I was at that meeting and I recall that Smith said that he wanted to stimulate debate within the community w/ that rather extreme question.
I wonder if it will stimulate more confusion than debate?
Something PERHAPS he could have said to get a better yield of meaningful info might have been:
Shall the Village let the market and the Village ordinances decide how the cbd will develop?
.
but they did not want us to comment after they deliberated on the questions at the meeting.
miket
Well, I only read the newspaper coverage Mike, and what I've seen here. I guess he didn't expect anyone to vote in favor of that or of the property tax increase, but I will. As to the first, they would have to prove to the taxpayers what the money is needed for and why they should pay. As to the second, those buildings would generate enough profit, presumably, to support themselves. I would rather have adequate police and tree care than another flower shop.
Catherine: Watch the rerun on local access. Smith's presentation on that "eliminate the commercial space requirement" question reminded me of the strawman method of argument - "attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position." http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Not a particularly constructive approach to governance - especially because the "opponents" in this case are constituents!
I think we all want "what's best for Riverside" and there are certain things that because of our National Historic Landmark Status must remain sacred. But the current draft of the TIF Development Plan is so broad there is the potential for abuse and/or unintended consequences. This is a critical time and there NEEDS to be an open dialogue between the people of Riverside and their elected officials.
There are all kinds of people in this town and on this Forum and everyone has a different way of expressing him or herself. No one of us speaks for any other - unless expressly authorized, of course. To the extent that the statements of a few individuals may concievably have caused offense at any point throughout this process, the majority of our elected officials should be adult enough to move past that and recognize and address the underlying concerns in a responsible and thoughtful manner.
I look forward to the coming workshops, to seeing how (and when) the Village responds to the written questions posed during Session 1 and how it acts upon the ideas that comes out of these sessions.
My biggest problem with Trustee Smith's question is that he used it to prove a point. OK, so he made his point (with a little bit of a 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo' attitude) but at what cost? Not only will it be a confusing question on the ballot, but it takes up valuable space on the ballot. Yes, I signed the petition - but that was way back in November when there were no workshops scheduled. The question proposed by Trustee Scanlon was really one for which I would/could have voted for. But to prove a point, we are now faced with a question which really doesn't get to the heart of the matter for a lot of people. (i.e. a conditional TIF as proposed by the EDC.) Having those two questions on the ballot would have really told them if the majority are against a TIF altogether or just the one proposed. They would probably have been pleasantly surprised at the outcome. But they chose not to come toward the residents and instead turned the issue into something completely different.
I can understand Trustee Smith's knee-jerk reaction to his perception that so many are against a TIF, but what I can't understand is why he didn't rise above that feeling. For goodness sake ~ he is the elected official, after all. He should be above that kind of "if you don't play by my rules, then I'll take my ball and go home." And I disregard his justification - which really might have made for an interesting theoretical discussion - because of the motivation behind it.
Even though the Village scheduled these workshops (which I commend) and have seemed to make efforts to be more transparent, I still see the old ways at work here. This is the latest of seemingly endless examples where the Village officials set themselves apart/against the residents.
In my opinion, Trustee Smith is trying to frame the issue. Given the amount of resistance expressed by some to the initial TIF proposal, it is only natural to gauge if more people are supportive of the TIF's polar opposite, i.e. a policy that does not pose an impediment to the elimination of commercial retail space in the CBD. Trustee Smith called this a radical proposal and from this comment I deduce that he does not believe this referendum question will generate much support. However, the amount of support, or lack thereof, generated by the question will give our Trustees valuable insight that will help them determine if the true pulse of Riverside residents lies closer to one end of the spectrum or the other.
Sort of like the kid that won't eat his vegetables, his mama makes him swallow an entire cake instead.
How was I accusing the trustees of lying? I was relating my personal experience in a TIF and how it played out. I remain skeptical of "pay as you go" because I can't see many developers wanting to wait a few years for their "inducement". If they are, the project probably is working without the inducement. I guess we must continue to suffer Corbi's inept attempts at putting words in our mouths if we post on this forum.
Yes, Smith can be rather childish and hot-tempered, strange qualities in a public official. And he is inaccurately suggesting that a rise in property tax or a change in the retail requirements are the only alternatives to a TIF. But, I call him on it. Since many studies show that TIFs result in property tax rises anyway, that should not be a factual problem, and I and others have expressed a willingness to pay more property taxes. I would also be willing to see street to ceiling condos as we are now looking forward to our third flower shop. And we certainly don't need another "gift" shop.
Of course this is all a bad faith effort to muddy the waters on the TIF and to influence the vote in favor of it. Did anyone really expect anything else?
Catherine, pls clarify: would you think it is a good idea to remove the oridinance that requires commercial at street level, and to then let the market decide what goes in that space?
Sorry if I did not get any other subtle points.
m
Mike, yes, I would prefer market forces to the TIF or any other form of government intervention. The one ordinance that was properly within the government's domain, the height restrictions appropriate to a national historic landmark, they have already abdicated their responsibility to. A rollback to a lower height allowance and condos on the first floor would be an optimal alternative to the TIF.
Again, if no one wants the business offerings or the condos, no TIF is going to prevent us from having empty new buildings.
You must log in to post.