"Where does the Village money come from and why we look for new ways to get it?"
Riverside Info » About Riverside
CBD Planning Workshop Tue 1/30
(17 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 22:22 #
-
It started out as a reasonable summary of where the village gets its money, but I was confused when I heard the consultant speaker make a reference to the 'tif area'. Then later, they talked copiously of the basis for the tif, the TOD.
TIF/TOD in WKSHOP 1?
I asked him to define it, the TIF area. I was not being smartalecky. But he stared at me stunned like what planet did I just come off of? I really did not think tif would come up at all in this first session. I took them seriously when they said a pause from the tif. I forgot all about the tif until they mentioned it. I thought it was going to come up as one of the alternative solutions in a later wkshop used to deal with the lack of money coupled w/ the village's wishes/needs. After all, I thought we were taking a step back, pausing, removing ourselves from the tif, and sort of starting from square one.
It became worse when the second speaker came up who was none other than mr camiros or mr urs himself, the author of the TOD study. This is the study that decided to displace my house. To me at least, this is worse than the tif, since, w/o the tod, there would be no home to be displaced.
By their own admission, TOD is the plan that is informing and animating the current tif as well as the current tif ( :) ). It is the basis for the tif. To me, it also is almost 'slanderous' or injurious to my property by putting it into a report slotting it for displacement, all on dubious grounds. That is really great for my re-sale value, regardless of what they do with this tif! It brings up that whole stigmatization thing that I have mentioned before in this space. There was added insult when the board 'adopted' this bastard plan.
I sat there astounded as this consultant went on about how great the TOD was:
how it diligently surveyed properties to be taken as opportunities;
how it picked a garage to be done and it showed the costs of 2.8 million dollars;
and the unkindest cut of all was when they said that there was true community input into this study.VOMIT or SPEAK?
In horror, I saw the heads of the room bobbing in affirmation. It was surreal. Like in an infomercial or a timeshare sell, I was witnessing the cleaning and the desemination of the grounds of the tif for the benefit of that room and of the riverside citizenry on tv, despite being told that we were removing ourselves from the tif for now. I was like my poor neighbor who got sick, but I kept it in. My heart was going around 10,000 beats a second.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=6&replies=15#post-42Despite this unbelievable stress, I felt I had to say something. I was not around when the same pap was presented the first time and here I was listening to it by the author himself, the smooth coiffed presenter with a tie and an ability to charm an audience.
I know there was no opportunity for input and it is extra hard to talk when you are not wanted to talk, a persona non grata - and, yes, I, too, am scared to death of talking in big groups - but I stood up and attempted to provide a counter to the message that this guy was saying to the room and to the tv on the things that I am an expert on - more than EAV and all those numbers they were throwing around.
He could have spoken on all sorts of other conceptions or projects that were on the TOD, or they could have brought up the other plans like straka's or the Our Town plan, but, incredibly, he chose to speak about the tod and the garage.
TOD DEFICIENT
I tried to say that his TOD study was deficient in these ways:
-that one of the properties id'd by the TOD probably satisfies at least two criteria for historic status and therefore s/ not have been in the displacement list;
-the owners of these properties never were told directly that they were marking them, even conceptually, to be taken; thus the line about community input being diligently solicited was a lie;
-there was a significant lack of understanding and respect for the Olmsted cachet of charm by removing an 1882 victorian home and positing a concrete garage in the center of downtown RIverside;
-the tod should have informed their customers, the ones paying for the TOD, that garages are VERY costly to maintain and wd need extra police and they could bring in criminal elements and the loss of the small town neighborliness that distinguishes RIverside and that it would entail taking properties in a town that has NEVER done this before and there could be controversy in even attempting this action. It also did not mention the acquisition cost of properties with R3 zoning cd be significant to the town. We should try to get our money back.
Oh, I forgot, Metra was the main payor of the study. You get what you pay for.
Finally, they answered my concerns with the statement that the TOD was just a variety of conceptions that were not written in stone. But if this is so, why did these conceptions get into the tif plan (that I thought was on hold, but seems to be sitting in the back row ready to come in again)?
.Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
.
miket
man, I really don't like being the nail that sticks out.
I will post no more forever.Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 00:54 # -
I have to add: it must be have been hard to set up these wkshops - the placards with the categories of priorities were gold; Our group seemed to give a lot of priority to community character; and, how can you truly revisit 9 months or 9 years of work in 2.5 hours?
Also, I can see how having community input w/ such time constraints might be hard practically speaking.
So thanks to those doing the work and here's hoping that their work is another bifurcation in the process to have a better Riverside.
In fact, I had intended to make a remark at the start of the wkshop citing the great anecdote that HRCOllins related in this space when he spoke about teaching the kids in baseball to make Riverside better than they found it.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=102&replies=33#post-1521that was going to be the 'opening prayer'.
oh, well, at 1:30 am, I gave it as a closing prayer for the next step.
miket
peacePosted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 01:31 # -
You are absolutely correct Mike in stating that using the TOD study as the basis for these workshops loads the gun. This document was prepared by people that were paid by both Metra and the Village. We chipped in too, so immediately the present Board had an inherent interest in supporting the results of what they spent taxpayer money for. Interestingly, the same people that produced this spurious study then came to the conclusion that a TIF would be the best way to give our budding "master builders" a way to actually take action. Of course, doing a TIF proposal would cost more money, and the logical choice would be the same people that did the TIF, and this time the tab went to the Riverside taxpayers, somewhere north of $50K by this point, I'd venture to guess.
Once you start into these things they tend to take on a life of their own. Needs are forecast, solutions are promulgated, and so what if they buck the trend of retail to go into malls, centers and even on to the Internet. You have to remember, the original sponsor for this was METRA, and they want more ridership, and that means people have to be able to access their trains, and that means parking. So regardless of what Richard the Slick says, METRA knows that when local communities take a bite of the apple they will be ripe to foot the bill to build those parking structures. It doesn't matter to them if the retail plans flop dismally, that just means there will be more space in the garages for commuters - from anywhere.
Guys used to set up card tables and fleece the rubes with deals like this until the bunco squads got after them. Now what we have is something a lot more sophisticated, because the next "Visioning" exercise is going to be the equivalent of a Miss America contest, where everybody gets to chip in what they want, and the Board will make everyone a "Queen for a Day" - or at least a planner. The time to start watching out is going to be afterwards, when the Board's "Questions" for the referendum surface. That's when we will find out they want to give everyone a puppy and work with disabled kids. At least until the election's over.
But wait! There's hope on the horizon. There are people in this town who can think and who realize that there is more to be gained through preservation of the best aspects of our little Village and who have some ideas about how to bring that all about. Not through this ridiculous and ill-planned TIF, but through the tried and true way of private development that realizes the best thing for all is not necessarily where I get everything, as at the VC. I predict you will see a few pearls among the orange peels and coffee grounds that will be thrown out at the Visioning sessions. And they won't be based on taking your home. So hang in there, the fight has just begun. And don't you dare stop posting.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 09:18 # -
I thought that at least the first workshop on Budget and Finances would make an attempt at objectivity before the leap into slanted propaganda, but no apparently.
I wanted to attend the first section but a meeting ran over.
Mike, you have been so good at finding docs to post. Do you or does anyone have a written summary of the budget and finance part of the presentation? Was this given by Kevin Wachtel? Who is he?
Their strategy is not really to change anyone's mind about the TIF, but to smoke out and make supporters of those who had not previously formed an opinion, I think. Perhaps I am wrong.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 09:24 # -
Still really unbelievable they claim that the TOD was borne by the help of the village residents. How is it that no one sitting in on those early TOD 'visioning' sessions didn't say,
"Hey, I know Mike T. Lets call him up, tell him what we are cookin' over here and ask him if he wants to give up his house for a garage."
Sorry, but it seems deceitful as well as disrespectful to me that someone has to find out they are in the line of fire through a newspaper article, months after the TOD's adoption, and not by the authors of the document, a letter, a knock on the door.
BTW, Someone in my visioning group yesterday was REALLY excited about the parking garage idea. They make LOTS of money he told me, he was a former building inspector for Riverside? Anyway, would someone please fill me in on how profitable parking garages are? Was he kidding?
My other thought about the visioning exercises is that everyone has a different definition for the terms we were supposed to rate. Some people in my group were supporting things like keeping lot sizes the way they are as a tool to stop variances, not because they are pro-development as we were addressed, so there is a disconnect somewhere.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 09:45 # -
Catherine:
Finance Director/Treasurer Village of Riverside
Kevin Wachtel
Phone: 447-2700, ext. 233
E-mail: kwachtel@riverside.il.usPosted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 10:33 # -
Catherine - supposedly the finance presentation is on the Village web site. KimJ - I was told that Mr. Kafka, of all people, at one time offered to build a multi-level parking garage where the Pine Street lot is now, but I think he also wanted to carry it around to include Riverside Garage. I was told the deal was that he would pay to construct it if he could operate it, so I guess there was money in it, as he is not known for his altruism, at least around here.
All - as I stated above - the TOD was the illegitimate son born of Metra and the consultants, with additional genes supplied by the Board and those called in to contribute their "Vision." It should never have been used as either the basis for these workshops or as a prototype for a plan because it doesn't recognize the special problems of Riverside - namely that it's virtue is that it is difficult for other to find. There is a PRIVATE vision that I saw that is very much oriented to attracting non-parking needy visitors that arrive by train, and actually would provide parking for the Village right where it needs it without putting it on Mike's house. It is 3-story, with a two story underground garage, faces both the street and -with a boardwalk - the tracks, has second floor office space and third floor apt./condos - and it looks good. It's in scale. It's in the right place. It doesn't compound the traffic problems, to some extent it alleviates them. It would be built in sections so that those displaced could move into the new space if they want to. It's the kind of thing that an intelligent individual would create and not some inept body of consultants. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it looks to me like a way to solve a number of problems through private initiative and creative thinking. It's worth considering, and it doesn't rely on a TIF.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 10:38 # -
Thanks, I'll check it out spatny.
Riverside Garage: mechanics you can trust and a good looking shop: priceless.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 15:50 # -
I agree with Mike T's assessment that it's difficult to truly revisit 9 months or 9 years of work in 2.5 hours, though you've gotta hand it to the Village for trying. For people who are new to the issues it was a crash course on how the Village got to where it is in this process. The public comments, though not scheduled by the presenters, gave a glimpse (albeit a brief one) into some of the difficult issues presented by the TOD/TIF.
The planned "public input" process, through the small group ranking activity, was frustrating because, as Kim J observed, there was no common set of definitions from which to operate. At the time, I found myself wondering how the rankings could be used in any meaningful manner. Then, after reading some of the concerns posted here regarding the community input into the TOD, I wondered to what extent it was fair to use any "public opinion" data derived in such a manner and then to attribute concrete proposals to the will of the people. For instance, I was troubled by the suggestion that participants in the TOD Vision session(s) felt that Pine was ideal for a parking garage. To ask residents to live with the consequences of placing dots on a map, or ranking preferences in the absence of full information, without reasonable opportunity, perhaps, to question the assumption that such a structure is needed in the first place, or having a photo in front of them depicting the historic and other homes that would have to be demolished, just isn't fair. So there's a real Catch 22. For both residents and the Village.
We want to, and should, have meaningful input into the future of our community. How to accomplish this?
I was encouraged to hear that our written questions would be posted on the Village website and that they would, in fact, be answered. No representations were made as to the timing of the answers, but I believe the Village does not want to make a mistake with something of this significance.
I, too, believe there is hope on the horizon, because as Mr. Spatny so eloquently stated "there are people in this town who can think and who realize that there is more to be gained through preservation of the best aspects of our little Village and who have some ideas about how to bring that all about." Over 120 people attended Tuesday night's session, by my rough count. I also personally know dozens more who wanted to attend, but could not due to family commitments. Residents are paying attention. The Village is listening. Let's put our collective talents to use and continue to present viable options.
Posted Wednesday Jan 31, 2007 16:46 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.