Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. ChrisHajer
   Member

   At the 5/7 Board meeting, Trustee Smith remarked incredulously that no one was coming out against the Class L designation that was approved for the Arcade Building. The Class L is a tax shift (everything is a tax shift according to Trustee Smith.) The granting of that status allows the Arcade owners to benefit from a lower property tax rate for 12 years: the rate would be reduced from 38% to 16% for the first ten years, then it is stepped back up in years 11 and 12.

   According to the Landmark and what I think I heard last night, the tax shift or tax break to the owners of the Arcade building over 10 years would be approximately $400K. Trustee Smith stated that we'd all be paying for that, all 2000 homes (I think I heard that correctly.) So let's do the math:

   $400,000 lost tax revenue / 2000 homes = $200 / 10 years = $20 per year.

   I personally feel that $20 per year is a worthwhile investment to save the Arcade building, and indeed raise the bar on the type of work they need to do in their restoration.

   There are a lot of differences between this mini-tif (one property as Mr. Sweeney stated, I think) and the proposed TIF (no matter where the boundaries are drawn):

   • It accomplishes something we want (improve the CDB, save the Arcade bldg)
   • The goals are very clearly defined
   • The burden is 100% on the property owner to make the improvements before receiving a tax break
   • Preservation must sign-off on the restoration before the tax breaks kick in
   • The duration is 1/2 the duration of a 23 year TIF

   I'm sure there are other reasons to be in favor of the Class L for the Arcade, but those were the ones I could recall right now.

   The point is, if you show us what you need the money for, and we agree with the cause, then we are willing to pay. With the TIF, I don't have any idea where the money is going, or how we would even get the money in the first place.

   Posted Tuesday May 8, 2007 18:30 #

2. Elisa
   Member

   Thank you, Chris ~ I did the math myself last night. The only difference is that when you look at the Census info, there are really 3,552 housing units in the village and of those 2,801 are owner-occupied housing units. So really, it would be less than $20 a year (if you divide by more households) - and that excludes any other property taxes which would contribute to the cause.

   [Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, the other 751 renter-occupied units would count, wouldn't they? Even with a renter, someone is paying taxes on the property...right? Maybe someone else can help clarify what the correct number should be.
   Census Bureau info:
   http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US1764421&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on ]

   Your reasons for agreeing with the Class L are good ones - I came to the same conclusion after reading up on it last night.

   I also agree with the fact that no one is stupid enough to believe that there are not financial issues in the Village. No one says (contrary to what is bandied about) that anyone opposed to a TIF is anti-development and anti-revitalize the CBD. No one says that they would not pay out money to help the village - but you hit the nail on the head when you say that if we know where the money is going and exactly how much, then most would approve. Just because we don't agree with the financial tool doesn't mean that we don't agree with the need to do something.

   Posted Tuesday May 8, 2007 18:46 #

3. MikeT
   Member

   After hearing what Aberdeen said is required for the work - top notch restoration up to high standards, AND must be at least a local landmark, I perceive classL work *almost* like working on a museum that we all can avail ourselves. I believe there are three buildings that satisfy the criteria in town. So if any of those guys that Eric said are 'a comin' to town want to do this kind of work for the 2 -3 buildings that satisfy classL, I say good.

   The biggest thing we get w/ class L is SPECIFICITY, money TRANSPARENCY, clear goals (not an inchoate slush fund kind of deal), clear public good served, developer more at risk, high development standards, and certainly does not run roughshod over the private property rights of 300 some odd owners. these are reasons it is not a mini tif, imo.

   I'll kick in $20 to get an Arcade bldng. This was around during Olmsted's time, it is right off the train stop; reveals that inner beauty of Riverside that Mr Sells has said; it furthers the brand distinction of Riverside as a destination; tourists from the Sears Tower will get a bit of an ooh ahh thing going; it is what people see as they go by every day; it looks westward to maybe the best view in town; get that horse and buggy out - see lower left corner.
   http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=52&page&replies=42

   .

   Kudos to the Village Board for passing the resolution for it.

   Posted Tuesday May 8, 2007 19:55 #

4. Catherine
   Member

   This argument of Smith's was just lawerly sophistry. In a letter to the editor he accused of us being against the historic preservation of the Arcade because we were against the TIF. I think it is perfectly known by him that no one wanted money to go to some cheap, shlocky, half-arsed "renovation" of the Arcade to somebody who coincidentally cried poor when TIF funds were in the air. Class L gives the board more than the control claimed they wanted via the TIF. One reason people are against the TIF is that they don't want shlocky developers incentivized. If anyone, including Kafka, wants to go for Class L for a landmark building, I support it. But money for people like the ones who built the VC? No way.

   If the TIF is truly for conservation, restoration and rehabilitation, let that be clearly spelled out. Eliminate in writing the possibility of incentivizing huge, ugly, shlocky, high density, ordinance-busting monsters like the VC, and that might be a different story.

   I am glad the Board voted for the Class L, even though the village will not capture entire the increase in the EAV as it would have in a TIF. It will pay off in many ways in the long run.

   Posted Tuesday May 8, 2007 23:36 #

5. spatny
   Member

   I'm all for the restoration of the Arcade, and I don't like to dampen your enthuiasm, but I can't see how that building can be done in the manner you are decribing for that amount of money. I hope it all works, but I believe it will cost far more, and I don't know what happens then. But best of luck to them and I fervently hope they succeed.

   Posted Tuesday May 8, 2007 23:43 #

6. ChrisHajer
   Member

   There's no way the whole building can be done for that amount of money. I guess we'd need to see what was in the plan presented to preservation to see what they're spending their money on. I hope like Aberdeen says they are doing it in phases.

   Posted Wednesday May 9, 2007 08:07 #

7. Catherine
   Member

   Well, I believe they are required to meet the standard set by the US Department of the Interior and that if they do not, they don't get the tax break. It beats the cheap job that would be done under the TIF.

   Posted Wednesday May 9, 2007 10:14 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.