This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
you know we have farmland that is within what should logically be considered the city limits. But the "city" magically stops at the boundaries. I don't think they should be allowed to farm land that close to developed subdivisions. God knows what kind of pesticides are being sprayed on that and the houses bordering the fields. Somebody needs to make them stop farming that land. If nobody is going to build on it, plant trees. We need a buffer zone between the chemical laden farm fields and our houses!
3.27, the farmland was there before the subdivision, it's up to a developer to come up with a plan to have a buffer zone not punish the farm that has been in families for over 100 years.
This is interesting and made me realize that the buffer between the Plank Rd and North Peoria is just adjacent to land that is farmed each years and certainly some of the chemicals used in the farming are cancer causing agents.
It is just across the road from many new homes in Peru and we usually have a great westerly breeze. Has anyone ever brought this up to the city council? This land is actually in the city of Peru.
To the person who said the family has farmed for 100 years and at that time, there was no development in the area of concern.
More and more research is showing how dangerous many chemicals are to people living close to farms and especially when there are no barriers between it and them.
My point Lois is the farm was there long before the developers came in. The farmer isn't the problem, the developer comes in with the cities blessing takes a piece of farmland, turns it into a residential area, makes a million or better, then dumps it into the cities lap with their blessing. Being the city is going to get it they should have ordinances in place for a buffer zone which the developer will fight, and the city will cave.
We can't all turn our heads and point fingers at who developed the land because it again goes back to the city who gave the developer the right to build homes in that area. Ultimately it has to be the responsibility of the city. They provide water and electric services to those residents and in effect approving of them being in the location. The city also has the responsiblity of providing an environment that is safe for residents to live in. The world is becoming more aware of the dangers of pesticides since some of the early development was built. Many of the cities actions have to do with SAFETY and that word fits this problem.
besides, it can't be undone. I think some of that land is actually rented by the farmers - the developer or the city owns it and they lease it out. That is fine is the buffer zone is in place - but if not, don't lease it.
I don't have tha answer for you but maybe you can give us the when and extent of use today. I would believe that most conventional farmers use pesticide. Our problem here in Peru is the city allowing farm fields in a subdivision and across the street from others. I have never heard this discussed and would certainly like to hear from homeowners in the area that are affected. I have wondered if there is a concern just because of the size of the corn that is almost in their backyard. Now thinking it is not so much the crop but what might possibly be used on it. I don't believe any of this land is organically farmed. ???
This is a topic that would be discussed by a real Planning Commission (as opposed to the one Peru has) and would be incorporated in long term planning - another "thing" Peru does not have or do. Maybe the new council can push the issue of planning.
Fertilizer and pesticides have been used for over 40 years. I remember as a kid on the farm having flowers and garden damaged due to wind drift from the neighbors fertilizer spraying. Having said that, it is the developer who wants to make a buck, the City who wants more taxes, but mostly it is the homeowner who CHOOSES to build their very expensive home next to fields or farms because they want a taste of the country life and then complain when they get a good dose. Is a farmer supposed to give up his livelihood or change his methods because somebody moved in next door?
Problem Statement: Uncoordinated development has created a number of issues for Peru. Among these issues, but not limited to them, are: 1) Agricultural zones closely bordered by residential and commercial zones. 2) Control of storm water runoff, including sewer tiles in the agricultural zones creating issues with the city storm water management. 3) Insufficient traffic control and infrastructure causing congestion in commercial zones. 4) Poorly constructed streets and other infrastructure in new developments.
While these problems in and of themselves may not be extremely serious considering those faced by other cities in our area; when put together they indicate that more planning is necessary vice the status quo and reactionary management style employed by Peru. Under utilization of the Planning Commission and the lack of a published plan has created a seat of the pants atmosphere and a series of "last minute" management decisions forced upon elected officials. It is typical for a planning and zoning board meeting to adjourn minutes before a city council meeting - passing a prewritten ordinance to the council for a vote on the same night. This is indicative of a "rubber stamp" action that has little to do with planning and much to do with pushing development actions through the elected body that has no time for research, debate, or understanding. What I like to call the "you need to pass it before you can read it" mentality.
10:52 PM Does the city have any legal control to disallow farm fields farm fields in a subdivision and across the street from others or is this a condition of asking price per farm field. As a city expands there will always be a edge of property which creates a boundary between farm - residential property, residential -industrial property, or retail residential property. My first question is which was their first and did not the resident know of what condition he was buying property in. You do know that the buyer has some responsibility upon his own shoulders. In conclusion the resident of the city has created the condition not the city nor the farmer. Your so correct in being concerned and my answer is sadly not a final solution as we live in a republic represented and controlled within a buy and sell economy which has gone from smoking cigarettes in public places to E-cigarettes on the main street of town and eventually on its way to legalized marijuana. Lois, as a victim of cancer I appreciate your concern but through the process of laws being created and controlled by who has the biggest dollar it is becoming almost impossible for owner, buyer, or city to have any control.
First of all, I know nothing about pesticides. These are just my thoughts. I don’t understand how a 100, 200 or 300 yard buffer zone is going to do any good. It would be my GUESS, that if a farmer is spraying 10 miles away, with a 10 mile per hour breeze, molecules from that “super juice”, will be in your yard in an hour. What I am trying to say, is that under certain conditions, spraying from even miles away, (airplanes) will be blown into town. Another scenario, what about all the lawn and tree spraying going on right in town. Have you ever watched the “overspray” from spraying for Japanese Beetles, goes wafting across the neighborhood ? Watch the sun reflect off the mist. Whatever that stuff is (they claim it’s harmless) is dropping down to cover all the properties down wind. Depending on how strong the breeze is, would determine how far this spray is going. Lets say you have kids or pets. They now go out and play in the yard and roll around in the grass. Do they pick up this harmless spray and bring it in the house ? Maybe you are having a cook out. Guy is spraying 3 – 4 house down wind. Ever wonder if any of that stuff ends up on your burger ? I really don’t know, but I have yet to see anyone drink a glass of this “harmless” spray. I don’t care if the guy next door sprays his yard 3 foot deep in chemicals, I don’t want any of it (overspray) on my property. Do I have that right ? So, I would guess that spraying poison all over, is here to stay, but don’t see much good in a “buffer zone” either.
None of the farms around the subdivisions are organic. The farms were there first don't blame them, the people chose to buy their lots next to them, and will keep doing so. Developers are to blame, it's only about money. A subdivision is developed with intent of the city accepting it. The developer pays to have all utilities installed under the guidelines of the city, they don't have to be part of the city if they decide not to. They can hook on to city utilities at a out of town rate and take care of all maintenance themselves plus require waste facilities per household. A perfect example would be the west end of Peru along rt. 6. None of those motels and businesses are in the town city limits. Again the city has responsibilities, but the developer is ultimately the responsible person.
Farmers have used pesticides for decades. Once again you blame the city and the planning commission. How about those big sophisticated wealthy suburbs? Their subdivisions eventually but tight up to a corn field. No one has "buffer zones" because you can't change the landowners rights in that regard. Why don't you buy 80 acres and turn it into a "buffer zone! Seriously. This is ridiculous.
The farm fields are often owned by land developers. They purchase large tracts of land and lease it out for agriculture while develop their subdivisions.
I am 100% for property rights. But we also have zoning. If a parcel is subject to city zoning. Agriculture should not be included in City zoning. What if someone starts a small hog operation or starts raising chickens in the A-1 Zones that butt up against Peru residential zones?
I think the "problem" is that there are several parts of the city that aren't actually in the city. Like that little triangle area north between Plank Road and Peoria Street. That is not part of Peru. That little corn field on the east side of Peoria Street is not in the City. The area around Pulaski Street north of Shooting Park Road is not in the City. Just look at a map and you see all kinds of holes in the City.
We need to provide incentives to have the land developed for industrial use. I'd rather see a few more factories - that employ people - than corn fields that are subsidized by my tax dollars and that don't employ anyone locally - other than farmer Joe.
Now... if we get a large Ethanol Plant - that would be nice.
Recently there was a opportunity to have development in the open field north of a Peru subdivision. When some people realized the cost to them as tax payers they pooh poohed the idea. Presently Carmike says it will expand in the mall. What size of expansion will this be and how long will they stay until they locate to another location? Personally I thought they were asking for too much but in the last 35 years business world development has become very negotiable and the cities willing are the select group developing. Peru has been doing this for many years without people even knowing about it.
@3:19 & 6:27 Your explanation of a deal that was a direct cash payment of $850K from the city to the land developer is baffling. Why was the land developer involved instead of the theater chain?
9:05. The Theater Chain does not own any property, at least the way it was explained. The chain rents property from a mall (like they are doing now) or in some cases they build a stand alone theater. When they build a stand alone theater, they still don't own the property. They rent it from a holding company. The holding company contracts with a developer to build the complex to their specification. So the developer buys the land and builds the theater then transfers ownership to the holding company which executes a lease to the theater chain.
So to get the ball rolling they demanded an $850K cash payment from the city and planted the idea that it could be recouped through an "entertainment tax." The payment was purely to line the pockets of the developer. Sort of a sales SPIFF but before the sale. Our Mayor and Economic Development Director says these things are common practice when a municipality wants to attract a business like this.
So, if the NT did not accidently print the story about this payment, everything would have slid through easy peasy. But, when rational people look at this, they see it for what it is - a reverse bribe.
I used to be a supporter of things like TIF Zones and financial incentives to attract business. I no longer support such things - I now see them as pure cronyism. Tax money being transferred to connected business enterprises that are capable of standing on their own. In the case of Peru, there is no reason on earth that any future retail development be given any kind of incentive. The traffic is there and it will continue to snowball on its own without our tax dollars paying for it.
Did you know we are giving the owner of the shopping complex that houses Super Wal-Mart and Kohls the Home Rule share of sales tax back as an "incentive"? When does that end?
I think you are correct 7:57. The big thing was that they where not smart enough to know Wal-Mart was moving in to that shopping center. So they shifted tax money from the "old" Wal-Mart to the "new" Walmart - flushing millions of dollars in tax revenue down the toilet. At the time this happened they where very lucky to be able to fill the "old" Wal-Mart building with something.
32 comments:
the same organization that said Ebola is not contagious.
you know we have farmland that is within what should logically be considered the city limits. But the "city" magically stops at the boundaries. I don't think they should be allowed to farm land that close to developed subdivisions. God knows what kind of pesticides are being sprayed on that and the houses bordering the fields. Somebody needs to make them stop farming that land. If nobody is going to build on it, plant trees. We need a buffer zone between the chemical laden farm fields and our houses!
3.27, the farmland was there before the subdivision, it's up to a developer to come up with a plan to have a buffer zone not punish the farm that has been in families for over 100 years.
3:27 PM
This is interesting and made me realize that the buffer between the Plank Rd and North Peoria is just adjacent to land that is farmed each years and certainly some of the chemicals used in the farming are cancer causing agents.
It is just across the road from many new homes in Peru and we usually have a great westerly breeze. Has anyone ever brought this up to the city council? This land is actually in the city of Peru.
To the person who said the family has farmed for 100 years and at that time, there was no development in the area of concern.
More and more research is showing how dangerous many chemicals are to people living close to farms and especially when there are no barriers between it and them.
Is the area west of Sycamore Lake still farmed?
And the cornfield between the 2 subdivisions with homes and families in abundance.
We should not allow farming close to housing subdivisions.
My point Lois is the farm was there long before the developers came in. The farmer isn't the problem, the developer comes in with the cities blessing takes a piece of farmland, turns it into a residential area, makes a million or better, then dumps it into the cities lap with their blessing. Being the city is going to get it they should have ordinances in place for a buffer zone which the developer will fight, and the city will cave.
6:28 PM
We can't all turn our heads and point fingers at who developed the land because it again goes back to the city who gave the developer the right to build homes in that area. Ultimately it has to be the responsibility of the city. They provide water and electric services to those residents and in effect approving of them being in the location. The city also has the responsiblity of providing an environment that is safe for residents to live in.
The world is becoming more aware of the dangers of pesticides since some of the early development was built. Many of the cities actions have to do with SAFETY and that word fits this problem.
besides, it can't be undone. I think some of that land is actually rented by the farmers - the developer or the city owns it and they lease it out. That is fine is the buffer zone is in place - but if not, don't lease it.
Lois, I agree with you, that was the point I was trying to make.
Ten comments and no one yet has defined the problem. When did farmers start using pesticides and to the extent they are using them today?
10:44 PM
I don't have tha answer for you but maybe you can give us the when and extent of use today. I would believe that most conventional farmers use pesticide. Our problem here in Peru is the city allowing farm fields in a subdivision and across the street from others.
I have never heard this discussed and would certainly like to hear from homeowners in the area that are affected. I have wondered if there is a concern just because of the size of the corn that is almost in their backyard. Now thinking it is not so much the crop but what might possibly be used on it.
I don't believe any of this land is organically farmed. ???
This is a topic that would be discussed by a real Planning Commission (as opposed to the one Peru has) and would be incorporated in long term planning - another "thing" Peru does not have or do.
Maybe the new council can push the issue of planning.
Fertilizer and pesticides have been used for over 40 years. I remember as a kid on the farm having flowers and garden damaged due to wind drift from the neighbors fertilizer spraying. Having said that, it is the developer who wants to make a buck, the City who wants more taxes, but mostly it is the homeowner who CHOOSES to build their very expensive home next to fields or farms because they want a taste of the country life and then complain when they get a good dose. Is a farmer supposed to give up his livelihood or change his methods because somebody moved in next door?
Problem Statement: Uncoordinated development has created a number of issues for Peru. Among these issues, but not limited to them, are: 1) Agricultural zones closely bordered by residential and commercial zones. 2) Control of storm water runoff, including sewer tiles in the agricultural zones creating issues with the city storm water management. 3) Insufficient traffic control and infrastructure causing congestion in commercial zones. 4) Poorly constructed streets and other infrastructure in new developments.
While these problems in and of themselves may not be extremely serious considering those faced by other cities in our area; when put together they indicate that more planning is necessary vice the status quo and reactionary management style employed by Peru. Under utilization of the Planning Commission and the lack of a published plan has created a seat of the pants atmosphere and a series of "last minute" management decisions forced upon elected officials. It is typical for a planning and zoning board meeting to adjourn minutes before a city council meeting - passing a prewritten ordinance to the council for a vote on the same night. This is indicative of a "rubber stamp" action that has little to do with planning and much to do with pushing development actions through the elected body that has no time for research, debate, or understanding. What I like to call the "you need to pass it before you can read it" mentality.
There 10:44 - is that enough for you?
10:52 PM
Does the city have any legal control to disallow farm fields farm fields in a subdivision and across the street from others or is this a condition of asking price per farm field.
As a city expands there will always be a edge of property which creates a boundary between farm - residential property, residential -industrial property, or retail residential property.
My first question is which was their first and did not the resident know of what condition he was buying property in. You do know that the buyer has some responsibility upon his own shoulders. In conclusion the resident of the city has created the condition not the city nor the farmer. Your so correct in being concerned and my answer is sadly not a final solution as we live in a republic represented and controlled within a buy and sell economy which has gone from smoking cigarettes in public places to E-cigarettes on the main street of town and eventually on its way to legalized marijuana. Lois, as a victim of cancer I appreciate your concern but through the process of laws being created and controlled by who has the biggest dollar it is becoming almost impossible for owner, buyer, or city to have any control.
First of all, I know nothing about pesticides. These are just my thoughts. I don’t understand how a 100, 200 or 300 yard buffer zone is going to do any good. It would be my GUESS, that if a farmer is spraying 10 miles away, with a 10 mile per hour breeze, molecules from that “super juice”, will be in your yard in an hour. What I am trying to say, is that under certain conditions, spraying from even miles away, (airplanes) will be blown into town. Another scenario, what about all the lawn and tree spraying going on right in town. Have you ever watched the “overspray” from spraying for Japanese Beetles, goes wafting across the neighborhood ? Watch the sun reflect off the mist. Whatever that stuff is (they claim it’s harmless) is dropping down to cover all the properties down wind. Depending on how strong the breeze is, would determine how far this spray is going. Lets say you have kids or pets. They now go out and play in the yard and roll around in the grass. Do they pick up this harmless spray and bring it in the house ? Maybe you are having a cook out. Guy is spraying 3 – 4 house down wind. Ever wonder if any of that stuff ends up on your burger ? I really don’t know, but I have yet to see anyone drink a glass of this “harmless” spray. I don’t care if the guy next door sprays his yard 3 foot deep in chemicals, I don’t want any of it (overspray) on my property. Do I have that right ? So, I would guess that spraying poison all over, is here to stay, but don’t see much good in a “buffer zone” either.
None of the farms around the subdivisions are organic. The farms were there first don't blame them, the people chose to buy their lots next to them, and will keep doing so. Developers are to blame, it's only about money. A subdivision is developed with intent of the city accepting it. The developer pays to have all utilities installed under the guidelines of the city, they don't have to be part of the city if they decide not to. They can hook on to city utilities at a out of town rate and take care of all maintenance themselves plus require waste facilities per household. A perfect example would be the west end of Peru along rt. 6. None of those motels and businesses are in the town city limits. Again the city has responsibilities, but the developer is ultimately the responsible person.
Farmers have used pesticides for decades. Once again you blame the city and the planning commission. How about those big sophisticated wealthy suburbs? Their subdivisions eventually but tight up to a corn field. No one has "buffer zones" because you can't change the landowners rights in that regard. Why don't you buy 80 acres and turn it into a "buffer zone! Seriously. This is ridiculous.
The farm fields are often owned by land developers. They purchase large tracts of land and lease it out for agriculture while develop their subdivisions.
I am 100% for property rights. But we also have zoning. If a parcel is subject to city zoning. Agriculture should not be included in City zoning. What if someone starts a small hog operation or starts raising chickens in the A-1 Zones that butt up against Peru residential zones?
It looks kind of silly having a corn field in the middle of town. In particular the area roughly between Sunset Drive and 26th Street.
I think the "problem" is that there are several parts of the city that aren't actually in the city. Like that little triangle area north between Plank Road and Peoria Street. That is not part of Peru. That little corn field on the east side of Peoria Street is not in the City. The area around Pulaski Street north of Shooting Park Road is not in the City. Just look at a map and you see all kinds of holes in the City.
Nothing wrong with raising chickens inside city limits.
We need to provide incentives to have the land developed for industrial use. I'd rather see a few more factories - that employ people - than corn fields that are subsidized by my tax dollars and that don't employ anyone locally - other than farmer Joe.
Now... if we get a large Ethanol Plant - that would be nice.
Recently there was a opportunity to have development in the open field north of a Peru subdivision. When some people realized the cost to them as tax payers they pooh poohed the idea. Presently Carmike says it will expand in the mall. What size of expansion will this be and how long will they stay until they locate to another location?
Personally I thought they were asking for too much but in the last 35 years business world development has become very negotiable and the cities willing are the select group developing.
Peru has been doing this for many years without people even knowing about it.
8:22 - That deal was a direct cash payment of $850 from the City to the land developer. That was not a subsidy - that was a pure cash transfer.
that is supposed to be $850,000
@3:19 & 6:27
Your explanation of a deal that was a direct cash payment of $850K from the city to the land developer is baffling. Why was the land developer involved instead of the theater chain?
9:05. The Theater Chain does not own any property, at least the way it was explained. The chain rents property from a mall (like they are doing now) or in some cases they build a stand alone theater. When they build a stand alone theater, they still don't own the property. They rent it from a holding company. The holding company contracts with a developer to build the complex to their specification. So the developer buys the land and builds the theater then transfers ownership to the holding company which executes a lease to the theater chain.
So to get the ball rolling they demanded an $850K cash payment from the city and planted the idea that it could be recouped through an "entertainment tax." The payment was purely to line the pockets of the developer. Sort of a sales SPIFF but before the sale. Our Mayor and Economic Development Director says these things are common practice when a municipality wants to attract a business like this.
So, if the NT did not accidently print the story about this payment, everything would have slid through easy peasy. But, when rational people look at this, they see it for what it is - a reverse bribe.
I used to be a supporter of things like TIF Zones and financial incentives to attract business. I no longer support such things - I now see them as pure cronyism. Tax money being transferred to connected business enterprises that are capable of standing on their own. In the case of Peru, there is no reason on earth that any future retail development be given any kind of incentive. The traffic is there and it will continue to snowball on its own without our tax dollars paying for it.
Did you know we are giving the owner of the shopping complex that houses Super Wal-Mart and Kohls the Home Rule share of sales tax back as an "incentive"? When does that end?
Please correct if wrong, but the figure of $6.5 million is what is remembered as the cap to be paid.
I think you are correct 7:57. The big thing was that they where not smart enough to know Wal-Mart was moving in to that shopping center. So they shifted tax money from the "old" Wal-Mart to the "new" Walmart - flushing millions of dollars in tax revenue down the toilet. At the time this happened they where very lucky to be able to fill the "old" Wal-Mart building with something.
Post a Comment