken. When the lady wants to give a speech, she can really give a speech. Doesn't even have to be based in facts. She knows how to form sentences and syllables so well, that you end up agreeing with her even when you know she is flat wrong. Her impassioned speech was about the Senior Housing project that would have been constructed at the corner of Sheridan and War Memorial. Her reasons were that 1) the neighbors didn't want it, 2) the zoning was wrong, 3) the cut through traffic would increase, and 4) the fire trucks and ambulances couldn't get through if the traffic was increased on Sheridan due to that Senior Housing. Zoning can, of course, be changed. The location would be across the street from the current Buehler Home, a residence for seniors, which doesn't seem to be prohibitive in traffic situations. Cut through Traffic? To where? The streets in that area are dead ends and cul de sacs, with not a lot of ways to cut through to anywhere except the residences of the white families in the area. And of course, no one wants to see the property values of those $100,000+ homes go to pot. I also noticed that the gallery of observers and citizens who were there to observe and potentially speak out against the issue (albeit they never got the opportunity) were white. And like the good citizens they are, they promptly left after they were assured that there would not be a senior residence at the location. Guess if you live in an area with $100,000 homes that are primarily populated by white people, "the neighbors don't want it" is sufficient reason to kill the project. Still not quite sure where Barbara is getting the Diverse part of her description of the neighborhood, but it sure did sound good.

Now one item caught my eye on the consent agenda, the one about $17,000+ for Police Duty Ammunition, with an additional $3,000+ for .45 caliber ammunition. I have no problem with the $13,000+ for Police Range ammo. Hey, I think all officers should practice Gun Control (hitting what you aim at). But $17,000+ for Duty Ammo? Exactly how many major gun battles have taken place in Peoria this last year? Folks, it's not like these things have expiration dates. When I was in the Navy, I could draw several hundred rounds each year for practice, and most of the boxes they handed us were from WWII manufacture. And they worked just fine. Not quite sure why they need to replace working ammo unless it is being expended.

I, of course, had to make a trip to my chiropractor after watching Dave Kinney do a 180 degree turn on the TIF. If you will recall, when the January 22nd council meeting took place, Dave and the Superintendent of Schools stood at the podium and begged the Council not to do the TIF because the frozen funds would hurt the already bleeding District 150 school budget. Ah, but the later agenda of the Council made clear the reason for the reversal. 10% of the TIF money will be set aside for Vocational Training to be done at the old Woodruff High School facility, which will now also house the kids on suspension from their home schools (read discipline problems). Gee, the price of cooperation is getting pretty cheap these days. 10% of an expected $95 million dollars over the next 23 years. About $434,000 a year. Now I am not quite sure what kind of vocational training they had in mind, but since the example made by one speaker, Wozniak, was a young person becoming a CNA (sheet changer, bedpan cleaner, etc.), this is certainly an OSF inspired idea to get 150 off their back and create a permanent underclass of "grunts" to do their (if you'll excuse the pun) shit work. No mention of automotive training or basic shop skills was made, and at that price, how could you? Tools, equipment, teachers who could actually teach auto mechanics are expensive, and these days require college level skills and classes. Same thing with shop classes. CNC systems are expensive, folks, ask the people at Caterpillar, who also now have a substantial presence at ICC. Oops, there we go again with the college level skills. So what kinds of vocations will they teach?

Riggenbach also made numerous mention of the meetings that had been held regarding the EVGC TIF. Let's see, there were two meetings that were entitled "TIF 101's" that were not meetings at all, but lessons on how the residential TIFs in two other Illinois cities worked (both of which are in financial straits, by the way). Then there was the last meeting, a "planning session" hosted by Ross Black where a white board was laid out with various options (one from column A, one from column B) to attempt to formulate a plan. But a plan was never agreed upon, even though the council voted today to create a plan. And while the other meetings were actual meetings to discuss why we should have a TIF at all, there were never any more than 40 or 50 people at these meetings. And most of those people were against the idea of the TIF.  But then again, we are talking about an area where the homes are assessed at between $35 to 60K, and the population is very diverse (Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics all live in the East Bluff). So I guess "the neighbors don't want it" doesn't apply if you come from an area where the average mean income is $36,009.50.

Notable attendees were George Azouri (who left with the crowd after the council killed the Senior Residence) and Chuck Weaver, who arrived a bit late but stayed for the end of the meeting. Obviously C. J. was listening as well. Also notable was the only Nay vote for the items regarding the TIF, Gary Sandberg.

Hope everyone is paying attention when April 5th rolls around.

Quick note of Congratulations and notification of Transparency in Government meeting.

Well, how about that? The Peoria Journal Star did their research and concluded what others and I have been telling you for a couple of weeks now. C. J. Summers, Beth Akeson, and Chuck Weaver have all gotten endorsements from the Journal Star, while Spain and Turner are the people to remove. Rather than repeat their already informative and well-researched articles, which are available in today's paper as well as at pjstar.com, I'll just add my recommendations for all three candidates as people who have exceptional skills and a real desire to return to a constituent based vision for Peoria. We need council members who will consider the desires of the citizens first, not empire builders with some esoteric vision of what the future could be. We need to get our crime problems solved, rebuild our infrastructure, and get our school district back on track before we worry about other problems. We also need to listen to the citizens who want the council to respond accordingly when an overwhelming number of citizens say NO to sweetheart deals, back room politics, and outright cronyism. We need fresh blood and fresh ideas to help Councilman Sandberg on the council.




Transparency in Government

Now that the rant is out of my system, another announcement for you all. Brian Costin of the Illinois Policy Institute will be the guest speaker at the monthly Peoria 9/12 Project on Thursday, April 21st at 6 p.m.. Doors will open at 5:30 and the meeting will begin at 6 p.m. The subject of the talk centers around making local government transparent to the voters and citizens.

A short biography of Brian Costin

bcostin@illinoispolicy.org

Brian Costin joined the Illinois Policy Institute in January of 2010.  Previously, he worked for the Heartland Institute as assistant director of government relations. Brian has been active in the Institute’s Liberty Leaders project, which he now leads, and founded the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition, where he won the 2010 Government Watchdog Award from the Sam Adams Alliance for his work exposing government waste & fraud in his hometown of Schaumburg.

Brian graduated with distinction from North Park University where he received a Master in Management of Nonprofit Administration. While attending North Park University, Brian worked for UPS in operations management and business development. As an undergraduate at Illinois State University, Brian completed a Bachelors of Science degree, double majoring in Economics and Politics & Governance. 

Brian’s work has earned coverage from national and state media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Daily Herald, and Chicago Tonight.  He is a regular guest on the nationally syndicated television show First Business and the Mornings with Ray Hanania radio show. 

Click here to view policy reports, articles, and other work by Brian Costin. 

Bill Lopotko and I will be on hand to accept volunteer applications for learning more about how you can be involved in helping to create a more easily accessible government here in Peoria.

The TIF and the City

John Sharp has written an excellent piece in the Journal Star about the upcoming East Valley Growth Cell TIF that will soon be enacted for the East Bluff and Near North Side. While his article is balanced and tries to include both sides of the argument, there is an interesting side note to the entire affair.

Now the TIF funds are at the mercy and discretion of the City Council, once it is enacted. So, since the consensus appears to agree that it will go through despite objections of residents like myself, the question really becomes WHO do I want holding the checkbook? Despite the protestations of Timothy Riggenbach, who has publicly stated he will fight the disbursement of EVGC TIF funds to the MidTown Plaza TIF, the funds generated by the TIF (Taxpayer Dollars) can be maneuvered by the City Council to other TIF areas. And while the last meeting of the TIF Advisory Committee was a show designed to give the illusion of community involvement, the charter of that Advisory Committee clearly states that they are strictly that, an advisory committee, who's information, recommendations, and findings can be disregarded in part or entirely. There is not regulation or law that prevents the City Council from doing whatever they want to do, in spite of the desires or objections of the homeowners.

Personally, I think the incumbents have lost sight of their purpose and their calling. They are not there to be Empire Builders or Dictators, but Servants of the People. We are the ones who should be telling them what we want done, how we want it done, and what we think should be the direction of our city.

Gary Sandberg, C.J. Summers, and Beth Akeson appear to have this message in their platforms. The other candidates...well, not too sure. Still checking and I will be listening very carefully on Wednesday, March 16th when we have them on the Dais at the Peoria Theater starting at 6 p.m. Will you?

What are the questions we should be asking?

" What I am looking for in a candidate is public safety first, revitalizing neighborhoods second, stopping private investment with taxpayers dollars, third, and creating a downtown that has something to offer to citizens of Peoria, fourth." Donald Cummings, in a response to my Editorial Mind Over Matter in the Peoria Chronicle.

I think Donald has hit the nail on the head in this comment. Basic Services has been the agenda we need in Peoria, instead of this current administration of Empire Builders.

Public Safety has got to be the first and foremost concern of any incoming Council person, and should be the main concern of the incumbent council. Crime rates in the entire city have grown, particularly in the East Bluff area where the proposed TIF project will supposedly "redevelop and revitalize" the area. As has been said by others, new sidewalks, street lamps, and flower boxes will not attract businesses or home buyers into the area. Only a concerted effort that reduces risk to residents will do that. It is a precursor to the second and third items in Don's list, Revitalizing Neighborhoods and Stopping private investment with taxpayer dollars. The failed MidTown Plaza TIF should be enough to tell the council that the EVGC TIF WILL NOT WORK unless the first concern is met. Only after these concerns have been met should the City Council be concerned with building a "revitalized" downtown.

With this in mind, I have to look at the candidates with a critical eye. Gary Sandberg, C. J. Summers, and Beth Akeson are the three that come to mind who have openly espoused Basic Services. An increased police force is the most important concern for many of us, but it doesn't stop there. We need a responsive, interactive police force that works with neighborhood groups to provide a continuing dialog between residents and police. In order to do this, we need more police officers who are willing to get out of their cars and be approachable to the citizens of the community.

Ryan Spain has, in the past, chosen to support the efforts of the current council in placing the cart before the horse. Councilman Turner has openly told constituents in council chambers that he will vote his conscience and not the opinions of his constituents. Neither of these candidates appear to support the agenda that Don espouses.