The news was all a flutter about The Grandview Hotel - on Halloween no less, which strikes me as oddly appropriate. Somehow Polly has got to check this place out without revealing her identity. I've gotten many e-mails from Ingersoll, and my curiosity has the better of me... what was it that curiosity killed again?
WEEK is reporting Mr. Ingersoll found videotapes of the former owner, Kris Jain, having sex with guests in exchange for a break on the rent and/or drugs. Gross. I'm wondering how Ingersoll knows the participants did not give their consent to be taped? Could either party on the alleged tape be considered credible, especially if drugs were involved? Ah, but commonsense and the Law don't necessarily coincide. Methinks Ingersoll's main purpose in life is to make that point abundantly clear to the rest of the class.
I remember Chase happily announcing his take over of the Grandview Hotel. What was it? A day after the Court decided in the City's favor to temporarily close the Grandview for being a nuisance, Chase was all but doing a victory dance on camera. Chase was eager to thank the City who enabled him to get a better price for the property by being "overly harsh with Mr. Jain, a friend of mine." Now Chase seems eager to stick it to his "friend." So, the price of the Hotel wasn't low enough?
There were three people suspiciously absent from this latest and most titillating round of media coverage regarding The Grandview. Kris Jain, Jain's Attorney -Joe Gibson, and self proclaimed neighborhood advocate/City Council wannabe Angie Andersen. Also, I haven't seen a word printed about the latest sleazy developments in the Journal Star. Come on guys! Sex, drugs, and videotape! What more could you ask for? They make movies about this stuff!
Peoria Pundit is reporting all the drug dealers and prostitutes have evacuated the Grandview and the few remaining angelic residents should be allowed to stay. There is a new owner after all, and HE didn't do anything wrong. Why should he be punished? Why should the non-criminal guests be made to suffer and put out on the street?
On one hand I agree. I don't think guests who have paid money and haven't committed any crime should be forced into homelessness. On the other hand, the closing of the Hotel has been a long time coming. There is no doubt Chase knew when he purchased the property that it was doomed for temporary closure. Should you be able to sue after buying a car that turns out to be a lemon if it was clearly marked "BIG FAT ROTTEN SMELLY LEMON" on the dealer's lot? Jain was quoted in the Journal Star as saying he sold the hotel to Chase Ingersoll because he was a fighter and "could shut the City up and shut Ms. Andersen up." I am concerned that overturning a Judge's ruling could be as easy as transferring a Deed. Didn't our hot shot legal team at City Hall see this coming? Aside from educating us on the gaping inadequacies in the Law, I think Mr. Ingersoll lives to inflict any misery he can on City Hall, which means this battle has likely only begun, and Mr. and Ms. Peoria Chump Taxpayer will be forced to pay for the entire war. Thanks, Buddy.
It seems to me guests at the Grandview have been punished long enough. Following this saga, I have come to the conclusion Hotel living for the poor is the equivalent of exploitation of the poor - pure and simple. These poor folks are paying more than most people pay for a nice apartment, but have had to endure very substandard living conditions and horrid abuse from the previous owner. Time for the YWCA/Salvation Army/Goodwill/and whoever else takes our charitable contributions and tax money to step up and provide a permanent solution for the few remaining troubled Grandview guests.
From the small amount of footage WEEK TV showed of the Grandview, it appears it is going to take more than a mop, bucket, and elbow grease to turn the place around. I'm just guessing, but it looks as though Jain hasn't put any effort/money into his former property for quite sometime. The color scheme on the tape was old hunter green carpet and chipped mauve paint -which is what- circa 1982? The Grandview needs more than a good scrubbing and a few lawsuits to make it viable, which also was made clear by the Court's Order.
I anxiously await to see if Peoria's most entertaining gadfly can make a dent. In the meantime, anyone care to make a friendly wager as to how long it will take for the alleged Grandview Hotel sex tapes to hit the internet?
If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.
Wednesday, November 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Links
- Batten Disease Home Page
- Peoria Pundits
- Peoria Chronicle
- Peoria Story
- Peoria Illinoisan
- Merle Widmer's Peoria Watch
- Ahl Things Considered
- Eyebrows McGee Plays in Peoria
- Lollygaggin
- Scott's Blog Experience
- Chef Kevin's Culinary Rant & Raves
- Obrien's Briar Patch
- Market 117
- Vonster
- Pasghetti Place
- Dying In Haiti
- A Bird In The Hand
10 comments:
Because I'm not operating anonymously, I was able to pay a visit to the Grandview. I spoke to the people who are there and found them to be honest people who are paying their own way in life. There are people there, though, who would have to resort to charity and homeless shelters were they to be kicked out.
In one case, theres a husband and wife who both work two jobs. Would these folks quality for chairty, considering both are working? I think not. Yet they would be homeless if the judge's order is followed.
I am reminded of the ironic statement: "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help you." In this case it's a sick practical joke the the city and the court system is determined to play out to the end, no matter how many real people suffer for no reason other than to prove how tough they are.
Make all the snide comments about Ingersoll you want. This place is better off with him running it. So are the people who live at the Grandview and if the neighbors would get over themselves and disconcerting it is to realize there are poor people in their midst.
Bill,
In regards to:
"This place is better off with him (Ingersoll) running it. So are the people who live at the Grandview and if the neighbors would get over themselves and disconcerting it is to realize there are poor people in their midst."
To steal your line Bill, I SO CALL BULLSHIT!!! Ingersoll's latest discoveries only prove the neighborhood was in fact RIGHT, and that their worst fears were justified. I e-mailed Anderson -who HAS seen the property since Ingersoll took over- and she responded, "If I knew it was that nasty, I would have fought much harder to shut it down sooner." I'm taking that to mean she wasn't impressed. I was surprised to find Anderson isn't particularly anti-Ingersoll. I do believe Anderson when she states her neighborhood doesn't have a distaste for poor people, but they have no tolerance for crime. God Bless 'em, we could all learn a thing or two from the neighborhood that kept pestering City Hall until it finally got off its lazy ass.
There shouldn't be a dozen people living at the Grandview. They have had PLENTY of notice that they would have to move. If they are legitimately employed all the better, they will have no problem renting elsewhere. As you both have been quick to repeatedly point out, the Grandview is not the only crummy low rent hotel property in town.
Ingersoll not only knew he was buying a lemon, he knew that he was buying a lemon that was Court ordered to close. I think both you and Chase are cloaking yourselves in the poverty of others merely to circumvent the law... hmmm doesn't THAT sound familiar!
I'm not cloaking myself in anything because I'm not trying to circumvent the law or anything else. I have no financial stake in anything going on over there.
I'm simply adovcating a position based on the evidence of my own eyes and simple common sense and a feeling of compassion.
I simply fail to understand how evicting these people HELPS anyone. I've asked this repeatedly, and the only answer I get is, "Well, they had plenty of time to move."
That's not an answer. That's a rationalization. If the answer is "That's because the judge said so," that's more honest. Simple minded and irrational, but honest.
You seem to be implying that not kicking these people out would be denying the neighborhood association of the win they richly deserve for being right. That's a sick and demented reason for makign people homeless, IMHO.
At least when developer David Joseph was able to take the homes of widowed old ladies to build Mid Town Plaza (with the help of eminent domain powers from the city) he was doing so out of greed. I don't see any reason for insiting on a 30 day vacancy except out of spite.
The lady on the news saying that the old owner would reduce her rent if her dauhgter had sex with his c.p.a. was the same person in paper who said that the place was fine and catered to poor people right after the verdict. I think these people would say anything to keep a roof over their heads especiallly if it is cheap\free. I bet Chase gave them a great deal if they would talk and give him publicity. It makes sense.
I found this comment interesting: "I do believe Anderson when she states her neighborhood doesn't have a distaste for poor people, but they have no tolerance for crime."
So I take it Mrs. Anderson won't object if I suggest Prospect Point would be the perfect site for the next transitional home for the formerly homeless? You know, the same sort of place everyone seems to want to shove the current residents of the Grandview.
The Grandview was shutdown because it was deemed NUISANCE. As a legally declared a chronic nuisance it is incumbent on the new owner to prove that the property is, in fact, compliant and no longer a nuisance.
The Court was very kind to Mr. Jain, as the Judge closed the Hotel for 90 days, sixty of them suspended.
Closing the Hotel was intended to give the owner economic incentive to make the property safe. The Judge deemed the closure necessary because he felt it wasn't safe to be occupied by the very people you proclaim to want to protect.
Moreover, the Judge's order isn't intended to help, it is intended to PUNISH. Chase should use the time to do much needed renovations and repair on the Hotel during which it would be inappropriate to have guests staying there anyway. I don't think current guests are being punished, but inconvenienced - with plenty of notice. Besides, hasn't Ingersoll promised to make it an upscale hotel that will attract "upscale guests?" If he means it, he means major overhaul.
The only "innocent" being punished might be Chase, but then again, he knew the about the impending closure and chose to buy the property regardless. CHASE BRAGGED THAT THE JUDGEMENT HELPED HIM GET THE PROPERTY CHEAP!!! You can't say a glib "Thank you" and whine "That's not fair!" at the same time and expect to be taken seriously.
Punishments should not be circumvented because one now intends to obey the law (think of the drunk driver who enters rehab just before sentencing) or due to a paper manuver (putting a new name on a title/deed).
Chase reprents Chase, not the tenants, and that's fine. (Contrary to what they would like you to believe, Teacher Unions don't represent students, either.) I don't believe you have an economic stake in the Hotel, Bill, I just think you are being used. I think you have let Chase convince you that all is well at The Grandview Hotel.
I say - and I'm thinking the Neighborhood, The Judge, and City Hall will agree with me - you have thirty days to PROVE IT.
Polly: I'm not a virgin. There's no need to fret over my virtue. But thanks for caring.
I know that when I am fed information, the person feeding me info wants to present a POV.
Ytust ne, darling. Chase tries to get me to write lots of stuff. As many times as not, it doesn't get any mention on Peoria Pundit. Chase has access to the Blogosphere, so let him put his reputation on the line with some of it. You don't know what percentage of his info shows up on my site because, well, it doesn't show up on my site.
I knew the details about the Jain situation a WEEK before it showed up on WHOI, after the tape was found.
And I use my sources for *my own benefit.* All journalists do. And as I've said many many times, which you don't seem to acknowledge, I've done first hand reporting over there. It's hardly as bad as it's been described. I have stayed overnight in roadside hotels much, much worse.
Bill, Bill, Bill, *sigh*
In re:
"I take it Mrs. Anderson won't object if I suggest Prospect Point would be the perfect site for the next transitional home for the formerly homeless?"
Why are you putting the victim (neighborhood) on Trial? What did they do wrong? Work hard? Pay the mortgage? Mow the lawn? Pick up litter? Even if they are rich, what's wrong with that? Excuse me, I'm lost. I thought I was in America, home of the free market, embracer of capitalism, and rewarder of hard work.
I quote from Angie's e-mail: (She doesn't like me much as it is. After this she'll probably never write me again. Too bad, because her e-mail is shorter easier to read than Chase's.)
"The social service cases, like the "Poetry Lady" living at the Grandview don't worry me. They are not a threat to me, my children, or neighbors. When I moved here, I just wanted a safe neighborhood where I could let my kids ride their bikes or walk to school. Apparently, that makes me a snob."
I think it's interesting someone who says he is anti-crime slaps a NIMBY label on someone who tried to actually do something about it.
Again: So why the hot and heavy to displace them now that victory has been won?
Bill,
In re: "Again: So why the hot and heavy to displace them now that victory has been won?"
There is no "victory" if the punishment is not carried out.
Again, it isn't about displacing 'them' it is about CLOSING the property. After all that has occurred at The Grandview, considering how long this punishment was in coming, you can not expect the Law to turn on a dime and favor a new owner when,
A. There might not be a new owner, but a just a different signature on the Title for the sole purpose of circumventing the Judge's order.
B. Said new owner knew very well that he property he was buying would be closed for at least 30 days.
C. The Judge took into account that there were, in fact, legitimate guests at the Grandview and gave them ample time to relocate. (The Judge carefully considered the circumstances of these guests before issuing his order. There is no shortage of similar or better housing in Peoria.)
D. Punishment means nothing if someone can use legal jargon and technicalities to circumvent it. No one will take the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance seriously unless the Hotel CLOSES.
Post a Comment