SB2477 --- Tick Tock Goes the Clock

Yes, that all around lovable piece of legislation that was passed on May 10, 2006 by both houses of the Illinois Legislature is due to automatically (no signature needed by the Governor) become law in sixty days ---- July 9, 2006 being the due date, unless vetoed by the Governor.

So, perhaps you will find it important enough to call Sen. Shadid at 673-8404 and Rep. Schock 672-9292 and Rep. Leitch 685-3900 and ask that they convince Governor Blagojevich to veto this bill.

You can also write or call the Governor:

Dear Governor...Send correspondence for Governor Blagojevich, to contact the governor or to the Office of the Governor, 207 State House, Springfield, IL 62706; (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121 [TTY (888) 261-3336]. (NOTE: Should a response be required it will be mailed to you via the United States Postal Service, so it is important that you include your name and complete mailing address.)

We are still trying to figure out what was the basis for our state representatives (as heard on audio recordings from the Illinois Legislature) telling their Springfield colleagues that they 'had the full support of the city council' on this piece of legislation (documents sited in subsequent telephone conversations with state reps and city council members, as well as checking for any type of resolution of endorsement from City Clerk Haynes, DO NOT support the state reps assertion.) Please stay tuned for a report back.

So, please call or sit back and wait for the black hole (SB2477) to suck your $$$$ from your pocket.

***********************************

Meanwhile, tick tock goes the clock and tick tock grows the crock of manure that surrounds the entire school siting issue.

Rep. LaHood has stepped aside so that the City Council and D150 can work out some type of agreement to pursue the idea of a joint venture around an undecided site near the current Glen Oak School. Again the 15 acre idea surfaces but you might ask, what about the only 5 acres D150 was to purchase and the 5 acres that the Peoria Park Distrcit was to add to site --- that only equals 10 acres ---- if D150 plays the 15 acres sonata then they can cry no $$$ crocodile tears to move back to Glen Oak Park. Remember D150 already purchased properties and they just must be wise stewards with taxpayer $$$$$ unless the intention is to take advantage of the unintended consequence of using the PBC funds to build the school in the park and not to use health life safety bonds.

Anyway, another special use is required to take the R-3 park land and use it for a school site, shouldn't be too difficult as the Park District just gained approval for ALL of Glen Oak Park to potentially become a zoo overtime with only each new site plan at each new phase of the proposed multi-phase zoo expansion to get another seemingly rubber stamp of approval from the city council,

or will it be more difficult because the City Council would have to sign off on that zoning change for a school in a park that's morphing into a zoo ..... time will tell

especially in view of the fact that Director Noble sent a letter(dated April 27, 2006) to Pat Landes on regarding ZC 06-35B (Zoo Expansion):

Dear Pat:

This document is being filed as a courtesy to the City of Peoria. However, by agreement with City of Peoria Corporation Counsel, Randall Ray, please know that the Pleasure Driveway and Park District of Peoria, by submitting this document should not be seen as setting a precedent to allow the City of Peoria municipal zoning ordinance to thwart the broad statutory authority of the Peoria Park District to plan, build and operate parks and park facilities included within its 60 square mile district. ... The District does not believe it is subject to the City's municipal zoning ordinance nor does it believe it needs a special use permit for the Zoo or for any other park purpose in Glen Oak Park.

Corporation Counsel Randy Ray and Park District Attorney James Konsky will review the 'Wilmette" case as that case has been considered a "very narrow legal ruling."

Hum, where have we heard a similar phrase before "a very narrow legal ruling" --- you guessed it --- President Tim Cassidy (narrow interpretation) when asked about the alleged open meeting act violations about the Peoria Park Board talking about the 'sharing of park land without setting a price' for the proposed school in the park. At least they get an A+ for consistency.

Also, makes us think of the "Unofficial PPD Position" landfill expansion support letter that Director Noble sent and was later recanted by the Park Board 2-22-06 Park Board Minutes, page 7 , any similarity?

We'll have to ask Randy Ray what type of agreement he has entered into with the Park District on behalf of the City of Peoria, which would preclude him from following the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court as quoted below. Stay tuned for another report back.

By the way, the "Wilmette" case; 112 Ill.2d 6, 490 N.E.2d 1282; Wilmette Park District, Appellant, v. The Village of Wilmette, Appellee; No. 62258, Supreme Court of Illinois, March 19, 1986.

Neither the Illinois Municipal Code nor the Park District Code provides park districts with immunity from the zoning ordinances of their host municipality. Nevertheless, the park district takes the position that because the General Assembly has granted park districts authority to operate parks, it impliedly follows that the legislature intended to confer zoning immunity to park districts in instances where zoning may affect park operations.

We find no merit in this argument. The General Assembly has not granted park districts the exclusive authority to operate parks. Indeed, all municipalities, home rule or otherwise, are authorized to establish and operate parks (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983,ch. 24, pars. 11-98-1 through 11-100-1.) Absent an explicit statutory grant of immunity, the mere fact that the park district, a local unit of government, has a statutory duty to operate its parks cannot be extended to support the inference that it can exercise its authority without regard to the zoning ordinances of its host municipality.

That's the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. We're not lawyers, nor are we giving legal advice .... just siting publically available information for you to make informed decisions (even if you disagree with our views).

So, please prove us wrong, that should Sb2477 become law, that all communciations by D150 would immmediately terminate as they take their $60 -75 million taxpayer $$$$ ball and go play on whatever playground they decide to build.

Please stay tuned for another episode of "As the Kingdom Turns"!

PCF - Top 10 Reasons to Love the Zoo Expansion

In today's PJ Star Forum (10 June 2006), citizens aka taxpayers can read that the Peoria Civic Federation (PCF) loves the zoo.

It would be ever so sweet if the PCF members actually talked with the taxpayers who live in the older neighborhoods to find out what the taxpayer on the street thinks of these 'new fangled' ideas to make Peoria's older neighborhoods great.

Please don't count me among the turnips who just fell of the truck . . . exactly what OBJECTIVE data would support the following PCF's Top 10 'Pie in the Sky' claims regarding the proposed zoo expansion:

1. enhancing our community's quality of life;
2. will provide better educational programming;
3. serve as a source of collaboration with local, state, federal and international conservation efforts;
4. will offer amazing recreational opportunities for all families;
5. will help strengthen our economy;
6. will attract and retain employees;
7. will serve as a tourist attraction;
8. will provide an exciting venue for corporate events and convention activities;
9. can even offer stabilization to the surrounding neighborhoods, serving as an important anchor for the community;
10. ... the second stage of expansion, including an iconic grand entrance and welcoming area, can be built and opened along with Africa! Reaching this goal of $6 million will require the support of our entire regional community.

Taxpayer on the Street Response:

1. (a) Ask the East Bluff Residents if they want the zoo expansion (guess what the answer is ---- NO!) and (b) Ask any neighborhood leader what will enhance our community's quality of life ... think reduction in crime, noise, litter, increase in responsible social behavior, well maintained properties .... ---- zoo expansion won't even make the top fifty list;
2. Remains to be seen;
3. Think Wildlife Prairie Park. Think Bill Rutherford. Bill tried for years to coordinate and collaborate on a joint venture to relocate the zoo to Wildlife (and then to build a hotel as an tourist, economy boosting, end destination attraction) 'but for' the Peoria Park District ...) and yes, Wildlife to "serve as a source of collaboration with local, state, federal and international conservation efforts" would be perfect;
4. Walking in the park, flying a kite, walking your dog, playing baseball, family picnics et al --- those are amazing recreational opportunities for all families and please remember that the St. Louis Zoo is free!;
5. How??? New construction jobs??? part time zoo jobs with no benefits???
6. The Glen Oak Zoo ala Africa! is going to attract and retain employees???? Perhaps a St. Louis, or Brookfield or a full scale zoo .... perhaps ..... but the Glen Oak Zoo??? which already loses $400,000 plus per year and now the expansion is already costing the taxpayers more --- the taxpayers are paying the interest on the Peoria Zoological Society's $10 million loan for which the interest rate is not to exceed 3.5% for a period of ten (10) years (during which time certain pledges are exempt from counting toward the loan principal) aka $350,000 per year in interest. (Please remember that the taxpayers have not been told the truth again by the Peoria Park Board, as no zoo construction was to have started until 90% of the money was raised ($20 million is 62.5% of $32 million);
7. Remains to be seen, the size of the current Glen Oak Zoo is 8% and 24% if expanded compared to the FREE St. Louis Zoo;
8. Perhaps ---- but not if you have to walk through the older section of the zoo which on a hot and humid day is a world class olfactory event;
9. Exactly how does an expanded zoo offer stabilization to the surrounding neighborhoods, serving as an important anchor for the community??? --- would that be letting the animals run in the streets to scare the criminals, or locking the criminals up with the animals, or having more trafffic on an already heavily used street, or having more traffic accidents which have in the past prevented emergency services to be provided within the park to injured park goers, or would that be that the current zoo expansion design does not provide for fire services deep within the park or just how would the zoo stabilize the East Bluff??? And actually how does a zoo act as an anchor for our community????;
10. Second stage of expansion (according to ZC-06-35B this is actually all part of the first expansion) but now that you mention it .... it does bring to mind that with the Special Use Application to rezone the entire park as a zoo (being site plan specific for each new expansion) then our East Bluff Neighbors have years, even decades and several generations in the future to be oohed and aahed by the future expansion plans to further destabilize their neighborhood.

Expand the zoo if you want --- just don't expand at Glen Oak Park. This idea is like putting a gorilla in a poodle's cage. Again, Think Wildlife.

Donors and PZS members, please ask yourselves these questions???

1. As a surrounding property owner, would you want to live next to a facility that has to meet the Industrial performance standards of the zoning ordinance for lighting, sounds, and smells?
2. As a surrounding property owner, would you be concerned about the proposed increased traffic from not 100,000 but a projected 160,000 zoo patrons combined with other specialized events and the untallied additional traffic from the Children's museum, along Prospect Avenue and Gift Avenue (secondary entrance to the zoo)?
3. Would you be concerned that Fire Department apparatus access would be maintained where possible?
4. Would you be concerned that where Fire Department apparatus access is not possible, 'sprinkle buildings where water is not adequate' is the standard that will be applied?
5. Would you be concerned that the outer and inner loops of the park will be reconfigured so that the public access will be lost and significantly decreased?
6. Would you be concerned that there are documents which show that emergency vehicles were blocked from providing emergency service because of major traffic congestion problems and a serious traffic accident on Sunday, March 28, 1998? (and perhaps there are other incidents)?

The public's safety, quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood due to traffic and congestion. lighting, sounds, smells and so on ... will be dramatically and negatively impacted. As in all real estate --- location, location, location, is the key and this proposed location is the wrong location.

For these reasons the Peoria City Council should deny the requested special use.

How about all stakeholders working together to build a new zoo at Wildlife?