Peoria Pundit

An email just hit my inbox with a letter from Arbor District residents ragging on 2nd District Candidate Curphy Smith.

Here it is:

April 6, 2009

Neighbor-to-Neighbor

Election for City Council 2nd District is tomorrow. As 10-year residents of the Arbor District, located within the 2nd District, we feel the need to respond to Curphy Smith’s recent campaign literature. We have a long relationship with both Barbara Van Auken and Curphy Smith, and until now, we’ve remained rather quiet about this campaign. Information has been distributed from Curphy’s campaign camp that is over the top and unwarranted.

As many of you know, we have worked closely with Barbara on several issues concerning all of our neighborhoods. She has always been honest and forthcoming with information, which we respect. She’s dedicated to all the issues in the District, working tirelessly on them. Barbara’s promises to us have never been broken (we personally know Curphy Smith has broken vows and promises he’s made), and she has always worked hard for the 2nd District. Barbara respects Bradley University and its mission to provide a safe educational environment for their students and neighbors. Simply stated, Barbara understands the dedication and time commitment of being a council member, and is still passionate about being our representative. She desires the job…not just the title.

Her diligence to facilitate the rebuilding of the arbors in the Arbor District was supported not only by the neighbors, but the City Council. The City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY on April 10, 2007 to approve additional funding for the arbors, however most of the funds were allocated in the Capital Fund Budget before Barbara’s first term. The previous arbor was held together with metal bands, and a danger to public safety. The “extravagant monument, “ as referred to by Curphy’s campaign, is almost identical to the original, and was rebuilt per the request of the neighbors, to preserve a historical landmark for which the neighborhood is named; they weren’t rebuilt for Barbara’s benefit.

Barbara Van Auken has accomplished many great things and will do more for our District and our city. She has experience, fortitude, and she has our vote. Re-elect Barbara on Tuesday, April 7.

Respectfully,

Nathan and Michelle Wagner

I received a copy of the following email, which is apparently being sent to Bradley University students. I’ll reproduce it, then add my comments to the bottom:

To All Bradley Fraternity Presidents:

My name is Jeff Hall & I am one of the attorneys representing Sigma Nu in the case against Barbara Van Auken. As you may know, the election is coming up on April 7, 2009. There are some important dates I need you to inform your members about. It is imperative you do all you can to drive your members to register and vote. I send this email today with no time to spare. /

There is no secret that I am a strong supporter of Curphy Smith. I feel he would do a great job for ALL residents in his district, especially for Bradley students. That is why we need him elected. If Barb Van Auken wins, she will exact revenge on the Greek system at Bradley. You think it is tough now, just wait if she remains your council woman. Rumor has it that she is a very vengeful person and it would behoove every member of every fraternity to take 30 minutes out of their day tomorrow and go down to register and vote for “grace period voting”.

Tuesday 3/24/09 (tomorrow)

This is “grace period voting” meaning if you are not registered to vote you can register and vote at the same time. If you are registered already, you can still vote.

We will have transportation from the Student Center from 10am4pm (ish) to the election commission downtown. (it closes at 5pm). Students need to bring a driver’s license AND something with their Bradley address on it, such as: a bill–credit card or utility, or their Webster page from Bradley.

Saturday 3/28/09

This is “early voting” only. You must already be registered to vote at your Bradley address.

We are encouraging student car pooling, but will be providing transportation from the Student Center from 9am-2:30pm to the election commission. (it closes at 3pm). Students need to bring a driver’s license AND something with their Bradley address on it, such as: a bill–credit card or utility, or their Webster page from Bradley, or their voter registration card with their BU address on it.

I implore you to act. Now is the time to stand up and allow the city to hear your voice. If you vote with the drive and impetus we know students can possess, BVA will be voted out and no longer will Bradley students and Greek Members be underrepresented. You will make it easier for your successors. You will actually have real political power. That is a big thing to possess, especially around Peoria and Bradley.

We need at least 500 BU voters out of this election to win. Currently voter turn out is very low, but BVA’s supporters will vote for certain. You and your members are the secret weapon. Please take the time to go down to the election precinct tomorrow. It will only take 30 minutes. Further, grab 5 of your friends that aren’t in a fraternity/sorority and get them to go with you. We need all the help we can get.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing you at the polls.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey R. Hall

My two cents: Of course, Bradley students have the right to vote. That should go without saying, but to avoid any silly comments suggesting I am implying the opposite, I’ll say it here. BU students have the right to vote and I support that right.

The question is: Where do they vote? Do they vote here, in Peoria, where they are attending college, or do they vote where they live? When I attended Eastern Illinois University, I slept in Charleston, but I was still a resident of Peoria. I voted absentee. I never cast one single vote for any local race in Charleston (although I do recall registering). Not that I didn’t care or didn’t have an opinion. Simply stated, I considered myself a Peoria resident and cast my votes in Peoria. My stay in Charleston was going to be temporary and I knew it.

I knew that Charleston residents would — and had every right to — resent transient student votes deciding who held local offices. And I strongly suspected that some EIU students who did cast votes in Charleston did nothing to cancel their hometown registrations, meaning they remained registered in two counties, which is suspect is not exactly legal. And I would not surprise me if one or more of my classmates did the absentee ballot thing AND voted in person in Charleston. I know that IS illegal.

So, while Bradley students have the right to register locally and vote locally, I would encourage them as a matter of personal honor and integrity to vote in the communities in which they actually consider themselves permanent residents.

Second: Curphy Smith has every right to ask any eligible, registered voter to vote for him. He campaign has the right to register any eligible voter. His campaign has the right to drive voters to the polls. This is the stuff of grassroots politics.

Third: Permanent residents of Peoria are no different than the residents of Charleston and just might resent temporary occupants of dorms and student rentals helping to decide who sites on the Peoria City Council and other elected bodies long after these students have moved back to their real homes. People have the right to base their vote on anything they want to base it on. So while the Smith campaign has the right go after the student vote, permanent 2nd District residents have the right to decide to vote against Smith because he is going after the student vote, and would thus be beholden to them if he wins.

Fourth: If you were wondering whether the Sigma Nu fraternity’s lawsuit against Barbara Van Auken and others was politically motivated, I guess learning that that their attorney is electioneering for her opponent pretty much answers that question.

UPDATE: C.J. Summers beat me again and had a post up about this before I did (I decided to get 8 hours of sleep, instead). He also links to a PDF file that shows an anonymous anti-Curphy Smith flyer that’s going around, accusing the Smith campaign of violating election rules. A conversation with a Peoria Election commission official left me convinced it is not.

A little bird left a note in my mail box telling me a Barbara Van Auken fundraiser will be held from 5-7 p.m. Wednesday, March 11, at Agatucci’s. The price for admission is “whatever they care to donate.” Children are welcome. For those readers who don’t know, Agatucci’s is located at 2607 N. University.

From a press release:

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Planning Purposes

March 4, 2009

Contact: Jeffrey R. Hall, Hall, Owens & Wickenhauser L.L.C.

(309-231-9980)
News Conference Tomorrow

Attorneys file civil lawsuit against Peoria Councilwoman

Barbara Van Auken for drunken abuse of power last fall

Peoria…Attorneys for the Sigma Nu fraternity are filing a civil lawsuit against Peoria City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken for her drunken escapade last fall abusing her power, insulting Bradley University police and willful trespassing on the property of the Sigma Nu fraternity.

At the news conference the attorneys and leaders of the fraternity will discuss the particulars of the lawsuit and hand out supporting evidence to members of the media. The incident occurred on September 29, 2008 and now that the process of discovery—which was made difficult by the City of Peoria—is complete, the lawsuit is being filed.

News Conference:

Location: Sigma Nu Fraternity

(1300 W. Fredonia), Peoria

10:30 am

Thursday, March 5, 2009

And after I received the above “media advisory,” I received the following email:

This is also a request to not report this story tonight as we have yet to file the lawsuit today. Please embargo the story until our news conference tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the Sigma Nu Fraternity house as reported in my previous email.

Jeffrey R. Hall

Sorry. Both emails arrived in my inbox unsolicited. I didn’t agree ahead of time to not report on it. This is news, and I’m reporting on it.

And yes, I know that I’ll be criticized for it. And I know some folks will say that I’m just protecting a friend. So be it. And I’m sure that folks will assume that this lawsuit was filed a month before the election just to hurt Van Auken’s el-election chances, So be it.

My earlier posts about the issue:

Local: Van Auken fights for neighborhood, hands foes an issue
Local: Sigma Nu incident was simmering for months
Local: A few new details about Sigma Nu incident

UPDATE: From the lawfirm:

On the media advisory, the date given for the incident occurring was September 29, 2008.  That is incorrect.  The incident began around11:33 on September 19, and continued into September 20, 2008.

Regarding embargoes, from PRWeek:

“(Embargoes) are not a particularly ethical arrangement from a media standpoint, argues Gary Hill, head of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists, and an broadcast investigative reporter in the Twin Cities. “People will just kind of feed you the information and slap something on the top of it that says this is embargoed until such and such a time. We didn’t ask for the information; they just ship the information, and then they ask us to act in a certain fashion, when our ethics say we should act in a different fashion. Its not necessarily ethical on our part to honor the embargo.”

The best journalists will tell you their first loyalty lies with the public. If information is viewed as important for safety or welfare, embargoing can come across as self-serving. And honoring the embargo becomes a greater ethical breach than publishing the information.

“The embargo may be illegitimate if it is merely serving the interests of the organization releasing the information, points out Bob Steele, head of the ethics program at The Poynter Institute. “The ethical issue of embargoes has to do with the importance of the information to the public.

If what’s being withheld is of value to the public, then journalists could very well be unethical by failing to serve the citizens to whom they owe primary allegiance.”

This is one of my concerns with the mainstream press. It tends to define what is ethical by what makesw their job easier to do.

Am I worried that somehow I’m gonna stop getting press releases. Not really. But if I would have to lower my standards to g3et press releases, I’d just as soon stop anyway.

Tonight, the Peoria City Council voted 9-1 (Gary Sandberg voted “nay,” George Jacob was absent) to give Methodist Medical Center permission to build a skywalk to let people using their new parking deck to cross Hamilton. Sandberg objected to a statement that there were no neighborhood concerns, since he’s spoken to neighbors who are opposed to the skywalk.

Some history:

One of the neighbors opposed to the expansion and the changed planned to Hamilton Robert Powers. He lives on Randolph Avenue, across the street from me. But  I was introduced to him back in 2005, by Barbara Van Auken. She was running for Peoria City Council and Powers was her campaign manager.

Her opponent was incumbent Marcella Teplitz. She lives down the street from Robert and I.

One of the issues in that 2005 campaign was the tendency of the Randolph-Roanoke Residential Association — of which Marcella and husband Jack Teplitz have been officers — to claim it represented the entire neigborhood, when in fact there were many who complained the association did not speak for them.

There are no doubt many reasons why those who voted for Van Auken did so instead of voting for Teplitz. Fire Station 11 was one. The garbage tax that apears on city water bills was one. And the dissent in the RRRA was no doubt another.

And here there I was Tuesday, hearing Barbara Van Auken side with the RRRA and against her former campaign manager. Boy, things change after four years.

And to be truthful, I might have voted the same way she did. I was never opposed to the Methodist expansion, mostly because of my respect for property rights and disdain for some of the historic designation attempts underway. Once I learned that there were no plans to destroy that nice little park at the corner of Hamilton and Randolph, I was sold.

I think Methodist did everything it could do to appease neighbors. They involved the entire neighborhood to planning meetings, not just those in the RRRA.

While the council did approve the project as a whole, this skyway required separate approval, which in my mind implies that the council needed to consider it separately and not assume it was somehow obligated to approve it. And the council needs to be given accurate information from staff. There is neighborhood opposition, whether it’s coming from what the city considers the official neighborhood organization of not.

And frankly, I think it’s time for the city council to reconsider what exactly qualifies a neighborhood organization as  the go-to people to speak for a neighborhood. For example, the RRRAI allows renters to sit in on meetings, but doesn’t allow them to join and vote. I’m pretty sure that the many-long time renters who live in my building and in neighboring buildings have rights and are affected by the Methodist expansion too. Renters pay property taxes — it’s part of their rent.

There’s also concern about the high dues. It doesn’t take someone with a degree in political science to recognize that when the city designates a group with such rules as the spokesgroup for an entire neighborhood, it essentially authorizes representation only for people who can afford it.

It doesn’t sound like representative democracy.

Last night I was ranting about property rights and eminent domain over on American Guesser. I observed that with the recession, we need to be on the looking for developers and politicians threatening to take private property away to make room for privately-owned projects.

And then it struck me: Are the powers-that-be planning on using eminent domain to grab the land needed to build the spiffy new and taxpayer funded expansion and renovation at the Pere Marquette?

So, I whisked off some letters to members of the council:

The first to reply was Gary Sandberg:

Question: Will the city use eminent domain to make this project happen?

In any earlier discussion, the use of eminent domain has never been mentioned. With the purchase of the Zuccarini /Abraham property by conventional means, I would think that eminent domain is not necessary. The only other potential use would be for he purchase of the underlying land at the Pere Marquette which for nearly a century had been under a land lease I believe. I asked Gary Mathews about what he “HAD” (note tense) purchased with respect to Pere and he stated that he had purchase agreements on both the building and the land. I suspect the presence of the term or power is more indicative of boiler plate and sloppiness of parties drafting the give-away than a power necessary for the development.

Question: Has there been any commitment with the developer to use eminent domain if they have trouble reaching a deal?

Not by the Councilperson, but I have NOT committed to anything more than the availability of any additional H tax from the Hospitality Zone for the local subsidy. In as much as meetings have been ongoing since and before Henry Holling was officially employed by the City as interim City Manager, yet he was involved and attending these meetings, I suspect that whether I have not made any commitment is mute,

Question: If eminent domain comes up for a vote, will you vote for it? Why or why not?

NO! I do NOT believe that the use of eminent domain for private development is legal. I do NOT believe (or have drank the kool-aid to make me believe) that the construction of a hotel, a skywalk, or a parking facility is public benefit. I also do NOT believe that economic development projects meet the legal threshold for public purpose. So NO!

I couldn’t agree more. It’s easy to understand why he has fans.

Patrick Nichting, 5th District, also replied, but he was much more brief:

I have not seen the development agreement so I can not comment as to its content.

Fair enough.

And then Barbara Van Auken, 2nd District, replied:

I know of no plans (or need) to use eminent domain. The City could not use eminent domain for this project in any event, as it involves a private versus public development. Even if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled as it did in such matters, I wouldn’t support use of eminent domain for a private development.

And Mayor Jim Ardis put the issue to rest, as far as this project is concerned:

Eminent domain is always a possibility, but it won’t be necessary as the developer and property owners have already agreed on a price for the property.

Well, that’s that then.

Meanwhile, Merle Widmer takes a lok at the numbers here and here, while C.J. looks at the hype here and here.

UPDATE: Eric Turner replied:

One thing about this council is there is a belief in avoiding Eminent Domain we truly believe in and support property rights and will do all we can to avoid Eminent Domain. Hopefully we can agree by way of fair negotiations. As a council we are willing to work with all involved to avoid the negatives I.e. Eminent Domain.

In today’s column, Phil Luciano lets readers know that he is a member of the faculty at Bradley University, a fact he did not mention in two recent columns that sided with BU students regarding the last week’s incident in which an allegedly intoxicated city council member confronted members of Sigma Nu over multiple noise complaints stemming from a late-night outdoor drinking party.

And I have to hand it to Phi. He graciously conceded that this fact should have been included in the columns and then he apologized for not doing so.

Just kidding. His apology consisted of one word, “oopsie.” He then devoted the rest of the column ridiculing anyone who suggested he was Bradley’s “stooge.” He cited several obnoxious phone calls and emails to prove his point about his critics.

I’m betting as least some of those emails and phone calls were more lucid and sincere (at least more sincere than Phil’s apology), but he won’t share those because they don’t prove his point that anyone who would criticize him is a moron.

My message to Phil: You’ve dipped your toe into the cleansing waters of journalistic transparency by revealing the potential conflict of interest regarding Bradley University. Why not dive in and share ALL your emails on the subject?

Phil Luciano once again discusses the conflict between Bradley University students and neighbors. And once again, he essentially sides with students by claiming that the problem isn’t the noise, litter, public drinking, fireworks, public urination and the occasionally fatality. The problem is that the permanent residents and property taxpayers aren’t making the students feel welcome.

This is Luciano’s second column in as many days about the issue. And for the second time, he failed to mention that he gets a paycheck from Bradley University. That’s a potential conflict of interest at least as large as the fact that I’m friends with Barbara Van Auken.

Some observations on this matter:

• Many of the folks who are criticizing Van Auken for confronting Sigma Nu over its outdoor drinking party would be criticizing her if she had done nothing about the problems these residents are trying to fight. City Council elections are coming up, and battle lines are being drawn. I fully expect the editorial and news pages of the Journal Star to pimp for whoever runs against Van Auken.
• I’ve lived next door to a crack house. I’ve lived a few blocks from a frat house. If I had to chose between the two, with no other options, I’d be hard pressed to come to a decision.
• Luciano quotes an anonymous father of some anonymous frat kid, upset that the neighbors are picking on his precious little snowflake. This speaks volumes to me. Would Luciano quote a permanent resident anonymously? Doubt it.

Randall Emert, the blogger and commenter known as Emtronics, has castigated Peoria City Council member Barbara Van Auken following the Sigma Nu incident. He’s used the comments section of this blog and his own site. To summarize his position: The frat members are being maligned, Van Auken got away with being drunk and belligerent because the police did her favors, and State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons has no balls because he won’t prosecute his friends (Van Auken and Andrew Rand).

And myself? “Candy coated this because of no balls,” he writes.

I’m the first to admit it’s difficult to be critical of a friend. But believe me or not, I think that if former Marcella Teplitz got liquored up and tore into a rowdy frat house, I’d have posted something along the lines of “give ‘em Hell, girl.” And believe me, Marcella would have had NO problem putting pressure on either BU or city police to sit on rowdy college students.

Go read the post and my comment.

Better make it quick before he deletes it all.

The Journal Star’s Leslie Fark got a look at a Bradley University campus police report on this weekend’s incident outside the Sigmu Nu frat house. There are a few incidents I didn’t have, including allegations of shoulder poking and finger waverying.

And the headline: “Report: Van Auken tried to use position.”

Oh, the horror. Next thing you know, someone on the council will be using their position to mitigate a zoning dispute or, heaven forbid, helping a neighborhood organization get a stop sign.

At least she was doing it on behalf of constituents. I seems to recall allegations some former council members tried to “use influence” to defect domestic abuse charges, protect the son of a city manager from robbery charges, get out of traffic tickets, etc. But that was back when John Stenson was chief of police. Stenson moonlighted as a security guard at the the Journal Star. It’s a small world.

So what is it that Barbara Van Auken did that was wrong? She was intoxicated, some say. She was beligerent, according to some reports. There is a video, I hear. No one I’ve spoken to has seen it. If the video backs up the campus police version, she should apologize. Hell, it’s probably a good idea to apologize now.

But with more than 50 tickets issued in the past several months on this block, there’s something going on that needs to be addressed by Bradley University. The full-time residents who invested in homes in this neighborhood know they live among college students. They don’t expect a suburban lifestyle, and I doubt they are complaining this loudly about minor stuff. They don’t have to put up with drunk school children tossing bear bottles from roofs, or lighting fireworks every night.

I wouldn’t have bought the argument about the mean city council member picking on the poor innocent BU students four years ago when someone else represented the 2nd District. Joanne Glasser needs to live up to promises she made to the entire community — including the worried parents of BU students — that an end was coming to the binge drinking culture that contributed to two deaths last year.

And THAT should be the issue here, not whether some city council member poked a campus cop and used salty language.

And next time, I suggest Van Auken call one of her (apparently) teetotaling critics to respond to constituent who call in the middle of the night seeking help to quiet their neighborhoods.