Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. Catherine
    Member

    Well, I suppose we should discuss these questions here, in case anyone is reading!

    The second question says tax increase IN LIEU OF TIF. Therefore, whatever terrors are unique to the TIF will not come to pass.

    Further on 2 and 3, no one here on either side has been able to tell me what the problems are with the budget - we all know it is not balanced - and to what the problem is due. Since we can assume it requires money to run the village, and that prices for goods and services go up rather than down: WHERE is the money going to come from? I just don't think it's responsible to say no to everything until we can see the budget clearly and know where the money will come from. And perhaps that is the answer: wait until the budget is justified, which it has not been.

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 15:37 #

12. MikeT
    Member

    They got what they want - confuse the electorate. make them think that if you don't do the tif, you get a tax increase. One of the terrors of the tif is what they have said that they want to do with the tif monies (cbd "improvements" - exactly what is spelled out in question 2)

    this is from question 2

    "...to support Central business District improvement, including parking, riverfront stabilization, roads, streets, sewer, water, landscape, traffic signal improvements, and for expenses incidental thereto? "

    This is TOD stuff. Question 2 is basically - do you want to pay for TOD items with a tax increase? Question 1 is do you want to pay for TOD items thru a TIF?

    LEt's unpack and decode question 2:

    "Central business District improvements"
    ---not really improvements. changes yes. ruinious to the town character, yes.

    "including parking"
    ---parking deck on pine - that is TOD action matrix item priority 1a; we do not even have a parking problem now and we are talking parking. that is nonsense, and, in a town with NO CENTS, it is doubly nonsense.

    "riverfront stabilization,"
    ---messing w/ the green space at swan pond; paving the walking path

    "... roads, streets, sewer, water, landscape, traffic signal improvements,"
    ---pipes with a diameter adequate to support high density housing

    "and for expenses incidental thereto?"
    ---this is the fun one, the scary one, the blank check; this is the check that blanks us!

    Question 2 is based on the TOD, which has been shown to not be liked and accepted village wide for

    *what it DOES say (high density housing and its attendant artifices)
    *all the detail it does not say (not comprehensice detailed plan)

    For these two reasons, one can say No to (2) and not be charged w/ kneejerk naysaying.

    What you are saying is - come up w/ a better plan, a plan that is embraced village wide and does not trample on those things that we like most about Riverside, the schools, the charm, and transparent responsive and responsible government.

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 15:46 #

13. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, MikeT, I know that is the SOLE motivation of the other 2 referenda. But there is such a thing as being hoist with your own petard.

    You got a point there with the sewer, road and streets business. I think the rest is sprucing up. Riverfront stabilization I understand as preventing bank erosion. This is not walkway, regardless of their intention. If a bunch of irises were planted along the river for instance, this would help prevent bank erosion. As to parking, people are always whining about it. But you're right, it's not a problem that needs money to fix. You are right, they loaded the question with improvements in the "CBD" that people have NOT asked for. This is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

    As to 3, they know what people want is retail. What the government wants is more tax revenue. I do not think they will be able to get away with allowing condos on first floor except as a variance to no retail lessors.

    There is certainly no harm in voting NO to all three, and it has a certain elegance. To sell any of the three, the Board and the EDC could have done one simple thing: a simple and nonbiased line item explanation of everything in the recent budgets and projected ones, what capital and operating expenses are or will be needed and why and what they will cost, and why we do not have the money. This would have been more effective than all the absurd meetings on the TIF so far. People understand balancing their budgets. I guess they didn't think they had to explain themselves.

    Until they do explain themselves, you have convinced me to vote NO on all three.

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 16:00 #

14. MikeT
    Member

    The other scary thing on question 2, which is the running theme of objections that I hear on ALL SIDES of the TIF debate, is, as Catherine reiterated, the lack of detail in the question and in the initiative; all it says is, 'should there be a increase in the tax rate?'

    It does not say, 'shall the village impose a .05 increase to the tax rate?', or 'shall the village sell $10,000,000 in general obligation bonds to do improvements'?

    btw, 'landscape' can be decoded to mean 'walking path paving'; it is vague enough to include this meaning.

    Vague specifications on improvements and a vague request for a tax increase should yield, very rationally,

    a definite clear response of

    No.

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 16:09 #

15. MikeT
    Member

    If you are reading this now, you probably are a concerned citizen of Riverside and probably are registered to vote. Everyone should try to gently ask a friend or two to register to vote if they are not registered who might more busy with the normal things of their life.

    Tell them, like Fred Sanford,

    This is the big one!

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 16:18 #

16. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, I cannot believe that if we could get a full explanation of village finances that we could not build a consensus on a plan that would not leave an entire swathe of the village feeling alienated and screwed. This process was ill-planned, as it turns out. Perhaps the thought was that no one would be interested enough to care.

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 16:24 #

17. MikeT
    Member

    Shoot first, ask questions later.

    Ask forgiveness, instead of permission.

    Leap before you look.

    Men of action, not Monday morning quarterbacks.

    The-Buck-Stops-Here !

    Plans, we don't need no stinking plans! +

    The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder.
    - Richard J. Daley

    "WE ARE READY FOR AN UNFORESEEN EVENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR."
    - Former U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle

    The Redevelopment Plan is proactive. It considers the opportunities that might occur where the Village can actually partner and improve the development or redevelopment that results from market conditions.
    - Village Manager K Rush
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=59&replies=32#post-658

    .
    .
    +we're the Federales....badges ...and "you keep you're watch, I'll keep my gun"
    

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 18:45 #

18. MikeT
    Member

    We need a good catchy name, maybe we should call it the ITIF...

    ...like the IRACK
    

    .
    "The ... looks like something that we should not be involved with. It looks like you put it together with no directions".

    Posted Friday Mar 16, 2007 21:54 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.