Riverside Info » About Riverside

"Board Agenda: Development at any Price"

(3 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by Catherine
  • Latest reply from Catherine

Tags:

  1. Catherine
    Member

    Here is a peerless piece in the RB Landmark. Cut and paste into browser if need be.

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=46&ArticleID=2048&TM=24170

    And a few excerpts:

    ""Somewhere along the line these people have come to believe that they are better qualified to judge what is right for Riverside than anyone else. They seem to be no longer serving the people but dictating to them..."

    "Make no mistake, this board's agenda is spelled "development at any price." They spent thousands to develop the B-2 zoning code, and then immediately turned around and gave a fourth floor variance to that exceedingly ugly and atrociously overscaled monster block that is now crawling ponderously upward out of its foundation hole at the Henninger site.

    More taxpayer dollars continue to be squandered on consultants and lawyers and studies to bolster their cause so they can get what they want. Despite the fact that they have exhibited poor judgment bordering on incompetence or worse in handling the Delaplaine Crossing, Village Center and Arcade Building projects, like everyone else who says he has enough, they want more.

    Most people who take a moment to think about it understand that this misguided thrust for development and the tax dollars they hope it will bring into their hands so they can raise salaries and embark on ever more ambitious projects is bogus. Their poor taste and poorer judgment has already irrevocably harmed the village's ambiance. They must be convinced to stop before they hurt the schools and the parks as well."

    "One of the areas included in this TIF proposal is what is labeled a "blighted vacant area." The board's consultants identify "the vacant land south of Burling Road, along Barrypoint and Fairbank Road" as "blighted." That, ladies and gentlemen, is The Swan Pond, and to call that "blighted" is both intellectually dishonest and gut-wrenching.

    To state that "redevelopment of the park is necessary for future use" is both fraudulent and sinister in its implications. Because the Swan Pond is a natural flood plain-as God intended at least since it was the edge of prehistoric Lake Chicago-this board wants to change it.""

    .
    .
    .

    Well said by someone who apparently has a lot of deep background.

    By the way, does anyone know how much total has been spent on the studies, the consultants, and the lawyers on the B2, and the ensuing proposals? Maybe we could have fixed our sewers with it, I am just wondering.

    Wow! The people made crystal clear their will on the subject of the pedestrian tunnel. I am shocked to learn that certain trustees up for reelection are seeking to circumvent that will.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:51 #
  2. spatny
    Member

    I believe Trustee Grace and Trustee Smith, who ridiculed my calling the tunnel "a whole in the ground" are still in favor of finding the funds to rehab the tunnel, and Ms. Rush was dissuaded from sending the notification of closing to Metra while the search for alternate funding sources continues. So now, if a piece of it falls on some kid's head I suppose the Village would be held liable for not following through. I predict there that "a compromise, cheaper alternative" tunnel proposal - for around $2 mil - will surface, and surprise, it will be west of the station and aim towards the Pine Street parking lot. Wait and see.

    I was also told that the planned new realty office on Quincy may have been dropped. (Just what we need, another realty office where we can shop.) I don't know why (if this is true.) Maybe because there won't be those nine condos across the street to sell?

    Posted Saturday Jan 6, 2007 15:08 #
  3. Catherine
    Member

    They should shut the tunnel, it looks dangerous. It was shut for years in the 90's, was it not? (At least it was locked on the rare occasions I looked at it.) Their study showed that only 50 people a day used the tunnel, while 500 a day crossed over the tracks. So, this is obviously something else meant for tourists, not residents (who made their preferences known.) It is funny they think they can find some millions somewhere while trees go untended and "the infrastructure" is about to collapse as we hear.

    Posted Saturday Jan 6, 2007 17:24 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.