Well said - I wish I could have found a few more to speak out in favor of the storey poles, then this monster would never have been built. Don't forget to save room for my deli, please - we need an old timer where the guys at the slicer are wearing hats - and i can yell at the customers.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Discussion from Workshop 2 - Sat. Feb 10
(116 posts)-
Posted Tuesday Feb 20, 2007 15:31 #
-
I am by no means an expert on construction but I was always under the impression that in a multi story building 12ft was the standard for the height of each story.
Posted Tuesday Feb 20, 2007 16:40 # -
CuriousResident, well said. Using good-looking old buildings as the reference for ugly new buildings was bound to be a bad idea. But of course, it is also about increasing property tax revenues to the village. I could understand this if I saw any of the anticipated money being dedicated to operations or improved infrastructure required by current residents, but I don't. All of the improvements contemplated appear to pay for and support the new development, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I'm missing something.
Posted Tuesday Feb 20, 2007 18:12 # -
You're not missing anything, Catherine. You've identified the real reason for the TIF. It's to aid developers with public money. I was at the Plan Commission meeting where the $5000 parking figure was voted on. Discussion initially focused on $10000. Commissioner David Lesniak thought $5000 would be better, i.e. more developer friendly. The reason for not charging the going rate to developers for the "in lieu of" parking requirement was because it was felt that the parking would benefit all of the village, not just developers. In my opinion, this is another example of the "development at any cost" mentality that we are seeing in recent commission appointments. The village is not an advocate for its citizens, our government has become a tool of developers at the expense of its citizens.
Posted Wednesday Feb 21, 2007 23:17 # -
And really, neither the case for "Hardship" or any real justification for building so big that parking could not be provided on-site was never proved, or even asked to be proved. The documents were never submitted. The variances were given and the plan OK'd before even the new site plan was finished or the Chmell property acquired. Probably, if you had enough bucks to take it all the way, the whole variance-alley-parking issue timeline would have been dubious, at best. The bottom line is that if they don't provide the required parking on site then they should have to pay whatever it costs to provide it off site. Plain and simple - design for less units, or a smaller footprint, and provide the parking required by the code on your property or, we will purchase property and develop parking and you pay for it. If you go to the market and pick out two big thick steaks and the guy puts them on the scale you pay for what they weigh and a little bit of thumb. We did it like the rubes that buy those hams all sealed up in plastic with the 6 pt type that says "17% Ham Water added." So now we get sliced by an attempt to cut 18 parking spaces out of Centennial Park (Plaza, Industrial Site.) It's like the Chinese Death of a Thousand Cuts - a little at a time. It would have been better to have the old apple in the mouth and onto the spit - it's over quicker. There will be more of this, lot's more, unless the Code is changed and we have a Board that will enforce it. Amen.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 08:16 # -
Lonnie - please explain the motivation of the Village Board and supporters of the TIF to develop a program with the goal of "aiding developers with public money."
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 10:39 # -
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 10:55 #
-
My opinion on why the Village board and TIF supporters are doing this program:
MONEY
...for (a) a cash strapped Village administration, where, I was told in the last Financial workshop, the expenses exceed current income by around a couple million dollars a year - from my recollection. They are drawing from some kind of fund that is diminishing over time.
...for (b) other people desiring to get some of this money - developers that we see now (Arcade), developers that we are told (see Sundstrom's statement in this space, for example), and developers that we would reasonably assume, are waiting to come in to develop in Riverside once the Village spells, T I F. Village has T I. One more letter, and the Village gets F. You all reading this are grown up enough to know what that means. : ) It is not funny, either; it is another word.... and it ALSO MEANS TIF, with a capital T, and that's Trouble. It's PIG, as in Pigs in the trough of public tax money.
So it is motivitated by adding money to each of these entities. Ultimately, this is grounded in practical self interest. Practically speaking, going after the TIF provides an easier access to money to cover the shortfall mentioned above. As one of the Board members said once, the TIF initiative is grounded in the property tax caps that the Village admin is constrained by under Illinois law. So the TIF allows the money without the Board/Admin needing to go to the electorate for a referendum asking for the money.
This method of using a TIF, serves a double duty for the Village: by not having to go to the residents, they get the money they need and the money they WANT - it provides an easy way to execute agendas that the residents may not want - if asked (see tunnel, for example). So it provides a rudderless, opportunistic method of administration which will inevitably give rise to a herky jerky output that is contrary to what Riverside really is.
There still are the (B) people, developers, who, by definition, develop for profit, for money. Unlike the Village administration, which is entrusted to protect Riverside in the long term for current and future Riversiders, developers are motivated by MONEY.
Neither the Village administration nor the developers are interested in preserving the special charm that is Riverside. Like the adults who cannot hear the Reindeer bells in The Polar Express, they cannot SEE the 'charm'; it cannot be put into a spreadsheet and analysed; it is like trying to put the River on a table and trying to cut it up and divide it.
In fact, in order to satisfy the desire for money, they would run roughshod over this charm. It is not necessariliy that they *dislike* charm and town character; it is more like a BLIND BULL IN A CHINA SHOP; it has no priority or value to them.
This is not brow wringing or fear mongering. There is precedent. They have shown this in the granting of below cost parking allowances and the granting of variances to important village ordinances that affect space, the KEY Olmstedian principle, Setback, Height (stories), and ramp width for the benefit of aggrandizing Village coffers; the coffers of a developer was also aggrandized.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=65&page=4&replies=137#post-1349
m
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 11:39 # -
And a TIF at the time would have given the Village more leverage in the discussion.
I agree that the motivation is and should be 1) addressing the Village's financial difficulties and 2) cleaning up the CBD in a responsible manner.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 11:45 # -
There is an agreement on a financial motivation, but not on the other words.
In my too long analysis- sorry - my first impression to answer the MikeS question was a SINGLE WORD, MONEY, then I fleshed it out.
the answer is MONEY
it is not MONEY responsibly
and
since the TIF district goes beyond the cbd proper, it is not even cleaning up the cbd.There are money, I mean many, reasons that T I F spells trouble with a capital T. One is the lack of an enunciated plan. They say cbd improvements, but they are going into residential areas, for example. This is irresponsible.
On this alone it should be voted down in April.
There are many more reasons. maybe about 2,000 posts about these concerns.
Posted Thursday Feb 22, 2007 12:00 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.