The EDC has a "TIF Resolution" on its agenda for tonight's meeting. At the last meeting there was already prepared a resolution - presumably this one or similar - before the meeting even started. It was put on hold because of objections from visitors that the issue should be clarified before being endorsed. Trustee Smith was present and verbally attacked Mr Cariello, screaming at him across the room. Interested parties should attend tonight to see what happens.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
EDC Commission meeting tonight Jan 8th.
(19 posts)-
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 10:16 #
-
Mr. Spatny - I want to clarify your comment. I prepared a resolution and I tabled it because 1) while we had a quorum, we only had 4 of our 7 members and I wanted my fellow commissioners to have ample time to review and 2) because I decided that modifications to the resolution were necessary based on feedback from Village Residents including feedback on this Forum. I do not recall any objections from visitors to the meeting with regard to the introduction of the resolution and that is not why I asked that the matter be tabled. I also believe that your characterization of the exchange between Trustee Smith and Mr. Cariello is a bit one-sided. Trustee Smith felt that the EDC commissioners, myself in particular, were being subtlely threatened by a visitor. The entire incident was unfortunate and I pray that no one attending tonight has the intention of stirring up emotion unnecessarily. We are all neighbors trying to do what's best for the Village.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:06 # -
Actually, tonight, Thursday, is the 4th. The Board Meeting is on Monday the 8th.
Yes, at the last COW meeting, Smith started yelling at another taxpayer. I think he woefully misunderstands his position and also needs anger management rehab.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:06 # -
Catherine - thanks for clarifying the date. I have lost track of dates with the holidays but the "tonight" part was accurate.
Can we all please refrain from the personal attacks? I don't think it does anyone any good.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:10 # -
Mike S - I only know what I saw. If you find Nick threatening then I can't help you. Nick stated that "if you take money for a particular purpose and people expect you to deliver, you better do it." That's a threat only to a lawyer. Nick meant if you don't do what you promise, you can and probably will be sued. Trustee Smith either misunderstood him or just flipped out, but he was the one out of line, not Nick.
My point about the resolution is this: You came in with already written. If there hadn't been the discussion and comments from the audience, I believe you, and I mean the commission, had every intention of passing it. That's surely what Katy and Smith thought would happen. You will probably do it tonight. That's your prerogative, I guess. You admit that your job, as stated by Ms. Rush, is to attract retail (and presumably the customers to support it) to Riverside. My view is that, even if it's a good idea which I personally doubt, the Board and the Commissions should take other views into consideration, because the real reason for this thrust is not to make Riverside a better place to live, but a way to generate tax revenues to pay for services. Those are two different things. Again, I ask you, who benefits from this? And don't tell me everybody because it pays for police and fire or something, because that just proves what I'm saying. Let's build buildings because they are important, or architecturally invigorating or some other reason, not because they have more square feet and bring in more dough. Do you understand me?
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:23 # -
Mr. Spatny - I understand you. Also, I never said that I felt threatened by anyone. Trustee Smith clearly felt differently and that context is appropriate. As far as a resolution goes, someone has to draft it and present it for comment and approval. I tabled the discussion before it began and I thought I was very clear on my reasoning above.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:44 # -
Yes, I agree about Smith. He has engaged in personal attacks. He stated in the Riverside Landmark that he "suspected the motives" of those opposed to the TIF, the story of his behavior at the EDC meeting even I heard, and I myself saw him interrupt and take public comments time to call the TIF opposition "the coalition of the unwilling" and turn red-faced with anger as the gentleman tried to finish his remarks and interrupted him again, as I recall. I could not believe the gall nor the inappropriateness of his behavior. It is unacceptable, and it is good to say so.
He is meant to serve the people. If the full involvement of the people frustrates him, he has his remedy.
Further, I do not approve of tax dollars being used by the "economic development" commission, as I see they are in the budget. But, as Mr Smith must learn, we can't all get our own way.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 11:46 # -
It should come as no surprise that the EDC commissioners voted unanimously to adopt a resolution in favor of the TIF. Bringing new businesses to Riverside is their charge, and they, sincerely I believe, view the TIF as a valuable tool with which to accomplish this.
What came out at the meeting regarding the Arcade Building project was far more interesting. Ms. Rush admitted that the developers contacted the Village around Christmas and said they are dropping (temporarily or otherwise was unclear) their plan to build the new nine condo unit behind the historic structure. They now plan to "rehabilitate" rather than restore the historic structure. Some people in the audience thought that sounded perfect, and if they did a good job it probably would be a good solution, but for the fact that they spent in excess of $3 million for the property, and with an extension rebuild, will certainly be buried in the project resulting in the necessity for either a new permutation of the condo structure or rents that no business could afford. My bet is that they will let the building sit for awhile as they do the cheapest rehab they can get away with, while at the same time trying to get further variances and concessions from the Village. I predict they will want a fourth story, a total of twelve units, parking mitigation and anything else they can throw in, and the Village Board, faced with the looming disaster of another empty structure, will cave in and give it to them. There was a bona fide deal here until the word about the TIF got out - so it's another mark against this management team.
Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 23:11 # -
three questions:
1) what is the difference between 'rehabilitate' and 'restore' of the Arcade?
2) what other other items came out of the EDC meeting tonite? I could not make it.
3) does anyone know if there is a transcript of today's meeting available for review?
thanks
miket
Posted Friday Jan 5, 2007 00:32 # -
Restoration returns a building to its original condition, most desireable for a historic property.
Rehab means a fix up job; it could include linoleum floors and drywall for all one knows.
What a sad, pathetic joke. People better take good care before they allow this building to put at further risk. I have seen historic buildings allowed to deteriorate beyond reclamation and even come down through the intersection of bad market forces and bad government, in a town I partly grew up in. It is not pretty.
Posted Friday Jan 5, 2007 00:39 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.