Peoria Pundit

Over 90 days after Obama’s huge Election Day evening celebration “Party in the Park”, the cash strapped City of Chicago is holding on to the hope that the Obama camp will reimburse them the cost of same. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama’s victory celebration in Grant Park — despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.“The Democratic National Committee has not yet paid us,” Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city’s Office of Budget and Management, said Thursday after questions from the Chicago Sun-Times. “We’re reaching out to them this week.”

In late October, Mayor Daley assured that the cash-flush Obama campaign would reimburse the city for every penny spent on the rally. “We have a financial crisis,” he said at the time. “The City of Chicago could not afford $2 million on this because we’re gonna be laying off people, cutting back. That [cost] would really be unfortunate. . . . It’s a huge cost to the City of Chicago. “This is not a presidential visit. . . . This is a political event, and they’ve agreed to pay for all those services — all the expenses of that. … It’s costly, but they raised quite a bit of money. There’s no [shortage] of money in that campaign.”

Maybe there is a good reason the Obama camp hasn’t paid their bills.  Although I’m sure that people that haven’t paid their heat  bills and mortgages for over 90 days might have good reasons too.  The outcome for them, however, will be a foreclosed home with frozen pipes.

In any event, wait until Gary Sandberg gets hold of this. He is going to go ballistic!

Editor’s note: Back in November 2004, I wrote articles for what was supposed to be Peoria’s new alternative newspaper, the River City Times. It was a fun gig, although it ended badly. The paper’s not around anymore. I have no idea if the publisher is still around. I am still owed more than $100 for work I did, and the amount is worth trying to get it.

But I was turning out some good work for the plucky little rag, including this piece about an issue that was near and dear to my libertarian heart: Eminent domain. The reason I am reprinting it and the accompanying photos will be made clear.

Enjoy.

In the closing years of the last decade, a rich and powerful businessman came to Fanny Ort and informed her that she would be sacrificing the home she and her late husband Robert raised their children.

Her East Bluff neighborhood was in decline, and the City of Peoria had decided it needed to be redeveloped. Besides, the new shopping center would bring in more property and sales taxes.

“They said either you take it or the city would use eminent domain and then we would have to take whatever they offered,” she said. “We weren’t very happy.”

Today, Fanny lives in a home a quarter of the size.

And a vacant lot sits where her home once stood.

The shopping center is Midtown Plaza, with its anchor store Cubs Foods and a handful of smaller businesses located in the site’s strip mall. Read more »

Put aside the issue of whether or not your campaign is obligated to reimburse $38,000 to the City of Peoria for expenses if occured suring President Bush’s visit to your fund raiser. Don’t even consider the legal and ethical issues.

Just send the city a check, no questions asked, no admission of guilt, just a desire to not burden taxpayers. Better yet, invite the photographers to a check-passing ceremony on the floor of the City Council’s chambers. I’m sure my friend Gary Sandberg would be happy to attend such a happy event.

Essentially, you would be achieving victory by surrendering.

I took note of this “quotable” from today’s Word on the Street:

“Of all the things to worry about and have the (city) staff take up their time with, this isn’t in the top half dozen,” At-large Councilman Gary Sandberg, responding to an inquiry about a proposal before the City Council Tuesday to add a referendum to the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters to alter Peoria’s primary. (J.S.)

Honestly, I was amazed by this. Sandberg has always been an essential services first kind of politicians, and I can think of few services more essential to the public than maintaining a healthy electoral system. I wondered why he lacked any enthusiasm for the referendum.

I emailed Sandberg for a more detailed explanation of his views. His response:

“Giving the voters a say in the method.” The method that is used is registered voters voting. The state change and this referendum that will revert back to “status quo” does not change the method only when and whether there has to be a primary election in lieu of a general election.

Let’s first look at the assumption that the state law reducing the need for Primaries is a bad law, a flawed law, a law that promotes bad governance. If that is the case, then the change needs to be made in Springfield and not just allowing those few cities with “home rule powers” to right a wrong in their jurisdictions.

Clearly the stated reasoning behind the law is to reduce thee costs for primary elections. My position is that other than politico junkies, most citizens are more concerned about basic essential services. ie taking the $75,000 saving that is anticipated to save the City of Peoria from a Primary and hiring a police officer or perhaps establishing a free recycling program city wide.

Junkies will start the discussion with the “plurality vs majority” argument of a general election where there are more than two candidates for an office. In actuality, it is the candidate with the most votes, not the highest percentage that wins or on the case of At Large, the 5 candidates with the highest votes wins. If you factor in the Ardis rule for measuring success at the poles, unless a person or an issue gets over 50% of the total possible registered votes, the result is not determinable, one really wonders why he is behind this referendum. I would assume that unless the measure passes with a majority of the possible registered votes, then the measure should not pass.

Check out www.fairvote.org especially discussion of “ranked choice selections” in plurality election, ( http://www.fairvote.org/?page=37 ) which really starts looking at the methods which can be used to assure the will of the voters.

Unfortunately, this “called for referendum” is not the result of any public discussion or public movement, but rather just the “safety first” belief of incumbent politicians that status quo got us here, so status quo is good.

I really don’t have a defined opinion on the state statute change impact other than it would reduce costs. Whether the impacts of shaking the system and actually allowing a “surprise candidate” winning is a bad thing and therefore overrides the potential savings is a stance I am NOT WILLING to assume. I really doubt if the discussion of the referendum if allowed will really be about the concept or the method or even the potential money saved, but rather just voting on those voters “gut reaction” to a referendum that does NOT lay out the issues, but rather only the two alternative results.

While all that is going on, there are not referendums as to whether government should offer City tax dollar subsidies to doctors for parking decks, or developers of hotels to build new ones or remodel existing ones, or to create expansions of Enterprise Zones in non blighted areas or how about a couple more TIF Districts yet it is in those decisions that the tax money disappears to provide the basic essential City services.

The manner in which people are elected IS an IMPORTANT essential governmental service and the manner established by state government is NOT within the top six MORE IMPORTANT issues that the voters need or prefer to weigh in on. I would suspect the majority of voters would be more interested in referendums relating to those issues where large sums of local tax dollars are spent not whether a candidate needs a majority of votes in an election where a minority of voters vote. I am looking for the circumstances where the voters are first informed, and then motivated in numbers to vote, then and only then is the plurality/ majority debate of consequence. This proposed referendum does not get me closer to that circumstance.

My two cents: I think it’s obvious that Sandberg is still upset the battle for funding for the Peoria Public Library expansion. It’s understandable, considering the behind-the-scenes tactics used by some members of the council. But he is right about one thing: I would like for there to be a chance for the public to vote on a new policy for when the city should establish a tax increment financing zone or changing the boundaries or an enterprise zone. Perhaps Gary could make such a motion at Tuesday’s meeting.

C.J. has a good post following last night’s Peoria City Council meeting, and it’s about an item that the council deferred for two weeks. Public Works Supervisor Dave Barber has presented a new snow response plan that substantially changes the snow routes. Apparently, Barber wants to place more emphasis on the northernmost parts of Peoria.

Naturally, this doesn’t play well among those of us who live in the older parts of town. During the meeting, Sandberg did manage to get in some criticism, suggesting it’s more efficient to devote limited time and energy to more densely populated older neighborhoods. That way, each mile plowed helped out more folks that out north, there the houses are more spread out.

As C.J. noted, Pat Nichting noted that the homes out here pay more in property taxes, which he said means they deserve more services. Now, this infuriated C.J. as well as Sandberg. But I don’t fault Nichting. After all, he’s just representing the interests of his district. I guarantee that every district council members pleads for their constituents to get as much as they can get. But Nichting seems to get what he wants more than the others. I can’t explain why.

But there the plan now before the council isn’t in the interests of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th districts, and unless there’s some shameless deal-making behind the scenes, I can’t imagine that the council members who represent these district’s could possibly vote for it. Sandberg certainly won’t vote for it. That’s five votes opposed.

All it’s gonna take is just one of the remaining at-large council members or the mayor to let it be known that he won’t vote for it. If that happens, look for the plan to be revised and the current one not even come up for a vote.