Often people who buy buildings like that are as concerned with historical preservation and beauty as they are with profit. Why don't they put the building on the block with a realtor with a wide marketing reach, something the equivalent of Baird & Warner's red carpet treatment for major properties. Often owners of the more beautiful and expensive homes in town have had to reach out to such realtors. I wonder to what extent their carrying costs are offset by tax deductions?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Arcade Building?
(25 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:13 #
-
Somewhere on this forum, Mr Sedivy of the EDC? has said that the proposed TIF is not what is causing the Arcade to stall. He argued that the numbers Arcade would recv from the TIF are way too small and negligible to be significant.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=7&replies=22#post-540
Now I am hearing that corbi328 is saying that we need the TIF's numbers to make the Arcade work.
corbi328, you can't have it both ways!
:)
mike
Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:23 # -
I'll give you my two cents on why those statements are not contradictory but I certainly don't want to speak for Mike. What I think Mike is trying to say is that the Arcade owners are not waiting for TIF dollars to initiate a project that they would be able to undertake in an economically viable fashion absent the TIF dollars. The carrying costs are significant enough and the TIF process is dragging out long enough to make waiting for TIF dollars a losing proposition, assuming that the project is viable without the TIF incentive. It's the same rationale that led the Village Center developers to move forward with their project even though they knew a TIF was being discussed. Because of the unexpected problems that have been uncovered during the preliminary assessment of the building, it appears that the TIF incentives are necessary just to make the project economically viable. In other words, the building would not be rehabbed for the foreseeable future absent the TIF as opposed to "the building owners are waiting to initiate the project in order to be eligible for TIF dollars". That's an important distinction. I know it's a difficult distinction to explain but I hope I did so clearly.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 09:06 # -
I believe the previous owner, who was willing to sell it for a lot less, still owns about 10% of it. Therefore he knew the condition of the building because he was working on it for years. I heard these guys come in and pitch the Board the same line that the Village Center Developers did, "We only want to do a quality restoration with modern internal upgrades..." blah, blah, blah. So the Village, in its desperation, bought that story. Now these guys will sit on their hands and then come back and say we need a bigger project or we can't proceed, or we need the Village to do some work for us, or whatever. And the Village Board will roll over. Because that's their belief - that something is better than nothing.
But you see, it isn't. Now we have that ugly monster with brickwork that looks like it came from a Berwyn Beauty Parlor rising out of it's hole, and in all it's ugliness it will be a trend setter for the rest of the stuff that will surely follow. I called upon the Village to pass a simple rule that many other communities have, and many more should have - namely, if you want a size or height variance, you have to erect storey poles and leave them there for sixty days so people in the community can judge what the impact of the variance, if granted, will be. The Board wouldn't do that, no doubt because they knew that if the residents saw the actual size of this monstrosity they would never allow it.
By the way, it now appears that somewhere along the way the configuration or at least the placement of windows in the west facade has changed - there are seven framed in where the plans and elevations that the developer distributed show only six. I asked the building department and Ms. Rush if this had been approved by the appropriate commissions, but as yet have heard no reply other than "We're checking."
Why are these projects handled this way? Why did the Village have to refund more than $40,000 in fees to the Delaplaine Crossing developer. Why the blanket fourth floor variance to the Village Center Development? Why the mess with the Arcade project?
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:09 # -
Mike T - I was simply stating that I believe any potential reimburesment from TIF proceeds would be far exceeded by the cost to carry the property until those proceeds are realized. Certainly if you introduce the present value of those cash flows and the potential that there may never be a TIF established, I think the analysis is pretty obvious. I was not making a judgement on whether or not any level of TIF reimbursement would make the project feasible. I have no inside knowledge of the financials or the condition of the property to better understand that issue. For clarification - are you posting under two IDs? I reviewed the link you graciously supplied and assume Mike Tomecek and idic5 are the same person? I don't want to create confusion about the identity of the two "Mike's".
Mr. Spatny - one of the main reasons I support a TIF is that it allows the Village to be pro-active in attracting proper re-development and gives us more leverage on what is being developed. Given that there are currently no funds available to leverage to attract proper re-development, the Village is essentially backed into a corner and is forced to trade-off zoning variances against vacanct buildings that are not viable in their current state. I have never heard a Village Trustee or the Village Manager characterize what has happened this way, so please understand that this is solely my perception. I would rather have a TIF that pays for itself and places the re-development risk on a private businessperson than force the Village leadership into such a difficult position.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:38 # -
Mike S - Mike T said this before:
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=25&replies=38#post-258my two logins - just like corbi328, idic5 is my normal internet id, and I started w/ this. Then I saw that I wanted people to know who I was, and since this is a local issue only, I will not have people from everywhere in the world bugging me (the normal reason to preserve anonymity).
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:44 # -
ChrisH - Thanks for clarifying. As I understand it, we all have to log in to post, so I don't understand the need for multiple IDs.
Mike T - if you are going to use 2 IDs, could you please sign your idic5 postings as Mike T.?
I struggled with privacy issues as well.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:52 # -
Mike - If the Board had shown that they understood what was compatible with the reasons most people live here then that might be the way to go, but make no mistake, this TIF is being used as a tool to lure development. That's what they want - tax dollars. And they don't seem to understand that building oversized garbage like the Village Center isn't the way to attract quality, compatible structures. Riverside's situation - its street pattern and location and ambiance within its core, is really quite different from what surrounds it. That's good for keeping traffic out, but not for attracting shoppers. People need to start to consider that the whole idea of "bringing retail to Riverside" is crackpot. Likewise, building a commuter parking garage on Pine Street will only attract traffic into an area that already has too much. And piling condos along the tracks will do the same. My question is - Why do it? Who benefits? Who will get what from these developments?
I support local businesses, shop at Riv Foods, walk to the bakery in the morning, buy my gas on Harlem, have my car serviced and repaired in town, eat at the Chew Chew, get my cleaning done at Prehop's - etc. If everybody did that the businesses would be better off - but you can't legislate that. I also go the Egg Store, downtown to dine, to the Irish Times for a beer. Maybe you do something else. But neither you nor I will benefit from more traffic or higher condos - so why do it? If people don't like Riverside as it is, or find the taxes too high, or whatever - then sell and move. Nobody's stopping anyone. But let's not try and create a mini cutesy Long Grove or Lake Forest. We don't have the room, and don't need the traffic.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:11 # -
Mr. Spatny - I think it is a misconception that the Village Board wants dense traffic-generating development to permeate the CBD. I also think that is a zoning issue not a TIF issue. I understand that the zoning exercise involved a lot of people and commissions and I can not speak to that because I wasn't a part of that. I understand some are not happy with how that turned out, but I don't think that means that the outcome was necessarily bad. I don't think anyone is talking about bringing in big-box national retailers. My vision is more businesses that are locally owned and understand customer service. There have been some successes, but not enough in my opinion.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:22 # -
Mike S: The login information is stored in a cookie, so it is tied to the computer. If you don't log out, you should not need to log back in. It should be automatic.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:22 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.