TS - It's not elitist, it's an obligation we accepted when we sought and accepted the National Historic Landmark designation. This is the Village Resolution:
10-2-7: RIVERSIDE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT:
The board, pursuant to resolution adopted March 20, 1972, has accepted the national historic landmark designation of the Riverside landscape architectural district and shall preserve, so far as practicable, and to the best of its ability, the historical integrity of this landmark through continued use of the public property therein for purposes and in a manner consistent with its historical character, and through the application, control, conduct and carrying out of all preservation activities, programs and grants involving, affecting or otherwise pertaining to the public property in this District and in the Village as a whole.
The district is legally described in the National Register of Historic Places as an area bounded on the north by 26th Street, on the east by Harlem Avenue, on the south by Ogden Avenue and the south bank of the Des Plaines River, and on the west by Forbes Road. The district boundaries, as outlined on a 1982 Riverside street map published by the Riverside Public Library, is set forth in Appendix B, Section 10-2-16 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1971, 12-2-1991)
The Village resolution says we have an obligation to preserve the historical integrity of this landmark. (See above.) So why doesn't have a copy of the contract between the Corps and the contractor that defines EXACTLY what will happen and how it will be accomplished? This project is happening on Riverside public property and we deserve to know every detail of what will transpire. Anything less than that and our officials are not doing their job.
When the Fairbank easement was sought the official notice published on the Village website stated that the Fairbank Dam was in Lyons (in five places.) When President Gorman asked the Board to approve the easement in September 2010 he stated that the plan was 100% completed. It is still not 100% completed.
I'm not the only one that has problems with the Corps. One of the strongest proponents of this project - a River Rat who does not live in Riverside, stated that the organization "American Rivers" and others like the National Wildlife Federation were all in favor of projects like this, and I guess they are. But they are also very leery of the Army Corps and the way they go about things. Last year, and I’m quoting here, “ American Rivers, in partnership with the National Wildlife Federation, published “A Citizen’s Guide to the Corps of Engineers,” a resource for individuals and organizations that care about the health of our waterways and want to improve the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans, constructs, operates, and issues permits for projects affecting the nation’s rivers, coasts, and wetlands.
I looked this up. “The guide provides a detailed overview of the Corps and of the laws, policies, and strategies that can be used to stop or improve destructive projects and permits, and to promote restoration and protection of the nation’s vital water resources.”
It states: “The current guidelines have led to water projects that harm the environment, endanger public safety and waste taxpayer dollars. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office told Congress that recent Corps studies were “fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.” The problems were so pervasive that the studies “did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making.” The Government Accountability Office also told Congress that the problems at the Corps were “systemic in nature” and “prevalent throughout the Corps’ Civil Works portfolio.”
“The National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, the Army Inspector General, federal agencies, and independent experts have issued a flood of studies highlighting a pattern of stunning flaws in Corps project planning and urging substantial changes to the Corps’ planning process. Two National Academy of Sciences panels and the Department of the Army Inspector General concluded that the Corps has an institutional bias for approving large and environmentally damaging structural projects, and that its planning process lacks adequate environmental safeguards. Less environmentally damaging, less costly, nonstructural measures that would result in the same or better outcomes are routinely ignored or given short shrift. This results in projects that are unnecessarily destructive, costly, and, in many cases, simply not needed.”
"Did not provide a reasonable basis for decision making." They said it, and I said it back in 2010. And I still say it.
I offer this so you will see that I am not the only one that has a problem with Corps planning, or lack of it. The simple fact remains that the Corps has never produced a completed plan for this project, and still doesn’t have one. At the last two meetings with them I raised questions based upon the information contained in the only project plan the Village has ever seen, the one that was labeled “Final and Approved “ which is the one some of the Village commissions concurred to and others refused to sign. Both times the Project Manager told me to “Forget that Plan” and that is was, despite its title, “Preliminary” and was not what they were going to do. And he’s right - their present plans differ mightily from the plan that was used as the basis for granting this easement. Back in October, 2010, I called that “bait and switch” and that’s what it was.
Well the Corps awarded the contract for the Fairbank project even before the period of time allowed for comment was ended. Now they are moving forward and we still have not seen the truly100% completed plan or the contracts that define what will be done. Why are we allowing this. We, the residents of Riverside, need to see EXACTLY what is in the contract before they are allowed to begin. Where is John Brown when we need him?
Chris - FYI - This is one day old.
"Roubini consultancy to double India staffing next year
RGE, which has hired 10 economists in India so far this year, plans to increase its strength to 20 by next year
Pramit Bhattacharya
Mumbai: The Indian economy might be going through a rough patch but that doesn’t seem to have dented job prospects for economists.
Economics consultancy Roubini Global Economics Llc (RGE), headed by renowned economist Nouriel Roubini, plans to double head count in India operations next year, months after setting up its office in New Delhi.
A file photo of Nouriel Roubini, co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics (Bloomberg)
RGE is a global economics and market research firm that sells its research notes to financial institutions and corporations across the globe.
Roubini is best known for predicting the bust in the US housing bubble and its consequent impact four years before the 2008 global financial crisis. Often referred to as “Dr Doom” because of his dire predictions, Roubini teaches economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University.
The New York office of RGE announced that it had set up its India operations through a release overseas last week. RGE also has an office in London.
“There is a growing interest in the Indian economy and that is a key reason for setting up the India office,” said New Delhi-based Kunal Kumar Kundu, head of India operations at RGE. “Recognition for the Indian talent pool is also growing globally.”
Kundu, former head of the economics research unit of IT firm Infosys Ltd, is so far the only economist in his team working on India-specific research.
The rest of his team researches economies across the globe.
RGE, which has hired 10 economists in India so far this year, plans to increase its strength to 20 by next year.
Its global team of consultants publish research on macroeconomic issues as well as market strategies, but the Indian team’s focus so far has been on economic research. “We are planning to hire market strategists as well,” Kundu said.
RGE’s hires so far have been primarily from the Delhi School of Economics and Jawaharlal Nehru University, two of India’s better known economics schools, besides Calcutta University, Kundu’s alma mater.
“Most of our clients are global fund managers and corporates,” said Kundu. “A few Indian corporations and financial institutions have also signed up for our research.”
Roubini and political scientist Ian Bremmer argued in a March Foreign Affairs article that the global economy is likely to face greater conflict over issues of trade, financial regulation and international macroeconomic coordination as the US loses its global leverage to drive a coherent and international agenda.
“This new order has far-reaching implications for the global economy, as companies around the world sit on enormous stockpiles of cash, waiting for the current era of political and economic uncertainty to pass. Many of them can expect an extended wait,” the duo wrote.
Roubini is among a growing band of economists who have warned of a break-up of the euro zone unless its constituent economies move toward greater political and fiscal integration.
Who is Nouriel Roubini? Here's a link: