Category: Getting Played in Peoria

There is a deep poverty in Peoria. Not just materially or socially, but ideologically. Peoria’s ideas are themselves impoverished: all Peoria seems to get is private-public partnerships, job training, and tax abatement. This is a poverty in thought which leads Peoria inexorably further into decline.

A look at City Council reveals the poverty of thought which re-presents Peoria. There are: 3 bankers (John “Growth™” Kelly, Tim Riggenbach, and Denise Moore) 2 real estate agents (Zach Oyler, Chuck Grayeb), 3 business owners (Sid Ruckreigel, Jim Montelongo, Denis Cyr), a corporate executive (Mayor Jim Ardis), a lawyer (Beth Jensen), and a local college administrator (Dr. Rita Ali). It has been like this for decades: bankers, business owners, and real estate agents as far as a horse’s eyes could see. I call this a poverty because where is the rest of life on this council? Where are the garbage workers, service workers, nurses, teachers, scientists, librarians, etc?

. . .

I’m talking about the City’s ideas; ideas that have lived in Peoria for a very long time in correlation with a period of intense decline–decline which is not unique to Peoria, but is a reverberation of a global phenomenon. This lack of uniqueness, a general universality, is embodied in Peoria’s slogan: “If It Plays in Peoria, it must play in the rest of America.” This slogan¹ (with its roots in early 20^th century vaudeville) says Peoria is the simulacrum of average America, of the dominant ideas of the U.S., and currently, that is neo-liberalism. It is an ideology: a matrix of ideas with a factical history investing itself in a socius.

Neo-liberal ideology: Capitalism has always repeated the function of maximizing the extraction of surplus-value from resources, equipment and labor. Throughout the history of capitalism, it has been necessary for government to assist in this goal whether through infrastructure, population analyses (e.g., the census), educating workers, communication, etc. These things were all to aid the free market even if they themselves were not market driven in their own function. But what is new in neo-liberalism is the belief, if you run traditional government or non-private institutions like a business, with the aim of maximizing profit–through the metastasized spread of the competition function–you will have a better product.

This belief correlates with a lack of faith, not just in government, but in its ability to effectively manage populations in a non-competition manner. This lack of faith manifests itself as austerity. Brutal austerity! We have a “servant-leader” who swears local government is really only for public safety and infrastructure. We have a rather Growthy™ appendage that said, “To the extent cities don’t work, there’s something nonmarket screwing it up.” We have a bunch of people in city government that don’t believe city government can do anything to help the average person, only the average business person. And, that’s a poverty of thought. This City is limited in its ability to see what potentialities exist that would actually benefit Peoria as a whole.

I’ve already talked about the importance of making Peoria a Welcoming City.

The City could pass ordinances limiting the ability of non-bank financial institutions like payday lenders and car title loans from engaging in predatory practices. There are over 30 of these stores throughout the Peoria area. They offer fast cash at extraordinarily high interest rates (some as high as 400% APR) and target largely poor and minority communities.

Peoria could buy the water company or encourage vertical farming.

The City could increase the minimum wage, reduce the legal loopholes in the state minimum wage law (e.g., exceptions on paying the full wage to minors, tipped workers, etc.), and teach classes on financial literacy.

But, apparently Peoria isn’t good enough for these things. We get more private-public partnerships, job training, and tax abatement. It’s as if we’re still in the 1980s, snorting cocaine while Reaganomics trickles down on us and Caterpillar destroys Peoria’s working class. It’s as if all the City Council seats are occupied empty, occupied by the ghosts of neo-liberal past.

For many liberals, progressives, & leftists in Peoria, April 2^nd was a somewhat disappointing night. Yes, we replaced a conservative black man with a centrist black woman; and, the reign of Beth Akeson was finally brought low (she only received a pitiful 4.87% of the vote). At the same time, now we have John “Growth™” Kelly on city council, a man with a fetish for both gentrification & the “free market”. Perhaps no one was more disappointed than the Peoria Journal Star. After the February primary, Chris Kaergard wrote “Big city primary winners are progressives, ‘change’…” and, “Vote totals show … a surge of strength for progressive-leaning candidates or those who’d likely shift the balance of the current council majority” from the “more traditionalist or status-quo” candidates. The candidates chosen as “progressive” or “change” candidates: Dr. Ali, Beth Jensen, Peter Kobak, Andre W. Allen, and Aaron Chess Jr. Kaergard didn’t provide any examples of his methodology for their selection or evidence to support this label for these individuals, but it seemed rather superficial at best.

For starters, as far as I can tell, only one of these five candidates on this list ever mentioned the word progressive throughout the campaign (Peter Kobak). Furthermore, every candidate always says they represent change (John “Growth™” Kelly’s campaign motto was “A Whole New Approach”). So, we have to look specifically at policy as opposed to the rhetoric of candidates. More perplexing is the equivocation of a range of different policies not only as progressive but as a change for Peoria. Let’s briefly run down these five candidates on their platforms¹:

• Dr. Rita Ali – •private-public solutions for tax relief †resident officer and greater diversity among police •job training to create the employees businesses need ‡public funding of surveillance equipment for private residences and businesses •bringing Amtrak to Peoria •endorsed by police union •return to city employees must live in Peoria.
• Andre Allen – Private-public partnerships with a focus on technology, along with manufacturing and medical field •tax abatement for 3 years on new businesses; ††#RebootPeoria plan. Auction off vacant lots below market rates to anyone within community; unsellable City-owned vacant homes are renovated by the City (paid for by a grant from HUD). Renovated property is converted to Section 8 housing for 3 years with the City acting as landlord and generating profit. After 3 years, City would sell homes, again below-market value. Vacant lots would be converted into green spaces. Says he would never cut police, but admits that having a cop on every corner is not going to solve the problems of crime, i.e., it must include economic, education, therapeutic remedies. Endorsed by police union. Member of the Illinois Black Chamber of Commerce

• Beth Jensen – “Jensen did vote to save Riverfront Park, and she sponsored a non-binding resolution against Islamophobia. She also voted against police & firefighter cuts, along with a vote against a public pension “fee”, and strong vote to accept CEO Council for due diligence audit of Illinois American Water. These are certainly stances that many progressives have. But all of these have been largely negative or reactionary votes against something, not positive or proactive votes for something. (The one exception was her support of due diligence audit for IAW; but even here, she was outmaneuvered by the machinations of Mayor Ardis and City Attorney Leist, despite having a majority of council votes.) Her voting record has largely reflected a status quo centrist, someone willing to tow the line but not expand it towards something new. An excellent example of this was her vote in favor of the taxpayers paying off the #Twittergate scandal instead of Mayor Ardis or the local police.” My previous criticisms of Jensen were labeled unfair because Jensen is outnumbered. But this belies the fact she gained 22% of the vote (the most of any candidate) in her 2015 election to the same position. My contention remains that Jensen has largely wasted that political capital through her inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to build a progressive grass roots movement in Peoria. Despite positioning herself as a progressive, #resistance local leader, when it came to running for reelection she veered right. She held a joint fundraiser early on with fellow incumbent, Zach Oyler, a libertarian conservative and backtracked on her support for a Welcoming Ordinance trotting out right-wing propaganda (that cities will lose federal funding) against it. Endorsed by police union.

• Aaron Chess – Continues the popular chamber of Commerce line, “Peoria is an anti-business city” despite this city being run by business people for decades. Member of the Illinois Black Chamber of Commerce. Supports austerity by cutting more government. Supports job training. And mental health. Says, “Cops aren’t the bad guys.” Marched with the local Libertarian group. Job training and apprenticeships.
• Peter Kobak – typical progressive stuff; unlike almost every other candidate, Kobak was able to effectively advocate for the institutional role that government has to play in bringing about change

As I’ve said in earlier critiques, the question isn’t about label or ideological purity. The question is whether these candidates’ policies are actually different from the so-called “traditionalist” candidates², or more importantly, are these policies any different from the last several decades of neo-liberalism in Peoria? There has been this similar refrain within Peoria politics of “private-public partnerships” for social concerns, “job training” to increase employment and seduce businesses, “tax abatement” to attract new investments, etc. Local politicians have been doing this for decades to what results? Yet, every two years it’s “private-public partnerships”, “job training”, more “tax abatement”, and we hear that same melody from many of these so-called change candidates. The only candidates with truly new policies were Peter Kobak (Welcoming City Ordinance), and Andre Allen’s #RebootPeoria plan to address vacant properties. And, by new, I mean they don’t continue the same power structures of neo-liberalism, e.g., privatization of government functions, tax giveaways to the wealthy. Dr. Ali rallied for bringing Amtrak to Peoria, a good idea, though not a new one, and she offered no plan on how to accomplish this.³

Something often missed when analyzing neo-liberalism is the ramping up of police forces (probably because of an austerity attitude towards most other government functions). Peoria Police Department (PPD) has seen a similar growth in militarization alongside other police forces in the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., this is largely thanks to post-9/11 grants provided by the Federal government. But even before, back in the 80s & 90s, we heard the clarion decree from the City’s (white & black) capitalist leadership that the Southside of Peoria was infested with superpredators and urban terrorists. It framed the Southside as a warzone and called for a military-style strategy of increased surveillance by the police, and draconian punishments for often minor infractions.

One the one hand, the status-quo has typically deferred to PPD on policing decisions and outcomes. Any form of critical analysis by council members is quickly quashed by the police union. On the other hand, the recommendations and political investments from politicians have been toward the ideology of “tough on crime”. In the late-90s, despite overcrowding at the Peoria County Jail, politicians & bureaucrats lamented on not being able to arrest and imprison more people.⁴

In just the past two years, Peoria has seen two minorities killed by police under suspicious circumstances⁵, and there is a long history of unfair treatment towards minorities by PPD⁶. Of the supposed “change” candidates, three were endorsed by the police union and a fourth insisted “Cops aren’t the bad guys.” Dr. Ali, a long-time member of Peoria’s Police Advisory Committee⁷–who had some of the best answers regarding increasing equity in the community–was very supportive of increasing the surveillance power of PPD. She advocated public funding of surveillance technology be given to private individuals & businesses who would then connect the visual feed directly to PPD headquarters. Where is the concern among progressives for this proposal (my god, where is the analysis!)? Mr. Allen boldly stated he would never support cuts to police (though he acknowledged not every solution to crime could be answered with more police). But, only Peter Kobak was directly calling for more oversight and control over the police, including giving the Police Advisory Committee more power to punish police officers.

We also heard praise for the resident officer program that currently exists and increasing diversity among the police force from Dr. Ali, Jensen, and several others. Once again, these are not new ideas, and there seems to be little analysis or critique of the efficacy of these programs. While most of us agree the police should have to live in the city they serve, has the current resident officer programs made the areas they live in safer? And of course our government departments should be diverse, does increasing diversity among the police increase the trust between police & community? We’ve heard these ideas going back to the 1970s, but are they providing the answer to systemic inequality caused by racist police practices?

Ultimately, some of these candidates ideas don’t seem that progressive or ‘change’ at all. Does Chris Kaergard think every minority, millenial, or female (whose last name is not Akeson) is a “change” candidate, or is the status-quo skewed so far right that anyone who isn’t a Lahood or Weaver clone looks like a leftist? Does change play in Peoria? The bigger question is perhaps what policies would be a change for Peoria? The ideas that would represent a change for Peoria–like a Welcoming Ordinance, public control of water company, greater scrutiny of PPD and their role in mass incarceration, regulations against the title-loan cash schemes, the #RebootPeoria plan for vacant properties–seem to get little traction beyond the progressive circles, and an analysis is sorely needed as to why this is.

At-Large seats privilege the majority.

“When each resident is able to cast one vote for each of five seats, across the city, cohesive majority voting blocs reliably win every single seat. Even when cohesive minorities represent 30, 40, or 49.9% of a city’s voting population, the at-large structure described above will reliably deliver all five legislative seats to the city majority.”

–Brennan Center for Justice

Since local elections only generate 12% turnout, slightly more than the population of Peoria’s ruling class, At-Large elections reinforce the status-quo of a city reflexively. In Peoria, that would make it extremely difficult for anyone but the good ole’ boys from the Lahood and Weaver conservatives to get elected.

However, cumulative voting is a particularly, peculiar answer on how to improve minority representation. Peoria At-Large races are the only electoral races in the state which relies on cumulative voting, one of only around 100 in the entire U.S. Now, if a candidate wants to win, it is hard for them to do anything else but pool votes for just themselves. “Put 5 on it,” becomes every candidate’s motto.

Why does Peoria have this voting method? It seems almost obvious a district system would provide the preferred results of increased equity in elected representation.¹ After decades upon decades of racial discrimination in housing, education, and employment, lead plaintiff Joyce Banks brought a lawsuit against the Peoria School Board, Park District, and City Council in 1987 over lack of representation among the minority community. All three political bodies relied on At-Large seats. Plaintiffs wanted to move toward an all district system for all three. This was eventually agreed upon for the Peoria Park District and the Peoria School Board; but, when it came to City Council, the League of Women Voters intervened. A “compromise” was reached whereby City Council would increase its allotment of At-Large seats from three to five but elect them through cumulative voting.

Thirty years later, and what are the results? Black Peorians make up nearly 30% of the population. Only three black people have been elected to At-Large seats and no more than one at a time. This position was held for over 20 years by conservative Eric Turner, and now is being passed to Dr. Ali, a centrist. It’s as if the establishment is saying “we’ll let minorities have a seat… but only one or two.” Add in a black politician from District 1² and BAM! equality achieved, or so the establishment claims. “The Voting Rights suit was filed to ensure African Americans would have a seat at the table. Mission accomplished.” writes lead plaintiff of the 1987 case Joyce Banks.³ And, under the framework of neo-liberalism, equality has been achieved. Is it any wonder the League of Women Voters (a group of largely middle-to-upper class, center-right, white women) insisted on this compromise? While a rarity in government, cumulative voting “is a practice well known in corporate elections. Many American corporations use this mechanism to ensure a voice for minority shareholders.” Such a neo-liberal⁴ solution fits with the times of the late-80s (back when the concept equity barely had it’s first outlines). Instead of the obvious solution of having ten districts, Peoria City Council chose to look to the free market for its answer to a lack of diversity. Considering how far the Park Board of Trustees and Peoria School Board have come in electing people of color it is clear neither cumulative voting or At-Large seats are benefiting communities of color.