Wednesday, March 16, 2011

City Council Incumbent Turner Speaks

Eric Turner, who doesn't believe in term limits, was recently quoted in the JS that Citizens For Responsible Spending never vote yes on anything. He said if the City didn't finance the new hotel expansion, the hotel would be built in East Peoria. Stupid statement? New hotels, one with a Convention Center) have already been built in East Peoria and probably more will be built in East Peoria. Turner surely understands the hotel the city is financially backing with taxpayer money is to be built to save the Pere and furnish a larger, more modern, connecting hotel to the Civic Center whose leaders say that "without an expanded, modernized next door hotel, the Civic Center cannot attract big conventions".

Mr. Turner, are you insinuating that we voters for responsible spending would force the Peoria Civic Center to follow this new hotel to E. Peoria? I suggest you think before you talk to the press.

The JSEB and others want younger new blood to make this community a bigger success than a city with a $14 million deficit and no money to take good care of the BASIC needs of the citizens of Peoria.

Or grow in the private sector, other than sprawl which city councils have encouraged. Yes, I'm aware of some of the successes of taxpayer and private financing, like Peoria Next.

Like the old coach at Bradley. Time to step aside. The voters have a chance to force the issue but for one or two obvious reasons, you, yourself, will get the chance NOT to run next time your seat is up for vote on the council.

Then do the best thing for the community. Let the younger blood demanded have their shot at fixing the City of Peoria's problems.

And yes, we citizens for responsible spending, right now an apparent minority, will continue to say no when politicians like you and others on the council (and Governor Quinn and Company) keep spending more than you can pay back or bring an equal or better return for our taxes and for the overall good of all tax paying citizens, not just the "special interests".

When proof is presented of needed benefits other than usually "unsound" projections, we will and do vote "yes".

No comments: