Riverside Info » About Riverside

NO PLAN - NO TIF

(10 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by spatny
  • Latest reply from HollyMachina
  1. spatny
    Member

    To TIF or not to TIF???

    The Village Board of Trustees, the Village President, and the Village Manager all want to establish a TIF district in Riverside. They have the power to do so, despite the fact that a sizable, and perhaps a majority of the residents, don't want it. If they go ahead and do it, without ever presenting a concrete plan for what they hope to accomplish with the funds they will grab and sequester, what recourse do we have? Sadly, practically none. With a simple majority vote of the Board they can put in motion a mechanism that will allow this Board and future Boards to spend somewhere between $20 and $35 million dollars over the next 23 to 35 years on what has so far only been defined as a rather ephemeral effort to bring retail businesses to downtown Riverside.

    We don't know exactly how they intend to spend these funds because there has been no concrete plan presented. We can only surmise what this Board, and future Boards, will do with the funds that they extract and sequester for this purpose. Our only clue as to what they might do lies in what they have already done, such as overriding the zoning code they themselves established in order to saddle us with that ugly, oversized monstrosity that is now not yet half way to its ultimate height at the former Henninger's site.

    Who besides the developers will benefit from the more than $6 million dollars in additional sales revenues that variance made possible?

    When this Board goes so far as to label homes and property on Pine Street as the site for future “purchase— for the construction of a multilevel parking structure, when letters are sent to other property owners in the proposed TIF district informing them that their properties are “blighted— or that they are under utilizing their property, when “special— single-agenda item meetings are held to discuss giving a specific developer “inducements" for projects already agreed upon, when undefined buildings and parking lots are drawn into areas that we believe should remain vacant, what are we left to think? Only the obvious - that this TIF money will be used to induce developers to pack downtown with more and more condominiums that may or may not have successful retail businesses located on their ground floors.

    Riverside, because of its unique design, has a unique problem. We have a street pattern that brings us some seclusion, and leaves us what Olmsted intended - a Service Core to provide convenient and necessary services for the Village residents. It was never designed as a “Central Business District— or laid out so as to attract visitors from other places. Our Village was perfectly designed to be and create what it is - a peaceful, tranquil oasis in a vast sea of mediocrity. Packing it with retail shops, compacting it with condos, will only detract from Riverside's best qualities. No one ever bought a house here because they thought Page Two

    it was a great place to shop, and sadly, the harsh realities of retailing today dictate that off-the-beaten track locations in high priced new buildings are not viable for any but a select few businesses. That, coupled with the fact that much of Riverside's prime downtown property is in the hands of an owner who has not shown any willingness to improve his property , makes it all too clear that this thrust toward emulating the larger commuter suburbs is foolish, at best. More likely it a mere smokescreen to cover the drive to build the two hundred plus new units that the Metra-sponsored TOD study recommended and that our leaders can't stop salivating over.

    And what about including our prized park, the Swan Pond, in this mess? Labeling the beauty spot of the Village as “blighted—, stating that it must be “improved,— harping about inane and inappropriate projects such as a paved “river walk— complete with a souvenir stand, a boutique hotel and catering facility, a community center - all in what we consider to be our cherished, tranquil riverside parkland, is patently foolish if not criminal. Why, one wonders, can't they just leave all this alone?

    The answer, of course, is money. Real estate tax money. Legal fees. Sales tax money. Commissions on the sale of condos. Higher salaries. A few will make a little more money. Everybody else will get more kids and less money going to the schools, more strains on the infrastructure, more traffic in the center of town, more people from someplace else to come and utilize and throw trash in the parks. Just what we need.

    Look at the record. This Board has botched every development project it has dealt with. I believe that allowing this Board in particular, maybe any Board, to be able to grab this kind of long-term money stream and spend it as they see fit to decide somewhere down the line, for whatever ill-defined projects they may conceive, is simply stupid and will be a serious blow to what Riverside's residents really care about - the quality of life here - now and in the days to come. Don't let this happen. Rise up and tell this Board of Trustees that, until they have presented a plan as to exactly what they propose to spend these funds for - NO TIF. If they still want to proceed they should do the work they should have done before they ever raised this issue, and allow the entire Village to participate in that planning., A well conceived plan that is supported by a majority of the residents should be a precursor to any such tax initiative. I urge all my fellow residents to tell this Board - loud and clear: NO PLAN - NO TIF!

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 17:07 #
  2. idic5
    Member

    I agree with Mr Spatny. Well said.

    I am convinced that previous boards did not want to undertake major redevelopment in Riverside because the trade off of losing those things that make Riverside a special unique place -its charm- in the form of vehicular congestion and loss of that sense of space that Olmsted envisioned was UNACCEPTABLE, like a Faustian choice.

    They did not pass the buck. They knew the BUCK is CHARM, and they held onto it.

    Current Village Board: remember and hold on to the real value, the real 'EAV', Riverside's charm and schools. You are custodians for the future Riversiders.

    mike

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 17:40 #
  3. corbi328
    Member

    Mr. Spatny,

    This is your opinion. A well articulated one but an opinion nonetheless. There are many in town that feel otherwise and believe that some level of redevelopment and new development can be accomplished without tangible sacrifices to our quality of life. People must realize there is tradeoff here. The alternative to the TIF is a combination of continued increases in real estate taxes and/or a continued deterioration in Village services. Are you willing to absorb continued increases in your real estate taxes? Will there be a point in the future where your tax bill is so high that it forces you to leave Riverside? One of the great strengths of Riverside is its diverse resident base which spans a broad range of the socio-economic spectrum. A successful TIF will enhance the financial health of the Village and help keep our real estate tax bills manageable, thereby maintaining our unique diversity. Without a TIF and the more vibrant commercial base that would result therefrom, Riverside will end up becoming an elitist residential community like the Hinsdales of the world. That would be a very sad outcome in my mind.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 19:22 #
  4. HollyMachina
    Member

    Donald, thanks for joining us.

    Charles, I disagree w/ your statement that "The alternative to the TIF is a combination of continued increases in real estate taxes and/or a continued deterioration in Village services." Oak Park has 3 TIF's and their real estate taxes have increased, percentage-wise, more than ours. It has NOT lessened the tax burden on property owners. In my TIF research, I have found no evidence that the implementation of TIF districts decreases real estate taxes or even slows down the increases. I'm sorry, Charles. I think you are wrong.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 21:24 #
  5. idic5
    Member

    Here is a link on this. it says that a study that examined tifs showed an increase in taxes due to tifs.

    http://www.citizenadvocacycenter.org/annrep2004.htm#TIF

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 21:55 #
  6. corbi328
    Member

    Drawing an analogy to Oak Park is like comparing apples and oranges. Oak Park's taxes were going up at an alarming rate way before the TIF's were implemented. Trust me I know since my parents lived in Oak Park during the 1960s. The reasons for their tax increases have more to do with their school system and the town's demographic makeup than anything else. My sense is that taxes in Oak Park are lower than what they would have been absent the TIF. In the thread linking articles about the positive impact of TIFs, there are plenty of examples that show how TIFs have generated revenue windfalls for municipalities and school systems. You don't think that infusion of revenue has obviated the need for tax increases in those municipalities/districts? Common sense tells you it has.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:05 #
  7. Catherine
    Member

    Thank you for your eloquent statement of the position, spatny. Is it the case that 1) there is no satisfactory plan and 2, separately, that even if there were it remains a question as to whether TIF is the tool to implement it. Or does No Plan - No TIF mean we have no plan and we do not want a TIF. I think a lot of concern arises from the fact that not a lot is heard from TIF promoters about preserving Olmsted together, of course, with the VC building as a prototype. To expand on that, I mean that the B2 zoning changes together with the TIF would tend to encourage overdevelopment.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:07 #
  8. idic5
    Member

    what catherine calls 'overdevelopment', I suspect corbi328 would do backflips over.

    I see variations on this two-different-ways-of-looking-at-the-same thing over and over in this TIF argument.

    .
    one side sees a SLIGHT NEGLIGIBLE impact to the schools
    the other side
    sees a SIGNIFICANT impact to the schools

    .
    one side sees a SLIGHT NEGLIGIBLE impact to the 'quality of life' intangibles
    the other side
    sees a SIGNIFICANT impact to such intangibles

    .
    Some questions to answer:

    *Why do people come to Riverside?

    Since it is my post, I say it is because of accessibility to chicago dt, charm/Olmsted legacy, and the schools. Since we cannot mess with the first reason, the latter two is what we should make sure are kept safe and sound.

    there is also a post or two on this question in this forum
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=31&replies=9

    .
    *Would they leave if taxes got too high?

    Yes, but everyone has a different price when considering what is too high (cost / benefit).

    If there are numbers published somewhere that models what taxes might go up if TIF or if no TIF, that would be helpful in assessing this proposal.

    .
    *What services would the Riverside citizenry be willing to forego in order to keep that Olmsted intangibles and schools from (1) above?

    I heard a very passionate speaker at the 12-18 board meeting who, coming as a recent emigree from the ultra busy Oak Park, said he loved Riverside's charm. In his remarks, I recall that he said he might even live with less services to retain the charm.

    I also remember that he called Riverside's downtown 'beautiful'.

    Beautiful? THAT blighted area?

    mike

    Posted Wednesday Jan 3, 2007 23:42 #
  9. Catherine
    Member

    Here is an article I posted elsewhere here on how TIFs cause increased property taxes in areas of towns outside the TIF districts, to follow up on Holly's observation.

    http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/lib/pdf/LocalPolicyToolsExamined.pdf

    Even though I live in the proposed TIF district, I do not mind paying more taxes and "carrying" the schools and recreation departments, although I make no use of them.

    Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 00:06 #
  10. HollyMachina
    Member

    Catherine, thanks for posting that link. It's good. There's a whole section on how schools can be hurt w/ a TIF.

    One of the reasons that I doubt a TIF in Riverside would be financially beneficial is that the difference in EAV before and after TIF will not be significant. I believe a TIF can be successful in a truly blighted/vacant area where the EAV starts out as almost nothing. I'm sure this is way simplified but this is how I think about it: Going from $100 to $5000 in EAV (vacant lot to development) will be more successful for a TIF than going from $4500 to $5000 (development to better/bigger development). It's harder to increase the difference in EAVs of a property in Riverside because there are no vacant properties & all have decent EAV already (except for natural areas, and I'm truly concerned about them if the TIF is passed). Does this make sense?

    Posted Thursday Jan 4, 2007 22:51 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.