Anonymous posts?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Gorman's ????? to Play
(58 posts)-
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 11:50 #
-
ChangeAgent, What did this mailer, if it did exist (I have not seen it), say re seniors? I assume it was from the RCA and paid for by the RCA since it is being mentioned in this context (see below why it is important to know who the mailer is from). Please show it to the forum, then we can all better assess it.
I have talked to some seniors as I have traipsed about town w/ flyers, and I have heard that they are concerned about what they feel is runaway spending and taxes.
In fact, One elderly gentleman I spoke with actually took the time to tell me of a 'brochure' he would like to make up and send about town. He described it to me and said it would be a cartoon showing a fat guy in a suit with 'Village' emblazoned on his suit, holding up a skinny guy by the throat as the skinny guy's money was falling out of his pockets. The skinny guy would have 'Taxpayer' on his person.
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 14:16 # -
It clearly stated that it was paid for by the RCA (I will give them credit for that). It's not worth scanning and cutting and pasting and I do not wish to spread the misrepresentations propagated. I am sure there are some on this thread that have it on their hard drive.
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 15:02 # -
IDIC5: A more realistic cartoon would of a hippo and elephant,the hippo walking east and the elepahnt walking west. Tied to each animals' tail is a man labeled Riverside Taxpayer. The hippo walking east is labeled District 96. The elephant walking west is labeled District 205. The rickety bridge the elephant is about to walk upon is labeled the Village of Riverside.
Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 17:13 # -
I don't go onto my computer on the weekend. Reading these comments you have one reason why.
My overall impression is that the RP has not answered the central question of the campaign, what is it going to do about the budget, look for efficiencies and cut spending, or look for home rule and the real estate transfer tax? This is a personal attack and distraction from that. You cannot answer the question although it has been posed for 10 days now. This is the weaving and dodging the RP has engaged in.
The day I had in mind in Cicero is the 1920 and 30s, when Frank Nitti and Milwaukee Phil Alderisio lived here, not there.
Yes, there is a reason most local businesses avoid political commentary. It is because they lose business. I bought my condo from a listing by Century 21, the bank Gallegos works for is my mortgage banker. And no, I do not appreciate being insulted by people who have my money in their hands and who I feel I cannot trust.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 10:12 # -
Catherine,
Based on the RP's website and on statements that Kevin Smith has made in the Landmark, seeking home rule is not part of the RP's platform. I'm not sure how much clearer they can be about it. And, as other posters have pointed out, home rule would be decided by referendum, not Board fiat, so even if they were to seek it, the decision would be in the hands of the electorate.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 10:34 # -
Kevin Smith has said publicly more than once that he was for Home Rule; I heard it with my own ears last summer. He can say he was joking or whatever, but you can't back out of everything you say all the time. The consultant hired for the LT Financial Security Committee had one area of expertise alone: convincing communities to go for Home Rule.
The village has lobbied for the real estate transfer tax to be separated from home rule. Kevin first tried not to give his position on this at the GOP forum, but when pressed held forth on its virtues, saying it was not a real estate tax. It is. A property attorney there said this would be disastrous for home sales. This is the only revenue-generating idea that has leaked forth from them, and they have no plan to cut expenses. Yet we have deficits and a million dollar problem coming up with the trees. How does this equation work? They are going to try to get a tax increase at the next opportunity. They will not get it because they will not have convinced people they have cut the budget as much as possible. And we will end up exactly where we are now.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 10:43 # -
Catherine said:
Kevin Smith has said publicly more than once that he was for Home Rule; I heard it with my own ears last summer. He can say he was joking or whatever, but you can't back out of everything you say all the time. The consultant hired for the LT Financial Security Committee had one area of expertise alone: convincing communities to go for Home Rule.
The quote below is from an online response that Smith sent to the Landmark on 2/5/09:
Regarding the "Home Rule" canard: Our platform does not include advocating Home Rule, let alone Home Rule as a means to raise property taxes.
In a conversation with Landmark editor Bob Uphues (the entirety of which did not appear in print), the topic of alternatives to the property tax came up.
Because Riverside is predominantly a residential community, in good economic times, a real estate transfer fee could be a productive source of revenue (and it would be tied to an ability to pay). The State Legislature has, and continues, to deny this option to Non-Home Rule communities such as Riverside. The avenues open to Non-Home Rule communities are to lobby the Legislature (which we futilely do) and/or explore Home Rule (which has not been done).
Because the whole point is to find funding alternatives to the property tax, I stated to Mr. Uphues that the property tax component would have to be removed before any community discussion of Home Rule could take place. I also stated to him that one way to do this is to adopt an ordinance binding the Village to adhering to the property tax cap, regardless of any inherent power it might possess. Feel free to contact Mr. Uphues to verify our conversation.
This detour from accuracy illustrates the inherent problem with relying on secondary sources for information & basing conclusions thereon.
I would hope that whoever is elected feels that he or she has an obligation to explore alternatives to the crushing property tax. Adopting a Know Nothing-ish position would be in direct conflict to every elected official's fiduciary responsibility to the Village as a whole. Home Rule is an idea - we shouldn't be afraid of ideas.
Home rule either is or isn't part of the RP platform. It's a yes or no question. Whether Mr. Smith supported it in the past, or whether he is simply open minded about it is not the issue. And, of course, the correct answer is no--seeking home rule is not part of the RP platform.
Catherine also stated:
The village has lobbied for the real estate transfer tax to be separated from home rule. Kevin first tried not to give his position on this at the GOP forum, but when pressed held forth on its virtues, saying it was not a real estate tax. It is. A property attorney there said this would be disastrous for home sales.
I'll concede that the RETT is a real estate tax. However, I disagree with the property attorney's opinion. I paid a real estate transfer when I sold my house in Chicago and moved to Riverside. I did't like it, but the fact that I had to pay it didn't influence my decision to sell. I would be hard pressed to imagine anyone who wants to move being dissuaded simply because they would have to pay this tax.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 10:58 # -
Back to the post topic, Mr. Gorman. Catherine, what did Gorman say to you about his meeting with Alex. When did you learn about the meeting and were the RCA members all aware of the meeting? You are weaving and dodging the questions.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 11:10 # -
Kevin will be president of the village if he wins, the other candidates have no thoughts on the matter that are discernible. They also have no ideas for budget cutting or revenue generation. One of them does not grasp that the CBD will never provide anything but a small portion of our budget. Kevin said at a meeting last summer that it was good if the tax referendum was defeated, because then we could go for home rule. Perhaps bravado, but telling. The administration has hired a home rule consultant. The RP said they want to continue the policies of the past. They are endorsed by the current board. You would be very naive to think they do not want home rule. You have people here who bought at the top of the market and are already losing money on their sales. Now you want to tax them? No, that will just encourage walkaways. We already have foreclosures. This is a tax for good times, not bad.
The overriding point is are you revenue-oriented or cost control oriented?
commonsense, I don't answer to you, you are a troll. Your party has no program, so you are creating drama and trying to swiftboat Gorman. What was that Kevin was saying about Rovian tactics? Pot, meet kettle.
Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 11:21 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.