TONIGHT! TONIGHT! TONIGHT!
SPECIAL Village Board of Trustees Meeting (TIF)
Mon, April 23rd @ 6:30 pm, Village Hall, Auditorium
Will they listen to the people, has our collective voice been heard?
We will know TONIGHT!
Riverside Info » About Riverside
For the SECOND time, Trustees talk TIF
(15 posts)-
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 14:13 #
-
The agenda for this evening.
Where does it say anything about discontinuing the TIF?
Review??? Revise??? Hmmm....SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
RIVERSIDE VILLAGE BOARD
6:30 p.m.--April 23, 2007, Auditorium
Riverside Town Hall
27 Riverside Road
Riverside, IL 60546
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Review and Revise Proposed Tax Increment Financing District and
Redevelopment Plan
V. AdjournPosted Monday Apr 23, 2007 15:16 # -
As I understand it: The Village Board is reviewing all aspects of their TIF proposal and that have been listed in that chart I posted in the '4/23...' thread in this forum.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=331&page&replies=11#post-4890
I assume they will also review and consider the results of the referendum questions, weighing the results relative to all other factors, when they make their final decision on the TIF.
I believe I only heard Mr Shields and Mr Smith specifically say they would not consider the referendum results in their TIF deliberations. So there is hope for due consideration of the referendum results.
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 15:46 # -
This will be the continuation of the first "Trustee's Workshop" Tonight they will purportedly discuus the VM's matrix point-by-point taking up where they left off. There was no paket of materials at the library for this meeting which should have beenn there. I also requested it as an FOIA and got none.
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 16:56 # -
the link above links to the same matrix that spatny is referring to. I recvd it from the VM.
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 17:04 # -
I don't know what the point of the Interested Parties registration was when my building was discussed in the first meeting and I did not even know it was to be discussed. Since I was sick I missed that meeting. I have requested a decision on the inclusion of the area of Burlington near Cowley, the north part being entirely a well-maintained and long standing residential area. I am still sick but I will be at this meeting.
It is quite breathtaking to hear anyone say that the referendum does not give them pause. If people can take the time to come out and vote for these trustees, and on their own referenda as well as the one requested by voters, they could at least have the courtesy to consider the results. Otherwise, why wonder why so few would care to volunteer to work with them. And this consideration must be done in public, not in private.
I mentioned the referenda to a friend who used to live here but moved. He said, oh, them. They won't listen, they'll just do what they want. That's one thing I hated about that town.
So I wonder whether that is still true, or not. Perhaps they will want to do what the voters want them to do.
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 18:16 # -
Disgusting....
At the Monday night Village Board "Workshop we were treated to an array of statements by the Trustees that derided the validity and negated the results of the 4-1 vote against the TIF. Various trustees and the President gave us their views as to why the voter's message was unclear (to them) or why the vote was flawed and could be ignored. My favorite was the President telling us that since the TIF wasn't finished any vote against having a TIF in Riverside was meaningless. Another good one was that it wasn't a majority of the registered voters that rejected it - as though we could possibly have a majority turnout for a local election in a country that is 139th in the world overall in voter turnout for Preseidntial elections.. My favorite was Trustee Shields suggestion that, after spending 2.5 hours two weeks ago whittling down the TIF District map, that the Board should now send the original map minus those deletions to the Joint Review Board and then they could make changes later! This from a man who said from the beginning he had no interest in the election's outcome and has spoken in favor of the maximum possible TIF District at every opportunity. The voters spoke loud and clear on election day and now these seven people think their view trumps the voters. Peasants, grab your pitchforks. Welcome to Belarus.
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 22:06 # -
In a word ...DISRESPECT, DISCONNECT, a sense of Disenfranchisement
Every Trustee+, save Smith, said in their comments to continue with the TIF process, to at least go to the Joint Review Board++ (after a step to vote to start the TIF process, which was conveniently not teased out ). They were couching it as just an information gathering kind of step ('I need to see what the JRB says about the schools', for example). But implied in the JRB step is the important 'let's start the TIF clock vote step'.
I wrote in my notes...Foot in the door sales technique.
I also wrote...another degree toward boiling the poor frog.
This observer agrees with Spatny's characterizaion of today's meeting, the first public meeting since the overwhelming show of opposition to the administration's TIF proposal.
I watched in amazement as they THEY COMPLETELY IGNORED THE REFERENDUM, reducing the no votes cast, for example, as ones affected by 'disinformation'; or, that the only reason people came out to vote was because of a hotly contested D208 race. Personally, I firmly believe the biggest reason people came out to vote for D208 was because of the TIF. I say this with sincerity even with TWO kids going into that district.
But at the end, Trustee Scanlon gave a great thank you to DLK for the workshops. I was going to blurt out, would that be disinformation or information, but all public comment was verboten at today's meeting.
I felt an odd sense of disconnection from this Board, or even disenfranchisement, after the strong community vote against this thing on which they nevertheless spent all the 3.5 hours time trying to work out specific details.
.
.
other things that were mentioned:*4-30 was supposed to be the District 96 meeting. It was said that it may or may not be held depending on the feedback of today's proceedings.
Districts 96, 208, and Triton: you're smart, you're school: did you notice the referendum results? The people of Riverside, smart, profesional, college educated people, came out in big numbers and said they do not want a TIF. Please use your critical thinking skills and make the right decision: don't lose your dollars and, more importantly, don't lose the public's support.
*Finally, they said that there is some doubt about 5-7 being a date for a vote since there is doubt about the tif document map and specifics.
.
.
.
+ another attendee told me Scanlon and Gustafson expressed this; I heard the rest. Smith said he wanted a 'hiatus'. He also pointed out that we may have lost a year if we wait beyond 5-7-07 (may have even lost a year already). Mr Wiaduck replied that we need to act now. Ms Grace said we should do it right and not for just some deadline - pointed out that we have left decades of tax yrs on the table..
++ why can't we get info before the darn tif process has been officially started and a JRB been convened? Information is information.Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 22:41 # -
To anyone who might be reading this who wasn't there [that person is usually me], I will add that I think what also happened was:
1) There will be no up or down vote on the establishment of the TIF on May 7
2) There will be further specificity added to the plan to state precisely what things will look like: e.g, no parking in Centennial Park, Olmstedian plantings only, precisely what manner of facade improvements would be TIF incentivized, NO stand-alone parking structure allowed, etc.
3) No movement to a Joint Review Board discussion specificity is added or the map decided upon, so that a JRB would be able to properly assess precisely what revenues they would be giving up; the plan is too vague now for them to be reach such a conclusion.Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 23:29 # -
The debate continues on removing residential areas from the TIF. We are alleged to be receiving "benefit" from the TIF. I personally hate to deprive all the town's homeowners from sharing in those benefits. Why not have the whole town put into the TIF? The whole town does meet the criteria if any part of it does. My area was taken out until two persons who are almost out of the door of office wanted to know precisely how few dollars the TIF would be losing if it were taken out. This area is neither blighted nor does it require conservation, NOR are there any businesses in it. THE FACT THAT A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS CONTIGUOUS WITH A TIF IS NOT SUFFICIENT LEGAL REASON TO PUT IT IN A TIF. These folks really should NOT want to get in the contiguity argument or they may have to deal with the fact that excluding the VC actually breaks up the contiguity of the TIF area with the result that they do not have one proposed area that meets the legal requirement of contiguity and therefore need to redevelop their redevelopment plan. (By the way, if anyone has a statement in plain English of what the current TIF boundaries are, please insert.)
Posted Monday Apr 23, 2007 23:49 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.