FeedNumber 7 and proud
June 28, 2007 in Local
Via the Journal Star:
Peoria has lost significant bragging rights, as new census data shows it has dropped two rungs on the ranking of biggest cities in Illinois.
Springfield and Joliet now surpass Peoria in population, meaning Peoria has dropped from its 2000 ranking as the fifth biggest city in the state to the seventh largest city.
I hate that the Journal Star insists on framing these sorts of articles as a matter of civic pride, like a coach trying to rally the troops. Invariably, this approach precedes calls for spending on quality of life projects designed to make the city a fun place for young urban professionals and retirees to live.
Feh.
The reason we’re losing population (and I did get it wrong in an earlier post) is that there are serious questions about the quality of our schools, violent crime and the city’s commitment to providing essential city services. A lot of it is more perception than reality, but there’s still a lot of real problems.
I think we’re slowly movign in the right direction, but it took years to get this way and it will years to get out way out of this mess.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
These numbers also don't take into account local population shifts. How many of the people "lost" from Peoria remain in Central IL? Many have simply shifted to Dunlap, Morton, etc.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
You hit the nail on the head. The fact of the matter is very simple…if you have money and kids — you do not live in Peoria. In a 30 mile area surrounding Peoria, I am not sure there is a single school outside of the district that wouldn't be preferred. Until this changes— you will continue to see Peoria die a slow death.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Got to agree with your assessment on two of the points but not the third.Peoria's schools are a major negative factor to attracting and retaining individuals with school age children. While it is possible to get a great education in District 150, it is so much simpler to do so (without some of the other problems of District 150) in surrounding communities. The crime issue is also a major deterrent to locating in Peoria for many individuals even though it is primarily, though not exclusively, limited to certain areas of town.However, I think you missed the mark on the third reason. The "essential" services provided in Peoria are done at a decent level in comparison to some other communities. Let's use Springfield as an example. I'll match our Police, Fire and Public Works employees against theirs any day of the week. We have excellent services in this area and if anyone spends anytime in Springfield this is obvious. As much as everyone hates the garbage fee, be thankful you don't live in Springfield. There is NO municipal garbage service provided there. Each family is required to contract for their own service and pay for it accordingly. A terrible approach to providing a basic service.While I agree we have room for improvement in the services provided, they are not as bad as some make them out to be. Our Police force is larger than it has ever been. We have one of the best fire departments in the state.The major issue (in my humble opinion) is that many on the City Council are more focused on placing blame on others (prior Council decisions, the "progressives", the negative newspaper, etc.) rather than focusing on solutions and making decisions. Unfortunately, you seem to perpetuate this approach with your continued "excuses" for the current "majority" and the statements that all our problems are because of the prior council. We're now more than 2 years into a new "regime" and things are the same. As a community, we need to move past the "who done it" fingerpointing, and focus on the debate of issues and the results we want to see.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
The city has passed two budget under Mayor Ardis' leadership. They are beginning work on now on a new budget under a brand new "regime" with two new members.
I have high hopes because John Morris (a nice guy, but a cheerleader for almost every boondoggle the city coughed up) and Chuck Grayeb (nice guy, but the biggest liberal I've ever covered as a reporter in my entire life) are no long on the council. Ryan Spain and Jim Montelongo expressed essential services first sentiments in my questionaire. Of course, time (and their votes on the issues) will tell.
If you cherry pick my posts, you might conclude I'm apologizing for the current council, but if you read others you might conclude I'm very dissatisfied indeed.
I can assure you things would be worse had Ardis, et al, not won election in 2005. I know of several developer driven boondoggles that didn't even see the light of day because it was clear there was no support for them at all.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
You crack me up. There was NO bigger supporter of "essential" budget services than Councilman Grayeb. If I have a disagreement with his philosophy it is that he always wanted too much essential services — I don't think he ever met a public employee he didn't like.I'm also dissatisfied with the current group in a limited way. I think several promised two years ago more than they should have to get elected (in part due to their naivity of the process and budget) but that we got exactly what we could expect from them.While a new budget is coming, I think that unless substantial and significant changes in priorities are established this go around, many people will have to stop saying "give them time" and start to admit that this group is really no different than the prior council. The only real difference I've seen in this council and the prior council (talking about them as a group) is the groups to which favors are granted - unfortunately, too many favors are still occurring.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
YOU crack ME up. Chuck Greyeb's concern with essential services began and ended with his desitre to make the city government as big as possible. He was NOT an opponent of the boondoggles. He believed in handing city staff a blank check, but was unwilling to suggest new ideas or vote for valid ways of raising revenue. He was quick to get on his soapbox and pontificate in high dudgeon about the failings of the council and the city. He was very brave about expressing opinions likley to get himself re-elected. But his record for working hard on the details when the cameras were off is spotty at best.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I've always been puzzled as to why none of the people complaining about 150 ever ran for the school board and changed things? Easier to complain than act? The same hoard of morons keep getting elected over and over….by those complaining.Until 1970, Peoria was the 2nd largest city in the state, when Rockford took over.To me, Aurora, Naperville and Joliet are not "real" cities. They are the suburbs to which Chicago is loosing population. They are nothing more than endless miles of look-alike subdivisions. None of these cities have suburbs of their own to which disgruntled citizens can flee. Aurora and Naperville city limits extend into other counties.Rockford is pretty much the same, a "way out there" suburb, with few suburbs of its own.Springfield only exists because of state government. It has a handful of tiny suburbs.Peoria, on the other hand, is the oldest settlement in the state. It has a dozen suburbs with over 5,000 population, to which complainers move. If even half of them stayed put, Peoria would still rank #2.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
"I've always been puzzled as to why none of the people complaining about 150 ever ran for the school board and changed things?" I haven't been here long enough to say for sure, but elections here are WEIRD. It seems like only a certain subset of people is truly "eligible" for election to local bodies, and local elections here are NASTY. I've lived in other cities the size of Peoria, including one that featured school board meeting fist-fights (Best. Public Access. Ever.), but I've never seen small city elections that were so UGLY as they seem to get here. But maybe that's because I've only been here for a couple of very contentious (national) election cycles and that does tend to bleed into local politics. I'm also not sure how much the school board can do without adequate administrators in place who have the power to actually make changes at 150 and the gumption and cojones to do so. There are a zillion things that need to be done at 150, but what seems to HAPPEN is that the district makes a half-hearted attempt at 12 of them at once, none of them succeed, and then they hire some more administrators or pay for some more studies to tell us which other two dozen things we should be attempting. Can we not get an administrator who doesn't need to pay other people to tell him how to do his job and who can pick two or three major issues and focus in like a laser beam?
June 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I agree with PP and EM. Local elections are ugly and some activit ies border on criminality.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
"I've always been puzzled as to why none of the people complaining about 150 ever ran for the school board and changed things?"
Here are a few reasons I came up with, JW:
1. They don't live in District 150 anymore.
2. They don't live in a district for which a board member's seat was up for reelection recently.
3. They did run, but lost.
4. They are unelectable because they send their kid(s) to private school.
5. They did run, and won, but one person does not a majority vote make.
6. They are prohibited from running by law because they already hold an elected position on another public body.
7. They don't have enough money to run for school board.
8. They recently moved to Peoria from out of town and are not familiar enough with our system yet.
9. They supported a candidate who lost.
There are probably more.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:03 am
A few more (though not as enlightened as C.J.'s):10. They have no desire to be associated with a dysfunctional entity.11. They don't have a background they feel is needed for a qualified board member (experience, education, etc. - though I guess a degree isn't actually needed is it!) and have the integrity not to create it out of thin air. 12. They don't have the time available to commit to a "job" that will be all-consuming if done correctly.13. They aren't willing to submit themselves and their family to the public scrutiny that comes with a leadership role as an elected official.14. They are not connected to the Peoria political "dynasties" and therefore don't have the ties needed to raise support and funds.15. They are too busy packing boxes and looking for houses in the suburbs.16. They have committed themselves to other public service endeavors.