http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ Discussion Forum for Riverside Illinois en Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:46:36 +0000 http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know/page/2#post-6713 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:33:33 +0000 Catherine 6713@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Yes, excuse me, I misspoke. I realize the request is for the consulting dollars spent by project.</p> <p>Perhaps they are sorry you cleared tens of bags of garbage from Swan Pond. They might have been able to use it as an argument for a tax increase.</p> <p>Why isn't the survey result posted to the village website? We did pay for it. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know/page/2#post-6707 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:43:44 +0000 spatny 6707@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Hear, hear! We have lots of smart and talented people in this village, people of good intent who are willing to volunteer time, effort, thought and sometimes even coin for purposes they feel are beneficial and, pardon the expression, for the greater good. I see some of them constantly attending the Village Board and Commission meetings and being abused by some of the Trustees for asking questions or not agreeing with their PRIORITIES. That's too bad, because they surely care as much about preserving this place as any Board member of Village employee. But do that and get ready to be ridiculed.</p> <p>Maybe I can't correct the traffic congestion with just a couple signs, but it's an idea to consider. In the meantime I have confined myself to simpler tasks, like picking up debris in the Swan Pond left by the flood. Amazing how much progress you can make all by yourself with just an hour or so a day, every day. And I see lots of other people doing good things - so the will is there to help. But when, for example, you need maybe a truck and a front loader and four guys for a day - less than a thousand bucks worth of paid help to move some gravel and sand that has washed in and fill in the path, and a truckload of driftwood and debris hauled out, and maybe a handful of trees planted - say $2,500 in all - then you hear that "That money is not available and won't be unless we get a tax increase," it bothers me. I think it may not be available because we spent $14,500 for a consultant search for a job that Nathan could do perfectly well at - and is doing - or $10,000 for a cheerleading Finance report or some other garbage like that - then you get pissed off and say "What's the use?" We spent over $10,000 on a Village Survey - and I'll bet you never heard what its conclusions were. I happened to read it and realize why - because its results aren't what they wanted to have. That's why volunteerism doesn't always work. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know/page/2#post-6704 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:55:09 +0000 JohnM 6704@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Spatny, I think I agree with most of your points. And, to be clear, my suggestion that the younger version of yourself would have been impacted by traffic restrictions was in jest--I understand that traffic patterns and car usage has changed immensely in the past fifty years.</p> <p>It also seems to me that your second paragraph, with its examples of unenforceable (or unenforced)laws makes a compelling argument against shutting down streets (which I also recognize was tangential to your original point). Suffice to say that I think one of the biggest mistakes any governmental entity can make is to pass laws that they can't--or won't--enforce. It leads to contempt for other, more serious laws.</p> <p>I concur with the absurdity of spending money on consultants. I've noted before that this village has numerous committees, made up of citizens, who volunteer their time and expertise. These folks are our consultants--and they work for free. We should be utilizing their work, rather than paying absurd sums to outsiders. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know/page/2#post-6700 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:42:26 +0000 spatny 6700@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>John: I was trying to illustrate the Village adminstrations to enlist consultants opinions seemingly for every question that comes before them. I was using an obvious situation - at least to those who live near those streets or who are at the Longcommon or Deleplaine crossings at the evening "rush hour". I didn't guarantee it would work, I just thought that people here in the village with some sense might beable to suggest ways to approach our problems without hiring outside consultants who will give you a lot of garbage and statistics with a fancy cover on it. If anyone thinks there is not a huge influx of transient cars entering at 31st/Akenside/Deleplaine and crossing the tracks at Longcommon or Deleplaine and then traveling at considerably above the posted speeds (and rolling most of the stop signs) along Akenside and Riverside Road or Deleplaine between say 4 and 6 PM I invite them to take a look. Many times the traffic passing down Riverside Road eastward at that time is bumper to bumper before going out at Miller or Lionel. ( It would be full in the opposite direction if it wasn't so difficult to turn left off Harlem or Miller was two-way.</p> <p>As to how much traffic there was in the '50s, when First Ave. was practically empty and did not connect to the as yet unbuilt Stevenson or the just opening Eisenhower, I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about today's problems, not what we had a half-century back. Surely someone will tell us "you can't do that" without three studies and a lot of legal fees. As for "perceived elitism" - well we have signs posted that say "No Fishing" in the Swan Pond but I don't see that stops anyone. We have a sound ordinance but I never see anyone get a ticket for driving around with the music blaring out of their car or truck. We have a lighting ordinance that prohibits lights being directed beyond a lot line, but there are parts of this town that are starting to look like Las Vegas. I saw the TOD consultants were advocating stop lights at the main crossing at Burlington and Longcommon - an intersection that (when combined with the rail traffic) couldn't be improved by all the engineers at NASA. And before I forget, if you try and cross Riverside Road from the bank to the town hall during the evening rush hour don't bet that any of those cars rolling through are going to stop for you in that crosswalk - sign or no sign, proximity to the Police Station or not. It's a bad bet I counsel you not to make.</p> <p>Out in California the Dept of Highways keeps putting up road signs with arrows pointing to Bolinas from Highway One, and they keep disappearing. At Pebble Beach there are gates and residents have openers, visitors pay - I think it is now ten dollars. Delivery vehicles are allowed in, and it all works. That might be the wrong way to go here, it is just a suggestion to see what people think. You know - stimulate the brain. Look at alternatives. Like plant more trees rather than hire consultants. Just my unsolicited view and my name is on it.</p> <p>Catherine: My FOIA request is for total expenditure by the Village per project, not by consultant. I shall post it here when it is finished. It's another attempt to know how the public's funds have been spent.</p> <p>I'd also like to make another point that the present "wish list" of enhanced services the taxpayers are being asked to pay for were never mentioned when the TIF money was being sought. So if the TIF had passed, then the latest increases in taxes for the buildings in that area would not be flowing to the general fund, bit would have been sequestered, making our situation even worse. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6699 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:57:01 +0000 Catherine 6699@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>LOL Chris. So true.</p> <p>I thought the subject was a FOIA request for totals spent by consultant.<br /> Since there is a request for more money, it seems quite reasonable to ask where the money went. Indeed, nothing could be more reasonable, nor a request more foreseeable. The village made a good start by posting totals paid by vendor. Now the request is by project. That is as simple to answer, because it is just not true that reputable lawyers and consultants do not track that information. And it is natural that folks would be interested in knowing the answer, so that they can judge of the results. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6698 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:41:37 +0000 JohnM 6698@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Apparently my reading comprehension is a bit off, because I completely missed the rhetorical or metaphorical nature of Mr. Spatny's comment about traffic--seemed like a straightforward articulation of a problem to me. </p> <p>I'm even more confused now, given his last comment-- </p> <blockquote><p>Riverside is a unique, tranquil little island floating amidst a vast sea of mediocrity and commercial excess. It has a unique and quaintly out of date street design that works very well for us if it isn't overloaded with people who can't be bothered to learn its pattern or crossing protocols. Because that is such an important feature of our community I think it does call for protection. Just as you can't drive trucks through many downtowns or along side streets, so too, our meandering and narrow lanes could and should be protected. But that would take more interest and more guts than seem evident here.</p> </blockquote> <p>Is this metaphorical? Seems to me you are actually interested in addressing the issue of congestion here, no? If you are, a couple points and questions:</p> <p>1) I agree the streetscape is important. I believe congestion is a problem. I don't believe that limiting access is the way to go. And, it seems to me that issues of jurisdiction and perceived elitism are significant here. </p> <p>2) Are you suggesting that I (or others) are lacking the "interest and guts" to protect the streetscape simply because we take issue with your suggestions? Again, I'm hoping I misread you, as I've never noticed you resorting to <em>ad hominem </em>attacks before. </p> <p>3) Would this "no thru rule" have applied to the young Spatny, who has noted on this board before that he A) grew up in North Riverside and B) enjoyed riding motorcycles and cars around Riverside streets? </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6697 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:36:32 +0000 ChrisHajer 6697@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p><strong>"We don't need a traffic consultant to study to tell us what is happening."</strong></p> <p>I think that was the point of the first post. We don't need consultants to tell us the obvious. </p> <p>"A consultant is someone who borrows your watch, then charges your every time you ask him what time it is." </p> <p>Or</p> <p>"A consultant is someone who can tell you 50 ways to have sex, but doesn't know any women." </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6696 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:58:58 +0000 spatny 6696@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>The point of this thread was meant to be that the Village has sponsored a number of very costly initiatives that are doing absolutely nothing for us, and may in fact harm us. The concept of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for plans and studies, and much more on rezoning that only results in terrible projects which do nothing for the Village going in was what i was trying to get at, and is the point of my FOIA request. Just as we are left to cope with the traffic that comes from the west down 31st street and from the Eisenhower via Desplaines and First Avenue and then "cuts through" across the tracks at Longcommon and Deleplaine, so were we left to pay for projects that were unnecessary and which ate into our reserves very substantially. Now we are asked to accommodate this traffic which does Riverside no good whatsoever just as we are asked to pay higher taxes for things that could have been paid for with existing funds, had they not be wasted. I guess that was too esoteric a configuration, but I do find it curious that no seems interested in what these projects cost us, only arguing about who has jurisdiction or is it "elitist?"</p> <p>The traffic question was meant as a metaphor. "We could do things for ourselves before we hire all-knowing others." What relly disappoints is that so very few residents bother to show up and listen and ask questions and keep asking until things are explained. Riverside is a unique, tranquil little island floating amidst a vast sea of mediocrity and commercial excess. It has a unique and quaintly out of date street design that works very well for us if it isn't overloaded with people who can't be bothered to learn its pattern or crossing protocols. Because that is such an important feature of our community I think it does call for protection. Just as you can't drive trucks through many downtowns or along side streets, so too, our meandering and narrow lanes could and should be protected. But that would take more interest and more guts than seem evident here. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6694 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:40:31 +0000 Catherine 6694@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>I really think this was a rhetorical remark by spatny to highlight the fact that we have enough traffic as it is without deliberately adding to it, so it likely does not call for all this scrutiny. I also think the development plans were ill thought out with respect to traffic safety. </p> http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/concerned-citizens-want-to-know#post-6689 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:33:34 +0000 JohnM 6689@http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/ <p>Spatny said:<br /> <blockquote>For example, everyone knows that congestion is downtown Riverside, from the time Hauser and Central schools let out at 3 PM to around 5:30 or 6:00 is greatly compounded by the large number of cars entering Riverside at Desplaines and 31st Street and driving down Woodside/Kimbark or Akenside or Dela[laine to exit at Ogden via Lionel Road or Miller Rd. We don't need a traffic consultant to study to tell us what is happening. What we need is a couple signs that say "No Thru Traffic" and a few days high profile enforcement actions and we could make, for just a few dollars, a big improvement in solving our downtown congestion. </p></blockquote> <p>I agree about congestion, but this won't work (and in my view, shouldn't even be considered) for the following reasons:</p> <p>1) As noted in HRCollins' post, a "no thru traffic law" is almost impossible to enforce. The police would have to follow a car from the minute it entered Riverside at 31st and Desplaines until it left the Village at Ogden. Do we (or any municipality) have the resources to do this? And, even if we did, all the driver would have to do would be to stop his car for a second, gaze at Central or Hauser or the library, and he/she is no longer "thru traffic"--they're here for a reason.</p> <p>2) It may be illegal. If any of these roads are considered state roads or if they are paid for by funds other than that of the municipality, I don't believe the municipality can restrict usage to its residents. It can limit certain traffic, it can impose weight restrictions, but once you start taking money from someone else, it ain't your road anymore. I don't know that any of the routes mentioned fit this category (maybe Woodside?) but they might. And even if not, you can be sure that some motorist will challenge the law, and we'll be in court spending $$$ to justify it.</p> <p>3) Finally (and this is a matter of opinion) its unfair and mean-spirited. By way of example, my parents live on Desplaines in North Riverside. If they want to hit Ogden Avenue in Lyons between Harlem and First, they cut through Riverside. It seems really unfair (and borderline snobbish) to restrict this access. If I wanted to live in a gated community, I'd live in one. I don't. </p> <p>Again, I agree with your assessment that there are congestion issues. But there are other ways to alleviate these that don't involve closing our main streets to <em>auslanders</em>. </p>