How important is this election?

If you have to ask, you're not paying attention!

This coming November, you may think you will only be electing a President. but you're wrong. believe it or not, you will be making a dramatic and profound statement to the electorate.
You will be saying you care!

   I hate to use this word, because people mistake it for something its not. when you say the word "REVOLUTION", people immediately think of guns and battles and people dying. REVOLUTION is simply a means to change, an uprising of an oppressed group of people against injustice. But it doesn't have to be bloody or fatal. It simply has to be effective.
   WE NEED A REVOLUTION in this country, a revolution to remind people THEY, not the government, are in charge! We need to quit listening to the constant media disinformation that continues to set black against white, citizen against immigrant, homosexuals against heterosexuals, Christians against Muslims, anyone against anyone in order to keep us distracted from the real issue. The HAVES are trying selfishly to keep the HAVE NOTS from getting any of what they have.

   Why? Because they are just as frightened as the rest of us. Because they see the world changing and we, human beings, hate change. Oh, I am sure there are a few of them who are evil and greedy and just don't want to see anyone else with their "hard earned" profits. (They do seem to forget their profits were earned on the backs of the "common" folks, don't they?) But the majority of the 1% are the same as the rest of us. They want to protect what they have, and try to give their children a better life. They want their children to live a better life than we did.

   Somewhere along the line they bought into a lie, a profound and invasive lie which permeates our society and threatens to destroy this nation, a nation built on the premise that people, regardless of race, religion, or ethnic background, are fundamentally the same. The lie? They're out to get you, to steal from you, to destroy what you believe, to take what is yours. The lie? If we allow them to be different, they will destroy what we have! The lie? If they do not believe as I believe, they are the enemy!

   We are all Americans! AMERICANS! Our color is not important, our heritage is not important, our faith is not important. Not when it comes to preserving a nation which allows these things to be important to all of us. If I am to call myself an American, then I must place the needs of this nation above my own. This is the Responsibility that accompanies the Rights I have as a Citizen. I can assert my rights to worship and speak and defend myself and enjoy the simple pleasures of my life as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others! In other words, as long as I accept the Responsibility to ensure those Rights are protected. That is the price I pay for being an American, for living in a nation where I am free to choose, free to consider, and free to vote!

   That last one is the important one. We hear accusations fly back and forth on the television, on the radio, and now on the internet. Every election we are bombarded with claims from both Democrats and Republicans who vehemently accuse the other side of being to blame for our nation's woes. Elections are no longer about placing leaders in office, but have come down to "lesser of two evils" philosophy we have been sold by the media, by the 1%, and by the politicians. An old saying goes "The greatest trick of the devil is convincing the world he doesn't exist." In this case,the greatest lie ever sold to the American people is their vote does not matter.

   

I am calling for a revolution!

I'm not asking for blood in the streets or armed rebellion. What I am calling for will take more courage than any assault in any conflict in history! What I am calling for is the revision of the Congress and the Senate and the States by electing leaders, not politicians, to office. What I am calling for is the American People to care!

Congress is not Big Enough?

I saw What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough on the news feed and could not believe my eyes. Having read the story, I only have one thing to say: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND?"

With all the problems we have in Washington today, we do not need a bigger House of Representatives. What we do need is a House of Representatives with members who cannot be bought. Granted, that in itself is a tall order, given the state of the economy and the failure of the system to keep track of their members. But you can minimize the opportunity to "buy" a Congressman by imposing one simple rule: Term Limits!"

First of all, Term Limits ensures the Representatives are chosen from currently active people in their community. And for the House of Representatives, this is what you need. People who are in touch with the wants and needs of their communities, not staid, old rich guys who have become rubber stamp bureaucrats. You want men and women who have an agenda based on the needs of the voters in their community, not corporate powers and special interest groups.

Secondly, it is far easier to catch someone taking a bribe or being paid off in the early part of their tenure than after they have been in office for five or six years. A good example is Aaron Schock, the current Representative in the 18th district in Illinois. When he first took office in 2008 (like any good fraternity boy, he was a legacy from his predecessor, the current Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood), he was from a well to do area, and became the fair haired boy of the district. Today, this junior House member boasts a Campaign War Chest in excess of $3,000,000.00, has an estate close to the river, and is the consistent favorite of Caterpillar, Inc. and other corporate entities in his district. It is obvious by looking at his voting record that he is the property of the rich, a tool designed and honed for the purpose of maintaining their lifestyle at the expense of the "middle class", a group that is quickly disappearing from American Society. Without Term Limits, he will continue to serve his constituents, since he represents the money, and the money will always find a way to keep their boy in office.

Yes, I am aware that we also need to change campaign funding so there is a chance for a real representative to be elected instead of purchased, but we need to focus on one battle at a time to win the war. The beauty of Term Limits is they can be used to elect representatives who would actually vote to regulate campaign financing and contributions instead of simply giving you lip service.

We need Term Limits on ALL elected officials to ensure our nation has the kind of government intended by the framers, a Citizen Government! Three terms in the House of Representatives, Two terms in the Senate! This is what the Term Limits Amendment folks are asking for. Six years as a Representative, Twelve years as a Senator(which I believe is excessive, but let's go with this one for the moment), and not only the Federal government, but the States as well.

Passing Term Limits on the elected officials is the first step in retaking the government from the greedy and corporate entities who want to return the USA to a "company town" of have's and have not's. Term Limits are the first step in returning America to all Americans!

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.

Gay Marriage and DOMA - it IS about equality

A few weeks ago, Matthew Woodmancy and I met with some college students at ISU who were part of the LGBT Support Group. When we got on the subject of Gay Marriage and DOMA, I was amazed that some of them were of the opinion it was not the same as the fight for civil rights in 1963, or the suffrage of women in the early 20th century. It frankly amazes me that anyone could see this as anything else.

When the founders of this nation first declared their independence, they did so with a declaration that proclaimed all men as being equal. We have since come to define "men" as meaning "mankind", and have spent a little over two centuries correcting the wrongs of the initial constitution, passing the 14th Amendment to prevent discrimination. And that amendment needs to be modified to include "sexual orientation".

It is a sad thing to even have this discussion in a free society. When will we realize that until everyone is equal, no one is equal. Representative Maureen Walsh of the Washington Legislature presents one of the clearest, most compelling arguments I have ever heard, and I hope you will listen carefully. DOMA needs to go away. The Federal Government needs to modify the 14th amendment to include "sexual orientation", and those of us who are fighting this on some sort of religious level need to keep your faith to yourself. You have the right to practice your faith in your home, you have the right to attend the church of your choice, but you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others.

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.

US wrong on the denial of a Palestinian State

This has got to be the perfect example of the US backing the wrong horse....again!

The Palestinians have endured enough, and we need to recognize they are not going away anytime in the near future. Palestine has a right to exist, and we need to help them find a way to make that happen.

The US has a long record of backing the wrong people when the decisions are crucial. Our foreign policy supports one side against another in a bid for what is right for us, not what is right for them. There are many examples. The Shah of Iran was a blaring mistake that cost us dearly. Our failure to maintain and help the people of Afghanistan to build a viable government has resulted in a terrorist state that has cost the lives of thousand of American soldiers. Our continued failure to recognize the nation of Cuba as a legitimate state perpetuates poverty and isolation in that nation. And of course, our failure to help Ho Chi Min in his bid for a separate and independent Vietnam cost hundreds of thousand of American lives, not to mention the lives of so many other soldiers of other nations, including Vietnam. This is a reprehensible pattern of disregard for the growth of humanity.

Terrorists are not satanic worshipers who are hell bent on the destruction of the human race for their own means. They are fueled by a legitimate hatred of our policies that lead to the desolation and decimation of their cultures and beliefs. Terrorists are not the result of some deep rooted DNA flaw, but of our own flagrant disregard for their rights to independent existence. Who creates these terrorists? We do.

The Occupy movement has taken root around the world. Why? Because the "99%" are tired of the way the "1%" are handling things. And the "99%" are not going away, any more than the Palestinians. We need to elect leaders who are true leaders, men and women who will work to find a common solution to these problems, not merely go with what the "1%" want to do. We need to purge the White House, the Senate, the Congress and any other legislative body of the incumbents who seek to lead without our approval. We need to take charge of our own destiny, and let the people of the United States and the world choose their destiny instead of having it chosen for them. We need to act, and we need to act with our votes.

Election results show poor turnout!

"Only 11,962 of 68,429 registered voters, or 17.5 percent, cast a ballot." - Peoria Journal Star, 4/5/11.

Chuck Weaver and Beth Akeson will join the City Council with Gary Sandberg, W. Eric Turner, and Ryan Span returning.  Now how many people could have made the difference if they had voted? I guess I have to wonder what the rest of the 64,011 voters were doing this evening. 52,049 voters decided that their vote didn't matter. And by failing to vote, they in fact did vote. They voted to make this an uphill battle for a return to basic services. To the soldiers who will fight on our behalf, I salute you. To those who ran and were not elected, I salute you as well for the courage you displayed in offering to serve our community. While I did not agree with every platform, I respect the willingness of the citizens who were willing to stand up and be counted.

Now we look to the future, and charge the incumbents to take note. While the turnout was small, the voice was loud and very clear. We, the citizens who do pay attention, demand change. We will not longer sit idly by while you continue to make back room deals and flaunt your arrogance at the demands of the people. And there are a few of us who understand what it will require to campaign for the next election in two years.

Some of us are preparing now.

District 150 BOE Candidates

My work schedule being what it is, I have not been able to attend the various forums for the candidates, relying instead on media coverage and the opinions posted on the various blogs for information. My thanks to C. J., Dennis, Emerge, Vonster, Eye in the Sky, and many others for their concise and credible reporting. Also thank you to John Sharp of the Journal Star for his unbiased views. In an age when journalism tends to follow the crowd of mudslingers and hype, John's reporting has been exceptionally well balanced and fair to all the candidates.

Just had the opportunity to view the video coverage of the District 150 BOE candidates, and I have to say that hearing their responses to the questions did not change my opinions of the candidates from before. In District #2, the clear choice is Wolfmeyer. God love Mike Mitchell, I know his heart is in the right place and he wants to make a difference, but I just don't see him being able to turn the District around or get them on track.

In District #3, the choice is not as clear. Rick Cloyd and Janice Deissler are both viable candidates with their own qualities. Rick is an Administrator and an advocate for empowering children through programs like ELITE and CHOICES (both of which I am also an advocate for), but he has no formal background in education. Janice is a skilled and well-established member of the education community in Peoria, having taught many years in the district, and has some administration experience as well. Both are passionate about the children, and passionate about District 150. Since I have to pick one, I guess my question that never got asked (at least not by me) is why the four candidates for District #3 are all write-in candidates, is a little moot at this point. But I would still like to hear the answer. If any of you care to respond, please add it to the comments section below.

I will be reviewing the video of the City Council candidates later this evening when it is posted.

Some tidbits of note

First of all, a bit of news about something near and dear, mainly my job. As of the close of business today, Neil Norton Cadillac (where something GOOD is going to happen to You!) is no more. We will operate at the Neil Norton site until April 1st, when the lot will be closed by the Uftring group for renovations. Cadillacs will be added to the line at the Jim McComb facility, until the renovations are completed. Then the lot will reopen as Uftring Cadillac Chevrolet. Some familiar faces will remain, others will not, but the level of Cadillac service and sales will not be impaired. As a matter of fact, this should be a good move for all.

C. J. has been hard at work at the Peoria Chronicle, providing some maps on growth in Peoria over the last 10 years. His article shows the necessity of preserving and reclaiming our older, urban neighborhoods. We simply cannot continue to expand in all directions [mostly North] and allow people to build their own communities in the suburbs. We need to restore our bluffs and make them safe for our children. We need a tax base that will support our schools, and we certainly need to restore our infrastructure. Basic services is the campaign issue at hand, folks, and we need to elect people who will support and develop our vision of the future in that direction.

Incidentally, I have been working with Matt Woodmancy, who is going to try to get the Democratic nomination to run against Aaron Schock in the next Congressional election. He is a careful thinker, a native Central Illinoian and merits your consideration. There is a [scheduled] rally in Liberty Park on April 15th in the afternoon [6 to 8 pm] to raise awareness to the issues and introduce himself to the local citizens. You might want to look into it.

Also, can't emphasize enough how important this Transparency in Government program will be to helping candidates like C.J., Beth, and Chuck the information from an informed constituency. Lakeview Museum, April 21st, 6 pm. My previous blog gives all the details.

And last, but certainly not least, wasn't today a lovely day?!

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.

Side notes and circumstances

Okay, a quick apology to everyone for the cancellation of the 9/12 Project Meet the Candidates event this last Wednesday. I know quite a few people had planned to attend, but apparently Jody did not have enough faith in Jenny Keller being able to pull this off by herself. I had an emergency at work (only two salesmen, and the other one called in sick) and had to pull out as a moderator, but I think Jenny would have done a splendid job, especially with our guest moderator, John Sharp of the Journal Star.

Now I have recently been working with Bill Lopotko of the 9/12 Project to investigate the possibility of forming a bi-partisan committee for Transparency in Government. This LINK is to an article explaining the key points of Transparency, and how they should allow the common citizen to access their representatives.

I sent this link via email to both the incumbents on the City Council, and the Candidates for the various positions being elected in April. As of this writing, several of the candidates have responded with positive remarks, with the notable exception of Chuck Weaver, who explained that he would look at it when he had time after the election. Since the Candidates have clearly stated that Transparency is an issue that they all support, it might be nice if they know what they are supporting. Apparently, Chuck either understands the principles already? Hmmm. Hope so.

As to the East Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, I spent a couple of hours last night with Rose Sullivan and Malita King, two outspoken advocates for the East Bluff and former members of the EBNHS Board, as well as active past members of local neighborhood associations. I left that meeting with a wealth of information that I am still perusing, so right now I am still trying to discover how the EBNHS became the mega drain on taxpayer dollars that it is today. More on this later, but one thing did pop into my head. Since we are already paying a Special Service Area tax to the city to support the EBNHS, why should we be taxed a second time for a TIF that will, essentially, duplicate this effort? Just a thought thrown out there. Anyone care to answer?

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.

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.