From today's Landmark:
For over 40 years, the Frederick Law Olmsted Society has endeavored to keep Olmsted's vision of Riverside a living reality. In that vein, we most recently have assisted the Riverside Public Library with a $5,000 contribution to their landscape and contributed at a cost of over $5,000 in professional services in the re-landscaping of the business district. But not every form of assistance has to involve money. Earlier this summer we brought forth a draft of "Green Initiatives" that can be used as a starting point for what is an overdue discussion and an opportunity for making our Village a leading model of conservation and green practices.
Included in the list are:
- Regularly adopt most up-to-date code standards with regard to energy and ventilation codes as well as water conservation
- Evaluate buying energy generated by renewable sources like wind power or through energy certificates
- Allow and incentivize installation of photovoltaic solar panels and geothermal systems
- Incentivize ecologically effective planning and construction based on LEED standards by offering permit fee discounts.
- Evaluate rainwater recovery systems for use by municipality and residents in maintenance of Village and private landscape
- Analyze public building stock and capital improvement plan for sustainability opportunities. Village government to lead by example
- Analyze ecological improvements potential for Public Works Department with regard to use of herbicides, pesticides, and mowing equipment
- Evaluate municipal composting program for use in landscape maintenance
- Advocate usage of transportation as well as bicycles, walking
Most all of these initiatives would come at no cost to the taxpayer. Sustainable solutions that do involve cost can be offset by instituting higher fees for those that do not.
The recent adoption by the Board of Trustees of a broadly formulated advisory referendum question with regard to "Adoption of Green Policies" for the November 4 election as reported by the local press linked the Olmsted Society's well intentioned initiative to the passage of the upcoming tax increase referendum.
Based on statements made by Trustee Sells in the July 29 Suburban Life article titled 'Voters to decide on green initiative', a direct link has been made between the Property Tax Referendum question and the Green Initiative Advisory Referendum "Sells said he suspects the green referendum will pass; however, unless the revenue referendum passes, it is unlikely residents will see any improvement or efforts to 'go green.'" The linking of these two issues by Trustee Sells is a calculated attempt to join what should be two different issues. It is extremely unfortunate that this important issue is being used as a political tool with which to persuade the electorate into approving a request for more tax dollars.
When the Frederick Law Olmsted Society added the protection of the environment to its mission last year, we did so with the firm belief that an objective of such complexity could only be achieved by working together. We envision collaborating with local organizations like s.e.e.d.s. (Supporting Eco-friendly Every Day Solutions), Village staff, commissions, and interested residents to evaluate opportunities and explore initiatives related to sustainability. We now have an opportunity before us to discuss our aspirations, ideas, and priorities as they relate to the future of this beautiful Village. Any attempt at over-simplifying the hard questions at hand and looking at our challenges as either black or white while not seizing on the low-hanging fruit that are the free-of-charge initiatives improving the Village is not in the best interest of Riverside. We can and must do better.
Jim Reynolds
President, Frederick Law Olmsted Society
Lonnie Sacchi
Board member, Frederick Law Olmsted Society
It appears we will have to endure a steady drumbeat of stories - each week from a different Trustee or Department - informing us of all the wonderful things that will be done if only we vote for their tax referendum. Let's be clear: At the Special Meetings where the decision was made as to just how the Board would present this tax referendum, it was explained ad nauseum that either of the two methods being discussed would result in about the same amount of tax being raised. The Board chose to adopt a method that is frankly going to be almost impossible to compute as to the amount any given tax payer will pay once the voter is in the booth, even if you come armed with your tax bill. The number that was used for discussion back then was $400K plus or minus. Then evidently it was thought better to go for a complete "wish list" of additional services so that there would be "something for everyone" - a time honored way to garner votes to be sure. When I asked near the end of the last Board meeting how much the Board figured to raise annually in additional taxes, the Village Manager grudgingly stated "about $800,000. " and then admitted her numbers were "padded" so that the Village would have the ability to deal with new situation or opportunities that might arise. Well and good. Except that the very next days the numbers came out in the Landmark as being about $4.2 million over the next four years, which jacks the annual increase to over a million dollars. The worst part of all this, and the reason why so many people are reluctant to give this administration more money, is that there is absolutely nothing that makes it compulsory for this Board or any Board to spend on these items, or refrain from spending on other items that were soundly rejected. Let's not forget that this Board adopted the Transportaion Oriented Development Study that their consultants gave birth to as "The Vision for Riverside." And that little plan was calling for "Two hundred Condos - as fast as you can build them."
We are going to be treated to a several months long charm offensive that will trot out all manner of wondrous ideas. I believe the residents would like a bit more clarity and a little less charm. People need to know that the "Go Green" referendum is totally unconnected to the Tax item, and is in any case non-binding. Don'r be fooled into thinking that you need to vote yes on taxes to get the village to focus on environmentally favorable methods. They could start doing that yesterday. Prudence dictates that if new taxes are necessary they be voted in under a new Board, with new people. If we give more money to this Board we may discover that there is no pea under any of the shells.