OPINIONS
On this page are various Opinions on our Danville
Area Community
Issues written over the past few years
Foster's
HISTORICAL NOTATIONS &
Commercial News Quotes 2000-2009
1-19-09 Reply to Letter to the editor, Commercial News
12/2008
2009 Property tax levy vs Budget cuts
2/2008
Fire Fighter & Budget cuts
2/2006 - From City Newsletter - Alderman's Corner
4/2005 The One vote margin in Danville Ward 7 - 2005 Elections
7/2000 Sonny Lane (At odds with
Mayor)
7/2000 Sonny Lane Position (letter to CN & Council)
3/2001 Elections (Loss of Sen. Myers)
4/2001 Leaf Burn Ban Transcript of
address to Council
1/2003 Endorsement of
Aldermen seeking election
2/2003 Endorsement letter for Mayor Eisenhauer
3/2003Supporting local businesses Cooketech or Soltec?
10/2001 Why we
Built and Maintain the Danville Area Internet Portal
7-12-04Reply to
CN My Turn comments about the City Council and my statements on
the Gas Tax
RE: Property tax
levy vs Budget cuts
December 2008 - I oppose the
increase in property tax (or any other new tax-fee sources)
Please read this recent letter to the editor explaining my
positions for the past years and my solution…..
A
recent letter to the editor rather challenged my credulity,
as to my numbers in a recent report to the City Council
suggesting they are “fiction”. I write this reply because
all tax paying Danville citizens should know and understand
what their tax dollars provide in services and what the
ACTUAL COSTS are to them. I spent some time (along with City
Comptroller Gayle Brandon) in accumulating the facts of the
tangible expenditure of the largest part of our budget. The
Mayor stated that more then 81% of our budget is for
employee salary and benefits. I believe that this is where
we should look first for expense reductions and that was the
purpose of my report to the Aldermen.
The
report I presented was the average COST for EACH Police,
Fire, and non-public safety employees, breaking the three
groups down further into command, department heads, &
managerial staff costs. I suggested that we look at every
department employee on a needs basis. The report did not
specifically call for the reduction of police officers or
fire personnel but did suggest we look a the Command
personnel very close. The writer’s letter, (her husband is a
city policeman), claimed that average police wages were much
lower than I reported and called for no police cuts. First,
no proposal is forthcoming from me or any other alderman,
that I am aware of, to cut officers on the street.
The
letter speaks of two different wage numbers from my report
and one other newspaper. Let’s see how this is so. My report
illustrates what is factually important to all of us, the
COST of the average employee to the city and the taxpayers.
Using her numbers, (as her letter and one newspaper did),
the average base pay for one police officer IS $58,022 (as
stated in her letter) – But the COST paid by the city are
this PLUS Health insurance $13,162 + Pension contributions
$9,667 + Medicare $841 + Workman’s Comp $1,897 + Clothing
allowance $250 which cost total = $83,839 (the
“fictional–comics” number as the letter suggested). Using
the same formula the average Fire Fighter’s Base is $54,410
but total costs are $84,995. All other non-public safety
employees average cost each totaled $59,146. Management
averages were considerably more in each department.
The
real shock was the projections for the next 20 years for
EACH employee. The non-public safety employee each will cost
$2,431,926. Each Police $3,095,463 and Each Fire Fighter
$3,119,682. I stated in my report that I am not questioning
the worth or value of each employee but presenting the “cost
to retirement” estimates. At the conclusion I offered the
same challenge to the Aldermen that I now offer to you who
care enough to read this reply:
“The Questions are…How many (non-public safety) employees,
police, or fire personnel are essential? How much are the
taxpayers willing to pay this year and in each year to come
to maintain that number?”
Some of the
Aldermen will vote with me against the property tax increase
in the proposed levy. Contrary to statements of some other
aldermen we DO have choices on the levy, other then closing
the Library, etc. We can move the shortfall of $511,000
pension fund contributions to pay from the general budget –
of course this will create an additional $511,000 on top of
the present short fall projected, taking this total number
to over one million in additional cuts needed.
If we want to keep
all these people on the payroll in a city with declining
population, then we must be willing to pay for it. About
safety; I feel safe with the Police & Fire as they presently
are. I would feel safer if we had Police. I would also feel
safer if I had a $60,000 SUV with side airbags and all the
safety electronics, but I had to comprise my safety a little
with my Sebring to keep within my budget. Ponder this a
little. What we want in life is not always what we should
get - but what we could afford – now we see the economic
results of millions not applying this basic principal, but
living for today, in debt far beyond their income ratio,
little thought about the future. There is no one to bale us
out! In view of what’s happening everywhere how should we
run the city next year and the years after? What do you want
us to do? Call your alderman and tell us – please come to
the Council meetings the next few Tuesday evenings at 6pm
and inform us…
Stephen E (Steve)
Foster, Alderman Ward 7
|
R
Reply to Letter to the editor, Commercial News 1-19-09
EDITOR
In reference to the letter from Mr. Mark New Sr. and his
remarks. Your comment about the CN article and the statement on
campaign sign costs, plus your personal assessment that
“...About all (I am) good at is trying to figure ways to
increase everyone’s taxes” necessitates a rebuttal. First, note
the CN article was not a “quote” but an encapsulated portion of
a multi topic dialogue with the reporter. I commented the
disadvantage of not having opposition is the inopportunity of
debating my positions and creating public awareness of some
issues; and as to any advantage I stated that for someone to run
for Council costs can run to $500 or more in expenses for such
things as signs alone at $250 or more (I already have signs from
my previous campaigns, but was speaking in general);
additionally newspaper ads, flyers, mailings and postage, etc.
So when unopposed, a candidate obviously can save some expenses,
(although when unopposed before, I still put out a few signs,
etc.).
Second, it is the
insinuation on my new taxes voting record that is disingenuous.
I was one of only four alderman that voted AGAINST the recent
properly tax levy increase, and was very vocal in offering
alternative cuts suggestions (and will continue to be in the
upcoming budget sessions); see CN articles of 11-26-08 and the
“My Turn” article on 12-14-08 – evidence of all these positions
and all previous letters to the editors and other articles are
on my website at www.sfoster.info
. The only new tax I pushed for over the past years was for the
small gas tax to fund our streets, and I had a high percentage
of support from citizens for that greatly needed revenue source
and it’s purpose. Third, historically the majority of this
current Council and administration is extremely hesitant to
increase any tax or fees and do so only in the greatest of needs
and caution to cut any service they believe essential.
In summary, I would agree
with some of your other statements, Alderman need to make every
effort to maximize council attendance, in some cases health and
emergencies are preventatives, as for my self, on my website I
have clearly stated that if my health or circumstances caused
continued absence I would resign. Fifth point, it takes at least
three years of budget experience and involvement for an
alderman, to even begin to understand the complexities of our
government and how to best represent the people, so replacing
all incumbents could greatly impede the process. Sixth comment,
regarding donating wages to the city, the Aldermen’s net monthly
stipend of about $200, is fixed by city and state law, and can
not be changed for current Aldermen until after the next
(reelection. We prepare for and attend a minimum of three
council meetings, plus the other committee and sub committee
meetings, and special closed sessions, additionally some attend
neighborhood associations, city events, special training and
seminars, gas/travel expense, and of course with additional
campaign expenses, many of us already donate considerable time
and expenditure to serve. Last, the city has NO input on the
assessed evaluation of property.
Stephen E Foster, Alderman
Ward 7
RE:
Fire Fighter & Budget
cuts:
Feb 25, 2008 From Steve Foster Ward 7
-EMail to Mayor & Aldermen
Since this will go through the city mail, I include copies to
the media.
In response
to email requests for a count of calls (the calls pursuant to
the question of FIRE Dept personnel reductions) I offer my tally
to date & my position. Thru Mon Evening I have received eight
phone calls and two emails. Of the eight, six were strongly
supportive of the Mayor’s proposed cuts of fire department
personnel. One wanted to maintain what we have, but “wanted no
new taxes to pay for it’. One said no cuts & he “would pay more
taxes”, and two were firemen.
As regards
the two letters from the Danville Firefighters Association:
Historically the council has been very unreceptive to threats,
implied or blatant. The recent letters are substantiation of how
out of touch some fire personal are and their extent of
self-centeredness to which their union’s leadership has evolved.
The attitude over the years of “meet our demands” and “just
raise the taxes” to pay for pensions and benefits, (which taxes
would only affect a portion of the fire personnel living in
Danville anyway [38%] ), is just one more example of their historic
mind-set. The letter’s threats of law suits, arbitration
demands, union endorsements of elected officials who will vote
their way, and threatening to run special interest-single issue
candidates against fiscal conservative candidates in the Wards
are old tactics. Before the budget is voted we also will likely
see full page ads, mailings, phone campaigns, and more. All this
is to cloud the issues.
The issue
was never the entailment or daily duties of fire personnel, or (misperceptions
of their value. Their performance in the “line of duty” is not
questioned. It is simply the continued rising expense to the
taxpayers in supporting the number of personnel vis-à-vis the
minimum need – especially in light of our declining population
and revenues.
I have held
the position for many years that we need to reduce the
department and I would not support a reactionary tax or fee
increase that would be implemented just to maintain the
department at its current level. In fact I do not believe we can
or should maintain the level of personnel regardless of
unexpected revenue increases to the city, even without new
revenue sources. If a revenue stream for the public is suddenly
“found” by the fire department, great. But the proposed
reductions should be implemented regardless.
The risks
perceived or actual (which are always less) to the community by
the reduction of fire personnel are part of life’s compromises.
We are all at risk each day from personal injury to death. We
also are at economic risk each day we live. Poor health and
raising care costs, plant closings and economic downturns for
the work force, loss of value of retirement income for seniors.
Rising taxes, declines in investment values and home values, are
often life’s factors. We must understand the need to balance
security vs costs, and work together to determine an acceptable
equilibrium.
A
commentary on the Ward 7 - 2005 Elections
The One vote margin, what happened & how it happened. An insight
into Understanding Statistics & the Work, and Time required to
run for public office
The numbers in
this opinion-commentary, and a single vote’s value are
worth considering when one becomes a major aspect.
A number of obvious conclusions can be made in the
City Ward 7 Aldermanic Election - and some less obvious
elements are worth considering.
First, no one
could hardly fault a candidate, losing by one vote out of
874 cast, to not consider a recount of the votes. I
telephoned my opponent Wednesday morning and told him that
all I talked with in our area, that knew him, had nothing
but nice things to say about him and his children. I
congratulated him on his great effort. I we discussed
future community involvement and other personal topics.
As the
declared winner I would like to share my views leading up
to the election and the results. I will start by looking
at what did not happen. There were 3,884 registered
voters in Ward 7 eligible to vote, a net increase of 44
since the 2003 elections. The 873 valid votes cast
represents 22.5% turnout and 77.5% did not vote.
Having
followed the voting precinct by precinct in Ward 7 since
1993, you can develop a good idea of what to expect,
assuming normal issues, and average opponents. I was first
elected in 1993 with a margin of well over 50% of
approximately a 25% turnout. In all years but one I had to
first win a primary of 3 or more candidates. In 1997 I won
by 19 votes with a turnout out of less than 25%. In 2001 I
was reelected with a turnout of around 10% (unopposed).
The off year
elections (non Mayoral elections) are historically low
turnout. So in the two elections 1997 and 2005 with
an opponent I won both elections by only 20
votes collectively. The Council is supposedly
nonpartisan, but well organized opponents backed by a
political party, or likewise - a special interest group,
or ethnic group could and did have a strong chance of
winning an election, especially in the odd year’s
elections. In fact the same candidate, backed by a
political party that lost by 19 votes in 2001 also
lost by 19 votes in a Mayoral election year running
against the other Ward 7 Alderman (in 1999). Understanding
that once again this was likely a close race, I
anticipated a heavy turnout of certain newly registered
voters and previously registered voters, generally not
voting in off year elections, to vote this time - mostly
as a block in one of our ethnic communities. This is
nothing, on my part, to be construed or implied as wrong,
all minorities need representation and the right to work
and support a member of their community to be elected to
public office is recognized, commonly done, and applauded.
On Monday
April 4th - by that evening, I and my wife had
finished walking over 60% of Ward 7 and talked to a large
number of potential voters. I had examined the voting
trends precinct by precinct comparing the 2003 precincts
to the new 2005 reorganized precinct’s records. I
considered all comments made to me personally, and other
factors, and I believed that in normal years and with an
unknown candidate I should expect 55% to 57% of the votes
cast.
On Tuesday
before the polls closed I showed these following
special factors revision of my election projection
numbers to several people at the scheduled City Council
before the 6PM meeting. I worked in the special factors
for this year and concluded with a projection that
anticipated a turnout of 832 voters or 21% turnout, which
included the voting block factor and projected that
I could receive 419 votes and my opponent would receive
413 or a 6 vote margin equaling 50.03% to 49.97%
for my opponent. Everyone doubted it would be this close
that saw these projection numbers, but my opponent had
campaigned hard, had good support, and an incumbent of 12
years accumulates some dissenters - since you can not vote
both yes and no on various issues in order to please
everyone
|
The actual
certified election results was 873 votes cast –
437 or 50% to 436 or 49.89% for my
opponent (there was one write in). I won five of the seven
precincts and lost two precincts that contained most of
the ethnic group residents, (which I anticipated I could
loose). In reflection, I can count scores of people I
talked with that made that one vote, and my wife
and I literally went the extra mile (walking the Ward
streets). By Monday evening we were worn out but I walked
one more street. The last person I talked to had
not generally voted in off year elections but said she
would this year. The first person I talked to was
on Thornhill. He said that he was going to “vote for the
other guy”. I asked him what I did wrong in case I should
be reelected and might correct in the next four years. He
said “nothing wrong”, but he was “voting for the other guy
because” ( I had) “been (serving) long enough”. That
last person four days later that committed to vote
this year, counts as one vote gained to offset one vote
lost - and elections are won or lost by a number of one
votes added together. The only number needed to break a
tie is one.
Returning to
“looking at what did not happen”, all who voted are
to be commended and whether or not your votes represent
everyone who did not vote, we can never know. My
opponent’s votes of 436 do imply that 11% of voters are in
opposition to me, but is this 50% total disapproval in
Ward 7? I know, of course, that many persons that voted
for my opponent do not in fact disapprove of my record and
efforts on the council but wanted to vote for a friend or
acquaintance (and some told me so). So while the one vote
margin is no mandate, neither is the 11% not voting for
me.
The unexpected
endorsement by a local newspaper for my opponent seemed to
have little or no bearing on the race (5 votes?).
The factors I used were arrived at before the paper came
out Monday afternoon. Speaking of this newspaper, I was
asked for comments late Tuesday night by a reporter for
this paper. When asked my opinion - and then how I
understand the results. I told her I was happy with the
victory. And mentioned the dissenter's comments on my
first stop and the voter’s intention to vote for my
opponent (as an example of uncertainty of voter's
opinions). I said that so few people call me on issues it
is hard to determine which way to vote on some things and
could not always know which way the people want me to vote
since I get little input, and would like more. The
quote in the article the next day is in error and is
phrased in such a way that it implies ignorance and
arrogance on my part. The “quote” and the implied
conclusion follow:
[Foster said he’s happy he came out on top, but
realizes “I have to pay more attention to the
people”]
First, I did not say this. I “pay” very close
“attention” to each call or contact. And second, I
“realized” nothing new - as I am well aware of
what the few that take the time to contact me are
concerned about - and my responsibilities to the people I
represent. I have never dozed off and fallen into
unawareness on my watch, and work hard to be aware.
In conclusion: If the Courts and Election Commission find
errors in the recounts, and my opponent is seated on the
council, then I can accept this. But I am not ashamed of
my work for and in this community for the past 20 plus
years. There is much to be done and very soon we plan to
aggressively address some of our cities mayor needs - and
I hope to continue to be a part of solving these problems,
but if is not to be - I still live here and will likely
die here, and I will always care about our city and fully
support those who will sit on the Council this May - and
all the years to follow. I thank those who voted for and
supported me this year and in the past, and I thank
those who voted for my opponent too. You have my
respect, and you alone spent the time to care and express
your preferences. I now address the 3,011 citizens that
did not vote. I understand that for various reasons it was
impossible for some to vote, like my dear neighbor that
was ill in a hospital and never fails to vote in every
election, but to many I ask: Do you now believe that every
single one vote counts? I can not
believe that you do not care.....Steve Foster
Replies and
comments are welcome and will be posted - with your
permission |
3/6/2003
Cooketech
or Sol Tec? A BIG
difference.
This recent Internet Service
Provider (ISP) question provides a good example of why this
Portal (AllAroundDanville.com) was created. We will state
our opinion and hope to help alleviate the confusion. First,
we have no interest or investment in either ISP and hope
only to demonstrate the expressed purpose of this website.
Namely to encourage consumers to do business in the Danville
area as opposed to sending our money out of the area for
anything, when we have it here. When we send our money
anywhere else is will not recirculate and contribute to our
tax base which pays for the services we need locally.
If you are savvy enough to
get to this page from your desk at home or office you should
know and understand the facts about Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). First, they simply provide a link from
your computer to the internet via a phone number or cable,
etc, and second, they provide a place where your email is
stored until you retrieve it. Like your post office does
until they delver your mail to you.
If you live in Danville your
address will be followed with your zip code. If you move
your zip code changes. Same way with ISPs, your prefix
address still is “MyName’ but your suffix address may be
@aol, @msn or @ soltec or @cooketech, etc, and to change
your address is not the end of the world. Danville has
several ISPs available for both home and office, in addition
to the national companies like aol, msn, yahoo, to name a
few we also have egix, mclead, insightbb, soltec, and now
cooketech. The BIG difference is cooketech is the ONLY
company that is locally owned and your charges for internet
service STAYS in the community when we use them.
I do not have all the details
but you may conclude from the newspapers that the Cooke
group wishes to avoid raising charges and being under the
thumb of an out of town (Champaign) franchise type
arraignment, (and now begins a turf war). Kudos to the
Cookes for braking away and risking customer loss to keep
costs down and trying to make their service a LOCALLY OWNED
home and office service provider. Why should we send our
money to Champaign, Indianapolis, NY or anywhere else when
we can keep it in our community?
How difficult is it to advise
your email recipient of your new address? When cable went
from @home to @insightbb.com we all changed addresses
without a whimper, When @FSPconnect and another ISP went to
Indianapolis based @egix we changed and accepted it.
Why people pay so much more
to use cluttered and slow AOL or any of the other out of
town services is beyond me. They (big national ISPs) rely on
our ignorance of the internet, and now we will send our
money to Champaign, and maybe more money soon, for the same
service we can get from our only Danville area owned
company. How about giving cooketech our support and not only
stay with them, but leave your high cost aol type providers
and support our own ISP right here in danville and save
money besides.
Webmaster,
AllAroundDanville.com
|
|
2/11/2003
The upcoming elections are critical for Danville.
I believe that, except without my sincere frankness, any
endorsement letter for any candidate will be of little
avail. With a plethora of candidates running, the two
winning primary candidates will not need that many actual
votes to put them in the General Election. The number of
votes between winning and losing the primary, separating
these top candidates, may be less than one-hundred out of
over 18,000 registered voters in Danville.
There
are four or five candidates relatively qualified in many of
the requirements one would expect of a Mayor. While perhaps
none surpass in all areas, most of the five excel more or
less in one or more areas over the other. Based on my
personal experiences, I could work with, and support either
of four, if they are elected.
However, I am greatly concerned with one candidate’s
objectivity, and I have serious unease about any bipartisan
conduct of the City’s business, which is the core of our
governmental structure. In my, and many other’s opinions,
this candidate, having a well organized political machine,
may well emerge as one of the two primary winners.
It
obviously requires that we strongly support a candidate that
has a high possibility of (1) winning the other primary
berth, AND (2) be victorious in the General election.
Having
worked with all four top candidates, some since 1988, on
various boards and three within the council, and having
respect for all four, I nonetheless sincerely believe that
Scott Eisenhauer offers the best possibility of meeting
these critical requirements of 1 and especially 2 above.
I have
seen Scott take the lead and implement a number of programs
and ordinances in effect today, chairing sub-committees of
the Council, making difficult votes - not ducking the
issues, and voicing convincing reasoning in debates. Scott
is fiscally conservative, and an articulate speaker. He
offers an excellent image as the representative head of our
City. He understands teamwork in administration and is
people oriented. Finally, and of importance, Scott has many
friends throughout our community and will be able to win
many votes in every ward. However; he still needs our
support to assure his primary victory, as he undoubtedly
will then offer the best possibility of any candidate to win
the Mayoral competition over the other primary victor.
Please
consider your future, and our City’s future, and vote for
and support an electable candidate, Scott Eisenhauer, in the
Primary and in the General Elections. I urge you to support
Scott Eisenhauer and protect our future. Please vote in the
February 25th Primary.
Return to menu
JAN 13,2003
Endorsement of Aldermen
running
Next week the citizens of
Danville have an opportunity to affect the next four years
of our City Government’s direction. If you are satisfied or
unsatisfied with your alderman's performance only your vote
will express your opinion in a productive manner.
I would
urge all citizens to vote in the upcoming election. In the
past so few do make the effort to vote that a very small
number of votes, and a very small margin, can retain or lose
highly dedicated and effective office holders.
Historically Aldermen have avoided indorsing Aldermanic
candidates in elections years, but I believe the current
status of our city and its future requires that I speak out.
When considering the outstanding progress of the city, with
the current council, in many areas of development over the
past few years, combined with the apparent slow down of the
economy and need for budgetary restraints, I believe it is
in the best interest of all citizens that we retain the
existing Alderman since we would be going with a known
quality and quantity.
Alderman
Steve Nichols has served during some very difficult economic
and budgetary times and has consistently exhibited
restraint, conservatism, and thoughtful input into the
cities many difficult decisions. Nichols has not always
agreed with my views and we have occasionally voted
opposite, but never without strong counter points on his
part. He is known for his alternative views and suggestions
to save the taxpayers and city money. His opponent appears
to be a fine gentleman as well, but at this time Steve
Nichols, with his business acumen and track record, is
greatly needed on the Council to continue to work for all
the people of Danville. Ward Six’s citizens I urge you to
make the effort to get out Tuesday and show your support for
Steve Nichols by reelecting him your alderman.
In Ward
three Dave Sprouls has consistently demonstrated strong
economic views, and has been a strong "watch dog" for the
public moneys. Sprouls has often taken a minority view and
has voted opposite of the majority out of strong
convictions. A governmental body needs these kind of leaders
to speak out and serve well as a check on other’s positions,
especially monetary, before each vote. I am not acquainted
with his opponent and do not know what kind of leadership he
could bring, but I do know Dave Sprouls is needed on the
Council and I hope the fine people of Ward Three will
demonstrate their support by voting to retain Alderman
Sprouls.
In the
Ward one race George Jimson is quite and thoughtful on
issues, spending most of his time behind the scene working
for Ward One residents with their problems. Mr Jimson has
strongly supported the mayor and the administration on most
of the important issues, while remaining mindful of the
needs of his Ward. I have known his opponent for several
years and know that he has the best interest of the
city in mind as well, but at this time in the city’s course
I believe that it in the best interest to retain Alderman
Jimson.
In the Ward Five race
replacing Alderman Charles Long after three terms will
not be simple. Long’s input will be missed by the
Council. Fortunately two fine candidates have stepped
up. Candidate Mike Puhr is one of only a very few
persons that have regularly attended Council meetings
for the past eight years. He consistently has offered
thoughtful input on a variety of issues, and has
demonstrated leadership on other agency boards. I do not
know the opposition in this ward’s race but am told he
is a strong candidate and fine person. However, again,
Mr Puhr’s abilities and concern for the city are well
known to the Council and under the present circumstances
I believe would make the best replacement for the loss
of Alderman Long. I strongly suggest the voters in Ward
Five turn out and show their support for Mr Puhr.
I am
pleased to be, along with Jean Davis and Nancy O’Kane, one of
the few unopposed Aldermen up for reelection (1st time ever). But I know we
uncontested candidates would greatly appreciate your voting
for us as show of support for the work we have all done to
advance the causes and well being of Danville.
Please
get out and vote for these fine citizens and have your part in
Danville's future.
|
7/20/2000 Since
the Sonny Lane issue, or at least the
principals involved, have not been squelched, as some hope, I am
obliged to comment via the time-honored forum of a letter to the
Editor. I write personally in defense of many of us in
opposition to the special use permit granted by the city for the
Mettam property on Vermilion.
Most of the
issue has been covered in the press, but I believe the public
should know that those in opposition, from the residents to the
aldermen, were unfairly characterized as emotional and divisive,
one Alderwoman charged publicly that in a letter from two of us
(Alderpersons) to the council that we were attempting to split
the Council, when it should have been clear we were trying to
unite the Council. We needed twelve votes just to overturn the
granting of the permit. Regardless many clearly saw the crux of
this issue in spite of the Administration attempts to,
minimize, and delude some in order to impose this, to exemplify
this single point I communicate the following:
When one
Alderman asked the city’s Legal Counsel what the special use
permit had to do with truck traffic on Sonny Lane his
eighty-five dollars an hour reply was ambiguous and went on to
imply that he didn’t understand the connection. When a second
alderman suggested that perhaps the permit, (the site being on
Vermilion), has nothing to do with Sonny Lane traffic, the Mayor
immediately replied to this in the affirmative stating this
special use permit has nothing at all to do with truck traffic.
This was a classic example of one of the Mayor’s non sequiturs.
Since
another alderman then immediately called for the vote, I was not
given the opportunity to reply in Council, but wish now to offer
the simple truth for the record and to make the point.
Anyone
remotely familiar with the whole issue, (and especially the
Mayor and Legal Counsel), should know that the Mettam-Fleming- request had a “small caveat” attached that
required the use of a second loading dock at the site,
accessible only through a residential lot on Sonny lane. It
follows then that trucks must drive on Sonny Lane to get to this
access thus creating truck traffic on residential streets. The
Mayor’s final line before the vote was blatantly deceptive
and misleading. Those that opposed this did so with honest
conviction and concern for the rights of several residents, and
at least me personally, the increasingly questionable demeanor
of this city’s Administration.
Follow-up Letter to CN and Council on my
position on the Sunny Lane Issue
July 13, 2000 To: Mayor Robert Jones & All Danville City
Council Members
From Steve Foster & Bette Brown Alderpersons Ward Seven
Subject: Special Use Changes at Mettam Safety Supplies
Site, and Ordinance 8073 as amended: Dear Council Members :
We write you all to express our disappointment in a
situation which we consider to be a complete misapplication
of our intent in amending the ordinance governing truck
deliveries on residential streets. Additionally, the manner
in which the entire matter was handled leaves serious doubt
as to the fairness to the residents involved. Further, this
obviously establishes the apparent penchant of our current
administration.
The following report of comments by myself (Foster) and
others reflect the essence and may not be verbatim, but it
is to the best of my recollections: For my first time ever,
as an Alderman, I attended a Zoning Committee hearing, (at
the request of constituents), concerning the request for a
special use permit to change the use of the property at 3817
N. Vermilion to light manufacturing (Chris d.b.a.
Creative Cabinets, the potential buyer and co-petitioner).
Attached to the petition was a caveat for the use of a
residential lot, (lot number four in Sonny Meade
Subdivision), to be paved and adopted for access to the rear
loading dock at the Vermilion Street site, with access by
using Sonny Lane. As you know, this street has an improper
truck supporting construction of a chip and seal road
surface, and a five-ton maximum load limit, so posted. No
one spoke in opposition of the use change for the Vermilion
Street building, but several spoke against the use and
paving of the residential lot, and subsequent heavy truck
traffic continuing on this residential street. Supporters,
(with Mr A. Fleming as designated agent), argued that the
use of the rear access was absolutely necessary for the
“deal” to be consummated. That the use of the residential
land plot in this subdivision “was the best use of the lot.”
Mr Fleming pointed out several times that “...they only
followed the new ordinance as amended.”
I attended this meeting to give the Zoning board a history
of the use of this site and more recently the lot and street
use for truck traffic, contrary to the existing Truck
traffic and Load ordinances. I explained how and why the
Council amended the ordinance, i.e., the administration told
the Council that “this was occurring all over town and could
not be enforced, etc.”. I told the Zoning Committee that
many on the council were (and are) genuinely concerned where
residential areas are affected by businesses due to
increased traffic, truck use and parking, to drainage run
off. I told them of our rejection of the first ordinance
changes proposed by the administration, (striking the words
about “deliveries at addresses other than the business
address”). That when the second proposed amendment was
presented which suggested that the City engineer “would
exclusively make the decision as to use of streets in
residential neighborhoods”, that the majority considered
this left too much authority with one person, and indirectly
the administration, and at least the Traffic Committee
should have the final say with the engineer making
recommendations.
The Council then amended the proposed amendment to reflect
this intention. Further, I said that it was my understanding
that the amended ordinance would allow for a fair and
impartial hearing by the Traffic Committee, and that after
what I thought was assurance from legal council, and the
administration that, expressly, the Sonny Lane residents
would get fair treatment, I voted in favor of the change.
I intended to point out at the Zoning Committee meeting
that the application may be premature, as under the new
special powers given to the Traffic Committee perhaps they
should have their hearing first, since if they objected
there might be no need for this application to go before
Zoning. (I then pondered aloud as to which Committee
actually would have authority to override the other).
However, Mr Fleming, said in his presentation, that “they”
(the Mettam-Fleming- group) had attended the Traffic
Committee meeting (at the invitation of the administration,
via G Waterstradt), and had obtained approval for the use of
the residential street and lot. The residents of Sonny Lane,
B Brown, and I were shocked at this obvious omission
resulting in not providing means for the Traffic Committee
to hear any opposition, or testimony before deciding in
favor for the petitioner. I asked where the item appeared on
their agenda and why we, (residents, and the other Ward 7
Alderwoman, B. Brown, also present), were not notified of
the meeting and hearing, I pointed out that these people
have followed all our suggestions and rules of recourse and
we, (the Administration and Ward seven Alderpersons), have
run them through many hoops, including the Traffic Committee
in the fall, (where they ruled in favor of these residents
and agreed to a compromise to allow the Met tam's to
continue to use the street and lot until Fall of 2,000, the
assumed move date of Mettams to their new site). G
Waterstradt replied the agenda item would come under the
“Zoning if Any" part of the agenda. I said this was not a
zoning issue but a special use request with drastic
potential consequences to residents of this area, even to
their safety and value of their properties. That I
visualized giving this special power to the Committee would
result in their taking special care to assure a fair
decision, and the meeting especially to be a single agenda
item PUBLIC hearing as to the use of a residential street
for trucks. A hearing to which at least all those directly
affected would be notified as to time, date, and agenda
subject.
As to the notification question, Waterstradt replied that
the “meeting dates are posted on the public bulletin board
in the basement of City Hall,” and in later questioning he
replied that only the M-F-W group were invited to give their
facts to the Committee as “their information was pertinent
to the Traffic Committee ruling.” He apologized to the
residents present for this oversight but later recanted the
apology. I then stated that this was not the intent of the
ordinance to be executed in this manner, and at least this
councilman regrets voting for this change, and I apologized
to the Zoning Committee’s and the residents for my naiveté
and being deceived, never realizing that this ordinance
would be used in this manner. And that “I felt that the
residents were also deceived and not treated fairly at all”,
(and B Brown concurs). Mr Fleming then correctly pointed out
that if you (the Council or I) “have a problem” with the
Ordinance this was not relevant and that you (the Council)
could change it, again pointing out to the Zoning Board that
“we merely followed the law,” and went on to try to convince
those present that the site could end up “another vacant
building” if this is not approved. This was countered on two
occasions that it was ludicrous to assume that someone could
not find use for this prime site and still use Vermilion
street for the loading entrance, and that such prime
property should have no problem selling. One person present
suggested that Herr, (who owns the residential lot in
question and the property adjacent to Mettam on Vermilion),
“could allow access space on their (Herr's) property on
Vermilion for deliveries, if more truck loading access was
so vital to this particular deal.” Mr Fleming also argued
that while Mettam had some twenty-five trucks use Sonny Lane
in one period of count”, (an admission of heavy use for the
first time), that “ would only have five”, if this
period was a month, a week, or a day was obscure. It was
meant to show a decrease in use as a plus for these
residents, but fell short of solace to them.
The Zoning Board was tolerant and admirable allowing debate
until their vote. Ostensibly being caught up in a potential
legal and moral struggle, they first voted to send it back
to “the Council or Traffic Committee,” obviously wishing it
was not before them. G Waterstradt forced the vote by
pointing out “this was not one of their options, and they
reluctantly withdrew the vote and voted, (but not
unanimously), to approve, they having no other recourse,
since the new recently reworded ordinance was technically
abided with by the applicant.
Therefore, we believe that the Zoning Committee had no
choice under the conditions. That the responsibility for,
and affect on, these residents and life investments in their
homes, and likely subsequent diminution of values, and their
ability to sell their homes, or to build future homes on the
remaining lots, the safety of their property and children,
and the destruction of their streets, all fall clearly on us
as elected officials.
Let’s look at our, and this administration’s, history. The
council has done a great job in the promotion of business
and industry, bringing many needed jobs and progress to
Danville. This ordinance in question in reality gives the
administration a clear choice to decide in favor of business
or residents without specific guide lines or even due course
for affected parties, and in retrospect we can explicitly
see this. So the essence is, which is more important to the
City and the City’s future, our businesses or our residents?
This is clearly subjective, and the tendency has been
evident for some time. Depending on one’s philosophy, the
Mayor and his administration can hardly be faulted, and we
have approved most projects.
Recently there has been a surprising number of denials and
rejections of some propositions sent by the administration
for our concurrences of their intentions and objectives.
This is encouraging to many as in most cases the denials
curtailed new restrictions and genders toward protecting
individual rights as well as majority interests. The trend
is paradoxical because restrictions are removed where they
are clearly needed, and restrictions are urged where they
are not needed. The council can and does have a part in
curtailing this trend and in directing our future policies,
especially in the areas of business verses residents, and
special interests effecting restrictions on the majority..
The predicament is, I for one have to rethink a number of my
positions as future votes come up. Further we need eight of
us to stop anything we consider is untenable and a super
majority to overturn Zoning Committee recommendations.
Regardless, this is the purpose of this letter. Many of us
are distressed about this type of action and the results as
addressed in this letter, and ask we the Council to consider
our subsequent actions, especially in these matters that
will set the policy and trends as we expand our business
community. The question is, can we do so at the sacrifice of
our residents and their life investments? Should the
interest and temporary profit to a few be served at the cost
of permanent loss to several? We urge you all to consider
this serious question and act forthrightly regardless of
political power and influences of prominent persons in our
community.
What we can do?: Vote not to concur with Zoning Committee
and take them off the hook for our actions. I doubt if most
of their members would object under the circumstances.
Rescind the ordinance amendment, or, add language by an
additional amendment that clearly states a public hearing
must be held when residential streets or property could be
affected, and that all affected parties shall be notified of
the hearing, and that the time and date are set that would
be logically convenient to all parties (not at noon as is
the case for the Traffic Committee). In fact since most of
the Committee is made up of administration staff, it might
be best to name another committee to hold the hearing,
perhaps an ad hoc committee of the City Council with at
least one Alderman form the affected Ward. These procedures
should and could be clearly stated in this ordinance.
Remember, even if we correct the ordinance but fail to
overturn the Zoning Committee’s vote, the Mettam-Fleming
deal may be the single legal exception to our good
intentions, with them alone benefiting from this revision
and amendment to 8073, and with many residents suffering
potential long term losses
Please, once again, let’s do the right thing, demonstrate
our genuine providence for all our citizens, confirm clearly
our real intentions, and stay an obvious inequity with a no
vote on the petition, and again revise this ordinance for
the future welfare of our city and it’s citizens.
Return to menu
|
Tues 4/10/2001
Leaf Burn Ban:
Transcript of
Oral Statement to City Council:
Mayor
recognizes Alderman Foster:
"THANK
YOU YOUR HONOR, THE TALLY OF MY CALLS AND PERSONAL
CONTACTS ARE: THIRTY- 16 AGAINST CALLED EARLIER- 14 FOR BAN
HALF CAME TODAY. = 53% AGAINST A BAN
MANY OF MY
FRIENDS WERE FOR THE BAN AND ABOUT 45% IN MY WARD WERE FOR THE BAN,--
THEY ARE NOT EASY TO OPPOSE
THE PRO BAN
GROUP WAS ORGANIZED WITH GOOD SUPPORT MATERIAL– AND
STRONG
LOBBING FROM THE HEALTH CARE GROUPS WAS AS EXPECTED.-- AND ONE
SENIOR WITH LOTS OF LEAVES SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE BAN BUT MOST
SENIORS I HEARD FROM OPPOSED IT.
SOME
CONCERNS FROM ANTI BAN CALLERS ARE:
PEOPLE WILL RAKE INTO STREETS
STOP UP STORM SEWERS
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WILL START
GUTTER FIRES
MANY WILL NOT RAKE, MORE
BLOWING.
DUMPING IN RURAL AREAS WILL
INCREASE
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BAG
AND CARRY SO MANY LEAVES-
RISK OF INCREASED EXHAUSTION AND RESULTANT HEALTH PROBLEMS
AND
VOLUNTEERS TO RAKE AND BAG FOR
ELDERLY WON’T LAST, ..LOOK AT THE FEW THAT COME OUT FOR
COMMUNITY CLEAN UP DAYS, AND SIMILAR CALLS FOR PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT.
THERE IS
A LARGER QUESTION FOR ME (AND SEVERAL OTHERS THAT CALLED)
MOST HUMAN ACTIVITIES CREATE
SOME RISK FOR OUR SELF AND OTHERS
I.E. DRIVING AUTOS, BURNING
LOGS IN FIREPLACES, GUNS, DRINKING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. ETC,
WILL WE
BAN AUTOS?-- FIREPLACES?-- GUN OWNERSHIP (AS SOME NOW WANT) OR
ALCOHOL (WE TRIED THAT ONCE AND IT WAS A DISASTER BECAUSE IT
WAS A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP’S WILL WORKING ON AN UNWILLING MAJORITY)
NOW WE
ARE TOLD NOT ONLY WHAT WE CAN’T DO, BUT HOW TO THINK. –
WE MUST
NOW BE “POLITICAL CORRECT”.
THE
MINORITY GROUPS OFTEN FORCE THEIR OWN AGENDA ON THE MAJORITY
BY USE OF GUILT. ---WE FEEL BAD IF WE DON’T CAVE.
THIS
COUNTRY HAS CHANGED RAPIDLY AND I FEAR FOR THE WORSE.
EVEN
IMMORALITY AND LYING IN THE HIGHEST PLACES HAS BECOME
ACCEPTABLE THRU THE SPIN EFFORTS OF A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE--
SUPPORTED BY THE MEDIA--CHANGING THE RIGHT WE ONCE
STOOD FOR INTO “EVIL AND POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS..
FOR THOSE
THAT TAKE A STAND COMES VILIFICATION,-- EVEN LOCALLY–
ONE CALLER
SAID HE WOULD SUE ME AND THE CITY IF HE DIDN’T GET HIS BAN.
PERHAPS I
AM USING THIS PROPOSAL TO EXPRESS A DEEPER CONCERN BUT I
AM GREATLY TROUBLED BY SOME OF THE UNDERLYING ISSUES HERE-- OF
INFRINGEMENT ON ONE PART OF SOCIETIES RIGHTS - TO PROTECT
ANOTHER PART OF SOCIETY.- ALL ACCOMPANIED BY THREATS AND
SCORNFUL ACCUSATIONS
WHAT EVER
HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS OF FREE SPEECH, OR THE
RIGHT TO OWN FIRE ARMS, –OR PROPERTY UNENCUMBERED, AND
ABOVE ALL.... THE CONCEPT OF THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY RULING
IN THIS NATION AND ITS GOVERNMENTS?...
WHY
THEN WILL WE COUNT OUR VOTES TONIGHT TO DETERMINE THE
OUTCOME?-- WHY NOT LET THE LOUDEST, OR MOST ORGANIZED, –OR
MOST IMPASSIONED RULE?
I RECEIVED
A HEART RENDERING LETTER FROM A FAMILY THAT LOST A CHILD TO
ASTHMA. I WAS ADMITTEDLY MOVED TO RECONSIDER, SINCE IT WORKED ON
MY EMOTIONS, AND I PERSONALLY WISH PEOPLE WOULD NOT BURN
ANYTHING IN TOWN -- I AM GREATLY AFFECTED BY ALL SMOKE FROM ANY
SOURCE. SO THIS WOULD BE AN EASY VOTE.
BUT THEN I
WAS JOLTED INTO REMEMBERING THE BIGGER ISSUE.-- THE RAPID
DEGRADATION OF WHAT WE ONCE WERE-- AND THE POLITICIANS-
SUPPORTED BY MANY IN THE MEDIA- IN THEIR UNRELENTING ATTEMPTS TO
CHANGE WHAT WAS TRUTHFUL, FAIR, AND RIGHT, INTO “MEAN, CRUEL
AND POLITICALLY INCORRECT CONDUCT”-- AND BRAZENLY CRITICIZING
THOSE THAT STAND FOR THE BASIC RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITY AND
OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT:
SHALL WE
DARE BE RIDICULOUS?-- WILL THE MAJORITY RULE TONIGHT??
WE DON’T
HAVE TO LOOK TO WASHINGTON OR SPRINGFIELD FOR OUR LOWERING OF
STANDARDS AND DISCARDING OF BASIC RIGHTS. IT STARTS IN OUR OWN
COMMUNITIES. THE BEST COMMENT FROM ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS MY
ORIGINAL VIEW IS FROM A LOCAL SOURCE AND I QUOTE...........
“BUT FOR
FOSTER TO REDUCE THIS TO A MAJORITY VOTE IS RIDICULOUS”
MAYBE IT
IS ONLY ABOUT LEAVES–BUT WHAT WILL WE DEMAND OF EACH OTHER
NEXT? –AND WHAT OTHER VALUES WILL WE ALL COMPROMISE TO BE
POLITICALLY CORRECT?
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION........"
Return to menu |
|
3/2001 Opinion on March 2001 State-Local Elections:
Senator Myers lost the
district wide election by 572 votes. Any one Ward's registered voters
in DANVILLE ALONE could have re-elected Senator Myers WITH THE VOTES NOT
CAST. Are you in this count?
We,
in our Danville Area HAD have an opportunity Tuesday March 19th to vote
in the primary election to retain as candidates two very important
assets to our community. Senator
Judy Myers and Supreme Court Justice Rita Garman
are both seeking to be retained in there respective elected offices.
Justice
Garman won in the primary, with heavy support in Champaign County. CONGRATULATIONS
Rita!
Senator
Myers lost the district wide election by 572 votes. Any
one Ward's registered voters in DANVILLE ALONE could have re-elected Senator
Myers WITH THE VOTES NOT CAST.
Are you in this count? Judy you have our gratitude for the fine Job the
past five years, and the hard work you, Mel, and your staff did. Thanks to
all that did vote...IT
COULD BE A DECADE BEFORE OUR DANVILLE AREA HAS A SENATE SEAT AGAIN!
Return to menu
Recently Harsha Gurujal, one
of my constituents, wrote a
“My Turn” letter
published in the CN. I would like to reply at least in part
to some of his comments, and comments by others that were – or
should have been in letters to the editor. I agree with Mr
Gurujal – elected officials should listen to the voters. In my
eleven years on our council I think that is exactly what I have
done and will continue to do. I do not believe, however, that I
have ever met or heard from this person personally. He is
welcome to call any time to discus any issue and how he would
like for me to vote on them. Speaking of calls, after the city
removed the original three cents a gallon gas tax from the
agenda, I received numerous calls, mostly from my constituents
here in Ward 7 asking why we “buckled under” to big oil’s full
page ads. Considering the revenue was for an aggressive street
rebuilding program, most that called supported the increase to
fix streets, (which year after year seems to be the number one
complaint at ward meetings).
At the time the proposal was
first made I said the three cents a gallon would not make that
much difference considering the large changes in fuel prices -
almost daily. I will state that I still consider the one cent
that did pass has an even less impact. In the letter from Mr
Gurujal it was stated “the (increase) might only mean $1.60
more”. Per what? The one cent a gallon on a twenty gallon fill
up is .20 cents. Yes, gas in Covington is usually less,
(sometimes we are less), but the Indiana State Tax is a little less
too. Prices in C-U likewise are often the same or higher, not
always less. I drove to Champaign five days a week for six years
and I kept up with price comparisons. The truth is - enormous
price changes weekly are everywhere in the country, but the tax
per gallon income to the city remained the same for years until
we increased it .01 cent. The more appropriate concern may be –
where does the other 24 cents go on a 25 cent overnight
increase?
More about missing pennies:
Since it’s “my turn” to reply I will address some of the other
negative letters regarding council actions. The liquor tax is
another example of my point. On a $1.75 beer the total increase
was around 7 cents, some of the bars put up signs saying their
customers should call their alderman and complain. Yet, most
bars raised their price per beer or drink .25 cents. Again where
is the .18 cents difference going? On each 10,000 beers sold the
city gets $700, now lets see if we can figure who gets the
balance of $1,800? Or does alcohol rally fuzz our minds that
much? Why is it we talk about pennies and ignore dollars. I
agree “a penny means something”. To this day I never fail to
pick up a penny off the ground when I see one. My grandmother
used to say “..if you won’t bend over to pick up a penny you
don’t deserve to find dollars”.
Retuning to Mr Gurujal’s
comments - about citizens paying more for less - this is
unfortunately more and more the case. We don’t have to point to
Washington or Springfield either, one good example closer to
home, and rarely complained about in print, is you and I pay .64
pennies out of every dollar of real estate taxes to the District
118 coffers. Salaries for some of their ‘directors’ are nearly
twice that of the four city division directors and the mayor.
Yet most of the complaints and letters to the newspapers seem to
be against the city council and our actions. The average citizen
in Danville can not name one member of the school board – or the
directors, yet they spend many times more of your dollars then
the city does. Having said this, I will likely now hear from
teachers, whom I do not fault, their hands are often tied, and
by the same people you voted for when you elected the Council
and Mayor. So this is my last public comment about gas and a
penny tax when dollars are ignored. Scripture is right… “we
strain at gnats and swallow camels”. Anyone who thinks we can
find five-million dollars by cutting out paper clips or part
time employees needs to consider what are our biggest expenses.
Around eighteen million annually is spent on police and fire
protection including fringe and retirement fund contributions.
Mayor Jones (and Eisenhauer) were not making “threats” We had to
cut personnel & payrolls and you look at the highest payroll
costs first, so departments were reorganized and some department
heads had to go, and some police and fire jobs were not filled.
Not one policeman has been removed from the streets since the
cuts and reorganization, (and each firehouse remains with the
same numbers on call).
Regarding the balance of the writer’s comments, we have not had
a Parks Commissioner since the government was reorganized twenty
years ago, city services do not include Education - you should
wish it did, speaking of “swallowing camels”, the city director
that gets the ‘$69,000’ you mentioned is responsible for the
entire public works of the city - that’s streets, sewers, parks,
garbage, buildings, the golf course, and more. And he was paid
$33,000 LESS then the ‘director’ who purchases pencils and paper
for Dist 118 in 2002-03. (See
http://allarounddanville.com/MiscHTMLpages/D118_salaries.htm).
The last camel we swallow
without consideration is the five or ten dollars spent on gas to
go buy in Champaign “for less” which only hurts our businesses,
our government, and your city.
If I run again and do not
earn your vote, that’s your privilege. At least I know I am not
afraid to speak my opinions publicly, state the obvious, and
vote the way the majority of my constituent have directed,
occasionally angering friends, customers, and loosing future
votes; but I will continue to do what I believe is best for our
city. If you fault me, it’s your right, but please give the rest
of the Council and the Mayor a little credit – we are addressing
a very difficult situation while carefully considering the
impact of our actions on all our citizens. We will not forget
you or forsake you. We will work it out – it will just take a
little time.
Return
to menu
Why we
Built the Danville Area Internet Portal
AllAroundDanville.com
NOTE: In 2006 the AllAroundDanville web was bought by the
Commercial News and officially ended May 2007. The Archived
Portal remains intact at
http://www.aadarchive.beamsco.com/
BEAMSCO (the parent company) maintains three new
directories for area businesses. See
http://beamsco.com or
http://danvilleareabusinessdirectory.com/
Helping Meet Economic Development Objectives Through use of
Business Websites:
The
purpose
is
to create the habit of checking our Danville Area businesses
FIRST for our consumer goods and services needs, gradually
establishing the custom of shopping Danville FIRST,
ultimately spending more of our income in our own community for
the long range welfare of all. To contribute towards this goal a
Community Portal or Directory of Businesses, Services, Agencies,
Organizations, and current local news and events establishes a
critical information source to facilitate this objective
AllAroundDanville.com is the only Community
Portal which emphasizes the creation and preservation of
traditional jobs, both old and new small to larger businesses on
line, and retention of local revenues supporting the Micro
Enterprise through the creation of virtual points of sales at
the local level. Creating an awareness of locally owned
Small and Larger Businesses and their products and services.
The prerequisite is knowing that such a business
exits, and a means to find information about the business. See
FAQs for answers to addressing this question and many other
Frequently Asked Questions.
After three years of work we
believe we have addressed an aspect of this problem such as the
question of how do we keep Danville Area consumer’s dollars in
our community? In the recent retail sales study funded by the
EDC, (Now Vermilion Advantage), and the City, it stated that
over twenty-five percent of area residents shop out of our
community. The primary reasons were lack of selection, or
perceived lack or selection, and local consumers were unaware of
the many area businesses and services that could meet their
needs.
In order to maximize the
retention of spendable income and stop the flow of dollars out
we have created a unique local Website that also address the
problem of how can a consumer find you, or even know about you,
without knowing your name or Web address. This Web Site is the
Danville Area “Portal” developed for all around Danville and
Vermilion County exclusively, which provides important daily
information from local news, weather and stocks, to local fuel
prices, public polls, and special announcements. There is also
an extensive list with links to all area agencies and area
promotional sites such as our natural assets and community
organizations; but of greater importance to you, we have
provided scores of individual pages featuring all local
businesses with a Web Site.
With more than 9,000 local links, this website brings our
community to the world.
Economic Development Objectives
Creating and promoting a stable and prosperous
economy at the local level, is a paramount priority for
AllAroundDanville.com.
We understand that an economically strong
community is the fastest route to overall well-being. This in
turn contributes to lowering crime rates, higher health levels
and well being among the members of our community, as well as
raising social and family values.
This is accomplished by our Program as follows:
-
Encourage re-investing proceeds
from your internet business income back in your community;
-
Activating the sale or exchange
of locally made goods and rendered services among the
community;
-
Creating new non technical home
operated business and new Jobs among those who need it the
most;
-
Re-distributing among community
neighbors, the passive income generated by our various
services and programs;
-
Encouraging the interaction and
participation of community members.
-
Creating Current Income through
Internet Business
INCOME
IS DERIVED THROUGH SEVERAL PROGRAMS
SERVICES & SMALL BUSINESSES:
Entrepreneurs can have their own inexpensive Business
Website and in many cases, work out of their home! Small
businesses can place online via our Program, whatever it is that
they are able to do, or a service they are able to provide, (in
most cases turning their hobbies into Micro Businesses), meaning
they are able to collect fees for their services or revenues for
goods they can manufacture through our Portal which works as a
Hub.
Locally owned businesses, creative individuals as well as the
under-employed, the unemployed, the home worker, unskilled
youth, retired, and all of those entrepreneurs with plenty of
energy and enthusiasm, can now look at AllAroundDanville's
Portal to find the tools which will help them prosper and get
involved in projects which give them not only an additional
stream of income but a wonderful feeling of accomplishment
knowing they are helping oneself and others and contributing to
the welfare of our local community. We
at BEAMSCO are willing to advise and provide tools to help
local citizens start their own businesses or increase their
current levels of sales.
Return to menu
Alderman's
Corner 2-2006 Why run for public office?
When you run for public office, the Media always
asks first: Why are you running? What would you do if
elected? I think most City Alderman aspirants have similar
intentions; they care about
Danville, their neighborhood, and
the general welfare of the city, our citizens, and ideas of what
might be done but unclear as to how. I was no different.
Having served Danville in various capacities -
with such organizations as:
Board of Directors, Danville Symphony Orchestra 1989, President
1992 and 1997, - Board of Directors 1990-1994 Boys and Girls
Club, Vice President 1990, -Board of Directors DSO Foundation
1992, President 1993. -A Founding Director Vermilion Heritage
Foundation 1984, Board of Directors 1984-1998, -Board of
Directors Danville Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 1992-1998,
-Danville Noon Rotary 1985 -1997, Board of Directors 1993-1994 .
A Paul Harris Fellow and President Elect in 1995, and -Danville
Boat Club, Board of Directors 1989-1993 Elected Commodore
1991-1992.
I first became directly involved with the city when Mayor Jones
appointed me to the City of Danville Historic Preservation
Commission and I was elected the first Commission Chairman.
Later I served on the Oversight Committee for the first
Danville City Strategic Planning Project 1991-1993, and review
2000-2001.
But, one thing was lacking. While all this may
have had some impact on making a better community for all of us,
I realized that out of the 35,000 or so folks that live here,
only fifteen can actually have a direct vote in determining the
present state of our city. And what we do in the present affects
everyone’s future.
So with hopeful intentions I decided to run for
our City Council. I was elected to the Council in 1993,
reelected in 1996, and reelected again in 2000. I was appointed
to the public Services Committee and was elected-Vice Chair
Public Services Committee 1993-1996. I was a Candidate for Mayor
of Danville in 1995. I was appointed to the Public Works
Committee in 1996 and in 2005, was elected Vice Mayor 2000 -
2002. I then was elected Chairman Public Works Committee
2003-2005.
Perhaps, at last, I can ask myself,
again, the same (good) questions the media asked for the past
thirteen years, Why do you want to be an Alderman, and what
would you do if elected? In 2005 I was elected to a forth
term on the City Council by a one vote margin of 437 to 436
votes cast out of 3,880 registered voters. This was a record
close margin in an historically close ward, ( I won by only 19
votes in 1997). On May 2, 2005 I was sworn in after a recount
earlier in the day, initiated by my opponent, sustaining the one
vote margin. Later I was to be in Court for another Election
Challenge for another recount. I am now the only Alderman to
have been elected to the same office in one year and confirmed
three times in three months. With these experiences the
questions and the answers takes on new meaning. The first
answer is I apparently am supposed to be serving. And one
vote can get your attention.
Of all my previous community involvement, it all gets down to
answering once again, those old questions with a fresh
perspective: Since the beginning of this term I having made
proposals, debated the state of our city, (and especially the
streets problem, for months) - how we might find the means to
pay for it, - and to see public reactions to any suggestions, -
and hours of examining scores of other proposals, debates, and
countless phone calls. A good study was made on streets and
what we the costs would be over the next ten years but the
funding remains a question. Three standard sources are New
Bonds, New Taxes, or New Income from new businesses and new
building activity. The Mayor and Council will likely go in the
latter’s direction as a primary solution and
answer.
Why I continue to remain an Alderman is to do
whatever I can to help create a positive progressive community.
Every vote I cast in the past fourteen years had this objective
in mind. This much I can also answer, and from genuine
experience, it can be done and will be done, but I think
a great emphasis must be made on finding new means to achieve
our objectives. We need thirteen other alderman, a strong Mayor,
and above all the good will and help of our employees and our
citizens. We need to be aggressive but flexible. The new program
of retail incentives introduced to the council this month can be
one of the answers, and is an example of the kind of changes
necessary to win. Like a battle or a race there is always a
winner. Why not us?. I want to remain Alderman to continue with
an objective goal of great improvement and prosperity for our
city and each of us individually - with the help of all the
others - one challenge at a time - I will continue to do what I
can, when I can, and while I can.
Stephen E Foster, Alderman Ward Seven
|