Riverside TIF proposal should be rejected
Lonnie Sacchi
Despite repeated assertions that they are merely "considering" it, the Village of Riverside is moving inexorably to establish a Tax Increment Financing (or TIF) district in the Central Business District (CBD). The proposed district corresponds roughly with the area that was recently rezoned as the B2 business district.
The TIF law can be a bit complex to sort through, but can be simply explained as a mechanism whereby tax dollars resulting from increases in property valuations are diverted from the multiple taxing entities on your tax bill into a village controlled fund for a period of up to 23 years. This fund is then typically used to induce or directly subsidize development within the district.
While this may seem relatively benign on the surface, upon closer examination many potential problems and pitfalls become apparent. In looking at how well TIFs have performed in other municipalities, it is seen that they perform best in areas that lie adjacent to major arteries or areas with abundant vacant land that is not contributing to the tax rolls.
In developed areas, the rate of return often does not meet expectations or the TIF actually can be labeled a failure. As currently presented, Riverside's proposal should be rejected outright.
There has not been a clear vision articulated for what the downtown is supposed to be. Clearly, geography imposes certain limitations. Riverside's downtown lacks large arterial roads to make it into a "destination" to attract outside traffic. That leaves it as a small downtown serving the immediate needs of its residents.
Should tax dollars be spent on what will probably be a futile or only marginally successful effort to attract new businesses? Or should the village encourage the construction of high density housing in order to capture more tax dollars for itself, as it has done in the case of the Village Center development?
This painfully illuminates the glaring lack of substantive planning that should have preceded any discussion of implementing a TIF district. The village administration is referring to its zoning ordinance and a transit-oriented development (TOD) study as its "plan."
A zoning ordinance is not a plan. It is a set of rules that governs development. A TOD study largely paid for by RTA/Metra to increase their ridership should not be a plan for a National Historic Landmark village.
Comprehensive planning, which must include revisiting the flawed B2 zoning, should be undertaken. The B2 zoning ordinance, specifically designed to allow construction of oversized, out-of-scale monstrosities like the Village Center development on the site of the old Henninger property, must be revised with regards to height and bulk limitations.
The resources of both state and national preservation agencies should be employed to safeguard the historic character of the village and to ensure that planning is consistent and subservient to Olmsted's 1869 plan. The National Association of Olmsted Parks, at the urging of the Olmsted Society, has offered their assistance. It should be welcomed rather than scorned as redundant.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the TIF proposal is the inclusion of Guthrie Park, Swan Pond Park and a portion of the green space adjacent to the swinging bridge. While everyone knows that these areas cannot be privately developed, certain development labeled "public" can be done.
Swan Pond is being deliberately branded as "blighted" by the village and its TIF consultant so as to pave the way for improvement such as paved concrete walkways. In all my years giving tours of the village, I have never had anyone recoil at the sight of Swan Pond Park.
The tax money that has been spent on consultants could have gone a long way in helping to alleviate the flooding that Swan Pond Park suffers almost annually. The area around the swinging bridge happens to be next to the old Public Works facility, which is being touted as a potential site for a boutique hotel.
What is planned for that green space? The public lands are the crown jewels of Olmsted's plan and should be removed from any TIF consideration so as to protect them from any ill-considered "improvements."
The TIF law was originally intended to revitalize truly blighted areas where it was prohibitively expensive or risky for a private developer to undertake a project. The law has become so permissive that virtually anyplace can be designated as underperforming, even an area like Riverside where development both within and adjacent to downtown is occurring at a pace not seen in decades.
New townhouses, condo conversions and new commercial and residential construction renders the supposed need for public funding to assist well-placed private developers nothing but a legal fleecing of the taxpayers.
And make no mistake about it, a TIF is a hidden tax increase for everyone in the village. By diverting funds to the village that would normally go to the schools and the other taxing bodies, a TIF forces those taxing bodies to either cut services or raise taxes.
Now there is talk of actually making the proposed TIF district larger by including Central and Hauser Schools in it. This would be a huge mistake for the school board to allow, as it would make them dependent upon the village administration for a portion of their funding.
The schools should maintain a strict independence from village politics and should be 100-percent accountable to the public that elected them. If the village really wanted to "help" the schools, they would execute a hold-harmless agreement with them, whereby the schools would be reimbursed the full amount of tax dollars coming to them were it not for the existence of the TIF.
Placing the schools in a TIF is a way of controlling the schools and a blatant attempt at buying their acquiescence. I hope the school board is wise enough to see through this.
Judging from recent public comments at village meetings, two of which lasted three hours, Riverside's citizens are becoming aware of the negative implications of the proposed TIF. With rare exceptions, the only people speaking in favor of the TIF were consultants, developers and village officials.
If the village has needs that are legitimate and require additional funding, they should just tell us what they are and how much they cost.
Sequestering funds from other taxing bodies with legitimate needs of their own is not a responsible way to run a village. Freezing out the schools from future revenue in order to aid well-funded developers is not a responsible way to run a village. The creation of a pool of taxpayer money without a real plan on how to spend it is not a responsible way to run a village. Revising zoning laws to allow the construction of oversized and out of scale buildings is not a responsible way to run a landmarked village. Including treasured public parkland in a development district is not a responsible way to run a landmarked village. Transit-oriented, high density planning and zoning should be discarded in favor of Riverside oriented preservation planning and zoning.
We need smart development, not development at any cost.