Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. spatny
   Member

   Since the Village Board and Manager decided to ask the residents for more funds in the form of a referendum, it seems only fair that they provide a true and complete accounting of just how much of the taxpayer's money has been spent over the years on the major projects and initiatives they launched. I understand that their is a systemic shortfall between the Village's operating expenses and its revenues that must be addressed in the future, but the Board should have understood that now was not the time to ask for more money, at least not before accounting to the public howand for what they have spent they have already had. When repeated rquests for an accounting are constantly denied, when they claim they provide any project accounting for costly and prolonged projects they decided to undertake, then it is patently clear that a change in the way the Village operates and spends its resources is called for.

   This coming week I shall file another FOIA request to ascertain the true, complete and inclusive project cost, paid from inception to date, by the Village, for each of the following Initiatives:
   A. The B2 Zoning
   B. The B1 Zoning
   C. The Residential Zoning
   D. The Transportation Oriented Development Study (TOD)
   E. The TIF Initiative
   F. Centennial Park (or Plaza) redesign

   They will either answer this or they won't. They will either provide a clear and complete account of what these projects cost, or they won't. Hopefully we shall finally learn what all this has cost. Then the voters can decide if they want to this Board more money to spend in a similar manner, or whether they would prefer to wait until April and first vote for a new Board before going on the hook for more. Please understand, this request is not made because I question the integrity of any Board Member or Village Employee. What I question is their priorities and philosophy as a group. Wishing for another source of revenue is one thing. Squandering already limited resources on foolish initiatives aimed at achieving dubious goals is another. Our Trustees are not bad people. But they have operated for years in a vacuum, largely running unopposed. Perhaps it is our fault that too few have taken an interest in what is going on. Perhaps too few taxpayers have asked the hard questions have spoken up too late. Perhaps too few neighbors have questioned what they have been told.

   The Village is not broke. We could run in our present condition for another three years if we had to. Maybe questioning some sacred cows, like the Rec Department - which suddenly when threatened with extinction was able to assemble a plan for operating on a hundred thousand dollars less - has been worthwhile. We need to not only know more about what projects and departments have cost, but about what these expenses are expected to achieve. And how they are expected to achieve it. It is not enough to spend taxpayer money to bring projects to Riverside if they are the wrong projects.

   For example, everyone knows that congestion is downtown Riverside, from the time Hauser and Central schools let out at 3 PM to around 5:30 or 6:00 is greatly compounded by the large number of cars entering Riverside at Desplaines and 31st Street and driving down Woodside/Kimbark or Akenside or Dela[laine to exit at Ogden via Lionel Road or Miller Rd. We don't need a traffic consultant to study to tell us what is happening. What we need is a couple signs that say "No Thru Traffic" and a few days high profile enforcement actions and we could make, for just a few dollars, a big improvement in solving our downtown congestion. Similarly, we don't need to give costly incentives to developers to clog up our CBD with oversize, costly and underperforming projects that attract no new businesses. The concept of turning Riverside into some kind of destination is ludicrous, and at odds with the reasons that most residents give for buying in here. Tranquility. Natural beauty. Good schools. No one came here because of the wonderful shopping or the variety of condos available. Methinks we need a Board that has the right priorities and a realistic approach to what is possible. And we need to see how much has been spent on this nonsense.

   Posted Sunday Oct 12, 2008 15:55 #

2. Catherine
   Member

   Consultants keep records by client and matter number, at least I have never known one that does not. Therefore, they should be able to answer your question, because the consultants could produce that information if they have not already. Any vendor would comply with such a request.

   The posting of the annual totals on the village website was a good start. Information is neutral. There should be no problem making it transparent and available.

   I agree it is a question of vision, not of anyone's good intent.

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 10:04 #

3. HRCollins
   Member

   Spatny -

   I believe this link (https://sites.google.com/site/riversidefoia/) my help you with your FOIA request and save the village some money in filling your request.

   I agree that there is a lot of traffic in the late afternoon in the CBD, but No Thru Traffic" laws are very difficult and time consuming to enforce. See http://tinyurl.com/nothrutraffic

   Here are a couple of excerpts:

   John Sauter, Lake County Division of Transportation, Lake County, Illinois, jsauter@co.lake.il.us
   06/21/2006
   In Illinois, there are State maintained highways under the Illinois Department
   of Transportation, and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, these account
   for about only 15% of the total highways, roads and streets in the state. Then
   under local jurisdiction are the County Highways, Township Highways and
   Municipal Streets. Most County highways are considered arterials, while many
   township roads serve as collectors and subdivision streets. The municipal
   street systemis usually residential collectors and subdivision streets that are
   under the jurisdiction of the city or village and the village or city board
   under Illinois Law can pass an ordinance which prohibits Thru traffic from
   using the Village street as a cut thru for getting around congestion. Many
   Villages do, these streets, in many cases, are posted as a placebo for the
   residents of the streets and are enforced by writing a citiation for
   "Disobeying a Traffic Control Device" by the local police department. Here is
   the kicker, to write the citation the officer must witness the vehicle going
   from Point A to Point B without stopping in order to write the ticket, usually
   pulling over in front of a house and waiting for a minute or two looking like
   you are waiting to pick up someone will get the ticket kicked out of court, so
   most police departments do not enforce this ordinance.

   I get about 10 request a year from the Township Highway Commissioners for this
   sign and they are passing the request along from the residents of the street. I
   will turn them down explaining that while Villages and Cities post these signs,
   they are a waste of time and are unenforcible. It is not a matter that the sign
   is not in the MUTCD but just a matter of common sense, why install a sign that
   will not have meaning but to find out why the motorists are using the local
   street system to avoid the congestion on the arterial street and try to correct
   the real problem.

   John Sauter, Lake County Division of Transportation, Lake County, IL, jsautewr@co.lake.il.us
   06/22/2006
   With respect to those of other states, under the Illinois Law the Municipal
   street systems are governed by the city or village boards of those
   municipalities. As a county traffic operations supervisor, I have seen the NO
   Thru Traffic signs installed by many municipalities, don't get me wrong, I do
   not like or condone using a placebo type sign just to quiet the residents. The
   crux of the matter is most Village Boards have never heard of the MUTCD, when
   they are informed of the MUTCD, they will defer to the Village Attorney. The
   Village Attorney usually will have a minimumal knowledge of the MUTCD. It must
   be remembered that the village board is made up of people who are trying to do
   a good job but are not traffic engineers and are not aware of the Federal and
   State regulations that require them to follow the MUTCD. The village board is
   responsible to the residents of the village and if you have been to a village
   board meeting, the residents will be out in numbers if they feel that
   "something must be done". This fact can be seen by the plethora of multi-way
   stop signs used for speed control, the unrealistic low speed limits of 15 and
   20 mph on "all village streets" and the host of Children at Play signs on
   municipal streets. this is not just an Illinois Problem but can be seen thruout
   the United States.

   The fact is that unless the Village comes and request help from the County, the
   County Divisions of Transportation (County Highway Departments) usually will
   not interfer with the village street system. The Township, the County as well
   as the State DOT do not have jurisdiction on village streets.

   The police departments, who in most cases are the defacto traffic engineers
   for the villages, are in a quandry follow the MUTCD or follow the orders of the
   Mayor and village board.

   So you see while it is all well and good to say that the the signs are illegal,
   but when you have no jurisdiction due to how the state law is written, such
   signs will appear and the tickets will be written. The reason is the members of
   the village board are trying to solve a problem thru enforcement and the
   problem really takes a combination of engineering, enforcement, and education.

   I have volunteered my time freely to the villages where I lived by serving on
   various commisions and boards but unfortunately in some cases, the voices of
   reason are drowned out by the voices of emotion. The village trustees do not
   want to see a child hurt and when a parent backed up by the neighbors descend
   on the village board meeting demanding the village do something to stop the
   "perceived" cut thru traffic and speeding thru the neighborhood before a "child
   is hurt or killed". The village board is hard pressed to not to do the
   immediate thing which is to install a sign.

   So in conclusion, under the political system we elected to live under The
   village board is made up of elected citizens of good will without the
   specialized knowledge that we who read this discussion board have. So in may be
   incumbent that we who do know better, make an effort to educate the elected
   officials, remember what Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us"

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 10:06 #

4. Catherine
   Member

   That site is very interesting, but no, it does not answer the question. It should not cost anything to get the question answered: the vendors can answer it in one phone call. The answers can be tallied and posted to the website. This is not some obscure question that is a waste of time or money; the FOIA process is there for just this reason.

   I thought No Thru Traffic signs were posted only when it is physically impossible to pass through. I admit, it would be nice though. There is no "perceived" cut through traffic here, it is actual. I once caught my own sister cutting through after I asked her to stop it!

   I am always amused by people who speak of emotion as an ill, and 'reason' - by which logic is meant - as an entire good. Whole human beings are both, and no one is more insane than a person who tries to live by logic alone. There actually have been children killed here by cut-through traffic, in any event. But it will not stop. Therefore it is insane to compound the problem by creating more parking consumers in an area bounded by several schools and a train track.

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 10:21 #

5. JohnM
   Member

   Spatny said:
   

   For example, everyone knows that congestion is downtown Riverside, from the time Hauser and Central schools let out at 3 PM to around 5:30 or 6:00 is greatly compounded by the large number of cars entering Riverside at Desplaines and 31st Street and driving down Woodside/Kimbark or Akenside or Dela[laine to exit at Ogden via Lionel Road or Miller Rd. We don't need a traffic consultant to study to tell us what is happening. What we need is a couple signs that say "No Thru Traffic" and a few days high profile enforcement actions and we could make, for just a few dollars, a big improvement in solving our downtown congestion.

   I agree about congestion, but this won't work (and in my view, shouldn't even be considered) for the following reasons:

   1) As noted in HRCollins' post, a "no thru traffic law" is almost impossible to enforce. The police would have to follow a car from the minute it entered Riverside at 31st and Desplaines until it left the Village at Ogden. Do we (or any municipality) have the resources to do this? And, even if we did, all the driver would have to do would be to stop his car for a second, gaze at Central or Hauser or the library, and he/she is no longer "thru traffic"--they're here for a reason.

   2) It may be illegal. If any of these roads are considered state roads or if they are paid for by funds other than that of the municipality, I don't believe the municipality can restrict usage to its residents. It can limit certain traffic, it can impose weight restrictions, but once you start taking money from someone else, it ain't your road anymore. I don't know that any of the routes mentioned fit this category (maybe Woodside?) but they might. And even if not, you can be sure that some motorist will challenge the law, and we'll be in court spending $$$ to justify it.

   3) Finally (and this is a matter of opinion) its unfair and mean-spirited. By way of example, my parents live on Desplaines in North Riverside. If they want to hit Ogden Avenue in Lyons between Harlem and First, they cut through Riverside. It seems really unfair (and borderline snobbish) to restrict this access. If I wanted to live in a gated community, I'd live in one. I don't.

   Again, I agree with your assessment that there are congestion issues. But there are other ways to alleviate these that don't involve closing our main streets to auslanders.

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 10:33 #

6. Catherine
   Member

   I really think this was a rhetorical remark by spatny to highlight the fact that we have enough traffic as it is without deliberately adding to it, so it likely does not call for all this scrutiny. I also think the development plans were ill thought out with respect to traffic safety.

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 12:40 #

7. spatny
   Member

   The point of this thread was meant to be that the Village has sponsored a number of very costly initiatives that are doing absolutely nothing for us, and may in fact harm us. The concept of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for plans and studies, and much more on rezoning that only results in terrible projects which do nothing for the Village going in was what i was trying to get at, and is the point of my FOIA request. Just as we are left to cope with the traffic that comes from the west down 31st street and from the Eisenhower via Desplaines and First Avenue and then "cuts through" across the tracks at Longcommon and Deleplaine, so were we left to pay for projects that were unnecessary and which ate into our reserves very substantially. Now we are asked to accommodate this traffic which does Riverside no good whatsoever just as we are asked to pay higher taxes for things that could have been paid for with existing funds, had they not be wasted. I guess that was too esoteric a configuration, but I do find it curious that no seems interested in what these projects cost us, only arguing about who has jurisdiction or is it "elitist?"

   The traffic question was meant as a metaphor. "We could do things for ourselves before we hire all-knowing others." What relly disappoints is that so very few residents bother to show up and listen and ask questions and keep asking until things are explained. Riverside is a unique, tranquil little island floating amidst a vast sea of mediocrity and commercial excess. It has a unique and quaintly out of date street design that works very well for us if it isn't overloaded with people who can't be bothered to learn its pattern or crossing protocols. Because that is such an important feature of our community I think it does call for protection. Just as you can't drive trucks through many downtowns or along side streets, so too, our meandering and narrow lanes could and should be protected. But that would take more interest and more guts than seem evident here.

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 13:58 #

8. ChrisHajer
   Member

   "We don't need a traffic consultant to study to tell us what is happening."

   I think that was the point of the first post. We don't need consultants to tell us the obvious.

   "A consultant is someone who borrows your watch, then charges your every time you ask him what time it is."

   Or

   "A consultant is someone who can tell you 50 ways to have sex, but doesn't know any women."

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 14:36 #

9. JohnM
   Member

   Apparently my reading comprehension is a bit off, because I completely missed the rhetorical or metaphorical nature of Mr. Spatny's comment about traffic--seemed like a straightforward articulation of a problem to me.

   I'm even more confused now, given his last comment--

   Riverside is a unique, tranquil little island floating amidst a vast sea of mediocrity and commercial excess. It has a unique and quaintly out of date street design that works very well for us if it isn't overloaded with people who can't be bothered to learn its pattern or crossing protocols. Because that is such an important feature of our community I think it does call for protection. Just as you can't drive trucks through many downtowns or along side streets, so too, our meandering and narrow lanes could and should be protected. But that would take more interest and more guts than seem evident here.

   Is this metaphorical? Seems to me you are actually interested in addressing the issue of congestion here, no? If you are, a couple points and questions:

   1) I agree the streetscape is important. I believe congestion is a problem. I don't believe that limiting access is the way to go. And, it seems to me that issues of jurisdiction and perceived elitism are significant here.

   2) Are you suggesting that I (or others) are lacking the "interest and guts" to protect the streetscape simply because we take issue with your suggestions? Again, I'm hoping I misread you, as I've never noticed you resorting to ad hominem attacks before.

   3) Would this "no thru rule" have applied to the young Spatny, who has noted on this board before that he A) grew up in North Riverside and B) enjoyed riding motorcycles and cars around Riverside streets?

   Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 14:41 #

10. Catherine
    Member

    LOL Chris. So true.

    I thought the subject was a FOIA request for totals spent by consultant.
    Since there is a request for more money, it seems quite reasonable to ask where the money went. Indeed, nothing could be more reasonable, nor a request more foreseeable. The village made a good start by posting totals paid by vendor. Now the request is by project. That is as simple to answer, because it is just not true that reputable lawyers and consultants do not track that information. And it is natural that folks would be interested in knowing the answer, so that they can judge of the results.

    Posted Monday Oct 13, 2008 15:57 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.