Like the Times editors, I have mixed thoughts about the ordinance. I can understand shifting administrative costs to the perpetrators of crime, and there are several lines of recourse available to appeal the fees. However, the ordinance punishes those accused, not convicted, of certain crimes, and I think that’s problematic. Isn’t our justice system supposed to pivot around the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”?

On a much brighter and less controversial note, ICC is opening a South Campus on Hanna Drive in Pekin. This is wonderful news for the community. While initially offering vocational training courses (welding, HVAC, mechanical & electrical maintenance), I’m sure that course offerings will expand in the future.

I suppose I don’t see the problem in waiting one month to see what the traffic committee has to say about possible regulation of on-street parking. The two ordinances certainly go hand-in-hand. If a residence does not have a driveway AND on-street parking is limited, the owners would have a legitimate complaint. However, I’m sure that the ordinance could be worded to avoid such circumstances.

Here are the details of the proposed ordinance (courtesy of today’s Times article):

€ Under the code revisions, homeowners and their guests will not be allowed to park in any area of the yard except the driveway.

€ Boats, boat trailers, camping trailers, motorcycle trailers, truck campers, commercial equipment, commercial vehicles and motor homes in the front yards of any residential area will be prohibited.

€ Driveways used for entering and leaving a property cannot be any wider than 24 feet at the street line, not including driveway flares.

€ Driveways cannot exceed 45 percent of the total front yard in R-4 residential zoning areas and 35 percent in all other residential zoning areas. R-4 zoning is for properties with lots 5,000 square feet or smaller.

€ Driveways under construction must be hard surfaced with materials such as concrete, asphalt or brick pavers. New areas cannot exceed 30 percent of the combination of any side and back yards in residential zoning areas.

€ The installation or expansion of any gravel driveways from the time the ordinance is passed will be prohibited. Any expansion of a driveway must be contiguous and parallel to the existing driveway and cannot cause additional run-off into the city right-of-way.

I agree with the provisions of the proposed new ordinance outlined above, but what about stepping up the enforcement of the ordinances already in place? That’s why I tacked on the parenthetical addendum of “sorta” to the title of this blog. According to the Times article, the Pekin City Code already prohibits parking in the front yard … although I’ve looked through the Code and can’t find that specific prohibition:

City Director of Public Works Joe Wuellner said it has always been an ordinance violation to park in any area of the yard that is grass. He said parking on the grass deteriorates the lawn and dust becomes a problem. He said the dust is a nuisance to neighbors.

I probably just missed the specific clause, since reading through the city code is about as enjoyable as getting a dental extraction. However, I did find the clause in the Code that prohibits keeping abandoned, junked or disabled vehicles on your property:

Junked or disabled motor vehicles may not be parked, stored or left in the open on public property or upon open, private land not enclosed by garage or carport and in view of the general public for a period of more than seven (7) days in any one calendar month, unless it is necessary for the operation of a business enterprise lawfully conducted thereon.

I imagine that if I took a drive around Pekin tonight, I could easily find multiple violations of these two provisions.

Why aren’t these codes being enforced? Do they lack adequate teeth, or do we lack the necessary code enforcement manpower?

(Begin Venting)

PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD??? THAT is what you folks are getting your panties in a bunch about??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

(SIGH) (Deep Breath)

One of the “Voices” had this insightful and cogent question:

When did Hitler join the council?

- Steve

Seriously, Steve? Hitler comparisons? Ohhh my …

Most of the comments were slightly more reasonable, and most were in the vein of “it’s my property and I’ll do what I damn well please with it” … ye olde property rights argument. That does carry some weight, but here’s the thing … what my neighbor does on THEIR property affects the value of MY property. I’m thinking that front yard parking is negatively correlated with property values. I don’t have any data to support that claim, but I’m pretty sure I’m safe in that assumption.

Sorry folks … deal with it. Your front yard is not a parking lot. It screams “HICKVILLE” to anyone visiting the area and drives down property values. If you want to park on your lawn, move out into some unincorporated area in the county. Then you can park wherever you damn well please. If you want to live in civilization, then park on the street or on your driveway. It’s really not that much to ask.

I hope the Council didn’t cave to this pressure. I’ll be interested to hear the summary of tonight’s meeting. I’ll try to catch it on Public Access.

But a night-time street parking ban? After all the uproar about the night-light ordinance that led to its demise? Is the obstruction from on-the-street parking really THAT big of a problem?

I can understand why the city might decide to ban nighttime parking on a street by street basis if there are certain areas where this is a real problem, but an outright city-wide ban? That seems like overkill.

This proposal doesn’t really bother me personally, but I have adequate off-street parking for my needs. Many in Pekin do not, and those same people are the blue collar working Joes that Abel, as an ex-fireman, probably did well with in February.

I’m not sure that this is politically wise for Abel, and I’m not sure it’s that big of a problem. The same folks that worked hard to kill the night-light ordinance are now mobilizing to kill this idea before it even gets off the ground. I doubt this ban will get very far, and Abel may pay for it later – especially if he keeps pushing the idea.

ADDENDUM (7/15/07): The Times has a board editorial on the subject of parking bans.  We pretty much agree – any street parking ban should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  I’m sure that’s certainly a more expensive and time-consuming option, but it’s the only fair way to handle this situation.  Emergency vehicles and street cleaners need access, but people also need to be able to park near their homes.

It was mostly a night for goodbyes, hellos and symbolism – only 4 items were on the agenda, and all passed by a 7-0 vote.

I’d like to join Dave Tebben and the council in thanking Frank Mackaman for his service to the community. In my opinion, he was just what Pekin needed after the Lyn Howard debacle – a man of integrity with a strong work ethic.

Mackaman’s organizational skills were also a great asset. He was the driving force behind renewing a formal conceptual plan for Pekin, and along with City Manager Dennis Kief undertook an effort to bring all the incoming council members up to speed before they took their seats.  He apparently even organized the mail boxes in city hall!

The man with the bow-tie will be missed.

I think the new 7-member council has great diversity of experience, and Dave Tebben will provide strong leadership and enthusiasm as mayor. I look forward to seeing what the next two years will bring for Pekin.

It’s certainly true that having a perpetually governing representative or party in a given district or state is often not a good thing for the best interests of the people.  It breeds complacency and often corruption.

However, I don’t think that’s true in this case.  Dave Tebben had a wake-up call four years ago when he lost to Lyn Howard.  He knew that this race had to be taken seriously, even after his wide margin of victory in the primary.

Tebben achieved victory on election night by giving a consistently positive message about his hopes for Pekin’s future and by projecting an almost palpable enthusiasm for service during his campaign. He knows that the people of Pekin will be watching closely and expecting results, and I don’t think he’ll disappoint.

As any who listened will have noticed, there’s a reason I’m a blogger and not in radio. I still feel a little bit like I’m going to vomit. Sorry … that’s probably too much information. Anyway, at least I was only babbling incoherently part of the time.

I must say that for the most part I am pleased with the election results. There were no big surprises on who made it into the city council, but I was very surprised that Bill Maddox came in dead last in the vote count. I think that speaks a lot to Maddox’s lack of campaign effort and also to the capability and dedication of Chad Schmidgall and Jason Juchems to pull themselves ahead of an incumbent.

Speaking of Chad & Jason … I feel like I short-changed both of them a bit in my commentary. I think the two of them offer a unique and fresh perspective more than anyone else in the race. They have some interesting ideas that set them apart from the rest of the pack, but I suppose Pekin wasn’t quite ready for those messages.

I strongly encourage Schmidgall and Juchems to continue their public engagement. I think they should take Tebben up on his offer to serve on local committees, keep their voices and their faces out there, and run again in two years. They’ll definitely have my support, for what it’s worth.

Congratulations to Dave Tebben, Barb Strand, Rusty Dunn, John Abel, Jim Jones, Karen Frazier, Richard Root, Chris Zimmerman, Ron Maquet, Lloyd Orrick, Barbara Owens and Marv Brown. I look forward to seeing how Pekin’s newly elected leadership will take our city, our schools and our parks into the future.

UPDATE (4/18/07): Ron Knautz, Christopher Spanos, Larry Howard, Edward Harr and Paul O’Neal were excluded from my original congratulations because they ran in uncontested races.  No slight was intended – I appreciate all of them standing up to serve the children in Pekin public schools – but congratulations seemed inappropriate when no challenge was faced.

Dave Tebben – I think I’ve made my reasons for this choice abundantly clear.

City Council:

Barb Strand – She’s an honest, hard-working & experienced public servant with the interests of Pekin’s children at heart. Strand is the perfect pick for a pediatrician and father of four.

Chad Schmidgall – I think his architect’s vision and formal training in urban planning would be a fine addition to the council. I’m impressed by Chad’s dedication to service for the poor by volunteering in Haiti. I also believe that his experience as an officer in the Central Illinois chapter of the United States Green Building Council would be of great service to Pekin. With rising energy prices, Pekin needs to look to conservation to help control costs. Chad could help to lead us in that direction.

Jason Juchems – Hardworking and idealistic, Jason has just the qualities Pekin needs to carry the city forward into the future. Along with his dedication and ability, Jason would provide a young Asian face among the leaders of Pekin. I can’t think of a better way to exorcise the lingering spectre of the old Pekin High mascot.

Jim Jones – He’s the wise old man of the council – honest and dedicated to Pekin. I also like Harvey Richmond, but I picked Jim Jones to complement my other choices for council. Jones would be the perfect balance for the youth and inexperience of Juchems and Schmidgall.

District 108 Board:

Karen Frazier – She’s a longtime friend of the blog and a staunch defender of the interests of District 108’s children.

Richard Root – He’s an experienced board member who also stood up against Mangan’s anti-108 diatribes.

Yet more fuel to the fire!  Please vote tomorrow, and please vote for Dave Tebben.

Ohhh … Jonathan Ahl and H. Wayne Wilson will also be there. We might talk about the elections.

Heh.

I really shouldn’t joke about my first appearance on the local radio waves. I’m honored that Jonathan thought of inviting me to provide a Pekin perspective on the local elections. Hopefully I won’t stutter, ramble, swear or make a total fool of myself!

The Journal Star article states that Maddox was unable to attend either the March 27 SBA forum or the April 3 Daily Times / Friends of the Public Library forum. However, I’m pretty sure that the JS has their facts wrong again since Bill Maddox was quoted in the March 28 Daily Times article about the SBA forum (I still had the March 28 dead tree edition lying around, but the online edition is locked away in their archive … so I can’t provide a link).

Anyway, Maddox, John Abel and Chad Schmidgall attended as candidates, and only 11 other people showed up. That doesn’t bode well for Maddox, although he should be able to count on greater name recognition as a sitting council member.

Based on a large ad running in the dead tree edition of the Times, Maddox also has the endorsement of the Pekin Firefighters PAC. Rusty Dunn and (surprise) John Abel also received their endorsement.

The local firefighters have a PAC all their own??? That’s … wild. You hear a lot about PAC-driven lobbying efforts on the state and federal level, but I wouldn’t think that a group of firefighters in a small city like Pekin would need their own PAC.

Interesting.

UPDATE (4/13/07): Edgar Sandoval has a rundown of those in attendence at the Wednesday forum.  Dave Tebben was also in attendance … something the JS failed to mention.

Edgar Sandoval has already blogged about this subject, but I think it bears repeating.  During the recent mayoral debate, Toel criticized Tebben for (1) failing to stop the sale of the Pekin High West Campus to Merle Huff and (2) opposing the federal prison.  John Neumann, a past president of the District 303 Board of Education, provides some clarity on those issues in a letter to the editor in the Daily Times.  Again it turns out Toel’s description of the situation and reality are … somewhat divergent.

This is not the kind of behavior we want from the mayor of our community. Please vote on April 17, and please vote for Dave Tebben.

Kortkamp previously served on the council from 1983 to 1991 – when the city was under a commission form of government – as commissioner of finance and mayor pro tem. She is executive director of OSF Saint Francis Medical Center’s Foundation Council, the fund-raising arm for St. Francis and the Children’s Hospital of Illinois, and has experience in strategic planning and budgeting.

This move surprises me. I suspected that Mackaman would leave the decision to the new mayor and the newly elected council. That would seem to be the more democratic way of handling things, but Mackaman didn’t want to pass the buck:

Do I fulfill my statutory responsibility as mayor to name a replacement for council member Dagit, or do I use the convenient circumstance of the approaching election to decline that responsibility, leaving it to the next council?

Mackaman obviously chose to fulfill his statutory responsibility as mayor. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that he did things by the book.

…

I’d also like to note that the Journal Star screwed up the title of their article on this breaking news – “TEBBEN’S council replacement named.”

Ummm … Dave Tebben is the former mayor and current mayoral candidate. Daryl Dagit is the council member that resigned and was replaced tonight. The text of the article actually does manage to get it right, but the title is erroneous.

I hope the new owners of the Journal Star leave the Pekin reporting to the Daily Times and have the Journal concentrate on Peoria. They do an absolutely horrible job of reporting on Tazewell County issues. They can’t manage to get even the simplest details correct.

UPDATE (about two minutes after I posted this): The JS has corrected the title without acknowledging their error or apologizing.

Barb Strand was the most sympathetic to the idea of a public smoking ban. She’s the only one who came right out and said she supports a statewide ban. Almost everyone else said if it were to be done, it should be done at the state level … but no one else openly endorsed the concept.

I see why people like Rusty Dunn. He’s a good public speaker and has that easy charm that makes him a likable guy. Of course he broke his spell with me when he mocked the idea of a public smoking ban as something that’s not worthy of political attention at all – “I guess they have nothing better to do in Springfield.” That got a big laugh from the crowd. Hopefully his dismissive attitude and the response from the crowd are simply ignorance, because I fail to find the humor in the deaths of at least 30,000 people per annum.

Chad Schmidgall certainly seemed like he would keep an open mind and would support a ban if he felt that it was the will of the citizens. I’m pretty sure Jason Juchems would do the same, although he was more open in his support of the smaller government / free choice concept.

I doubt Richmond, Jones or Abel would ever support a local ban unless there seemed to be overwhelming public support behind the idea. I doubt Maddox would support it either, although he wasn’t at the forum to answer the question. I have a feeling that the Old Boys have too many local business connections to get behind the idea.

Dave Tebben should be a lock for mayor for anyone who saw this forum. He has that easy comfort with addressing the public that a leader should have, and his answers were thoughtful and straight to the point. I was impressed.

William Toel talked about his Pekin walkabout, bragging that he’s hit every street in Pekin in the 93 days prior to the forum – “even those with only 4 houses.” Maybe, although I’m doubtful. Toel has made other exaggerations of his own accomplishments, and this claim is difficult to dispute.

At any rate, Toel talked about how he kept hearing disappointment with Tebben in his doorstep discussions with Pekin citizens. I would contend that these citizens might be telling Toel what he wants to hear. The man can be a little scary when he gets worked up!

Toel’s answers were stiff and his tone was profoundly negative. I also found him imperious and condescending at times. I think Toel is used to a more dictatorial leadership style and might have difficulty playing well with others.

My negative impression of William Toel was only reinforced by this forum. I wholeheartedly endorse Dave Tebben for Mayor of Pekin.