Riverside Info Tag: eminent domain

Riverside Info Tag: eminent domain http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:01:01 +0000 Catherine on "Institute for Justice Files Suit Challenging "Blighted" Designation" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/institute-for-justice-files-suit-challenging-blighted-designation#post-5746 Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:05:26 +0000 Catherine 5746@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Did you see this in the Landmark. One home stood up to the barnraising in Hollywood. Interesting their government didn't threaten these homeowners with eminent domain: <a href="http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3037&TM=54014.12" rel="nofollow">http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3037&TM=54014.12</a> Brookfield library says goodbye to Hollywood With one holdout standing fast, plan won't work By BOB SKOLNIK The Brookfield Public Library Board decided last week to rule out the controversial Arden and Washington site as a possible location for a new library. The decision came after a consultant told the library board that it was not possible to build a library of the size that the library is seeking on the four lots that the library can acquire there. The library had initially targeted three homes along Arden Avenue and another on Washington Avenue in the village's Hollywood section. But the owners of one of the homes the library had targeted ...have come out against the library's plan. The library tried to overcome that by agreeing to purchase another home on Washington Avenue, but last week the library's consultant told the board that without the lot at 3511 Arden Ave., it would be impossible to build a 40,000 square foot library. The library's desire to purchase five homes along Arden and Washington had generated loud opposition from many Hollywood residents this summer, but the library went ahead with steps to begin to buy up the property anyway. Catherine on "Institute for Justice Files Suit Challenging "Blighted" Designation" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/institute-for-justice-files-suit-challenging-blighted-designation#post-5728 Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:14:06 +0000 Catherine 5728@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Clarence Page: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1003pageoct03,0,5013041.column" rel="nofollow">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1003pageoct03,0,5013041.column</a> IFJ is the wonderful nonprofit group of crack lawyers who spend their own big, big bucks fighting eminent domain cases against tinpot local governments. One reader comments he is a retiree from state and local government, and advises never to trust them because they always do what is in their own self-interest. I presume he is speaking of paid persons. Catherine on "Government Engineering: Old Homes Seized, New Development Fails, is Demolished" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/government-engineering-old-homes-seized-new-development-fails-is-demolished#post-5019 Wed, 02 May 2007 12:23:00 +0000 Catherine 5019@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Public [Dis]use Urban renewal, a strategy used by the government to clear cut entire neighborhoods to spur supposed economic growth, had its heyday in the 1950s and 60s when urban populations dwindled and cities chose to remake themselves through the wrecking ball and central planning. One such project, New Haven, Conn., has been no stranger to this often gruesome and heart-breaking strategy. In fact, New Haven can be seen as the epicenter of urban renewal, as twice the amount of money per capita was spent there on grandiose redevelopment plans than in any other city. In the late 1960s in New Haven, urban renewal wiped out an entire neighborhood to make way for various projects, such as apartment towers and city plazas, claiming the projects would give residents a “decent home and suitable living environment.— The Veterans Memorial Coliseum, finished in 1972 and spanning 4.5 acres, was considered the ray of hope that would bring vast economic relief to the area, in the form of stores, shops and gas stations. Though many residents were forced out by eminent domain to make way for the new Coliseum, many in the community actually came to like the venue. Few could resist the legendary concerts of Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley and Garth Brooks when they came through town, while hockey-crazed New Englanders appreciated the Coliseum's three minor league hockey teams that skated through there over the years when the venue wasn't hosting the Harlem Globetrotters or monster truck rallies. But, as it turns out, despite countless events over its 30-year life, big names weren't enough to create that economic spark hoped for by the government. “It never created any economic activity around it,— said New Haven's mayor, John DeStefano, Jr. “It didn't even sustain a bar on the corner.— That reason alone prompted City officials to shut down the Coliseum. A symbol of urban renewal, sold with such high expectations, was itself meeting the same fate as the properties that were destroyed to make way for it. A product of government-planned urban “renewal— 30 years before, the City would continued the cycle of destruction to construction to destruction again, with no end in sight. On January 20, 2007, the Coliseum was demolished as residents looked on. So far, the plans for the site include a college campus, a theater and a hotel, though there is no indication yet whether or not eminent domain will be used. If the Coliseum experience is any indication, government planning may not be the best strategy for this area. This is yet another example of a government-dictated renewal project that failed. Development would have been better left to the private market—”as the Castle Coalition and the Institute for Justice advocate. <a href="http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/4_11_07.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/4_11_07.html</a> Catherine on "Making Way for the Richer: Seniors' Homes Seized for Redevelopment" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/making-way-for-the-richer-seniors-homes-seized-for-redevelopment#post-5018 Wed, 02 May 2007 12:17:17 +0000 Catherine 5018@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ April 6, 2007 Uprooted Burlington, Iowa forces Betty Hayes from her home of 51 years Eminent domain abuse can happen anywhere to anyone, whether in a small town or big city, whether you are rich or poor, young or old. Elderly residents in rural Burlington, Iowa, are the most recent example, having seen that their own city government plans to bring in the wrecking ball on their World War II-era homes—”just so the city could make more money. Betty Hayes has lived in The Manor neighborhood since she and her husband bought the house 51 years ago. Her husband passed away four years ago and their six children all grew up there, but the family remains in the home just the same. “I am proud to have hosted every single Thanksgiving dinner for as far back as I can remember,— said Mrs. Hayes. “My husband would be proud to see that we all still make good use of the home he worked so hard to improve, to make a place we could call home and remember him always.— But evidently, the memories and hard work of the Hayes family home are of absolutely no importance to the tax-hungry City Council of Burlington. The Council has seen an opportunity to enlarge its coffers and wants to bulldoze the areas occupied by the homes of long-standing residents. This type of abuse against those with few resources is exactly the kind forecast by Justice O'Connor in her famous dissent in Kelo v. City of New London: the poor would be forced out to make way for the richer.. Despite the Council's grandiose vision, Mrs. Hayes, along with several neighbors, pressed on—”they told the City Council that their homes were not for sale. They organized a community meeting and passed out flyers all over the neighborhood, alerting passersby to the terrible abuses occurring right in their own backyards. Betty Hayes would not let her 78 years stop her. She wrote several letters to the editor of The Burlington Hawk Eye[3] and attended every single Council and neighborhood meeting, and her children sometimes joined her. Still, the City Council members ignored the fact that so many elderly residents would be forced to move from the homes they had known for so long, many without mortgages. Realizing many would simply not sell out to the city, the area was designated as “blighted——”a backdoor, standardless tactic used to take property by eminent domain. City Council members attempted to cushion the blow by saying they would “relocate— the residents displaced by eminent domain proceedings. Relocation plans included moving the residents to low-income apartments in a different section of town. Showing a paternalistic view that is becoming all-too-common among government officials these days one council member said, “they will be better off there than they are now.— It is highly doubtful that Manor residents, many in their 80s, would feel better once moved into apartments—”not houses—”that reflect absolutely none of their personal history of the last several decades. Betty Hayes put it best when she said, “The City of Burlington has promised that it will help me find a different place to live after they've kicked me out. But that new place to live will not have memories of my husband all around, and it will not be the place that has hosted almost every family holiday since my children were babies.— Despite the efforts and major outcry over the bulldozing of The Manor, it was tragically not enough to save the neighborhood of homes. The elderly people fought hard and until the very end to cling to their homes, but the overbearing and fast-moving City Council was simply too much for them: January 2007 marked the beginning of the end of a bitter battle between the Burlington City Council and The Manor residents when the city voted to start the eminent domain procedure. Almost a dozen of the remaining residents will be pushed out of their homes by eminent domain. It is always a tragedy when people lose their homes or small businesses to eminent domain abuse. Property rights are indeed the foundation of all our rights—”no matter how young or old, rich or poor we may be. Let the example of Burlington, Iowa be proof that no one's home is safe from the government's wrecking ball until eminent domain for private gain is a thing of the past. <a href="http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/4_6_07.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.castlecoalition.org/CastleWatch/articles/4_6_07.html</a> MikeT on "Eminent Domain Process in a TIF district" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/eminent-domain-process-in-a-tif-district#post-4918 Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:43:46 +0000 MikeT 4918@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ I have a question that I will throw out to the World Wide Web on details behind the eminent domain (ED) process within a tif district. The links and text by corbi328 below suggests that a property in the tif district can be EDed with TIF funds if that property is in the interested properties list, AKA the Housing Impact Section+, I believe. It suggests that if a property in the tif district is not in that section, and ED would be used, it would have to be put into that housing impact section and a 120 day review process would have to be created and worked before using TIF funds. Anyone, Is this true? The Riverside Village Manager was not sure and she said that there was no money to find the answer out as it would require input from Kane McKenna, the consultants for the TIF. <a href="http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=81&page=2&replies=50#post-913" rel="nofollow">http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=81&page=2&replies=50#post-913</a> corbi328 Member A couple of clarifications. Just because a property is on the properties of interest list does not mean that the Village will acquire that property or that it has to acquire it via ED. Also, to be fair and completely above board, there is one more clarification. Even if the property is not on the properties of interest list but is within the TIF boundaries, it could be acquired by the Village using eminent domain. What would be required is a material amendment to the TIF redevelopment Plan, which implies that the Village would have to re-initiate the whole process (i.e. hold public hearings, convene the joint review board etc... ). Obviously a very cumbersome process and one that the Village would probably want to avoid at all costs. and <a href="http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=4&page=3&replies=122#post-355" rel="nofollow">http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=4&page=3&replies=122#post-355</a> corbi328 Member Kim thanks for relaying that story. I do want to add some color to the last part of your post. Only the properties currently identified as possible targets for acquisition are at risk to be acquired during the life of the TIF. For additional properties to be acquired, this would constitute a major change in the draft redevelopment Plan and Project and would necessitate a restarting of the TIF process (i.e public meeting, public hearing, Joint Review Board, etc...). I guess in theory it could happen but in my mind it is highly unlikely as it would be very cumbersome and expensive. Posted 4 months ago # . . . + I have been trying to find out what inclusion in this housing impact section means for the last 6 months. It was the first question I made to Mr Mckenna at the public comment period. All he said then was that it means that a property 'may' be taken. Technically that is true for any property, whether in a tif for not in a tif. I said this and he gave me a quizical, and very expensive, blank look. In his case, blank looks are NOT free! Then I thought I learned that it was simply a section the authors of the TIF document are required to include if there are more than 10 units that may be so displaced and it allows for a certain amount of re-location costs. Since the original version of the tif doc had more than 10 units, the section needed to be included. (parenthetically, since around 9 units have been removed, and we are under 10 units, I THINK this means that the section does not even need to be included.) This is a different understanding of the list than was stated above by corbi328. So I wonder what it means. I need the specifics. As the board seemed to mouth in yesterday's meeting, lack of specificity is a problem that people have with this tif document. KimJ on "EDC Resolution from Jan 4 Mtg" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/edc-resolution-from-jan-4-mtg/page/5#post-4808 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:36:39 +0000 KimJ 4808@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ How will EDC VOTE TODAY? Posted 3 months ago # DougPollock Member Pending the posting of the Resolution (perhaps it will be on the Village website), as I understand it, the EDC Resolution supporting the TIF included the following conditions: - There should be no use of eminent domain for residential properties; - Central School and Hauser Jr High should be added to the TIF District; - Any expenditure on Swan pond should be limited to repairing the wall and steps and to drainage improvements. - The Board should clarify the priorities of the TOD plan. I understand and support the condition to add the schools to the TIF so that TIF revenues can be spent on the schools. They have also recommended that the TIF not be approved without the support of the Joint Review Board. This is significant in that I believe the Village legally can do the TIF without the support of the Joint Review Board. So if this Resolution is agreed to by the Village Board, this clause will give the school districts full control to make sure they get whatever they need. If the Board agrees, any concerns about the impact on the schools should be directed to the school board rather than the Village Board. If the school board supports TIF unconditionally and then comes back to the taxpayers for more money, they would have some explaining to do. The wild card right now seems to be the last bullet point in the EDC Resolution - The Plan. Given the purview of the EDC it is appropriate for them to limit their recommendation to a general recommendation rather than make specific recommendations on what the plan should contain. The plan as written has a very good "menu of items" but needs to clarify its priorities and to specify redevelopment areas. I think there would be broad agreement on which properties the Village would consider for replacement, which properties would be suitable for restoration, and which properties should be preserved. I see no reason not to specify this in the plan. In regards to priorities, the Action Matrix in Section 6 of the TOD plan appears to be the primary concern. I get the impression that the priorities listed in this matrix are not commonly shared by the community. I for one do not agree with some of these priorities and would like the opportunity to argue for some changes. Posted 3 months ago # *So, it is official, the board of trustees ignores the EDC recommendations as well. At least the board is consistent. I wonder how the EDC will vote today on the TIF now that their recommendations will not be followed, ie. ED, "make schools whole", remove Swan Pond, etc. What I find unbelievable, is that the board ignores the volunteer group (with TIF professionals, bankers on it) and chooses to listen to the paid (for profit) consultant instead. MikeT on "TIFs hidden costs" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/tifs-hidden-costs/page/13#post-4782 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:20:03 +0000 MikeT 4782@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Yes, I do recall moderate people saying that they would not vote for this TIF initiative as it sits now, and I have not seen any indication or expression of a will to change it by the Board. The only thing I have heard from the board is such things as: "I have not heard anything over these last several months that would change my mind on the TIF." I also have seen, ominously, that they want to make a decision before the EAV numbers spoil and they would have to be forced to re-do the TIF. That is what I meant to get across in the 'Funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum" thread, with the notion of the Board feeling that they are 'pot committed' + - poker talk for a feeling that they have so much invested already, that they should not fold now. I am not a poker player. I got that characterization from a poker player who is watching this. But in my 25 years in the corporate world for a fortune 500 insurance company, I have seen many a time where the business owners of a new system being developed turn back after doing a CBA (cost benefit analysis) to go forward or not to go forward. The CBAs (plural) are done along the way, and not just at the start of the process. As new info / detail is discovered, new costs are also seen that might tip the decision. On the parking structure, for example, I hope they have gleaned that it is going to be ALOT more expensive - time, money, effort, energy, town character, public support and more - than the Camiros, URS or Bausch and Laumb told them. I have learned a lot about local village government during these last few months. I respect the time and effort that the Trustees are putting into the process. They seem to me to be doing their level best. But they should know that policy and ideas and plans are dynamic and need to be revisited rationally as new data is revealed. So the 'pot committed' idea is not a good rationale to proceed in this context. It is sending good money after bad. . + warning: color images <a href="http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=297&page&replies=21#post-4578" rel="nofollow">http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=297&page&replies=21#post-4578</a> Elisa on "TIFs hidden costs" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/tifs-hidden-costs/page/13#post-4780 Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:38:54 +0000 Elisa 4780@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ In reviewing comments from this thread from long ago, I was struck with a few things. Way back in January, there was a lot of speculation from pro-TIF people and people who were willing to support a limited TIF that once certain issues were taken care of, the TIF would be readily acceptable to most residents. Some assumptions that were made: 1. The schools would be made whole, (or would have a deal or at least meetings with the Board). To my knowledge, that has not happened. 2. There was also the assumption that the "numbers" would be forthcoming with regards to the schools. To my knowledge, that has not happened. 3. The issue of the parking garage and eminant domain was not really a concern. The comments ranged from "the board has no intention of ever doing that" to "don't worry, there is a way to take ED off the table". To my knowledge, the board has made no comments in public to back off of that issue. [Edit: Ms. Rush's comment: "I recall that I was explaining that a Parking Structure would be an unlikely choice to have happen as the Board knows that it would not be acceptable to the community...the Board is —˜educated' about the community (in this context, I meant that they are aware that this would be a really difficult decision and would be the absolute last resort to address the parking situation). The discussion was to underscore the unlikelihood that any parking structure would ever be built in Riverside." If this is the case, then why don't they draft words to that effect in the TIF proposal?] 4. There was qualified support from the EDC for a TIF that was "pay as you go". I have seen "pay as you go" dropped from the Village's conversation lately. Why is that? I have to wonder if the people who were supportive of a limited or qualified TIF are still in support when it appears as if the limits or qualifiers are not going to happen. If so, how? MikeT on "Nearing the end of the Pause, Back to the beginning; What have we learned?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/nearing-the-end-of-the-pause-back-to-the-beginning-what-have-we-learned#post-4074 Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:24:55 +0000 MikeT 4074@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ the village said -- EMINENT DOMAIN The threat of eminent domain is over stated and is a ploy to invoke overreaction. The Village President and the Village Board have indicated on repeated occasions that there is no intention of using these powers. There are 13 properties identified in the housing study which may be acquired with TIF dollars. If this occurs, the TIF requires that housing relocation expenses are paid if requested by the owner. COMMENT: FREEDOM IS NOT TRIVIAL The threat of eminent domain is not over stated, but is very real and very important. It goes to the VERY HEART of American principles - freedom of choosing the way you want to live and work as long as you are following the law and are not criminal. Also, at least some, maybe most of the private property that is at risk of being displaced are a huge part of their personal lives, and the grounds of the futures of whole families. In short, it is damaging to the freedom, to the financial, and to the personal lives of many town's people. BTW, many of the towns people are not rootless flyby the night people who were just here, but people who have been in town as good Riverside citizens 20, 30, 40 some years. THE FUTURE IS NIGH: EMINENT DOMAIN IMMINENT? Further, the Village expanded on these opening remarks and said that they would not want to tie the hands of future boards by prohibiting eminent domain. A new future board is less than a month away. Therefore, the comfort of the Village Manager's above remarks for a property owner in the TIF district, and in the displacement list specifically, is quickly coming to its expiration date. McKENNA SAYS KEEP EMINENT DOMAIN In addition, since the opening defense statement, we heard in one of the workshops from the TIF consultant, Kane Mckenna, that they do not recommend the prohibition of eminent domain for a tif. It offers robustness and flexibility. We have since found out that this and other pronouncements by the TIF consultant was very expensive to the Village. So it is very reasonable to take what they say seriously. TJMAX SAYS IT WILL USE EMINENT DOMAIN Finally, since the opening statement, there was a plan floated in one of the workshops that admits explicitly that it depends on a TIF, the "Olmsted Common" plan. In this plan, the plan owner was quoted in the paper as saying that the threat of eminent domain would be used to displace private property owners. Why? Because it can. The Olmsted Common Plan is a productive proposal to look at in the assessment of the current cbd redevelopment initiative: it shows what is possible with the current TIF (as well as with the current B2 ordinances). It is a good 'straw man' to examine. NOT A PLOY; BY SMALL DEGREES DOES IT HAPPEN A justification of the concern for the trampling of such an important principle as freedom as well as protection of one's hard earned assets, is that this kind of thing does not just pop out out of nowhere, but it comes into being by small degrees. Thus the light needs to be shined on the processes before it and other noxious things come to fruition. Only two days ago did we see such a noxious small degree being attempted: during an admitted pause in the TIF, there was an attempt to allocate funds for the TIF beyond what was done already. I can assume that there will be more such attempts at small degrees. . the village said -- REDEVELOPMENT —“ YES; HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT —“ NO There is NO Village policy that encourages high density development. Development in the Central Business District, with or without the TIF, is restricted by the Zoning Code that was adopted after many public meetings and public hearings. There are rules in place that limit height (3 stories or 45'), design materials, bulk, parking, etc. COMMENT: INFRASTUCTURE 'IMPROVEMENTS' IS FOR HIGH DENSITY I am still trying to get a clear answer on why residential properties are encircled in a TIF district whose goals are stated to be a CBD revitalization. It is reasonable to assume that the residential areas are intended to be re-done with high density buildouts. There was an infrastructure survey published since the Village defense statement that detailed infrastructure changes to support high density developments (see, eg, burke, july 2006). PARKING DECK IS HIGH DENSITY Further, there is something that IS specifically proposed in the TOD - which is the plan that the Village says in animating the TIF plan - a multistory parking deck located in a residential area. When there is no documented parking problem right now in that area, one can state very reasonably it is for new high density development. A multi story parking deck houses CARS. Increased cars is a symptom of increased density. Also, please see the Olmsted Common plan just referred to. This plan states that it is 100 pct B2 ordinance compliant, and this plan is a poster child of high density high bulk development. TIF SANS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = HIGH DENSITY Finally, since the start of the publication of this initiative, it has been explicitly stated by the Village adminstration that the TIF is proactive or opportunistic. With this approach, high density development in the center of town is reasonable to expect, expecially since there is nothing prohibiting it, as well as seeing how this administration has handled other development projects; see, for example, the Village Crossing, where a 4th floor variance was granted. MikeT on "Nearing the end of the Pause, Back to the beginning; What have we learned?" http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/nearing-the-end-of-the-pause-back-to-the-beginning-what-have-we-learned#post-4073 Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:07:24 +0000 MikeT 4073@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ This can be a place to summarize what we have learned since we started the investigation of the TIF in Riverside. Here is a reiteration of an opening defense of the TIF that I just found in the Traders. <a href="http://www.tradersofriverside.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=77&topic=19.msg65#msg65" rel="nofollow">http://www.tradersofriverside.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=77&topic=19.msg65#msg65</a> Kathleen Rush Newbie Posts: 2 Re: Riverside TIF. The Facts! Â« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2006, 10:30:24 AM Â» -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VILLAGE RESPONDS TO TIF CONCERNS The Village encourages residents to become more informed about the facts concerning the proposed TIF district. We know that there is dissention, opposition and questions about the proposal. At the public hearing scheduled for November 21 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall, there will be a presentation and opportunity to share your concerns about the proposed TIF district. WHY A TIF? The Village Board has proposed a TIF district to respond to residents interests in supporting the Central Business District and the existing businesses. In 2005, many residents participated in a Community Needs Survey. Over 80% of the respondents supported the Village taking an active role to support the core of the community. The Board has done the planning, examined how to accomplish this goal and are now considering the establishment of a TIF district. The Board is being proactive to protect the community with the hope of diversifying its tax base and support an area important to the residents and our business community. EMINENT DOMAIN The threat of eminent domain is over stated and is a ploy to invoke overreaction. The Village President and the Village Board have indicated on repeated occasions that there is no intention of using these powers. There are 13 properties identified in the housing study which may be acquired with TIF dollars. If this occurs, the TIF requires that housing relocation expenses are paid if requested by the owner. REDEVELOPMENT —“ YES; HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT —“ NO There is NO Village policy that encourages high density development. Development in the Central Business District, with or without the TIF, is restricted by the Zoning Code that was adopted after many public meetings and public hearings. There are rules in place that limit height (3 stories or 45'), design materials, bulk, parking, etc. SCHOOL CLASS SIZE IMPACT? The Village Center development will add 22 residential units—¦it is not in the TIF District. The Fiscal Impact study that was done for that development calls for a potential 2 additional kids entering the school district. The TOD plan that is on file, at maximum development, calls for an additional 56 units to 61 units scattered between Burlington and Quincy. If you keep the ratio consistent, the likelihood is that the generation of new students to the school district would be 5 new students. Hardly over crowding that will impact class sizes. Also, it is important to acknowledge the stipend based upon the non-resident tuition (approximately $7000) that must be reimbursed to the school from any new student who resides in a TIF financed development. GREEN SPACES THREATENED? HARDLY —“ IMPROVEMENTS MADE POSSIBLE There is absolutely no residential or commercial development contemplated for Swan Pond, Guthrie Park or the area around the swinging bridge or existing green spaces. This is a contemptuous, utterly false statement. The Village cannot, by order of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, contemplate any improvement on park land that is not park related. See the Village Attorney's detailed opinion on this matter at the Village's website, <a href="http://www.riverside.il.us" rel="nofollow">www.riverside.il.us</a> under the TIF link titled “Report on Status of Parkland in Riverside—. The Village Board is approaching this matter in a very deliberative and informed manner. They have reached out to the school districts, the Swim Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Library and the individuals spearheading the opposition to the TIF effort. This is a complicated and lengthy process. It requires the elected officials taking the time to evaluate what is best for the community in the long run. Please take the time to attend the public hearing on November 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. or learn more about TIF's in general at the Village's website, <a href="http://www.riverside.il.us" rel="nofollow">www.riverside.il.us</a> or call me, Kathleen Rush, Village Manager at 708-447-9987.