Peoria Pundit

I glanced at the Peoria Journal Star article about the City of Peoria’s latest legal attack against Elliott’s Cabaret.

Of the 17 comments left by readers at 10:40 a.m. today, not one was in agreement with the city. City Attorney Randy Ray was bearing the brunt of the criticism. Some conspiracy theorists insisted that 5th District Councilman Pat Nichting was behind the thing.

My two cents: Don’t think for a minute that Ray would go to court over Elliott’s locker room if it wasn’t clear that he had the consent of a majority of the 11 people who sit on the Peoria City Council.

As for Nichting, it’s not the first time it’s been alleged that Nichting has whispered in Ray’s ear regarding Elliott’s. The last time, allegedly, it was a scheme to use eminent domain powers against Elliott’s and use the land for a new library branch.

Nichting won’t be on the council in two months. He is running for city treasurer. If he wins that race, one would hope that he would be less eager to dip into the city’s increasingly meager funds to pursue political and personal agendas.

Also: The article itself makes clear that “integral” part of the adult use operation the city is complaining about is nothing less that a locker room used by the dancers. No customers are using it, and indeed no employees, since the dancers are temporary independent contractors.

There is no dancing going on in the locker rooms. There is no tipping going on in the locker rooms. All they are doing is changing clothes. Just like they would be doing if they put on their “work clothes” and drove to work. The neighbors are not affected by the location of the locker room in any way, shape or form.

This is silly. And a waste of time and money. Feel free to let your council member know what you think. Phone numbers and email addresses are available here.

Spotted on my morning commute:

A rather large sign for Patrick Nichting, candidate for Peoria City Treasurer, in front of an office building on West Main Street across from Peking Restaurant.

An even larger sign for Dan Irving, who’s running for Nichting’s current job representing the 5th District on the Peoria City Council, was spotted on the big hill at the intersection of U.S. Route 150 and Northmoor Allen Road.

Meanwhile, the Journal Star is reporting that voter turnout is expected to be low for the Feb. 24 primary election.

I was caught off guard by Pat Nichting’s decision (apparently) to not seek re-election to the Peoria City Council from the 5th District (kudos to Word on the Street for the scoop).

In general, I think Nichting represented the district the way he thought he should — by devoting much of his time and energy representing the business and developers. It’s not surprising. The other four council districts are basically a collection of distinct neighborhood, and political organization is based on neighborhood organizations. North Peoria doesn’t really have many strong neighborhoods as much as it has subdivisions populated by commuters.

And now Nichting is considering a run for City Treasurer, a full-time job with a real salary. That’s an odd decision to make, considering he’s the owner of Panco Food Service Equipment, which I assume would be a full-time job.

I’m not all that familiar with two of the three people discussed as possible candidates. But one, Dan Irving, appeared at the old Peoria Pundit site several times by way of a questionnaire I sent candidates for at-large districts two years earlier.

Here are Mr. Irving’s replies, culled from the nine posts I made at the time:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision put the onus on state and local governments to decide when it is appropriate to take private property via eminent domain. Under what specific circumstances do you favor the use of eminent domain? Conversely, under what conditions would you oppose the use of eminent domain?

Answer: I would favor eminent domain if without a doubt the property was needed for public safety. Eminent domain is a process that needs to be used carefully and investigated thoroughly before any action is taken. Public input is crucial but also the input of the landowner is equally important. When exercising eminent domain, it is important to be fair and honest with the property owners. Open communication is a must. I oppose the use of this practice in cases where neighborhoods or residents are not involved in the process. The community must embrace the project and it must be a win-win for all parties involved. If not, the project cannot go forward.

2. At every at-large election, attention is paid to Peoria’s cumulative, or “bullet,” voting system. In a perfect world (free of any real or perceived restrictions caused by lawsuit settlements), what form of government should Peoria have and how would the council be organized in terms of districts?

Answer: I personally believe the form of voting needs to be changed from the current 5 votes per person, but the current law needs to be followed until we develop a workable solution for all parties involved. I fundamentally believe in 1 person for 1 vote. With that being said, we need to investigate the options of changing how the council is representative of the city. I would support one of the following options: First – Keep the current 5 districts and have 2 members from each district elected in staggered terms. Second – Re-district the city into 10 districts, each with a council person and have 5 members elected every 4 years. Third – Re-district the city into 7 districts and have 3 At-Large council members elected in 4 year terms. This would allow us to retain the “At-Large” concept and still have people looking at city wide issues.

3. Other than “improve communication” and “cooperate more,” what can or should the city of Peoria do to improve Peoria’s schools?

Answer: We must improve the communication and cooperation in order to move anything forward. As a city, we need to continue to investigate economic growth opportunities that will bring companies and head of household jobs to Peoria. We need to identify ways we can encourage families to re-locate within Peoria in order to grow our residential base which will help generate revenues through property and sales taxes.

4. Can you name anything the City of Peoria spends money on that it shouldn’t? I’m asking for specific line items, programs or projects. I’m NOT asking about “efficiencies” like being frugal with paper clips or cutting back a little on travel.

Answer: We need to look into curbing our spending on consultants. I am convinced if we engage our citizens, we have people that could be considered experts in their occupation that could help us with issues such as health care, or development.

5. What should the city be doing that it isn’t to combat litter?

Answer: We need to continue to focus on litter control. I think the Plant Pride, Not Litter program has created awareness and we need to continue reminding people. Litter to me is a common sense thing that people should care about. If we can re-invigorate the pride that people have in Peoria, we can continue to make a difference in litter control.

6. Are you willing to say “no” to Caterpillar at any time during your term? Can you think of a circumstance in the last 20-30 years in which the city SHOULD have said “no?”

Answer: Personally do not care for the terminology of saying “no” to Caterpillar. I think that has the potential to create a we/them division. As our biggest nationally recognized employer, their needs are important. At the same time, the needs of the City are equally important. We need to continue having open dialog with Caterpillar on what each of our needs are and make sure our actions are moving us forward of improving our community. I personally cannot provide an example of where we should have said “no” to Caterpillar in the last 20 to 30 years.

7. Under what circumstances are you willing to vote against the wishes of a neighborhood organization or the vocal wishes of a majority neighbors on an issue of zoning change, building permit, liquor ordinance, etc.?

Answer: I am not inclined to vote against the wishes of a neighborhood organization. They are the people that live in their area and their wishes need to be respected and heard. If a situation arose that I felt should be considered of which the neighborhoods were against, I would ask for public discussion with the group to determine the best cause of action. As an elected official, my job is to represent the wishes and needs of the people that elected me. Not listening to the taxpayers is an option I would not consider.

8. Can you name five businesses that have pulled up stakes and moved across the river or up north within the last four years? Bonus points if you can give me their stated reasons for doing so.

Answer: Waugh Foods – Moved to East Peoria. Something to do with zoning I believe. Winpack – Currently relocating to Pekin. Had issues with not being able to purchase their building. Pepsi – Moved to Morton. I am not sure of the reason other than highway accessibility. Mid State Terrazzo and Tile – Moved to Alta from Pierson Avenue due to deteriorating neighborhood. Jaspier’s Interiors – Moved to Mossville due to the cost of rent.

9. This question is designed to challenge candidates’ sense of honor and sense of history about Peoria: Without asking someone or looking it up, can you tell me where the original Pizza De-Lite Restaurant was located? Bonus points if you can tell me where Don’s Donuts was located. Exact addresses are not necessary, just the street name and/or a nearby landmark.

Answer: I will abide by your clearly written rules and not google this.

Editor’s note: I gave Mr. Irving points for his answer for moral integrity. Gary Sandberg cheated (even though he admitted it).

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.