Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Catherine
   Member

   In the Landmark today, one committee member described his "feeling" that the establishing of LTFSC was an orchestration to come to the conclusion of raising property taxes. Another member, the head, does not grant the gentleman the right to his perception but instead calls it "absolute garbage." I find this stunning. Another resident, who has worked shoulder to shoulder for months, and his opinion is absolute garbage? Is this to be the tone of the season, yet again?

   The article fails to note the committee contained 2 members of the EDC, which famously supported the TIF

   , one member being its most vociferous and uneffective ambassador. I find it little wonder that any member would find orchestrated a process that once again serves up the stale idea of the TIF, already rejected by the voters, already having divided the town, already unwanted because of the diversion of tax revenues away from the schools and toward real estate developers.

   WHY was a consultant required to write this report? Why do we need a consultant, or indeed a committee, to tell the village government what it should already know: you do not spend more money than you have? How is it that Todd Stroger can order every department in Cook County to cut its budget by 10%, but we can't?

   Have you worked in a department that has been downsized? Did this result in decreased services to your clients, or did you simply do more work than before, faster? In the private sector, we call this increased productivity. Are you a nonunion employee with a pension? Did you continue to have a professional development budget when your company profits were down? Did your company then hire more and more consultants to tell it how to increase revenue, or were the consultants stopped to save revenue? How about your home budget? Still taking out home equity loans and charging on those credit cards? Do you increase your personal budget at a rate multiple to your projected income?

   When you read in the paper that the local high school is about to ask you for more money, do you think it is a good idea to once again put forth a plan that seeks to divert revenue from that high school?

   Have you ever told a colleague that his ideas are "absolute garbage"?

   http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3012&TM=55708.93

   Posted Wednesday Sep 26, 2007 14:50 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Mike Gorman and Holly Machina were put on this committee as throwaways, but, to their credit, they made their points and made more sense than most of the others put together. Right from the start this thing gave off "the faint aroma of performing seals." It was orchestrated from you know where, and was always viewed as a way to validate a previous misjudgement of the Village residents by the Village Board and Manager. Even the voting process was skewed - the members were not told that a TIF was one of the methods under consideration when they cast threir votes for preference, and Mike Gorman said that, had he known a TIF was again being included, would not have voted as he did. But the Bopsy twins continued to feed each other punchlines and ask set-up questions throughout. The tragedy of all this is that, not only did we squander another $10K plus on this pre-orchestrated farce, but now it will be used to further god-knows-what schemes as the administration blares its findings to the masses. As far as some lamebrain calling Mike's statement "absolute garbage", well pally, what goes around comes around, and you and your sidekick will soon discover that you just made a very big error in judgement that will come back to haunt you. Amen.

   Posted Wednesday Sep 26, 2007 19:48 #

3. KimJ
   Member

   Actually three current EDC members were on the Long Range thing.
   And remember, the EDC was the only commission to come out in support of the TIF.
   I wonder how the Landmark missed that?

   Posted Thursday Sep 27, 2007 07:42 #

4. Catherine
   Member

   OK, Pollock is the third member of the EDC. You see, they have posted only one set of minutes for all of 2007 on the village website, so I could not be sure of the entire current list of their members.

   How very odd that the report reads that TIF is recommended when none - or should I now say some - of the members knew they were voting for a TIF? Was it tacked on after the vote on economic development was taken?

   I have to laugh when the government wonders why people won't stand for commissions when we can see, and have heard many anecdotes in our time here, of how people who do not agree with the administration are excoriated, ignored, or otherwise treated with contempt. (Indeed one can deduce that from the way inquiring taxpayers are treated at Board meetings.) What person with intellectual integrity can know in advance whether their opinion will agree with what they want to hear or not?

   Why was the village manager at every single meeting of this "independent" resident committee? Is that normal?

   Posted Thursday Sep 27, 2007 10:03 #

5. spatny
   Member

   Since the Village Manager attends so many meetings I think it would be good if she moved into town and lived here - maybe in the VC? If nothing else it would save us transportation costs and wear and tear on the car.

   Posted Thursday Sep 27, 2007 17:31 #

6. EricSundstrom
   Member

   The independant committee recommended the possibility of using a TIF as a means to generate additional $$ to Riverside. They did not designate a location. I've heard suggestions that a Tif might work for Harlem Ave or at the NW corner of Harlem and Ogden ave, as possible sites. Anybody with thoughts about those areas?

   Posted Friday Sep 28, 2007 14:40 #

7. Catherine
   Member

   No, the committee proposed economic development tools. After the vote was taken, members were told that this meant TIF. I deduce this from the fact that one member who highly weighted such tools said he would have withdrawn that vote if he had known it meant TIF.

   Well, Eric, I do not understand why any incentive would be needed to induce someone to locate and Harlem and Ogden, a very major intersection in these parts. (See Starbucks) Such a developer should approach the property owner directly. I cannot approve having that owner, like myself, waking up to find himself in a TIF district with the heightened risk it carries of Kelo case inspired eminent domain. And, of course, you still have the unfair situation of the naturally occurring increase in EAV being diverted from the schools, etc. (Last round there was a law under consideration to stop that.) This is especially egregious if the development occasions more schoolchildren when the schools are now packed to the gunwales and RB is running a deficit.

   The legality of the TIF in that location remains an issue: it is neither blighted nor in need of conservation. The only real reason for having a TIF there would be so that the village and no other taxing body would reap the old and new property tax, but indeed it already is a sufficiently attractive location if anyone cared to develop around here.

   Lastly, trustee Shields said the old proposed TIF area was insufficient without the residential property. Therefore, I would have to assume they would be coming after this area again should that weapon be placed in their hands once again. The EDC favored that TIF, and three of its members were on the LTFSC.

   The only virtue that corner has over any other is that it is not likely to inspire the vigorous objections to size and ugliness that the center of town did.

   Posted Friday Sep 28, 2007 15:08 #

8. spatny
   Member

   Hardly Independent. Note spelling.

   Posted Friday Sep 28, 2007 22:15 #

9. Catherine
   Member

   The LTFSC will be formally presenting its report to the Board of Trustees at the Monday, October 15 Board Meeting. Then the board has to decide which of the recommendations it will pursue. Once they do, they will begin an informational campaign to favor those choices. (See the last LTSFC meeting.)

   As you know, one of the principal recommendations is TIF, and the committee members declined to eliminate the CBD from prospective TIF areas. No mention was made that I am aware of of eliminating the abutting residential areas. Harlem and Harlem and Ogden are in there too. (See the August meeting.) Composing a contiguous area on Harlem could involve the compromise of Harrington Park, as we all know.

   Therefore I think it is prudent to anticipate TIF, Round 2. This time, the schools had better be prepared to defend their interests (see Oak Park) or they may have a hard time persuading taxpayers to make up their shortfall.

   Better yet, I hope the Board will have a majority vote against opening up again this divisive and costly process.

   Posted Monday Oct 1, 2007 13:17 #

10. spatny
    Member

    Adjust for inflation 2004-08 and compare: (Courtesy of the Bantam)

    http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs042.htm

    Table 4. Median annual salary for selected executive and managerial occupations in local government, 2004
    Occupation Salary
    City manager

    $88,695
    Assistant chief administrative officer

    80,232
    Information services director

    75,582
    Engineer

    75,556
    Chief financial officer

    74,867
    Economic development director

    70,668
    Public works director

    70,135
    Fire chief

    70,000
    Human resources director

    70,000
    Chief law enforcement official

    69,837
    Human services director

    64,832
    Parks and recreation director

    62,988
    Health officer

    61,536
    Purchasing director

    59,013
    Chief librarian

    56,270
    Treasurer

    52,053
    Clerk

    46,779
    Chief elected officials

    7,740

    Posted Thursday Oct 4, 2007 17:05 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.