So it appears that the true total numbers for these projects - TOD, son of Tod, TIF, rezoning, etc. will never be divulged. "We just don't have them., " sang the chorus.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Consultant numbers...
(13 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Oct 1, 2008 12:02 #
-
To be precise, Consultants fees is only component in the total cost of the initiatives such as TOD, TIF, and rezoning, from the last few years. John Q Public is asking, 'where did the money go?'
Posted Wednesday Oct 1, 2008 14:59 # -
Well I asked Mr. Wachtel, the Trustees present, and the Long Term Finance Commissioners - if that is what they are - to give a true and complete picture of where this money went - everything spent - soup to nuts - for these various initiatives - as far back as it takes to go and get them, but they all seem to say we can't (or won't) do that. Since they are asking for MORE TAX DOLLARS, then they should be able to show where they spent what they already have been given by the taxpayers. It's called accountability.
Look - if they wanted $4 million to fight gypsy moth and plant new trees or fix sewers or whatever, they could list the programs they wanted it for and go to the voters and say this is what we need it for. They would probably get it. But just to give them more money to play with on worthless projects and Planned Unit Developments is wrong. This is public money. It is not theirs to satisfy some misguided whim. It's amazing that once we raised the subject of the Rec Department's bloated salaries, and the Board threatened eliminate that department if they didn't get their way on this referendum, the Rec Board themselves - to their credit - came up with a proposal to cut their own expenses. So there is "fat" in the budget that can be eliminated. To me, it seems that if the Rec Department has 5000 "customers" as they claim, then let everyone of them pay a yearly fee of $20 and that's the initial $100,000 they want right there. The users pay for it - what's wrong with that? If I want to rent a field, I pay for it. If I want a tank of gas, I pay for it. I don't ask someone else to do it for me. What's wrong with that?
A referendum for capital projects would stand on its own merit - people would judge whether it was indispensable or advisable and vote accordingly. Nobody wants to leave a run down Village to their kids. But when the grounds for this referendum were "enhanced" with all kinds of "extras" and there is nothing binding on this Board, or any future Board to use these funds for these items, why should the voters back that. If, as Trustee Shields told me last night "there is no cost to putting a referendum on the ballot, let them transfer the million dollars that they put in the capital budget back to the General Fund, and put another referendum for defined capital improvements on the ballot after the new Board comes in. Then the voters will know who is aking for what, and presumably get what they are paying for. That's the right way to do this.
Posted Wednesday Oct 1, 2008 15:54 #
Reply
You must log in to post.