Riverside Info » About Riverside

Forest Park Backs Off Taking Homes for Parking

(32 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by Catherine
  • Latest reply from Catherine
1 2 3 4

  1. Catherine
    Member

    For those of you who do not always read the website home, Chicago Tribune, Dec 13, excerpts:

    "In a closed meeting in September, the Village Board decided to build surface lots rather than a parking deck because of the cost. In that meeting commissioners also discussed the need for acquiring properties for additional parking.

    But when the agenda for the Nov. 13 board meeting came out, residents and some commissioners were shocked to see mention of the possible use of eminent domain to acquire those properties.

    Michael Durkin, village attorney, said using eminent domain language in an acquisition ordinance is standard procedure and gives a municipality leverage when negotiating a sale.
    .
    .
    ...

    McKenna said blame for the parking problems along Madison Street rests with the village, which has allowed developers to build far less than the required two spots per condominium in recent years.

    "By the time you evict us and tear down our homes, you will have spent millions to satisfy only about one-third of the problem," she said.

    Other residents called for further study of alternatives, such as the vacant Mobil station at DesPlaines Avenue and Madison Street.

    But business owners and leaders supported the plan and said additional parking is critical to maintaining the growth of the commercial district.

    "I just hope the residents and businesses don't lose this opportunity to keep this community growing," said August Aleksy, owner of the Centuries and Sleuths Bookstore on Madison Street.

    SOUND FAMILIAR IN ALL RESPECTS?

    Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 10:58 #

  2. KimJ
    Member

    "McKenna said blame for the parking problems along Madison Street rests with the village, which has allowed developers to build far less than the required two spots per condominium in recent years."

    Is that our McKenna, from Kane McKenna? Whoever he is, he is throwing the Village of Forest Park under the proverbial bus. I hope the Village of Riverside read this article.

    How scary, like a Twilight Zone. de de de de, de de de de, deeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    And on the other side (as we try to keep the forum HONEST, you know, BOTH sides.) What is wrong with those people in Forest Park? Why don't those homeowners just GIVE their properties to the Village for parking, it is about all the little children that want to go to the Bookstore, where in the world will mommy park her large SUV? How selfish of those homeowners. Little children and their books, as well as Mommy and SUV's are sacred. One must also consider that it is an environment issue as well, if Mommy has to circle to find a convenient parking spot, she is putting a hole in the ozone layer. We are doomed. Homeowners of Forest Park, give up your homes, save the children and the ozone!

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 06:18 #

  3. MikeSedivy
    Member

    I am having a hard time understanding the point here.

    I have heard virtually all of the Trustees renounce the use of Eminent Domain and the EDC has requested that the position be memorialized in the Redevelopment Plan (which remains a draft). I also don't believe anyone is suggesting that private homeowners be restricted from selling their property to the Village to be used for parking or other public use.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 10:28 #

  4. Catherine
    Member

    Really? I haven't heard anyone renounce the use of eminent domain, and they have not even passed the meaningless fluff resolution renouncing it. Even if they did, it could be reversed. They need to certify as part of the TIF that no residential displacement will occur, and to remove all addresses featured in the current draft and final TIF. Further, no one has said anything about voluntary sale, provided it IS voluntary and not "leveraged" as the village attorney stated above.

    Really, you EDC folks damage your credibility with such transparent disingenuousness. If you were correct in your projections and those of other pro-TIF studies, my property would triple in value under a TIF, and you can't even convince me.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 10:36 #

  5. MikeSedivy
    Member

    So if someone did want to sell to the Village, they should not be eligible for displacement proceeds?

    Has anyone else heard the comments that I have heard from various Trustees regarding Eminent Domain? I know they were all public meetings that were well-attended.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 10:44 #

  6. Catherine
    Member

    Oh, stop, Sedivy. You are just trying to derail the train, a favored tactic of the "economic development" people who post here. If they sell - in a TRULY VOLUNTARY fashion - they will be entitled to what the law allows, as may be contested.

    Wiaduck said eminent domain would not happen on his watch, but declined to commit to a resolution. And, of course, no board will prove immortal. This is meaningless without the written legal protections in place. Why don't you voluntarily put your house on the list, then see how you feel placing your confidence in their assurances?

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 11:26 #

  7. MikeSedivy
    Member

    If the Village will pay me what I think my house is worth and pay for me to move, I am all for it. I'm guessing you would contribute :)

    I understand others are not of that opinion and am sympathetic to that. That is precisely why the EDC qualified its support on the issue.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 11:35 #

  8. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, unfortunately in these deals, you need to have a very tough eminent domain lawyer to get what your house is worth. Usually they have their own assessors come out (you don't want to see their numbers) and, as the charming attorney in Forest Park put it:

    "Michael Durkin, village attorney, said using eminent domain language in an acquisition ordinance is standard procedure and gives a municipality leverage when negotiating a sale."

    No, if you agree that the VC is ugly, you are an asset.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 11:40 #

  9. MikeSedivy
    Member

    I appreciate the olive branch. I don't think VC is ugly (or at least can't determine that at this point), but I don't like zoning variances.

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 11:45 #

  10. KimJ
    Member

    Mike T.
    Did the Village have an appraisal done on your property? Would you be able to afford to purchase anything in the village with that sum?

    Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 12:07 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 4

Reply »

You must log in to post.