Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. JillM
   Member

   An agenda item tonight was to decide whether to opt-out of participation in property tax relief for historic buildings in Riverside. Apparently the Village has opted out every year since 1999. Were we to participate in this program, a homeowner could restore their home (albeit at great expense and administrative nightmare), and have their assessed value frozen for eight years, as I understand it. Since Riverside at large has Landmark status, most homes are eligible.

   All districts have until the end of the month to opt out of this program. The Board discussed this tonight for the first time this year, and was to vote on it without a second reading or much public input. There was significant confusion on details of the Code. But, bottom line, if we do not opt out, some homeowners could participate and have tax relief, with ALL other Riverside residents having their assessed values take up the slack.

   Two Trustees wanted to opt in - Sacchi and Reynolds, arguing that our Landmark status begged for us to participate to encourage owners to rehabilitate to some historic status. They said any tax burden on ALL other Riverside residents is 'minimal', but without any supporting financial data.

   Trustees Sussman, Shevitz and Sells argued that such a program benefits very few, who likely can afford high property taxes, while hurting very many, who might already be hurting financially.

   Reynolds and Sacchi voted to opt in. Sussman, Sells and Shevitz voted to opt out. As a quorum was needed, Gorman was required to vote. He also voted to opt out.

   To sum, two trustees wanted to pass an ordinance that would increase the property taxes of nearly all Riverside residents, while freezing the taxes of a half dozen or so residents. At a time when we have 150 homes for sale, 51 in foreclosure, and who knows how many underwater, do we really want to advertise our community as the place that favors the wealthy over everyone else? According to two trustees, we do.

   I'll note that Trustee Sacchi also wanted to have reduced parking sticker prices for people with antique cars. Again, a financial break for people with money. And at that time the idea of giving breaks for people on a limited income (raised by Trustee Sussman) was shot down.

   A trend?

   No.

   Data. I think we see how some on this Board view the average Riverside resident.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 00:37 #

2. mrt
   Member

   I read that there was not much detail info available at the meeting on both the Code and the impact. But if so, where did the number of a (only) half a dozen homeowners come in who might or would (choose to) enjoy the tax relief? Maybe more might have wanted to do the program?

   Another question: If the program would be that onerous for a homeowner to participate in, why would a homeowner choose to do this program? In other words, if a homeowner's taxes would be reduced, but they would have to pay stiff admin fees, or pay an extrordinary amount of money to satisfy certain historic codes, then why do it (from a money perspective)?

   On the other hand, I also read that virtually all homeowners in Riverside might be eligible for this tax program due to the historic district. So the cost, again, to the homeowner would be a question that a homeowner would be interested in given that there would be some benefit.

   The total cost to the *village* is a question that a village trustee would be interested in. Reading between the lines here, and without all the detail, I guess to a majority of the board last night, there was enough info to opt out of the program.

   It is a bit of a solomon's choice, so I would expect mixed voting in a historic community such as ours.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 09:14 #

3. JohnM
   Member

   Thanks to Shevitz, Sells, Sussman and Gorman for voting to opt out.

   I understand the arguments put forth by Sacchi and Reynolds, and agree that in a perfect world we could--maybe even should--do this. However, as Jill points out, this is far from a perfect world.

   I also have to admit that I'm surprised that Sacchi and Reynolds were for this without having done any research on how the program would impact RIverside property owners. Obviously, we can't come up with any numbers without knowing how many people in town would participate. However, it appears to me that the trustees who supported opting in do not have a full understanding of the program and who would qualify. If I recall correctly, they both suggested that only nationally and locally landmarked structures would qualify. Leaving aside the fact that there are a considerable number of these building in Riverside (40 or 50?), the program also provides that an individual property within a historic district will be certified as a historic structure if it makes a positive contribution to the historic significance of the district. You can find this reference at http://www.state.il.us/HPA/ps/taxfreeze.htm .

   I think many residences in Riverside would meet this test. I also note that while Sacchi argued that the program would result in homes being improved and therefore having a higher assessed value in the future, this is not necessarily the case. Owners of a landmark structure would not (in most cases) be able to put an addition on or otherwise increase the square footage of the house. Many of the improvements that the program would cover (roof replacement, repointing, painting, wood refinishing, electrical and mechanical systems upgrades, or kitchen and bathroom improvements) would not result in an increased assessment).

   I think we dodged a bullet here, and I appreciate that Shevitz and Gorman voted to opt out.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 09:17 #

4. mrt
   Member

   Indirectly there might be an increased assessment for those items. Understood that those items cited (kitchen upgrades, eg) would not trigger a higher assessment, but at selling time, they certainly would make for a better selling price (or conversely, not a lower price) which would be a savings to the village. In short, this *could* have been a way for some people to do needed repairs at a discounted price.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 09:26 #

5. anonymous
   Member

   What defines a historic home? one built 50 year ago? 70 years ago? 100 years ago? Although we all would want our prop taxes frozen, the catch to that would be to invest a great deal of money into our buildings. Some of us can't afford even minor improvements, while some of us can't afford our new increased property tax. How many senior citizens live in the village? Good for Sussman, Shevitz, Sells, and Gorman for recognizing that.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 09:28 #

6. PAR4
   Member

   If I remember correctly from previous posts...We a National Historic LANDSCAPE District? If so, this may have made a difference in the fact that all homes could somehow 'qualify'.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 11:59 #

7. anonymous
   Member

   From the National Register Bulletin, Historic Residential Suburbs:

   www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/part2.htm

   Figure 3. Trends in Suburban Land Development and Subdivision Design
   1819 Early rectilinear suburb developed at Brooklyn Heights, New York.
   1851 Early curvilinear suburb platted at Glendale, Ohio.
   1853 First village improvement society founded at Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
   1857-59 Llewellyn Park, New Jersey, platted outside New York City.
   1858 First urban park in U. S., Central Park, developed in New York City by Olmsted and Vaux.
   1869 Riverside, outside Chicago, platted by Olmsted and Vaux, establishes ideal model of the Picturesque curvilinear suburb.
   1869-71 Garden City, Hempstead, Long Island, platted by Alexander Tunney Stewart.
   1876-92 Sudbury Park, Maryland, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted.
   1889 Camillo Sitte (Austria), author of Der Stadtebau, calls attention to the informal character of Medieval towns, as a model for village design.
   1891-1914 Roland Park, Baltimore, developed by Edward H. Bouton, designed by the Olmsted firm using extensive deed restrictions and featuring cul-de-sacs.
   1893 Columbian World's Exposition, Chicago, introduction of comprehensive planning and City Beautiful movement
   1898 Ebenezer Howard, Garden City diagram published in Tomorrow (republished as Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 1902).
   1902-05 Garden cities of Letchworth (1902) and Hampstead Gardens (1905), England, designed by Parker and Unwin, introducing cul-de-sacs, superblock planning, open-court clustering, and other Garden City features.
   1902 Improvement of Towns and Cities by Charles Mulford Robinson calls for civic improvements such as roads, site planning, playgrounds and parks, street plantings, paving, lighting, and sanitation.
   1904 American Civic Association (ACA) formed by the merging of the American League for Civic Improvement and American Park and Outdoor Art Association.
   1907-50s Country Club District, Kansas City, developed by community builder J. C. Nichols, with landscape architectural firm of Hare and Hare.
   1909 Los Angeles passes first zoning ordinance creating separate districts or zones for residential land use.
   1909 Raymond Unwin's Town Planning in Practice published, adopted in England and United States.
   1909-11 Forest Hills Gardens developed by Russell Sage Foundation, with architect Grosvenor Atterbury, and landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.
   1909 National Conference on City Planning (NCCP) founded; First National Conference on City Planning and Problems of Congestion convened.
   1911-29 Shaker Village, near Cleveland, Ohio, by the van Sweringen Brothers.
   1916 New York City establishes zoning ordinance.
   1917 American City Planning Institute (ACPI) founded, renamed the American Institute of Planners (1938).

   So Riverside is a National Historic Landmark---NOT a Historic LANDSCAPE District. I think this is important to know. We could start planting any kind of elm tree, right? not just what the RCA wants us to plant.

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 12:30 #

8. Tim
   Member

   1869 Riverside, outside Chicago, platted by Olmsted and Vaux, establishes ideal model of the Picturesque curvilinear suburb.

   That in BOLD is the reason Riverside is a National Historic Landmark. To be "picturesque" does not imply the planting of any kind of tree you feel like where ever you want. The type of tree can become significant when you discuss the arrangement of greenspace. It is not so much the specific tree type, but rather the interaction of specific trees, shrubs and grasses and how they relate to their surrounding environment that is important. In fact sometimes less is more!

   If you are uncertain as to how the arrangement of plantings in a landscape could add to the overall Picturesque effect, there is an article in the recent Olmsted Society Newsletter (titled 'A Room with a View') highlighting some of the key components of the picturesque nature of Olmsted's design for Riverside.

   If you didn't get a copy you can find it here: Winter Newsletter or at www.olmstedsociety.org

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 13:17 #

9. CuriousResident
   Member

   I really like the way you put that Tim.

   It describes the subject/issue/challenge more succinctly than I've heard/read before.

   Thanks~

   Posted Wednesday Jan 20, 2010 13:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.