Posts Tagged ‘Jim Ardis’

« Older Entries

Will Peoria City Council try to replace Sandberg on Tuesday?

Friday, April 29th, 2011

I read this article on WEEK and came across this comment from Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis:

“He has his concerns about it,” said Ardis. “He has questions on whether its accurate, if he does owe that money. That’s not anything that I’m involved with or the council is involved with. He has to work through that with the attorney. It would be nice if it would take care of itself before Tuesday but I don’t think that it will.”

Ardis says if Sandberg doesn’t pay his debt by Tuesday’s night’s city council meeting, the council will have to select someone else to take his seat.

The emphasis is mine. There is no timeline mentioned here, but others might read that as they want to pick someone on Tuesday.

The swearing-in ceremony is Tuesday. The city attorney may very well advise the council that Gary Sandbert cannot be sworn in on Tuesday if he hasn’t paid what the city says Sandberg owes. Now there is a dispute over exactly how much he actually owes, so I suspect this may end up in court.

I cannot really blame the city government for not wanting to break state law and swear in someone the city bureaucracy says is in in dept to the city. I get that.

But considering that Sandberg was recently elected by voters, I strongly suspect that there would be a huge backlash if the council tried to replace him before this get’s played out. I WOULD blame them for doing that

There is no hurry here. The City Council did not replace George Jacob was he was so badly injured in a motorcycle accident that he couldn’t not attend meetings for almost a full year.

Tags: ,
Posted in Peoria politics, Politics | 11 Comments »

Dave ‘The Liar’ Ransburg does not remember if he ever signed his name to something on city stationary that might be dredged up to embarass him

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

The Peoria Journal Star asked former Mayor Dave Ransburg about the ginned up controversy over current Mayor Jim Ardis using city stationary to send a letter to a judge asking for leniency for a family friend who is facing drug charges. This is what Ransburg said;

“In the four years I was in office I don’t have total recall as to what I wrote. As far as I know, my intent would have been to use the letterhead for official business, where the mayor is writing on behalf of the city, where’s he’s acting as mayor,” said Ransburg, who was mayor from 2001 to 2005.

“I don’t want to imply that I’m perfect or somehow what Ardis did was wrong. I just don’t recall. I don’t think I would knowingly use city letterhead to do something that wasn’t official business.”

First, Ransburg has been proven again and again that the words that leave his mouth are not to be trusted. He looked voters in the eye in 2005 and lied about plans to move jobs at his sprinkler factory to China. He lied to the press about his plans to seek a seat on the school board. He’s a liar. Why the Peoria Journal Star calls this person and gives him an opportunity to lie again to their readers just escapes all reason.

Second, Ransburg is saying three different things at three same time.  He says he wouldn’t do what Ardis did, he’s not sure if what Ardis did was wrong and he doesn’t remember if he ever did what Ardis did.

Third, hemming and hawing aside, do you think a crafty character like Ransburg would sign his name to anything that described his backroom deals, on city stationary or not? That Ardis would sign this letter on city stationary even speaks volumes about whether there was any evil intent. Had there been, he would have done so with a phone call.

And in reality, all Ardis did was write a letter asking for leniency for a guy who — if Ardis’ letter is accurate — is probably a good candidate for leniency. Critics say they are bent out of shape because it was written on city stationary because it supposedly implied that it was a letter from the council. But the letter was signed by Ardis alone, was labeled “office of the mayor” and was clearly a personal letter from Ardis. You can read the letter below and see for yourself.

(more…)

Tags: ,
Posted in media, Peoria politics | 9 Comments »

The guy who tried to lock up cops on the word of a drug dealer complains that the mayor wrote a letter to a judge on city stationary

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Oh. My. God. The mayor of Peoria believes there’s a drug dealer who ought not be locked away forever. And even worse, he expressed this opinion on CITY STATIONARY.

This fake outrage from Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons would be laughable, were the stakes not so high. Here’s the deal: Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis is an old family friend of this guy, who was indicted by a Peoria County Grand Jury in April:

- Jeffrey W. Campbell, 32, 737 Prince St., Pekin; delivery of between 15 and 100 grams of cocaine and possession of between 30 and 500 grams of marijuana.

Kinda unspecific. Exactly how much? First arrest? When did the arrest occur? Was he holed up in an east Bulff home with a massive amount of weapons and threatening neighbors like this Justin Rodgers, who Lyons released on a notice to appear?

Today’s article says Ardis wrote a letter to the judge in Campbell’s case asking for leniency, for a variety of reasons. Ardis cited Campbell’s remorse and his work with Narcotic’s Anonymous. The mayor also noted his and members of his family have been friends with Campbell for a long time. If half the stuff Ardis said about Campbell is true, he deserves leniency.

Lyons says that Ardis should not have been this on city stationary, and that doing so implies the entire city council was sending the letter and that he was trying to use undue influence on the judge.

Lyons is an ass. He’s not complaining about the use of city stationary. He’s getting back at Ardis for the many, many times Ardis has complained about how Lyons is a lousy prosecutor, and for the fact that Ardis endorsed Darin LaHood. Or maybe Lyons is still smarting that for most of the past year, Lyons has been trying to lock up three Peoria Police officers because the now-convicted heroin-dealing thug they helped arrest claimed to be abused. There was no real evidence that supported the accusation, but then, the Peoria Police officer’s union also endorsed LaHood.

Was Ardis trying to influence the judge by using city stationary? I’m fairly certain the judge knows who Ardis is, whether the letter was printed on city stationary or on a blank sheet of paper.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Crime | 10 Comments »

Mayor Ardis should know better than to solicit cash for candidates using city stationary

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

I hate to side with State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons and against Mayor Jim Ardis, but if the mayor
solicited donations for a judicial candidate using official city stationary that is just flat out wrong. Someone who has been an elected official as long as Ardis should already know it’s illegal, and not need to have a reporter point it out after the fact.

I remember when council member Bill Spears was running for the state house of representatives. He was very careful to not use city resources, including his city email address, to discuss the race.

Sometimes the line between governance and politics can be a little blurry. But asking for cash for a candidate. That’s politics.

How would you like to be a business that does business with the city and you get a letter from the mayor asking for cash for a candidate?

And the reason I hate to side with Lyons is because he’s notorious for using his office to punish political foes. You don’t think his quickness to prosecute police officers is unrelated to their almost universal belief he’s not a good prosecutor, do you?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Peoria politics | 1 Comment »

Here’s that interview Mayor Ardis did: …

Friday, March 26th, 2010

Here’s that interview Mayor Ardis did: http://www.pehub.com/67359/buckle-your-seatbelt-google-tomorrow-will-be-nuts/

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Local: Eminent land grab isn’t imminent (UPDATED)

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

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.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Local | 1 Comment »

Local: More candidates emerge for local races

Saturday, December 6th, 2008

Diane Vespa attended Mayor Jim Ardis’s re-election kickoff party and came back with a very newsy post about, with the names of two previously unmentioned candidates for 5th District and City Treasurer. Go read her blog to find out who they are. Full disclosure: Her husband John Vespa is an advertiser.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Local | Comments Off

« Older Entries