The Carbondale Observer

I’m sure everyone in Carbondale knows that the annual Polar Bear party took place on Saturday. And everyone has probably heard that a nineteen year old male (who was not a student at SIUC) lost his leg in a train accident early Saturday morning. And if you’ve heard about all that, you’ve probably heard about the comments Carbondale mayor Joel Fritzler posted to his campaign Facebook account. In case you haven’t, this is what our mayor thought was an appropriate response to the accident:

First Polar Bear casualty took place this morning just after the bars closed when a 19 year old male with a .273 BAC tried to jump onto a freight train. Human bones between metal train wheels and train tracks usually doesn’t end well. Was it worth it?

There are a few problems with this. First and most obvious is that the remark shows no trace of sensitivity to the person who was injured or to his family. That would be bad enough if the statement came from a private citizen speaking for himself. But Fritzler is the mayor and when he speaks, he speaks for Carbondale.

But it’s not even clear that Fritzler has the facts right. Polar Bear started at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. According to the police department’s press release, the accident happened around 2:50 a.m on Saturday – over seven hours before Polar Bear started. So why is Fritzler claiming the accident is a Polar Bear casualty?

In his Facebook post, Fritzler claims the victim had a .273 BAC. But the Daily Egyptian reports that police are still waiting for results of the victim’s blood test to determine if he was intoxicated. So why is Fritzler claiming the victim had a .273 BAC?

Let’s think about this. A young man, a visitor to our town, was in the hospital with life threatening injuries after a horrible accident. It wasn’t yet clear that he would survive. And our mayor thinks the correct response is to make a sneering, insensitive, inaccurate post on his Facebook page. This is a serious lapse of judgement on Fritzler’s part, and he owes an apology to the victim, his family, and the people of Carbondale.

Fritzler must know he made a mistake, because he’s removed the post from his Facebook page. Unfortunately, it looks like Fritzler isn’t going to apologize. KFVS 12 asked him about his comments, and here was his response:

“When I said is it worth it, it was basically out to everybody,” said Fritzler. “Is something like this worth it? Where you have a party and the purpose is to get as drunk as possible. That doesn’t sound like responsible behavior on anybody’s part no matter how old you are. And, that is what I was trying to get at, this is not responsible behavior.”

That doesn’t sound like an apology to me. That sounds like a defense of remarks that are indefensible. Fritzler only has one good option. He needs to issue an apology, and he needs to do it immediately. Judging by his comment to KFVS 12, it looks like he isn’t going to do it.

I voted for Fritzler in the general election. Since he’s taken office, he’s made a series of mistakes. I’ve criticized him when I thought he was wrong, but I haven’t regretted my vote until now. But his response to this accident has given me buyer’s remorse. It’s clear now that Fritzler is not up to the job we’ve given him. If Fritzler cannot swallow his pride and apologize, that shows serious weakness as a leader.

I’m posting a screenshot of Frizler’s Facebook page below. I’ll also post a second screenshot showing the comments on his post up to about 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. I’ve blacked out the names of the people commenting and the photos next to their names. Click the photos to see a larger version.

Comments are welcome.

The state received five bids on the old National Guard armory at Oakland and Sycamore. The bidders are:

1. City of Carbondale – $9,999
2. Servants for Christ Ministries – $15,525
3. Arthur Agency – $25,525
4. Christine Boettcher – $40,000
5. Andy Wallace – $80,000

The Department of Military Affairs is still reviewing the bids and have not yet accepted the high bid. It’s possible that they may re-advertise.

My preference is for the city to get the Armory. If the city doesn’t get it, I’d prefer that it go either the Servants for Christ Ministries or the Arthur Agency. A church would be an okay use of the building. So would offices, which I assume is the use Arthur Agency has in mind, although that use would require rezoning the property. It’s not clear yet what Christine Boettcher or Andy Wallace have in mind for the property. There are rumors, but no hard facts.

My first priority is for the building to be used and maintained. My second priority is that it be used in a way that benefits the community and doesn’t place an unfair burden on the surrounding neighborhood. A public, community use would be best.

Comments are welcome.

I watched last night’s city council meeting from home on channel 16. It was quite long and the council only took action on two general business items. I’m short on time so I’m going to write a very short summary.

After approving the consent agenda, the council voted unanimously to participate in the Coal Belt Revolving Loan Program (pdf). This seems like a good program and I can’t see any reason not to participate.

Next the council reviewed the Community Investment Program checklist items for proposed new projects. You can see the agenda item here (pdf). Council did not object to any item staff recommended and no action was taken.

Next council conducted a review of community goals. This is done annually and was the best part of the meeting. The best suggestion came from Jane Adams – that the city prioritize streaming city council meetings on the web. I really hope they do this because I’d probably cancel Mediacom if they do. Don Monty also had a good suggestion – that the city put drafts of city council meetings online before the agendas are finalized. His reasoning was that it would allow concerned parties more time to meet and plan to address council. Check out the agenda item here (pdf).

The final item on the general business agenda was a request for a special use permit to operate a Day Care Home II (6-12 children) in a residential neighborhood. Council rejected this. Normally I’d be complaining about this, since a day care is a great use in a residential neighborhood, but it seems like there are some legitimate concerns with this particular home and the “no” vote wasn’t a general rejection of any day care centers in residential neighborhoods. Of course the neighbors all turned out to argue against the home – typical for Carbondale.

After citizen comments and council comments, the council went into closed session. I’m not totally sure what they were planning to discuss and I’m not sure if council re-convened in open session afterwards.

After spending three and a half hours watching one of these tedious meetings – even on TV in the comfort of my own home – I think council members deserve more than the $4,200 per year they are paid.

Comments are welcome.

I attended the northwest neighborhood meeting at Hickory Lodge on Monday night. I was surprised at the attendance. I’d say at least fifty people and maybe a few more crammed into the small front room to ask newly appointed city manager Kevin Baity questions about the sale of the old National Guard armory at Oakland and Sycamore.

I was less hopeful when I heard the comments and suggestions for future uses. Few people in the audience seemed to understand our zoning laws and what is and is not permitted in the various districts. Most of the comments focused on what people didn’t want the property used for. The few comments offering ideas on what might be acceptable were oriented toward community or non-profit uses, which would be desirable, but which might not be practical.

I was most surprised at the reaction to one gentleman’s comments. I didn’t catch his name, but the man gave a short speech detailing what he sees as the decline of the northwest neighborhood and laying at least part of the blame on our overly restrictive zoning laws. The man said he considers Chicago a great example of how to handle mixed uses in a neighborhood and pointed out that in Chicago $500,000 dollar homes stand a short walk from coffee shops, retail stores, and even taverns. He concluded with a call to let the free market decide what uses belong where. His speech was met with a groan from those in attendance.

I will write a post about this in the future, but for now I want to point out one thing. If the Armory is sold to an individual or a for-profit company, we will have to make it possible for that person or company to make money from the property. If we don’t, it will gradually fall into disrepair and eventually it will have to be torn down. We don’t have to like that fact, but we have to accept that it is a fact.

It’s possible that the armory won’t be sold to an individual or a for-profit company. Maybe the city will buy it and either keep it for its own use or transfer it to a community group. Maybe some community group will buy the armory itself. It’s even possible that an individual will buy the property and donate it – maybe to a community group or the Park District – and it will be put to some non-commercial use. If so, great.

If not, we need to start thinking about best and worst case scenarios for a commercial use, and about what we’re willing to tolerate. I can tell you the worst case scenario. It isn’t that someone will use the armory for something the community doesn’t like. It’s that it will go unused and eventually will be torn down.

I’ll tell you what I think. I’ve already mentioned that the best idea I’ve heard is for Carbondale Main Street to get the property (probably through a purchase by the city) and use it as a year-round farmer’s market. Someone at the meeting suggested that the property be used as an arts center. That might also be a good use, although we already have the Varsity Center for the Arts.

But if the purchaser wants to use it for commercial purposes, I’d be agreeable. I wouldn’t want to see it used for any purpose that puts the health or safety of the neighborhood at risk. That would rule out the chemical plant that so many at the meeting seemed to fear (and which, I’ll add, would never ever happen, not in a million years). I’d accept offices. I’d accept a retail store, although I think it’s a poor location for that use. I’d accept an entertainment venue or nightclub.

I urge residents of the city to consider what they’d accept if the property is sold for commercial use.

Although there was no consensus on how the armory should be used, there was one interesting outcome of the meeting. Some in attendance formed a committee to meet again with the goal of organizing a stable neighborhood association similar to the Arbor District. I think this is a great development and I hope it succeeds. I may write a longer post on this topic in the future.

Comments are welcome.

There is a neighborhood meeting scheduled for Monday to discuss the pending sale of the old National Guard Armory at Oakland and Sycamore. The meeting will be held from 7:00 -8:30 p.m. at Hickory Lodge (1115 W. Sycamore St.) Newly appointed city manager Kevin Baity will be on hand to answer questions and hear concerns.

I’m short on time tonight so I can’t spend too much time on this. The Armory sale is another situation where our zoning laws could produce a less than optimal outcome. I’m looking at the zoning map (pdf) and it looks to me like it’s zoned either R-1-8 or R-1-8D. You can click the links to see what is and is not allowed in these districts.

The old Armory building is attractive, and we don’t build them that way anymore. I’d hate to see it torn down, which is the standard practice with beautiful old buildings in Carbondale. But our code doesn’t really allow uses that would be appropriate for the building. The best use allowed in any R-1 district would be a church (which is a special use). But that’s hardly the best use imaginable for the property.

We have a couple of options. The city could possibly rezone that lot. The southwest side of Oakland and Sycamore is zoned R-3, which has a wider range of uses. It would be possible to imagine other possible zoning designations for the property. The other option would be to amend code in some way that would permit the property to be used.

What’s certain is that it won’t be used as a single family residence, which – unless I’m mistaken – is how it’s zoned. The best proposed use I’ve heard for the property is for Carbondale Main Street to use it as a year-round, indoor farmer’s market. Maybe it could be converted for condos or apartments. I’m sure there are other good uses too. But few or none of them are allowed in an R-1 district.

One other potential problem occurs to me. Unless I’m mistaken, there are underground fuel tanks on the property. That would make the site a brownfield and expose the new owner to potential liability issues. I doubt there is anything the city can do about that problem. I’m going to plead ignorance of state brownfield laws. Some states have incentives to clean up brownfields that limit the liability of owners after a successful cleanup. I don’t know if Illinois has such laws.

I suspect some of these issues will come up at Monday’s meeting. If you like old buildings and don’t want to see the Armory torn down, maybe you can spare an hour and a half on Monday evening. Unless we find a use for this building, it will eventually be razed.

Comments are welcome.

The city council will hold a special meeting tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. to vote on the appointment of Kevin Baity as the new city manager. As I mentioned in last week’s post, there is some controversy surrounding the appointment. Council member Jane Adams has announced her intention to vote “no” at Tuesday’s meeting. Baity seems to have the support of a majority on the council; an article in the Southern Illinoisan leads me to believe that council members Chris Wissmann, Lance Jack, and Don Monty, along with Mayor Joel Fritzler will vote to name Baity the new city manager.

If you haven’t done so already, take a look at Council member Adams’ blog post explaining her reasons for opposing elevating Baity to city manager. Adams’ opposition is based on her doubts about Baity’s willingness to strictly enforce Carbondale code. The specific incident that attracted Adams’ attention was Baity’s decision to issue a permit to Home Rentals allowing the building on the southeast corner of Sycamore and Oakland to be used as an auto repair shop. The building is in an R-1 single family residential zoning district and auto shops are not allowed in that district. Adams details the chain of events leading to the issuing of the permit, which was eventually rescinded. Adams’ post contains links to documents obtained through a FOIA request.

The way I see it, there are really two issues here. One is the obligation of city officials to enforce city code as it is written. Enforcement should be consistent and predictable, and the rules should bind the powerful as well as the weak. I’ve taken a look at all the documents and the relevant city code, and it is clear to me that the rules were not enforced in the case of the auto repair shop at Oakland and Sycamore.

The other issue is what city code ought to permit. I have argued on this blog that Carbondale’s city code is too rigid and does not serve the community well. In my opinion, Carbondale would benefit from greater residential density than our code allows, and we’d benefit from mixed use in our neighborhoods and in the buildings within them. Our code does not permit an auto repair shop at Oakland and Sycamore but, at least in my view, it should.

An auto repair shop is not the ideal use for the property. An e-mail from council member Chris Wissmann to outgoing city manager Allan Gill is among the documents linked in Adams’ blog post. Wissmann writes: “I’d definitely prefer a small retail shop (but that’s not likely with Schnuck’s just a few blocks to the south) or an office of some sort.” I agree. It would be nice if the building were rented to an accountant or used as a neighborhood coffee shop, but those uses would also be prohibited by our zoning code.

When faced with an overly restrictive zoning ordinance, one approach would be to bend or even break the rules in order to allow sensible development to proceed. That appears to be what happened in this case. But I think that’s a poor solution. It makes enforcement seem arbitrary and opens the city to charges of back room dealing or giving special breaks to powerful landlords. A better option is reform of the zoning code, which is currently underway in Carbondale.

Zoning and code enforcement are hot button issues in Carbondale because of our status as a university town. Since we have a large population of transient students, real estate – specifically renting apartments and houses to students – is big business here. Some larger landlords are known for the poor condition of their rentals. These shabby dwellings are eyesores and some of them are potentially dangerous. We need a strong code to address the problem and protect the safety of students and other renters, as well as to improve the appearance of Carbondale.

On the other hand, Carbondale’s population grows slowly if at all at least in part because there is a serious lack of economic opportunity. Starting any business is difficult, and a convincing argument can be made that our overly restrictive zoning makes it more difficult -and in the case of the auto repair shop, probably unnecessarily.

Balancing these competing interests is important, but it’s also difficult. With the rewrite of our zoning codes currently taking place, we have the opportunity to change things for the better. Council needs to hear from residents, and residents ought to think about the kind of community we want and the regulations we need, or don’t need, in order to build it.

I’ll share my opinion. As I said above, I think we need greater residential density and mixed uses in all neighborhoods, as well as the buildings within them. Our zoning code currently lists what’s allowed as a principle use and a special use in each district. I’d prefer to list what we don’t want – what isn’t allowed. That shift would loosen our code.

On the other hand, I think we need some aesthetic standards built into our code. There is no reason we should allow landlords to burden the community with eyesores. Coming up with a sensible set of aesthetic standards would be tough (the first question would be whose aesthetic preferences would be enshrined in code) but it’s worthwhile and we ought to start talking about it. This change would make our code more restrictive.

There are other problems with our code. Our minimum parking requirements for commercial developments result in too much space being devoted to parking lots, which is an impediment to walkability. Our setback requirements result in too much space between buildings, which impedes both density and walkability. The strict segregation of uses mentioned above virtually mandates sprawl and prohibits traditional neighborhood development. Maybe someday I’ll do a series of posts on all the problems with Carbondale’s zoning.

Zoning might be a boring and arcane subject, but it’s important and we need to begin a conversation about it. The most important thing is that we not allow ourselves to get locked into the kind of ideological debate over regulation currently happening at the federal level. Not all regulations are good, and not all regulations are bad. We need to examine each regulation and see if it is accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish, what unintended consequences arise from it, and what changes we can make to maximize positive outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences.

Comments are welcome.

Looks like a controversy is brewing over the appointment of a new city manager. As far as I can tell, there are two pieces to this. One piece is the choice of current Director of Development Services and Acting City Manager Kevin Baity for the position. The other piece is Mayor Fritzler’s decision to issue a press release announcing “consensus” on the choice before the city council has formally voted on the appointment.

The choice of Baity for city manager has generated controversy because of doubts about his commitment to strict enforcement of Carbondale’s city code. Council member Jane Adams expressed her intention to vote against Baity’s appointment in an email to supporters on Wednesday. It appears that a majority of the council will vote to appoint Baity.

The other issue is Mayor Joel Fritzler’s decision to issue a press release announcing Baity’s appointment before the council has had a chance to formally vote on it. Council has discussed the appointment in closed session and a majority of council members, led by Fritzler, support hiring Baity. But until the full council has voted in open session, Baity is not appointed. That means it’s still premature to issue a press release announcing that he will be appointed.

The issue isn’t as simple as a premature press release. Council is allowed to discuss personnel matters in closed session, but is supposed to vote on them in open session. If the mayor has issued a press release announcing Baity’s appointment, that implies the appointment is a done deal. That, in turn, implies that a vote has been taken. And that would be a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

In her email on Wednesday, Adams said that she had advised Fritzler not to go ahead with the press release and that it might constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Fritzler, who has sometimes acted in a high handed fashion since being elected mayor in 2011, chose to issue the press release anyway.

I’d be interested in knowing why Fritzler chose this course. I’d also be interested in knowing which council members supported Baity’s nomination and which opposed it. Since the 2011 election, we’ve had a pretty stable majority on the council, with Fritzler, Adams, Monty, and Fronabarger voting together. Clearly in this case Adams and Fritzler are on opposite sides. I’d like to know where Fronabarger and Monty stand.

Comments are welcome.

I’m sure readers have noticed that I’ve been on an extended hiatus from blogging. There are a couple of reasons for the break. First, and most important, I’ve had other priorities. Second, I made a promise to myself when I started the blog that I would never resort to nastiness. During and immediately after the faculty strike at SIUC, I felt that I could not write anything in this space without it turning ugly.

Regular readers will know that I opposed a strike by any of the four IEA unions. I want to be clear about this. I support the right of workers to organize, and I support the right of unions to strike. I’ve walked a picket line myself. But that does not mean that I think every union is a good union or that every strike is a good strike.

I won’t comment on whether I think the IEA unions are good unions, but I will tell you that I think the faculty strike was foolish. I suspect that it damaged SIUC and this community (we’ll know for sure when enrollment numbers for spring and fall 2012 are in). Despite the union’s attempts to blame the administration, I think the union is responsible for the strike and whatever damage it causes.

I think the damage to the university and the community achieved very little. The union will argue that it won the strike. I think the fact that the faculty returned to work without a tentative agreement suggests otherwise.

I have no desire to re-fight the destructive and unnecessary union wars that occupied most of the last year. There is no point in discussing it. Reason is not an antidote to suicidal fanaticism. I’ve said my piece, and I’ve been as restrained as I can be. Now I hope never to discuss it again.

One last thing: I’m blogging again, but I can’t say for sure how frequently I’ll post. I mentioned at the top of this post that I have other priorities, so it’s going to depend how much time I can devote to it. At a minimum, I hope to post on each city council meeting. We’ll see how it goes.

Comments are welcome, but I urge you to take a look at the comment guidelines before posting.