Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. JohnM
   Member

   Steve Campbell made a return appearance at the meeting last night. Pretty clear he's still plenty steamed about his donation being refused.

   I couldn't hear enough of the first part of his exchange with Mr. Sacchi to review it here. I did catch his next points. He asked the RCA Board members if their audit of the budget had identified the fat and excessive spending they claimed was rife during their campaign. No response. He asked again. No response. He asked again, and Mr. Gorman told him to wait for the budget hearings. Campbell also addressed the Arcade issue, noting that it is likely rife with building code violations, yet thare has been no visible effort to address these issues and put pressure on the owners to correct them.

   I suspect many will take issue with Campbell's presentation and attitude, and there's some validity to that. However, he asked some very important questions last night, and raised some interesting topics. The inability of the Board members to respond in any meaningful manner spoke volumes. The entire RCA campaign was predicated on the belief that our Village has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. If they can't or won't identify the fat, their entire agenda and philosophy of governing are, to my mind, suspect.

   It was also interesting to see an outspoken RCA supporter in the audience storm out after Campbell--I heard there were some words exchanged in the hallway. Any flies on the wall?

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 12:38 #

2. mrt
   Member

   So this was the $5k tree donation person mentioned in the other thread? Sounds to me like he had a bit more on his mind that merely increasing bio-diversity in Riverside.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 13:16 #

3. JohnM
   Member

   I don't think so. He's made $5k donations to the Village for the past 2 years, and tried to make one this year. He obviously has more on his mind now, but I don't think his donation attempts had any ulterior motives beyond increasing tree diversity.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 13:28 #

4. newriversider
   Member

   Regardless of who this is...his question should have been answered and it was side stepped. I'm tired of the cheap shots. This individual was willing to donate 5k to Riverside and now he is being treated with contempt. I'm sure he has other concerns about this town other than trees. And I would really like to know WHY they were unable to answer his question...seems to me if you had the answer you would share. Then that begs the question...Why don't they have the answer after all this time and scrutinizing of the books.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 13:30 #

5. PAR4
   Member

   They said last Spring before the elections that they hadn't been 'given a copy' - but there were copies for use at numerous locations, including the Library. They knew what the real story was, but that wouldn't get them elected.

   I just find it truly a sad in the USA when 4 grown men can ignore the wishes of many and hold a town hostage. No debate on any issues. Minds made up before the meetings begin.

   I know people will say they were just doing what their constituents wanted, but their methods of doing it are truly boorish and self serving. Dialogue moves things forward, they are standing on the brakes.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 13:44 #

6. spatny
   Member

   After Mr. Campbell's appearance last night I followed him out and told him I had obtained via FOIA the items that he was inquiring about - namely the money the Village had spent on various incentives, missteps, projects, etc. I had planned to give all that to the Landmark last year before the election but Ms. Rush took the extra two week period to get it to me and I received a call I could get it only in the late afternoon of the election day - so of course it was too late. But Mr, Campbell wasn't interested in that anyway - he had no time to discuss those figures. I meant well, but he had other fish to fry.

   I also wanted to tell him that when I donated trees to the Village I suggested areas but did not specify either exact placement or species, leaving that to the forester. I think over three years our contribution - on behalf of my wife and I and RBHS '56 - amounted to 31 trees. When the construction is finished we will donate more trees for the RBHS campus via the RBHS Tree Bank. Maybe Mr. Campbell - and others - could donate that way. The Ecology club kids will assist in planting anywhere in the village.

   Regarding the parking situation - it seems that freeing up the strip along the tracks with 40 something at a minor cost should be lauded, not derided. It's a good step now, and could be in use quickly. The others at the Masonic Temple, if they can be gotten, makes it even better. Doing it that way and husbanding our resources seems to be fiscally responsible, doesn't it? Next year is likely to be tougher than this year. I suggested that the private businesses (like the Bank, Riv Foods and the realty office right across from the Chew Chew and the hairdresser could informally let them park there in the evening if they have unused space if the need exists, but no one rose to the opportunity. Maybe the lady that was worried about going in back could just park at Riv Foods right next to the street after they close, which would put her car right in front of her business. That would be a nice, neighborly gesture.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 14:21 #

7. JohnM
   Member

   Don,

   I don't think that's what he asked for. I heard him ask Gorman if he had identified the fat and excessive spending in the Village, and if so, to reveal what it was. What you are talking about is money that has already been spent--in some cases a number of years ago.

   My understanding of his tree donation is that it was pretty close to yours--he didn't specify exact placement or species, either, except to ask that the trees not be on whatever "official" list the Village is using these days.

   Freeing up the spaces along the tracks is fine. Good idea, although I'd imagine it will inconvenience those who currently park there, and perhaps those who live in the apartments and condos above the shops on Burlington. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the Masonic parking scheme--Who's going to make sure all the non-Masons are gone by 5 pm? What will the rent be? Why are we volunteering to pay for maintenance for a rental property when we'd be the tenant?

   But to keep this on topic, I really think the RCA Board members better figure out where the fat and excessive spending is soon. They said it was there, they got elected in large part due to this claim. At some point, even their supporters might ask for some evidence of it, no?

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 15:12 #

8. spatny
   Member

   I was just trying to be helpful. I was told that he had had some problems in Brookfield involving FOIA requests - don't know if this is true - so I just was offering to save him and the Village staff some time. Perhaps I misunderstood what he was asking for.

   Regarding the Board - all of them - I think they are trying to bring about more parking in creative and perhaps less expensive ways. I heard Trustee Sacchi state that if this didn't work he would then vote for making that a parking lot - so why not give this a try first? I believe there are some/many unused spaces back there so we won't be disenfranchising anyone.

   The people that lease or own these properties knew what the situation was when they situated their businesses there, perhaps many, many years ago when there were homes on those two lots. To now "demand" the village spend whatever the cost to build a lot is OK I guess, but people are entitled to other views, aren't they? Why previous Boards didn't sell Northgate years ago when real estate was moving and prices were better, and why we bought these at a higher price than they would bring now, is another subject that might be mulled over - but that too is in the past. I think we all - Feds, state, villages and cities have to play with the cards we were dealt by what Trustee Sells called "this second great depression." I think next year will be tighter than this one was, and we should practice, for the time being anyway, austerity.

   One last thought. The lady that spoke first and read her letter to the Landmark was not offensive to anyone, n my view. She stated what she believed. The loudest voices I heard last night were certainly not from the RCA members - and that's for sure.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 16:41 #

9. spatny
   Member

   John - I forgot to add: One of the things I like about a "vibrant" political landscape where there actually real, live opposing views, camps and supporters, is the paradoxical situations that develop. Example: Tom Jacobs and I think a lot alike on many issues, but I got up and said I thought it was crazy to advocate creating multi-level parking south of the tracks. We are both trying to find a formula or simple solution that might work, but on this dea we differ - Tom likes it because of - well - he can tell you his reasons. I oppose it vehemently because I don't like it infringing on what I consider to be the glory of Riverside - The Swan Pond Area - and because I think we should try and keep traffic inthe First Division to an absolute minimum - already two many "cut-through drivers"" cutting through via Akenside. Woodside/Kimbark, Forest, corridors and out via the Lyons bridge at certain hours for my liking. So we differ, but still remain friends and respectful of one another's ideas. (Typos courtesy of a '59 wine I dare not mention.)

   Another interesting one was former Pres. Wiaduck speaking out to urge the Board to pass an Ordinance or something to prevent video poker games from cropping up in our bars, like we had any. Jack, FYI - this isn't the old days when certain well-connected members of "The Outfit" who also happened to be Riverside residents could waltz in and deliver a juke box or cigarette machine whether you wanted it or not. But it was a well intentioned comment and might have merit if the Algiers Club decides to try a comeback in the VC, or the Meo family decides to open up one more time in the VC. Then, later in the program - a staunch pro-parking lot supporter who happens to had up the Chamber decided to ask the Board to "Roll the dice" and bet something over $30K on ordering the engineering from the engineering firm who gets our business. So - we have supporters of the same project who would, on the one hand, protect our citizens from the evils of gaming, and another equally vocal supporter advocating that the Board gamble with public funds. I ask you, can it get any better? Ya just gotta love home town politics...

   Posted Tuesday Sep 22, 2009 19:52 #

10. Kelly
    Member

    I got a kick out of Mr. Campbells' baseball hat at the board meeting. It said:

    RCA - the party of NO.

    The RCA might be sorry when Mr. Campbell redirects his $5,000 from the tree donation into a direct marketing campaign. Only in the US of A.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 23, 2009 20:39 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.