Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. JohnM
    Member

    Catherine, Catherine, Catherine. I'm beginning to think you are something of a bluestocking....or at least you don't know your way around our local bars.

    The only bars on Harlem between 22nd and Ogden are Quan's Oasis and the Harlem Avenue Lounge. Quan's is a neighborhood bar (owned by a former, recently deceased, Riverside resident), the Harlem Avenue Lounge is a blues bar (and has one of the best retro signs I've ever seen). (I'm not familiar with the bars in Stickney and Forest View south of Ogden.)

    Now if you said they were at George's or the Cherry Lounge or the Windsor or some other less salubrious establishments, I'd say you were on to something...

    Posted Tuesday Dec 16, 2008 14:55 #

22. spatny
    Member

    Some random thoughts on bars:

    I owned a bar/restaurant/jazz club and know something about this business. Bars in areas where people drive to get there don't select site without some parking. Parking on Harlem to go into anyplace can be very difficult because the street is clogged with traffic and you generally can't back into a space. The lots are shallow, and IDOT won't want to give curb cuts for off street parking on a state route. Nowadays DUIs are a costly business, so I doubt anyone will look at our side of Harlem and think, "There's a great place to put a bar."

    A larger bar/restaurant at Harlem and Ogden might work, but the Docs probably pay more rent to MacNeal then you would take in there with a bar. What everybody always forgets is what it costs to open up a place with the build out, equipment, furnishings, licenses, etc. Somebody that goes in once a month or once a week for a beer or two can't support that. If you have people coming for the food or entertainment, and they drink with their meals, or while the show is on, or while waiting, then that works. Richard's (where LaLas is now) used to do very well for many years.

    In the CBD, Scott Zimmer will probably do well, but he has an established following and lots of goodwill going for him. Most bars today rely on TV as their main entertainment - sports, quiz shows, etc. I did live acoustic jazz seven days a week - top international stars and locals - and had good food so there was a reason to come even when there was no music. Going to the bar to watch some game is no attraction to me, but it is to many. If you want to do that, you already have a wide choice of places.

    All this talk of bringing businesses into Riverside i, to me, ill-conceived, at best. We don't have the traffic to support 2-3 turns of a good sized place. On Harlem parking space and traffic flow are a big negative. The surroundings are not fertile for inviting the kind of clients you want. We should settle for tranquility, not bothering the residential neighbors that back up to what already exists on Harlem, try and deter the traffic through town, and go outside or to Scott's for what we want.

    Posted Tuesday Dec 16, 2008 21:05 #

23. Catherine
    Member

    John, John. I begin to think your interest in bars a little too robust. No, bars are boring to me unless they have good music. Like Fitzgerald's. Or good pub fare, comfy seats, and a World Series. I enjoy that as a community event myself. The glamorous clubs of the 50s would have been worth going to. As for the present, I have better places to go.

    The folks behind the shallow lots, i.e. on Lionel, are worried about eminent domain. The government doesn't care about rent; it wants tax revenue, property and otherwise. I see many sleazeball bars along Harlem; I have no doubt they make money. It's the tax that governments want.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 17, 2008 01:13 #

24. Catherine
    Member

    Full house at Plan Commission meeting last night. Several people spoke about not wanting taverns in Riverside, anywhere. No one, not even pro-monster development folks, spoke for taverns.

    Particularly moving were two young fathers, both new to Riverside, who lived nearish to Harlem.

    Also moving was an elderly woman who asked the commissioners whether any of them lived near the affected areas. No one would answer. They did not.

    Creating bars in a small town where they did not exist before is new law to be put before the people in referendum, not in commission nor even the trustees.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 08:56 #

25. JohnM
    Member

    I'll try to be serious here. I don't think anyone, myself included, wants a bunch of taverns in Riverside. Nor, based on my understanding of the proposed change to the B1 zoning ordinance, do I believe this is likely to happen. Taverns and live entertainment are "special use," which means that a public hearing would be required, and that the village could also reject the application. I understand your concern, but I don't share your fear.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 09:06 #

26. Catherine
    Member

    John, it is not just my fear but those of many who spoke last night, particularly those with children who will have to live next to the bars, and who bought homes here in reliance on the fact they would not have that near them. I don't see why anyone would have to make an effort to take this seriously.

    The Plan Commission was not swayed by the numerous requests not to have bars anywhere in town. To their credit, two commissioners agreed it was not an appropriate use of an area alleged to be "transitional." I have no reason to think that those who judge whether there will be one will do otherwise.

    A couple of commissioners were offensively smug. One of them actually said the owners at Cowley and Burlington had "property rights" that had to be considered. Apparently the home owners who purchased in reliance on the lack of such establishments have no such property rights. They did not rely on an expectation they could sell their buildings with this potential right, but we did rely on the absence of that potential right.

    One person in a position of responsibility concedes that much demand of our police on Harlem is alcohol-related, and doubts whether we have police resources to deal with that.

    It is possible for cost to exceed benefit.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 09:21 #

27. JohnM
    Member

    Again, I really seem to be missing something here. Let me ask this question and see if anyone answers it--

    What Bars? Who wants to put a bunch of bars in Riverside? Is anyone who reads this aware of any interest from any bar owner to go into business here? Can you give me one concrete example where someone has said, effectively, "I would like to build a bar in the B1 zoning area." I cannot, for the life of me, imagine any semi-sentient bar owner wanting to open a business in Riverside, even along Harlem. It seems to me that the issue of bars is a red herring, put out by people who are opposed to changing the zoning code for any reason.

    I wasn't at the meeting (because, in part, I am also a young father, fairly new to Riverside, who has young children and was busy with them), so I can't question your perception of the commissioners as "smug." However, they were correct in that the property owners at Cowley and Burlington do have property rights that need to be taken into account. And, you are correct in that the home owners who purchased in reliance on the lack of such establishments have no such property rights--unless the absence of such establishments was a term of the contract. However, what the homeowners do have is the right to quiet enjoyment of their property, and I believe that any effort to put a bar at that location would be soundly defeated--and I agree that this is as it should be.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 11:55 #

28. Catherine
    Member

    I pointed out our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property to the head of the meeting in a letter, and that is the right to which I allude. No, the business property owners have no such right as the other as yet, and I hope they will not have.

    Are you saying the commissioners are semi-sentient then for allowing for bars? If it were not rational to expect them, it is not rational to allow for them.

    You prompt me to consider whether the bars are not a red herring put out by the plan commission to soften residents up for whatever else might seem pale by comparison, like 4 story buildings. Ordinarily, I would not attribute such Machiavellian motives to others, but perhaps I should follow your lead.

    Are you accusing me of lying? How dare you? I had no idea of what the other zoning changes were until last night. The only one I knew of were the bars, and I am the person who has "put the issue out there." You cause me to recall I was told my objection to spending on consultants and lawyers was a red herring. For what rococo object, I do not recall. No, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    One young father was there with his children, the other thought them important enough to come out for them. Of course, perhaps you do not live near these proposed locations. Many other persons delivered objections as well. You have no standing to scoff at their concerns, or imply they are liars. None of them objected to any other zoning change, save one person of many.

    You fail to understand the issue. I get that. I presume you are no liar or trojan horse. Please extend that assumption of good faith to others.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 13:14 #

29. JohnM
    Member

    Yikes. This is why I read this board for a long time before I considered posting--the inability of a few people to tolerate criticism of their views, and to personalize arguments rather than engaging in constructive debate. To take your points in order:

    1) I don't understand your second sentence.

    2) No. that's not what I am saying. I am saying that there are very few locations in Riverside that would be an appropriate location (from a business standpoint) for a bar.

    3) I suppose that's conceivable, but I doubt it.

    4) Nowhere did I accuse you of lying. You stated that two of the planning board members were "smug." Absent further information, I have no way of knowing whether is characterization is true--what you perceive as "smug", I may perceive as "confident." I believe, however, they are correct from a legal standpoint as to the rights of the current property owners at the address you name.

    5) I understand what you are suggesting by your statment that "one young father was there with his children, the other thought them important enough to come out for them." I choose not to respond. I live on Downing, about 3 blocks from the intersection of Longcommon and Harlem. I am not scoffing at anyone's concerns, and I am not calling anyone a liar.

    6) I understand the issue. I understand that the proposed zoning change will allow bars as special use in the B1 zoning area. I also understand that this would require conmmunity approval, and I don't believe that this is likely to happen. I would not object to a few decent bars (hopefully serving food) opening up on Harlem, although i don't believe this will ever happen (and again, I point out, there is no evidence that any person is interested in opening up any bar in Riverside).

    This will be my last post on this board, as it seems to me that dissenting view points are not welcome. That's fine--I understand that this was never founded as a community board per se, but rather as a discussion board for a certain portion of the community. You're welcome to it, and I wish you the best.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 13:37 #

30. Catherine
    Member

    The community has spoken as of last night. They do not want taverns allowed. Result? We have taverns allowed.

    Why would anyone think then that the people will have the power to stop them? The board decides that.

    Usually when people "go", it is because they have lost an argument, or were caught in an outrageous statement and will not admit it.

    Posted Thursday Dec 18, 2008 17:12 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.