Seems we are National again...and never for the right reasons.

Just got this juicy little tidbit from MoveOn.org.

It seems Peoria has hit the national spotlight again, and as usual, not for anything we did right.

As pastors and teachers, Catholic bishops are supposed to lead their flock in sharing the love of God with our neighbors. So why did a Catholic bishop in Peoria, Illinois, just use his Sunday homily to compare President Obama to Hitler and Stalin?
Bishop Daniel R. Jenky of Peoria launched a vicious tirade against politicians who disagree with the bishops' views on health care reform, culminating in the outrageous claim that "Barack Obama seems intent on following a similar path" to Hitler and Stalin, who "would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open."
This kind of hateful and incendiary rhetoric is inappropriate coming from anyone—but it's simply outrageous coming from a religious leader in a position of public trust. Bishop Jenky needs to hear immediately that reasonable people are appalled by his remarks.

Now of course, MoveOn.org wants you to sign a petition, which is a reasonable request if you are so inclined. They're easy to find, and if you would like to sign it, please do. But I actually have another point to make here, and I hope you will bear with me.

Over a year ago, when C. J. Summers was publishing the Peoria Chronicle on a regular basis, I submitted a Guest Editorial concerning some actions by the Peoria City Council. C. J. returned it to me because I referenced Nazi's in the article, along with a lengthy sermon on why he would not publish an article with a reference to the Nazi's because of a journalism rule which states the reference is overused and inaccurate. All well and good, I edited the article and it ran. So case closed, right? Wrong!

C.J., if you are so outraged and incensed about using the Nazi party as the inaccurate descriptor of actions and persons, where is your outrage now? You were so careful to research your latest article on the highway versus rail fiasco, an argument that has little to no merit since people do not ride trains, yet when a Catholic Bishop runs amok with a statement as offensive as this, you are silent. I would think, since I know you are not in danger of excommunication, you would be all over this shameful event, imploring the good readers to speak out against such an unreasonable and unwarranted attack on the President of the United States. Especially when what Bishop Jenky is really asking for is government sanctions of religious beliefs.

If the Catholic Church had any say in it, Roe V. Wade would be thrown out, abortions would be illegal, as would any form of contraceptive, and we would be back to the days of women being second class citizens. As a Christian, I abhor the act of abortion, but it is not my body, nor is it my decision. Perhaps the day will come when people arrive at the conclusion to practice safe and responsible sex, but until such a day comes, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. Most of us reasonable people figured out that letting religious institutions dictate the way government operates is a bad idea back in the 1700's. I'm sure you've heard of some of those events, like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc., etc.

C.J., I'm disappointed to say the least. You rant and rave about government decisions, yet when a local church official makes a statement that is both incendiary and flagrantly inaccurate...well, I guess that's what you call journalistic discretion. You decide to publish what you want people to hear.

Pancakes and Politics at State Farm.

Matthew A. Woodmancy (D) was one of two candidates for the 18th Congressional Seat who attended the State Farm Insurance "Pancakes and Politics" event at corporate south this morning. In addition to him and Steve Waterworth (D), there were many others running for Illinois Congressional seats. With the number of politicians in the room, there were at most 30 employees gathered to listen to a brief introduction and comments from each candidate.

Of particular note was Republican candidate Tom Pliura (R), running for the State Senate for the 51st District. Instead of the normal intro and bio, he instead began with a diatribe in favor of Term Limits and a return to Citizen Government. "I'm running because I am fed up!" It was refreshing because the remainder of the candidates had little to say about why they were running, although plenty to say about what needs to be fixed.

In fact, the catch words of "Fiscal Conservative" came up in almost every candidate's presentation. Dan Brady (R), the incumbent from the 88th District, spoke passionately instead of being accessible to his constituency. Keith Sommer (R), the Illinois House Incumbent from the 106th District, bemoaned the size of government, emphasized the need to fight Obamacare, and applauded State Farm for hiring veterans. Bill Mitchell (R), currently the incumbent for the 87th District, showed up in a sweater and blue jeans, claiming he had another event that would be outdoors and apologized for being dressed "down", then proceeded to tell us this upcoming election was one of the most important in decades. He claimed that Public Assistance programs have grown by 96% in the last 10 years, and left us with the question, can we afford it?

Three of the five candidates for the newly formed 106th district were also available. Tom Bennett (R), had no qualms about telling us he has recently been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and is in favor of Concealed Carry. He wants to make Illinois more "Business Friendly" to keep the businesses we have and attract more. Richard Thomas (R), a Nurse and outspoken advocate for Fiscal Conservation, was at least entertaining. He has an excellent manner about him and a firm handshake. Brian Gabor (R) was the last of the three to speak, and is a solid proponent of smaller government and lower taxes. He also wants to make Illinois more business friendly.

You may have noticed with the exception of the two candidates for the 18th Congressional District, all of the other candidates were Republicans. Seems like sort of a stacked deck to me. Or, perhaps, the rumors are true and the Democrats have written off the 18th Congressional District. The incumbent, Aaron Schock, did not appear, although there was a placard for him at the atrium at corporate headquarters after the meeting.

Overall, the event was nice, but only a few individuals dropped by the breakfast, and just a few managed to drop by the atrium at corporate headquarters.

"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you."

When the EVGC TIF commission was first formed, Mayor Jim Ardis assured us this was not a plan for Gentrification. Apparently he was either unaware of the plans of the Diocese, or he was just flat out lying.

Definition of GENTRIFICATION: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents (Miriam Webster)

In this case, the affluent people are OSF St. Francis and the Catholic Diocese. I often questioned the presence of two OSF members on the EVGC TIF commission, when every other entity involved had only one member. Since OSF is controlled by the Diocese, it seemed apparent the hospital/medical complex and the church had something up their sleeves. That sentiment was echoed many times by the Peoria Journal Star.

Once the EVGC TIF was in place, the next step was to remove the teeth of the Historical Preservation act by including the owner of the property in the provisions of the act. Without the owner's permission, no property can be declared to be a historical site unless the owner agrees to that designation. So if I am a large corporate entity and want to buy a block of property where some of the houses are being considered for historical preservation, say the home of Thomas Detweiller, I can do so without fear that some civic group is going to come in and ruin my plans or at least tie me up in a lawsuit.

The article in today's Journal Star shows us the beginning of their plan. Mr. William Ordaz, the president of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation, laments “It's heritage resources that are gone.”

I have to disagree, Mr. Ordaz. Its much more than that. Its the beginning of the end for the near North Side and the East Bluff. Slowly but surely they will be swallowed up by the OSF machine for their purposes. Those of us who still own houses and live here will be forced out either by unreasonable tax assessments or simply by attrition, since most of us are in our 60's or above. And isn't it interesting that this was done with the blessing of the City Council, and in particular Mayor Jim Ardis?

Remember the three greatest lies in the world? One of them is:

“I'm from the government, I'm here to help you.”

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?

Back to the Council Chambers

Live blogging is not my thing, so I apologize to the readers who have to wait for me to compose my thoughts. I like to take notes and think about what was actually said before writing about it, which is why I blog instead of report.

I got in to the chambers tonight just as they were finishing the Pledge of Allegiance, then took a seat toward the rear of the chamber. All the old faces were there, including John Sharp and Billy Dennis, and surprisingly no Gary Sandberg. Hmmm. At first I thought he might be slouched back in his chair, but when I realized we had gone at least 15 minutes and he hadn't voiced an opinion, I knew he was absent.

So this session was devoted to the budget decisions surrounding the new and improved Marriott project. Mayor Ardis opened the meeting by letting the City Manager Urich present a summary of the current financials. On it's face, the plan looks sound, and it looks like Urich did a great job of carefully planning the finances to allow the city to get a square deal. According to one of his statements, the developer, Matthews, has deferred his fee until the property starts to see a profit. He has also, according to Urich, promised to guarantee the city's investment personally. So does this mean the developer will create an escrow account for $29 million dollars? Hmmm. Would love to see it, wouldn't you?

Anyway, there were a few interesting points made. Part of the plan involves using funds from the Southtown TIF transferred to the Downtown TIF at some point in the project, which Barbara Van Auken was quick to question until the City Manager assured her it was legal. At the end of the summary, Mayor Ardis opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Matthews, the developer, came up the podium and praised the board for their wisdom and fortitude and support of the project, and pledged his devotion to creating a perfect addition to the city. Next, a Mr. J. Baumgartner from Caterpillar came up to praise the council for their decision to Build the Block and to create a hotel where their international guests would feel they could have a 4 star experience. [guess they are tired of sending their global visitors across the river as well]. I had to throw my two cents in and reminded them that, even if they build the hotel, they need to make sure there are reasons for people to stay in it. I urged them to hold SMG accountable for the lack of events being staged in our Civic Center, for the loss of events that used to bring the revenue and the visitors to Peoria. Finally, Bob Marx of the Peoria Convention and Visitor Bureau got up and gave more praise to the council concerning their pursuit of this project.

On to Item #1 of the agenda, the "Approval of the Design Concepts for the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Agreement by and among the City of Peoria and EM Properties, Ltd. and Pere Marquette Hotel, LLC, and Pere Marquette TIF, Inc." Ryan Spain opened the discussion by questioning the choice of materials being used by the contractors especially on the first floor, the floor adjacent to pedestrian traffic. Now, he was using phrases like how pedestrians would interact with the materials, but the gist of it was his concern about damage and graffiti, and frankly, that is a legitimate concern. Many of the Man Made materials used in cheap construction today are unattractive, to say the least, but some other concerns exist as well. Beth Akeson also voiced her concerns with a show and tell of Brick versus artificial brick, or limestone versus Styrofoam coated with a sprayed on dry concrete material. Her legitimate concern was that the materials used would not stand up to the weather and wear of time. Councilman Gully remarked that while he would prefer Brick and Limestone over lesser materials, the cost of such a project would well exceed the budgeted amounts. Mayor Ardis asked for further comments, and hearing none, called for a vote. The motion passed with Weaver and Akeson voting no.

Item #2 was the ordinance approving the overall project. This means the rehabilitation of the Pere Marquette to a full service Marriott hotel, the construction of a Marriott Courtyard, the construction of a parking deck, and the construction of an elevated connector to the Peoria Civic Center. Councilperson Akeson voiced her concerns that the proposed cost of the projects did not seem sufficient to cover all these items, particularly since the cost of the 466 space parking deck and the cost of the elevated (all weather) connector to the Civic Center would exceed the $6.34 million dollars allotted for them. She cited an unnamed source who advised her the elevated connector would cost between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00 a foot to build. She also restated her concern about the city's ability to govern the way in which the construction was done, and that there was no real scrutiny of the plans, the methods, or even the qualifications of the contractors doing the work. There were some additional comments, Gulley going off topic about the $7 million dollar portion of the loan, Riggenbach praising Urich for getting a higher rate of return on the reinvestment of the city's Post Employment Benefits Obligation Funds (currently drawing 0.6%, under the reinvestment of these funds in the project, they would draw 7%....hey, you don't have to be a banker to see that one, Tim), and Irving taking Urich to task to cover all the bases for the council and the chamber in detail. I have to commend Dan Irving for doing that, although it was certainly a dog and pony show for the constituency, he let all of us know that Urich has his ducks in a row. Mayor Ardis once again called for the vote, and once again it passed with Weaver and Akeson voting no.

Items 3, 4, and 5 (a&b) passed in the same way with very little comment.

So now we come to the blog portion of this little post. I have to say that I am still a bit leery of the whole idea. Yes, it would be nice to have a 4 star facility in Peoria to accommodate Caterpillar's "Global Visitors", and yes, such a facility could be an asset to drawing convention business to the area. But what is going to attract them to Peoria in the first place? The Civic Center has been a losing proposition for many years, and the recent additions to the facility aren't helping to pay for it. We have this great venue for sports events, theater events, and exceptional facilities for expos and lifestyle shows, but we lack the events to fill it. Year after year, we lose business to the cities who acted to get their business rolling, and may I remind you there is no Marriott in Bloomington. Granted there are scores of loyal Bradley Basketball fans, Riverman Fans, and some die hard Peoria Opera and Symphony fans who will attend events in the theater and the arena, but they just aren't enough to justify the expense. Spectacor Management Corporation was hired by the city to fill that facility with events to create revenue and they aren't doing their job, Worse still, we are losing events and sports to Bloomington that ought to be here. Perhaps the city should be in the business of creating revenue, instead of building empires.

Reflections on the Race Case that wasn't...and the aftermath...

At times I have been corrected on my occasional rantings by other bloggers, so it comes as no surprise to anyone that I have decided to publish my own comments on the events as I see them, or rather, as I have seen and thought about them.

Last week, Paul Wilkinson, in my opinion, seriously damaged his credibility by filing what can only be deemed a false report of black youths "terrorizing" the neighborhood at West Thrush and Sheridan. From all reports, his claim was so exaggerated that it bears little resemblance to the facts reported by the other neighbors. The sad fact of the matter is that C. J. Summers, usually a very careful journalist, was sucked into his fantasy (nightmare?) and repeated the story, which was then rocketed across the nation in the infamous Drudge Report. While the reporting was untrue and unsubstantiated, it did accomplish several things.

First, it brought a plethora of attention to an otherwise local blog that now stands to make substantial funds from advertising dollars, should C. J. choose to pursue it (and in this economy, who wouldn't?). Second, it took everyone's attention off of several national issues, such as Medicare, the Economy, and some of President Obama's more lucid statements (as well as a few not so lucid statements). Last, it set race relations back a few months...or years.

Opinion writing is just that. Opinions. When I write this blog about council meetings or other events, I try to be accurate about what has gone on before I start spouting my personal opinion. I believe that to be responsible. If I misquote or miss a fact, I say so and apologize, so as not to unfairly criticize or be just downright rude.

But I have never crossed the "Sky is falling" line. Chicken Little will never be my sole source for any information I present here.

Too bad others don't feel the same way.

Civil Union Forum at the North Branch of the Peoria Library

You have got to hand it to the City of Peoria. When they do something right, they do it well. The new library is absolutely beautiful inside, and was a perfect place to hold the Civil Union Forum. About 60 people gathered to be informed on the legal and procedural impact of the law that will take effect on June 1st.

The event was hosted by the Peoria branch of the ACLU and President C. Paul Miller acted as emcee. Upon opening the event, he quickly acknowledged Matthew A. Woodmancy as a member of the audience, letting the attendees know that Matt is a candidate for the Democratic Congressional nomination for the 18th District here in Illinois. He then introduced the speakers for the evening, Karen Sheley, a staff counsel from the Chicago ACLU, Jacob Meister, the Founder and President of the Civil Rights Agenda, an advocacy group in the Chicago area for LGBT rights, and Peoria County Clerk Steve Sonnemaker.

Ms. Sheley spoke first, detailing the activities leading up to the historic legislation and speaking of the ACLU's 40 year history of defending the rights of the LGBT community. The gist of her talk was her continued advocacy for the right of LGBT persons to marry. Civil Unions, she pointed out, are a great leap forward in recognizing the rights of Gay and Lesbian partners to enjoy domestic protection under Illinois Law in areas of spousal privilege, tax benefits, and property rights, but can be challenged at the Federal level. The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, is the ultimate goal of the ACLU, so that Federal statutes will include all forms of marriage under their protection.

Mr. Jacob Meister, who also bears the distinction of being the first openly gay man to run for the United States Senate, spoke next. He addressed some of the legal ramifications of the new law and the protection it now affords Civil Union partners. Under the new law, joint tax returns may be filed for the state, as well as rights of inheritance protections. Also, the new law will provide statutory relief for persons who wish to end their civil union (divorce), and afford both members legal entitlements and protections as well. He briefly covered a wide range of topics, and also added his voice to that of Ms. Sheley's in stating the repeal of D.O.M.A. is the ultimate goal of his organization.

Peoria County Clerk Steve Sonnemaker assured members of the audience that his staff was prepared to handle the influx of persons seeking to obtain a civil union. His mood was cheerful and at times jovial, and he praised his staff for taking the time to be prepared for this new duty. He pointed out that the Civil Union law made no provision for any variance of age (persons can be married with parental permission as early as age 16, whereas civil unions can only be granted to persons 18 and older), and that he would withhold any announcement of civil union application at the request of the applicants. Otherwise, he stated, the application process will be very similar to the application for a marriage certificate.

A question and answer session followed where all three speakers took various questions from the audience. After the formal session was over, participants stayed and made themselves available for individual questions.

Also present at the event were Elaine Hopkins, author of Peoria Story, and Father Scott West of St. Luke's Church.

Latest on the Steven Watkins Bill

UPDATE

It seems the Journal Star and local television doesn't want to report all the news.
Follow these links to see what is going on in Springfield with the Steven Watkins bill.

St. Louis Today

WAND TV Springfield

DEMONSTRATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1604 AT ILLINOIS STATE CAPITAL

Illinois Fathers Rally Against Child Visitation Interference


Location: Illinois State Capital Building, Springfield, Illinois

Release Date: May 8, 2011

SPRINGFIELD,IL, MAY 10, 2011/---IllinoisFathers.org, a non-custodial parents rights organization, along with the Alliance for Domestically Abused Men (ADAM International) and several other organizations plan to make their message heard on May 10th, 2011, at the "Third Annual Fatherless Day Rally" at the Illinois State Capitol Building in Springfield. More than three hundred bikers interested in family law reform are also expected to roar into Springfield for the rally.

The demonstration is designed to call attention to...and garner support for House Bill 1604. HB 1604 seeks to give children greater access to both parents after divorce or separation. HB 1604, known as the Steven Watkins Memorial Bill, in honor of Steven Watkins who was murdered at the home of his ex-wife's grandmother while trying to exercise his court-ordered visitation rights. The bill has strong bi-partisan support in the Illinois House and will be voted on in the Illinois Senate.

Rally Coordinator and Illinoisfathers.org spokesperson, General Parker says, "consistently, in our Illinois family law courts, children are unjustly separated from good parents for no good reason."

The rally is scheduled to start at 9:00 AM.

Visit www.illinoisfathers.org for more information.

Update on the Steven Watkins Bill

'Steven Watkins' HB 1604 DISSOLUTION-VISITATION ABUSE

This Bill needs to be STOPPED immediately, before it goes any further.
If anyone is willing, I suggest that "WE" organize the group and request a "HEARING" by May 23rd or at the lastest, the 1st week of June (before they go out on recess June 30, 2011) with the main sponsors of this Bill.
I have a very good relationship with serveral of the Bill Sponsors and would NOT have a problem getting them to set up a hearing for us, and/or allow us to testify during the House Judiciary-Civil Law Committee Hearings in Springfield.
Also, I can solicit the help of those who oppose this Bill (SOS Office contact), the ICADV and some other groups for help to expose this attack on Parents that are already under severe assualt by the "Family Courts."
They need to hear from our side at the level that counts.....the people who make up these damaging laws, without the proper information.
I will be free next week after........Monday, May 9, 2011 to work on this, if this is something the group would like to do. Let me know asap!
Toni

Steven Watkins' Bill passed by Illinois House Committee
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x407383137/Steven-Watkins-bill-passed-by-Illinois-House-committee

By ANDY BROWNFIELD
Posted Mar 02, 2011 @ 11:00 PM
Last update Mar 03, 2011 @ 06:00 AM

The “Steven Watkins Bill,” which would toughen the penalties for divorced parents, who violate visitation agreements, passed an Illinois House Committee on Wednesday.
House Bill 1604 would allow judges to jail scofflaw parents, increase fines against them and revoke their professional and drivers’ licenses.
It stems from the murder of Steven Watkins, who was slain when he went to pick up his daughter, Sidney for a court-ordered visit in Ashland.
Shirley Skinner, the grandmother of Jennifer Watkins, was convicted of killing Steven Watkins.
Watkins’ estranged wife, Jennifer, has since resisted efforts, including a court order, to allow Sidney to visit Steven Watkins’ parents.
A warrant was issued Tuesday for Jennifer Watkins’ arrest, although her whereabouts is unknown.
Proponents of the bill, including Steven Watkins’ mother Penny, said the measure is necessary to ensure noncustodial parents are granted their court-ordered visitation rights.
“He (Steven) had several times ran up against opposition from the mother of the child,” Penny Watkins testified before the House Judiciary-Civil Law Committee.
“She (Sidney) was sick, she didn’t feel good, she had wet her pants – several different excuses. Steven would go to the local police. … (They said), ‘We’ll go with you, but if the mother refuses to give you the child, that’s all we can do.’”
Supporters said the measure would bring visitation interference penalties in line with those for child support violations.
A spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office opposed enforcing visitation orders by revoking drivers’ licenses.
The bill “would set a precedent to expanding our office to becoming an arm of the court to enforce any type of civil ruling.” said Nathan Maddox, inspector general with the Secretary of State.
Jim Covington, representing the Illinois State Bar Association, agreed.
“Visitation abuse is already a crime under our statutes,” Covington said.
Another group opposes the bill for a different reason.
“What happens more often than not is that battered women in particular get charged with and accused of visitation abuse when they’re really trying to protect their child,” said Vickie Smith, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
“We fully understand all of the dynamics in the Watkins case …, but we don’t think criminalizing visitation is the answer.”
Andy Brownfield can be reached at (217)-782-3095.

****************************************************************************

Seems that Ms. Smith would have us believe these cases are about protecting children from abusive parents. Now that is interesting, seeing as we are talking about cases that have already been adjudicated. In other words, we are talking about protecting the rights of the non-custodial parent after the divorce case has been heard. After the time for claims of spousal or child abuse to have been made. If the non-custodial parent was an abuser, it would have been brought up at trial and the abusive parent would have more than likely either been denied custody, visitation, or the visitation would have been ordered as supervised. The claim that this bill would protect abusive parents is ludicrous.
This bill would, if passed into law, make it a crime to knowingly interfere with the rights of a non-custodial parent to see his or her children.
The last time I looked, it takes very little for a Driver's License to be suspended. And unless the police are specifically targeting the individual, it is easy to drive on a suspended license. Just obey the law and don't give the officers a reason to stop you, and you can drive a car without a license. (I am not suggesting anyone do that, I am just pointing out that most police officers have much better things to do with their time than stop cars for no reason to check for a suspended license or lapsed insurance.)
We all know that most marriage dissolution's are not amicable. People get married for passion, and are usually divorced in the same manner. There are many cases where the custodial parent (usually, but not always, the mother) is so incensed and vengeful that the non-custodial parent is vilified to their child, and is prevented from seeing the parent. The child is fed a line of bull, told the non-custodial parent does not want or love them, and grows up with feelings of abandonment and resentment and self-loathing that will stunt their emotional and psychological growth. Grandmothers and Grandfathers, Aunts and Uncles, almost everyone runs to the cause, since the child is their blood. Basically, this becomes a "Hatfields and McCoys" syndrome that will often result in violence of some sort being perpetrated against one of the exes or the child.
The Steven Watkins bill does not seek to protect abusive parents or spouses. What it is about is protecting the rights of a non-custodial parent to continue to parent their child.

The greatest show in Peoria continues....

I'm talking about the City Council meeting, of course. Tonight was no exception, and there are always high points and low points to consider, so I'll try to cover the ones I can.

The High points were the Proclamations and Presentations by Mayor Ardis to the Great American Clean Up/ Keep Peoria Beautiful event (April 16th), the Hult Health Education Center 20th Year Celebration, the beginning of Child Abuse Prevention Month (Opening event will be the Hands Around the Courthouse event at noon on April 15th, wear blue to support that day...there are currently 1022 pending child abuse cases in Peoria), and the recognition of National Undergraduate Research Week (April 11-15th). All worthy causes and notable proclamations.

Down to business. Pat Landis, Ross Black, and a gentleman whose name escaped me, all spoke to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Peoria. One of their main talking points was how inclusive their approach to this plan was. They came up with statistics that included 104 meetings, and over 7000 comments on the website, equaling more than 117 hours of public testimony from a Global community. (Global? I thought this was a local issue.) They included all sorts of people, including High School Students (5 Meetings), the African-American Community, various Public Partners (School board, Park district, etc.), and of course, Developers.

According to several people who spoke, they seem to have missed a few people: Bob Sparks spoke first from his wheelchair stating that the physically disabled were not included, and their needs are being neglected. Savino Sierra (normally an outspoken advocate for the Ardis council), complained that the Hispanic community had not been included. Peggy Kendall spoke on behalf of persons with mental and developmental disabilities. Seems they forgot to check with at least a few people in their "all inclusive plan"

Mayor Ardis asked how this inclusiveness was achieved, and Pat Landis answered that they had, indeed, met with the Americans with Disabilities, or at  least contacted them, and had held meetings at Friendship House, and had advertised the plan on Billboards, via direct mail, and even with television ads. Now you would think with all that effort we would all know about those meetings, but I can seem to recall any of that going on. But that could be me. After all, I don't watch a lot of television, don't open the mail, and billboards are not my style. Ross Black added that it is difficult to define the African American community, since they are not a definitive group, but made up of several groups (ever hear of the NAACP or the Urban League, Ross?) and there was no way to identify them as a group to be consulted. Yada Yada Yada. The long and short of it? It passed with Sandberg as the only Nay vote. Big Surprise.

Business as usual until a rather rousing discussion between Ardis and several other members concerning Item L on the consent agenda, the passing of an request from the new City Manager to have the members of the council attend a Leadership and Strategic Planning Workshop planned by a firm from Palm Coast, Florida at a cost of $11,000 to $19,000. Sandberg pointed out that this same firm had conducted a similar session with the council before the Vision 2020 program with negative results, and objected to the contract being awarded to an out of state firm when there are similar firms locally. Riggenbach claimed that this would be a very necessary step in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Spears agreed with the training, but also joined with Sandberg in his objection to hiring an out of state consultant, as did Gulley. After hearing all these objections, Spain had to chime in that, in a meeting with the incoming City Manager, he was concerned that they board's commitment to changing the culture of the board was in jeopardy. Poor kid thinks everyone is supposed to play nice on the board and "go along to get along". Someone hand the kid a towel to dry behind his ears. The motion passed with Sandberg, Spears, and Gully voting NO!

And now we come to the implementation of the now infamous reinstatement of a "BLUE LAW". I'm talking about the ordinance specifically designed to shut down "Club 307". Gary Sandberg once again stood as the only voice of reason, trying to get the council to understand that the wording of the ordinance was much too broad in its scope and could be used to regulate individual consensual behavior. I should say "try", since that is never going to happen, but now that the law will revoke the license of Club 307, the activities will no longer be regulated by the cost of a membership card behind closed doors. Let's face it folks, the people who are members of Club 307 are adults who want to participate in a swinging lifestyle. That is a consensual act, not rape, not enticement, not some form of public debauchery. Sandberg and City Counsel Randall Ray went back and forth on the subject, and Ardis had to interject that it was the most "interesting" conversation he had heard in some time. The motion passed, Sandberg voting no, and we now have a law that prevents consenting adults from having a membership only club for the purpose of having sex. And I am betting a law that will be overturned at the State Supreme Court level, if anyone cares to fight it.

Not much more after that, some old business that had to be concluded before the new council persons are sworn in, apparently. Incidentally, kudos to Beth Akeson and Chuck Weaver, both in attendance and taking notes throughout the entire proceedings. Nice to see they are taking their new appointments seriously.

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.

Open Question to the Candidates

Now I know you all will have some stock answers for what I am about to ask, since I am sure you have heard the question at least nine or ten times before by now. But I am asking you to put something in print, something tangible that can be referred back to. "On [date] in the blog Take Back Peoria, you said...." I am challenging you to be accountable for your statement. Are you ready?

In the past two months, the City Council of Peoria has passed several items that have received harsh criticism from the constituency, and appear on the surface to directly benefit OSF. OSF has not been forthcoming as to their interest in the EVGC TIF, yet the current council is poised to vote on this issue on March 22nd, prior to the election of the new council members. Given the lack of transparency to date of this project, and the questionable nature of the benefits to the homeowners of the East Bluff who will bear the majority of the tax burden for this project, do you believe this project should be deferred until after the elections to allow the new council members to determine if it will coincide with their agenda for the city?

Please place your comments in the Comments section below.