That may be true now, but it was not when the study was made; I think it was in the 90s. Also, it could have been Vermont (for who can tell the difference.)
That also does not touch the point about the low salaries of Catholic school teachers, the fact that the principals are often unpaid nuns, and the superior product they turn out. That is why poor inner city people strive to get their kids in to them, and why the Milwaukee voucher program is so successful.
corbi328 said--
I find it ironic that some of the same folks that profess to be so concerned about diverting money away from schools and the safety of our children who walk through the CBD on their way to school, also continuously make statements that imply a resentment that a good portion of our real estate taxes are directed to our schools.
I think we can safely say that if one is anti - TIF because of a concern that it would compromise our good public schools, then one would do not be against schools relative to the slice they take from our taxes. They would be for schools.
I am speaking for myself and lots of people I know from the school system.
DON'T FOOL WITH THE SCHOOLS!
miket
That is so very true Mike, but if the school system has rolled over on the issue, they are silent and nowhere to be heard that I know of, must one not conclude that they - if not the parents - are content to have this train roll forward? That is what I have been thinking.
I am trying to figure out their silence, too. That is a to do of mine to follow up with them. Has anyone on this forum heard of, or can point me to, a public reply of the school admins on our questions?
I attempted to explore this in the following q and a.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=35&replies=37#post-501
Why would ANYONE want to limit, or reduce, their revenue stream? Or, why would nt they at least complain? Since it is a public school, why not ask the question at least in public - especially when there is a concern among the public school customers?
I guess one reason might be: for a future benefit. I guess it would be like an investment (sacrifice now for a greater reward). But, in the tif's case, wouldn't the benefit be realized after the end of the 23 yr term? 23 yrs is well over 2 cycles of K-8 kids gone thru the system.
I guess I 'd like them to say what the reason is.
miket
MikeT - The schools don't really have anything to respond to at this point. The TIF is on hold and the Redevelopment Plan is in draft form. The formal school response is part of the Joint Review Board. They still need to run the schools and I understand they have been spending a lot of time with the Kindergarten and School Schedule issues.
That would be another explanation: the school board does not think it is a 'real' thing to respond to, and they have other pressing needs that are indeed not proposals, but real things to handle.
A couple points on this:
1) yes, right now the tif is on hold; but the evidence I pointed to in the link above were done prior to the TIF pause - 11-9 and 11-21, the time when input was expected.
2) if they wait for the JRB time, I would think there would be tweaks and small modifications done at that time. I would think refunding all the money taken from the schools is more than a tweak. Just my naive question.
3) I still have not recvd any clear answer from the Village admin on what the 'Hold' means. Different people who are studying this issue as I am also think different things. I say it is like a 'pause' on your dvd player - vs a 'stop'. others think it is like a 'stop'. pause resumes play right where you were; stop means you have to re-calibrate and get back to where you want to be.
I have heard KR say something like 6 to 12 months. Then I have something from KR to me that says, 'wait til after the wkshops - wait and see'.
So the pause can be released anytime.
4) of course, to me, whose house is still on this demo list, there is the same status. If I chose to sell for whatever reason, the value of my house is still reduced. to me, it is still real.
miket
Speaking of silence on an issue, yet another chime in from a pro-TIFfer with nothing to say about traffic congestion and control.
There you go again....
That worked for Ronald Reagan, but it won't work for you. You can run, but you can't hide. See my post in Speeding Down Burlington for today's anecdote about creepy weirdos on Burlington. Then tell me if you would want this guy parking in St. Mary's parking lot.
I stated above, in reference to the 2/1 EDC meeting, that "I was strongly encouraged to see the concept of Tax Incentives for Historic Commercial Buildings raised prior to its designated agenda item. In fact, details regarding these incentives will be presented to Riverside's business community in panel discussion format at the upcoming 3/17/07 Leadership Breakfast."
I was unable to attend Monday's EDC meeting, but found the Agenda for the 3/17 Leadership Breakfast through the Riverside Community Website here: http://riverside-illinois.com/CommunityCalendar.htm#feb
It does not appear from the flyer that the availability of Tax Incentives for Historic Commercial Buildings will be presented to our community's business leaders. Is this the case? If so, can someone please explain the rationale?
Information regarding the availability of federal incentives - particularly the maximized deduction for easement donations (up to 50% AGI) which has a sunset clause expiring at the end of this tax year - NEEDS to get out to owners of Riverside's historic commercial propertites.
These federal programs do not divert local tax monies away from local concerns. They also help promote the restoration of our historic buildings, capitalizing on the uniqueness of Riverside. It's win-win, everybody.
You must log in to post.