Riverside Info » About Riverside

Landmark TIF Letters 3/7/07

(6 posts)

  1. KimJ
    Member

    Landmark 3/7/07
    Letters to the Editor

    Time for leadership on Riverside TIF

    On Saturday, Feb. 24, a straw vote on the TIF was taken at the end of the Riverside CBD Workshop IV, Session 1, led by Riverside resident Diane Legge Kemp. The results reported were 24 votes against the TIF, 10 votes For the TIF, and 6 votes undecided.

    Some have leveraged this to suggest the end is near for the TIF, but I believe otherwise. The brilliant addition to the poll was a question: "What is your Greatest concern?"

    There were 23 responses to this question, at least 11 of which could and should be addressed by modifications to the current draft of the TIF Redevelopment Plan. Many of these issues-impact on schools, protection of park land, limits on eminent domain and prioritization of expenses-have been raised by the Economic Development Commission and await action by the village board.

    If these 11 voters were voting on a Redevelopment Plan as modified to reflect the Economic Development Commission's suggestions, what would their vote have been? Unfortunately, this highlights the issue of putting the question to referendum. Forty people have voiced their opinion and spent a fair amount of time in workshops, yet there is no clarity on what we are being asked to vote on.

    There was also no straw poll on the other referendum questions which will appear on the April ballot. Roughly 5,800 registered voters have chosen not to participate and have, in essence, delegated their vote to the village trustees.

    Unfortunately, there is no "short-answer" opportunity in April's referendum to guide the trustees' decision-making.

    It is the trustees' responsibility to incorporate the concerns raised by its residents by modifying the Redevelopment Plan and taking an up or down vote on the matter. It is time for leadership and decision-making and time for Riverside residents to work together in a positive way.

    Mike Sedivy
    Riverside

    Mike Sedivy is a member of the Riverside Economic Development Commission.

    http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=17&ArticleID=2334&TM=61260.59

    More relevent information to add to the above letter;
    Session 2 of Workshop IV had the same questions posed to the participants.
    TO TIF or not to TIF?
    11 voted YES to TIF
    34 voted NO to TIF

    Totals for Workshop IV
    21 voted Yes to TIF
    58 voted NO to TIF

    *As referenced in the letter above, all results and comments from the Workshops can be found on the home page of this site.

    FYI, here are the pro-TIF comments from Workshop IV sessions 1 & 2

    "What is your greatest concern?"

    We do nothing.
    Something needs to be done before it is too late.
    Village efforts + progress will be delayed + stalled by excessive time.
    Once again we do nothing + spend more years "studying" what to do.
    We'll just spend money on landscape + sewers, and ignore revenue problem for years.
    TIF Harlem and Ogden not CBD.
    The downtown area is not growing.
    TIF or no --developers are coming. We need a carrot to entice what we want from them.
    They will build whatever they want. A TIF "might" influence the façade.
    Nothing will be done to address our financial and CBD issues.
    Use TIF funds to hire an Economic Development Director for three years to jump start the CDB revitalization.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 16:47 #

  2. MikeT
    Member

    One of the comments from wkshop IV said--
    TIF or no --developers are coming. We need a carrot to entice what we want from them.

    This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest reason NOT to do TIF - that developers are coming anyway.

    So, accordingly, we really have to make sure:

    *our ordinances are tight and can withstand them
    *hold tight to our ordinances if they try to bully themselves into our town and try to extort our town for short sighted profit.

    We need to remember:

    We - have - the - goods - that - they - want.

    There is only one Riverside, designed in 1869 by the father of American Landscape Architecture, Olmsted.

    Keep our standards high and keep our brand distinction and our vision clearly in mind.

    Make Riverside better than we left it, not worse.

    .
    .

    My biggest concern is that we make Riverside worse than it is now, and ruin its character, its specialness, and its essence.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 19:36 #

  3. Lonnie
    Member

    I highly doubt that 5800 voters consciously delegated their vote to the trustees. I think they simply are apathetic, just as low voter turnout in trustee elections indicates apathy more than a delegation of one's vote. Are the trustee elections tainted by low participation? Should there be a threshold of participation by voters in order for an election to be valid? Why apply the "pool of voter" test to the workshops unless there is an effort underway to set aside or distort the results, which clearly were not what the "development at any cost" crowd controlling our village government was hoping for.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 21:32 #

  4. spatny
    Member

    Also from the same edition:

    Was The Village Sold A “Lemon?—
    After all the meetings and workshops it is time to ask some serious questions about the proposed TIF plan. Not about what we want - those that attended the workshops have already made it quite clear that they don't want many of the items put on offer in the TOD study. I mean, isn't it time we look at just what kind of potential legal imbroglio the Board's consultants may be dragging us into?

    The Village paid plenty for the B2 Zoning Code that ls the root cause of our distress. Zoning is supposed to protect the many (in this case the Village residents) from the few (in this case the developers-for-profit that want to build the biggest thing they can on the property they have. That the Village Center is ill-sited and overlarge is already apparent, and it still has not reached its full height. Obviously, any zoning code that allows any Board to sanction something this unattractive and out of proportion requires urgent revision to protect us from other future projects.

    The TOD study, proffered by another set of consultants, was used as the basis document for the recent series of eight workshops sponsored by the Village. It specified increased density and numerous ill-conceived projects for “opportunity sites— they identified, some of which lie within our precious green spaces. While the workshops revealed a strong dislike for most of these concepts by those residents who attended, the TOD study is still being touted by some of our commission members as something akin to Holy Writ.

    Next, wearing another hat, some of the same consultants reappeared as if by magic to offer their services to develop the financial means to make these dreams come true - the present TIF District Redevelopment Plan. This document takes the stand that Riverside is eligible for this TIF because they interpret it as being so. Before we pony up any more taxpayer dollars to consultants we need to know if we actually qualify for this TIF. I seriously doubt if Riverside, given all the development that is happening in and near the proposed TIF District, is eligible.

    Our Village Board, well-intentioned and striving to find a way to bring a bit of improvement to our downtown, may have been been sold a bill of goods. We may have gotten three “lemons “ in a row. The B2 Zoning we paid for doesn't prevent oversized structures from being stuffed onto inadequate lots. The TOD Study has promoted a bunch of theories and projects that the residents don't want. And this TIF District proposal - perhaps the worst of all - has not only fostered foolish proposals and spurious strategies for the use of Eminent Domain and the sequestration of funds from the schools and other taxing districts , it has caused real harm and great concern to some of our friends, neighbors and fellow residents.

    I give the Board the benefit of the doubt in saying that they are attempting to do what they honestly feel is best for the Village. I also believe they have been taken advantage of by those they paid to advise them. This reminds me of the old rides at Riverview, where you were invited to “ride again— for less than what you paid to get on in the first place. If we put this TIF in place we will, no doubt, have to defend it in court. Perhaps many times. And for what - something it is evident people don't want?

    Make no mistake, this TIF District proposal is a loaded gun that carries the potential to not only forever alter what Riverside is and was meant to be, but to involve us in costly and protracted litigation that will involve us in paying still more for lawyers and consultants. This is a slippery slope we are treading. We need to dump this TIF proposal before it causes us to lose our balance. We need to resoundingly vote this thing down and demand that the Board heed the wishes of the voters. And we need to stop hiring consultants to do our thinking for us.

    Posted Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 22:19 #

  5. Catherine
    Member

    I was glad they published your letter after Sedivy's. Point, set, match and all that, what?

    Posted Thursday Mar 8, 2007 01:50 #

  6. KimJ
    Member

    Never finished this thread...
    Anti-TIF comments from Workshop IV

    MY GREATEST CONCERN IS:
    TOD being the plan; commitment to a TIF; it seems like there are other tools or "no tools" that would be more appropriate to Riverside; it seems like we are
    too small and too special to do this TIF;
    I think that development is important but I am not convinced that a TIF is the tool.
    Village Board is looking at "new" money and disregarding specialness of Riverside.
    The Village is clearly faced with significant budget problems as expenses exceed income. However, I don't understand how using TIF money to improve the
    infrastructure will alleviate this issue. Also, if our 70 year old sewer system needs an upgrade -- how much more funationality will we gain by doing so; or will
    an upgrade reduce operating expense.
    TIF boundardies seems large and include many structures that are unlikely to be developed. I'd like to see a smaller area focused on buildings that are priorities for redevelopment.
    If the TIF doesn't allow redevelopment in Swan Pond, then why is the Village including "development" of a Riverwalk, etc.?
    High density development; money shifted from schools/village/all taxing bodies to developers; tax rate for all residents absolutely increases for 23 years while
    TIF incremental EAV is excluded.
    Too great density; bastardization of Village involvement of private poperty and destruction of public lands; if Village needs money to spruce up CBD, raise
    taxes after use is defined.
    We need to do more planning before TIF; a more air tight economic and land use strategy a more balanced stream of revenues - TIF, hotel tax, sales tax, tax
    credits, etc.
    When developers acquire properties and they follow ordinance to the letter. They will build whatever they want. A TIF "might" influence the façade.
    TIF or no--developers are coming.
    Riverside does not turn out looking like an Army Base! (too many condos)
    Schools hurt too much.
    Developers will fail to fully execute plans (Arcade Building)
    Not confident in the administration of any possible TIF
    Clear plan for TIF district with other commissions.
    Ask Trustees: Do you think enough plannning has occurred to proceed with TIF?
    A plan is needed before any tool or strategy can be considered.
    Set limits of eminent domain; determine which buildings would be affected; who determines how we are going to attract entreneurs to Riverside?
    TIF will not result in new businesses in CBD.
    TOD is not appropriate for Riverside - don't need outsiders in CDB-
    Build Riverside for Riversiders
    TOD is optimal for BNSF, but not for Riverside.
    Big, ugly building; Village legal fees (Kafka)
    Giving revenue stream to this Board.
    Take eminent domain + schools, etc. off the table
    No specific plan of what exactly would be done with $$$
    Proceeding without comprehensive plan.
    Given the size and character of our Village, a TIF is inappropriate: small population of which 25-50% (?) live on the perimeter of the Village and don't frequent
    CBD; no arterial streets to CBD (by design);size of our administrative staff; Lack of TIF expertise; open wallet for consultants/lawyers/accountants; $20+M to be
    spent without public oversight. No referenda input decision lies solely with Trustees; A TIF is a backdoor tax increase for the residents - without question.
    Taxy levy divide by EAV= tax rate. For 23 years growth in TIF EAV is excluded from denominator, therefore tax rate goes UP-for every district for 23 years.
    Swan Pond needs no changes. It is what it is now.
    TIF Harlem and Ogden not CBD.
    Riverside plans (planning) first before TOD implementation.
    Developers will have final say about their projects.
    New Village Center [evidence that -2 and TOD are not adequate to control quality of buildings).
    Other things can be done [for economic development to occur].
    Better planning happens w/o TIF. Too many backroom deals. TIF demand changes value [of properties to be acquired].
    Leave Pond as is.

    Posted Sunday Mar 11, 2007 16:54 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.