The TIF debate can be summarized, albeit oversimplified, by observing the rapid level of redevelopment occurring without a TIF. Why TIF an area that is developing naturally? All the excess revenue that this will produce will be lost to the taxing bodies if a TIF is installed.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Development
(22 posts)-
Posted Sunday Dec 3, 2006 18:34 #
-
I thought it was interesting that the board noted that any revenue increase from the Henninger project is excluded from the TIF because we didn't install a TIF sooner, as if that were a reason to approve a TIF now: "Don't wait - we're going to miss out on even MORE revenue."
Posted Sunday Dec 3, 2006 19:49 # -
I also thought it was interesting in the Nov 15th Landmark, page 16, the "Preview House" advertorial by Robin Zimmerman had a headline of "Height of luxury arrives at Riverside's Village Center." That article had several choice sentences, for example "If residents ever want to leave their luxurious environs, they won't have far to go to find quality schools, shopping and other conveniences. Bustling Burlington Avenue is right below the building and a host of high-end retailers will soon be occupying the space in the lower level of Village Crossing.
Posted Sunday Dec 3, 2006 20:12 # -
We lived in Sausalito, and in California they have something called "California Poles." It is the obligation of the developer to place "actual height" poles around the perimeter of a proposed plannned property so that the community can envision what the actual mass of a building will be. I think we should "insist" on that in the future for all buildings in town! It will become painfully obvious to us shortly that our 'cornerstone' property (Henningers) will be WAY out of scale with the rest of the village. And by the way, is it true that Henningers property has been re-zoned and can sell the retail space for condos if no retail wants it? So (worst case scenario) the center of town could have families on the ground floor that just happen to have teenagers that could put anything they want in their window, like their favorite led zeppelin posters? Not that there is anything wrong with Led Zeppelin....
Posted Tuesday Dec 5, 2006 22:01 # -
Don Spatny [another former Marin county resident] made this proposal to the village and in a letter to the editor in the local newspaper. Naturally, it was ignored. The last thing the village wants is for people to complain about the size of anything a developer wants to do.
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 12:16 # -
KimJacobs, I conclude by your suggestion on the poles that you do not approve of the height restrictions outlined in our current codes. I believe the limit is three stories or 45 feet. The variance granted the Village Center was for a grand total of 3 feet which enabled them to incorporate ornamental peaks in their roof line. Surely you don't think that three feet makes that big of a difference? What height limits would you suggest?
As far as the comments that were made regarding the Village Center not being included in the TIF, I was puzzled by them as well and can only conclude that he misspoke. I do not see any additional development occurring in the core of our CBD without the Village acting as a catalyst. Without the TIF we run a serious risk of seeing a vacant and boarded up Arcade building and a continued deterioration of other key buildings in the CBD. That is one of the main reasons I am in favor of a TIF.
By the way, for any of you that enjoy eating at the Chew Chew (I am one of those folks), I suggest you make plans to visit in the next couple of months or you might be out of luck.
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 12:32 # -
I believe that the single biggest complaint the Village Board and previous Village Boards have had over the last 5-6 years was "What are you going to do with the Henninger site". From my perspective, the Board and at least one other commission were forced to make some difficult decisions regarding variances because they really had no other tools to offer in order to make the project feasible. If a TIF were in place at the time, there would have been another source of support for the project that may have resulted in the project being smaller and including more parking. Without giving the Village some tool to guide and encourage responsible development, I am afraid that they will continue to be forced to do things on a one-off ad hoc basis. This is why I started the thread on "If Not TIF, then What?". A TIF does not mean "High Density Development with Zoning Variances", in fact I believe it would discourage the need for variances.
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 12:36 # -
The B2 zoning is designed to allow for high density housing. Under the old zoning, a maximum height of only 27 feet was allowed, thereby precluding high density. Anyone looking at the size of what's going up now at the Village Center project, which the B2 rezoning was designed to accomodate, should realize that it is out of scale with its surroundings. But that is what the village wants. The B2 will allow more of the same, and a TIF will encourage it further with taxpayer subsidies. Does the Arcade Building have a problem? Only one of the owners' own making. Should the taxpayers have to solve it for him?
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 12:56 # -
Lonnie - It sounds like your issue is the zoning in this case. I can not speak to the zoning process or history. With regard to the Arcade building, I can't disagree either. I would like to see a responsible re-development of that building however and would prefer to not see it be the next Henningers. There have been comments circulating that the owner is halting the redevelopment in order to receive a future handout. I am not privy to the financials of the property, but I would be shocked if the owner's cost to carry the project isn't a significant multiple of any incentive he may qualify for if a TIF were enacted and he could prove a need.
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 13:10 # -
If we have a TIF area or CBD filled with buildings the size of Village Commons, all within sight of the historic Olmsted village center, some will think it a great success and cash cow, others a disaster for the village. These are perhaps irreconcilable differences. If there had been compromise on the height and appearance issues, I think a lot of rancor would have gone out of this subject. I believe the owners of the Henninger's site and the gas station site waited for these building height restrictions to be lifted so they could sell to the highest bidder. In the meantime, they let their properties fall into ill-kempt disarray perhaps to encourage the process. Of course, I could be misinformed in either or both cases.
Additional development is already occurring within the TIF and near the TIF. This could cause us to fail the "but for" requirement of the TIF. Present development is taken as evidence of likely or probable future development. That is also of the essence of the debate and another source of perhaps irreconcilable difference. Natural growth by the free market or social engineering with government funding.
Posted Friday Dec 22, 2006 13:10 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.