Got crime? Call a landscaper

I don’t claim to be an expert in the laws that govern how cities collect and spend money. I know that money that goes into certain funds cannot be pulled out and put into other funds. I know that it’s not all one big pile of money.

 Nevertheless, any city with a nearly half-million-dollar projected deficit that is going to cut police overtime and put fewer police officers on the street, has no damn business whatsoever spending $56,000 to pretty-up the Peoria Civic Center’s drop-off area. This public facility will be used by the exact same number of people regardless.

 Good God.

 When your garage or your car has been broken into, or when neighborhood punks are selling drugs on the corner, don’t call the police. Call a landscaper.

Catch-And-Release Kevin still siding with the bad guys

 Are basic Constitutional rights coming to Peoria?

 Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis and other members on the Peoria City Council wants to give Peorians the right to carry a concealed weapon, a right enjoyed by citizens in 48 states.

 Naturally, Peoria County State’s Attorney Kevin “Catch and Release” Lyons is opposed.

 In his own words:

 “Neither of the words ‘concealed’ nor ‘carry’ should give a community any greater sense of peace when it comes to loaded firearms,” Lyons said. “No workable plan has yet been discovered that puts guns in the hands of law-abiding persons to the exclusion of the mentally unstable or the angry malcontent.”

 Oh, brother.

 And there’s a law that takes guns OUT of the hands of law-abiding citizens and that also takes them out of the hands of those otherwise inclined to use a handgun to rob, rape and murder?

 ‘I was going to shoot that gas station attendant, but I’d have to hide the gun under my shirt on the way there, so I guess I can’t do it.’

 Lyons continues to side with the criminals.

 And if the Peoria City Council pulls this off and get the notoriously anti-gun legislature to agree to this, it will do much to improve my opinion of them.

Lexington Hills: Peoria’s Little pocket of dystopia

From the May 11 Peoria Journal Star:  “About 1:50 a.m. Saturday, a 19-year-old Peoria man was shot at 3445 W. Sunset Lane in Lexington Hills Apartments. Police said he suffered gunshot wounds to the face and leg. They described his injuries as serious but not life-threatening.” Is it even news anymore when someone isn’t shot or getting shot at Lexington Hills?

   It’s not like the Journal Star isn’t aware of how dangerous it is. A friend of my father lives there and says he paid in advance for home delivery, but the PJS returned the money because they can’t find anyone willing to risk life and limb delivering there.

   Dad’s pal says he doesn’t feel safe outside the apartment from about 4:00 p.m. until morning. Too many people running around “showing their ass” in public.
It’s sad. About 25 years ago, I used to deliver pizza to Lexington Hills — as well as to nearby Pierson Hills Apartments. Both were nice places. These days … I wouldn’t want to venture into either one. The only place we wouldn’t deliver was to Harrison Homes. These days, I have a hard time getting the same joint to deliver to my door, and I live in a historic home a half block away from the home of a former Peoria City Council member.

   Crime stats seem to be showing that things are getting better. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking there aren’t parts of this town that look and feel like scenes from some urban dystopia.

   There’s a public official — who I don’t want to embarrass — who once quipped within earshot — that as long as the hoodlums are shooting each other, he wasn’t too worried. Trouble is, the non-hoodlums are moving to across the river or into the northern hinterlands.

   And that’s the attitude we have to combat. Moving away isn’t the answer, because the people who cause the problem will move to better hunting grounds, too. And reducing the amount of police officers on the street isn’t the answer, either.
Predictions

   Illinois Democrats will try to redistrict away Aaron Schock’s “safe” seat in Congress. You know that public facilities sales tax that voters approved a few months ago? You know, the one that was supposed to go toward paying part of the costs of the downtown museum? Well there is nothing legally that is keeping the Peoria County Board from using that tax to pay for a new Bel-Wood Nursing Home.

   Sometime this year, someone will setup an online only news organization here in Peoria. I have no inside information and I am NOT involved in ANY such venture. I make this prediction because 1. These things are popping up everywhere, and 2. I have never heard so much griping and complaining about Peoria-area news media. They are complaining about poor quality and lack of coverage. The free market abhors a vacuum. Note to future entrepreneurs: Call me.
Just remember: What TMZ.com giveth, TMZ.com taketh away. Or their less ethical competitors.
‘Having baby, brb.’

 Flippy has arrived.

 Eyebrows McGee — known to people outside the Peoria Blogosphere as Laura Petelle — announced on her Twitter page —  twitter.com/LPetelle — that her baby was born.

 Readers of her blog have been entertained with stories of her pregnancy, including the internal gymnastics of her baby, hence the nickname ‘Flippy.” Before she left for the hospital, made the following post on Twitter: “Having baby, brb.” Classic.

 Laura is the first local politician — she was elected to the Peoria School Board, but has yet to take office — to use Twitter with any regularity. She is definitely the only local elected official to use either Twitter or Blogger to keep the public informed about her pregnancy.

 Obviously, this is someone who believes in transparency. She is going to be SUCH a breath of fresh air on the school board.
The cattle are sick of waiting

 I hate the intersection of Columbia Terrace and North. Driving to work, I usually find myself sitting at the light for no reason at all … except for the solid red light that tells me that if I dare to travel through the intersection, I will be ticketed. Often, I sit there while no car passes in front of me. The majority of the time, the North traffic is so light, I could make it through the intersection safely many times over.

 As a libertarian, it galls me to have my movements regulated by an automated, electronic system. Why? Because the government, in its neverending quest to make us safe, treats us like cattle.

 My heart sang with joy at the word of this experiment they are doing in London, of all places. They are taking out some of the traffic lights to see what people do when given the opportunity to make their own decisions while on the road: “For six months, lights at up to seven junctions in Ealing will be concealed by bags and drivers will be left to negotiate their way across by establishing eye contact with pedestrians and other motorists.”

 Ealing Council believes that, far from improving the flow of traffic, lights cause delays and may even increase road danger. Drivers race towards green lights to make it across before they turn red. Confidence that they have right of way lulls them into a false sense of security, meaning that they fail to anticipate hazards coming from the side. The council hopes that drivers will learn to co-operate, crossing junctions on a first-come first-served basis rather than obeying robotic signals that have no sense of where people are waiting.”

 This is absolutely astonishing to me. Government never decreases its controls over people. But here we have a unit of government that is not assuming that the things are done NOW must be the best way, and is willing to relinquish one of it’s controls over people’s lives and doing to in a way that maximizes individual liberty. They are *gasp* assuming that people are capable of getting along fine once they are given the freedom to do so.

 Alas, I predict what is going to happen. Some idiot will plow through an intersection, someone will die, maybe a child, and this will be used as anecdotal proof that the government must do something to prevent this sort of thing from happening again (think of the children!) and the traffic lights will go back up. Never mind, of course, that tragic things happen every day on roads that are stuffed full of traffic lights.

 I’d like to see this experiment tried in Peoria. But Peoria does what shopping mall developers tells the city council to do, and these guys LOVE traffic lights because it makes it easier for cars to make left-hand turns into their massive parking lots.
But I can assure the powers-that-be in Peoria that no one benefits by making drivers wait for no reason at the intersection of Columbia Terrace and Sheridan. I’m sure Peoria Pundit readers have their own examples.

Bradley students are a great resource, let’s use them

   People often accuse me of not liking Bradley University students. In fact, some even accuse me of hating them. Not true. I have no animosity toward them. This is despite the fact that they are dangerous binge drinkers with a tendency to walk in front of moving cars with cell phones plastered to their ears. I swear to God, I saw one BU female crossing Main Street, diagonally, in the middle of the block while looking at an open book.

   I have come to see B.U. students as a valuable resource for Peoria. And by resource, I mean as a source of tax revenue and a cure for Peoria’s looming budget deficit. Consider this innovative idea out of Providence, Rhode Island: “The mayor of Providence wants to slap a $150-per-semester tax on the 25,000 full-time students at Brown University and three other private colleges in the city, saying they use resources and should help ease the burden on struggling taxpayers.

“Mayor David Cicilline said the fee would raise between $6 million and $8 million a year for the city, which is facing a $17 million deficit.”

   If enacted, it would apparently be the first time a U.S. city has directly taxed students just for being enrolled.”

 According to Bradley’s Web site, 5,873 students attended Bradley University this school year. At $50 per semester (one-third of the proposal in Providence) that’s $587,300 in revenue added to Peoria’s coffers. That would more than cover the city’s current $425,000 budget deficit. When the recession is over and the city starts getting more revenue from other sources, that money could be used for other things, like additional police protection. At $100 per year, the cost to students would be less negligible, considering the private college will charge students $31,874 for the privilege of attending in 2009-2010 (less $7,650 for those who live off campus). Is it fair to tax students? Sure it is, in that they will FINALLY be paying for the services they receive. Consider that many BU students live in B.U. owned student housing that contributes NOTHING in property taxes. While some students live in off-campus apartments and houses, most only live there nine months out of the year, meaning their landlords have no incoming revenue to pay those property taxes. And there is the decline in property taxes that happens to private homes next door to student rentals. So I’m not too sympathetic.

  A skeptic might ask: ‘But don’t Bradley University students pay sales taxes, as well as payroll taxes if they have jobs?’ Sure they do. As do people who live in Peoria and pay property taxes that most Bradley University students avoid. I’m not kidding around, folks. This is a good idea. At one point, the Peoria City Council was considering a public safety fee based on water consumption. This way, big property-owning not-for-profit institutions that don’t pay property taxes would finally start paying for the services they consume. But four years later, the powers that have snuffed out that idea. So this would be one way to help taxpaying residents by evening the burden. Of course, this would HAVE to include students attending Illinois Central College, Robert Morris University and Mid-State College. Methodist and OSF also operate nursing schools, and would have to be included. This means even more revenue for Peoria. Of course, all these colleges charge different tuition rates. So to keep this progressive, we could consider a rate based on a percentage of tuition and fees instead of a flat rate.