Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. commonsense
    Member

    Well, here is what the RCA promised they would do if we elected them. I don't see how delaying the parking lot for a year fits into the RCA platform.

    The Riverside Community Alliance feels that a landmark community like Riverside deserves a landmark business district. For too long, too much of Riverside government’s focus has been on catering to developers and high-density development rather than attracting businesses. RCA’s goal is to have a business district with businesses that residents are excited to support. This starts with the recognition that we, as Riverside residents, are responsible for supporting businesses, and the Village Board is responsible for bringing together residents, businesses and landlords to attract those businesses and encouraging residents to support them.

    If elected, the RCA slate will:

    Focus on bringing businesses, not just development, to Riverside. As the budget allows, we will bring in a professional who specializes in leveraging the assets of historic communities to attract businesses.

    Recognize that decisions made by the Village Board impact our local schools – that high-density development will not only change the character of our village and overburden our infrastructure, but it will also exacerbate the overcrowding of our local schools – and is not a viable option for Riverside.

    Promote “green” development in order to become a model green community in the Chicago area.

    Make the needs of residents – not developers – our top priority.

    Retain and assist our current businesses and retailers, while pursuing new ventures which will complement our existing businesses and which our residents will support.

    Treat the Central Business District as a distinct Landmark Commercial District within our National Historic Landmark Village. Development needs to be appropriate for a Landmark Commercial District.

    Promote Riverside as a historic destination and capitalize on Olmsted’s legacy.

    Leverage the qualities of the Village which are the reasons most residents have remained here or moved here in the first place: location; school districts; historic legacy; access to transportation; serenity; all augmented by surrounding resources and amenities.

    “There is no reason why a nationally-recognized historic community like Riverside cannot sustain a viable downtown that serves the needs of its residents,” said Lonnie Sacchi, RCA candidate for Village Trustee. “RCA has a new approach to our downtown. With the right leadership from the Village Board, we can bring together residents, business owners and local landlords to bring in the kinds of businesses that Riverside would support.”

    Posted Wednesday Jun 3, 2009 15:33 #

22. spatny
    Member

    So how is it inconsistent to want to investigate how to do this in the most cost-effective way? They didn't say they weren't going to do it - just let's look at how we might reduce the cost of doing it. I am in the CBD every day, and many evenings, and I have yet to be unable to park. I go have a beer at the Chew, go to Riverside Foods, the bank, Riverside Garage, the library, Riverside Works, Grumpy's, etc. I always get a space. Sometimes I park near the Arcade or even the library and walk over to the Chew - it's pleasant and I see more detail than when driving. Why suddenly, when in the last six weeks we have been advised that our financial condition is significantly different than it was presented before the election, must we rush into accepting a single bid or doing something that we might be able to do better with a little more information? You are really stretching to misrepresent what they said. I presume you are a resident and taxpayer, and concerned about the shortfall, and would think you would applaud any and every effort to be fiscally responsible, as I do.

    Posted Wednesday Jun 3, 2009 16:26 #

23. CuriousResident
    Member

    I would expect anyone with "commonsense" would be able to see that parking is not truly a problem at this time. It may become one if we get the "vibrant CBD" that has been talked about for so long...but now? I just don't see it.

    It would be great to see some non-anecdotal data that parking is "restricting" or even "impacting" businesses in the CBD...

    Out of curiosity, wasn't the business justification for the additional parking from the TOD anyway (not from the existing businesses)? Something like "We need it to be able to handle increased density and all the businesses that are going to come here"?

    Posted Wednesday Jun 3, 2009 17:26 #

24. Catherine
    Member

    The RCA had its origins in the TIF disagreement. An elemental point of disagreement was that taxpayer money ought not to subsidize businesses. Not charging Grumpy's a grand to have outdoor tables and not making someone like Zimmer jump through hoops for months is what is business friendly. A taxpayer supplied 3/4 million dollar parking lot is Government Motors, something the Feds can do but we cannot; we cannot deficit spend.

    It is absolutely correct there was no implication that property was purchased for business parking. In fact, I recall the argument was resident parking was needed. And it is.

    I don't see how it can simultaneously be claimed that we have a deficit, but we should hurry up and spend $200K.

    Speaking of public/private partnerships, why don't the businesses cover the cost if this is not going to be residential parking? Can't afford it? Well, now you see the problem. The last government claimed residents were saddled with too much of the cost of the village, and the CBD was not paying 'its share.' So, this deal is inexplicable.

    I support more business parking, but the price here has been ridiculous. How long is it going to take for us to recoup that cost by sales tax? Decades. Business parking would also benefit resident taxpayers, but this has been a very expensive proposition.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 10:05 #

25. commonsense
    Member

    Curious, you are missing the point. The issues are:

    • How does the village board work toward ensuring a vibrant business district? How does the board work toward maintaining existing business and attract new businesses? Both parties campaigned on this issue; the RCA identified it as one of the most pressing issues facing Riverside. The parking lot is the first opportunity they have been presented with to further this goal.

    The board has been working for years to solve the problem of a lack of parking in Riverside, with the end goal to bring new businesses to Riverside. As you point out, the lack of parking has been an issue since the TOD study, even well before. While Trustee Shevitz gives lip service to the need for parking, he disagreed with Trustee Sacchi when Sacchi reported that Plan commission has already decreed that a parking lot on the Burlington parcel was the highest and best use.

    • How do we remain fiscally responsible in difficult times? Also an issue both parties identified as critically important.

    NOT building the parking lot will force the Village to pay back the parking lot loan out of the OPERATING fund, which negatively impacts taxpayers. Not to mention that Trustee Shevitz’s financial breakdown forecasting each parking space at 30K is simply not accurate. The purchase price of the land $550k should NOT be rolled into the cost of parking lot. Senior Trustees Sussman, Sells, and Scully explained this to Shevitz. The land can always be turned back into a general asset, thus should not be rolled into the parking lot. Well at least Catherine gets it. The cost of the parking lot is the cost of the design and construction, which is somewhere in the ballpark of $200K, or roughly $10k per parking space. Amortized over a number of years it is a pretty good deal.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 11:06 #

26. Catherine
    Member

    Actually I think the true cost of the parking lot is and if we do not do better will be, in fact, three quarters of a million dollars. I don't care which pocket it comes from; the action between them seems pretty fluid.

    I never heard of a plan for parking with attracting business as its end result. I specifically recall the Board strongly considering eminent domaining someone's private property in order to resolve RESIDENT parking, not business parking. This was in the period when high-density was anticipated. There was never any statement for a very long time about what was the intended use of the property. We have months-long waiting lists for resident parking. Will the sales tax exceed $50 or $60 per month per space? I hope so.

    The most pressing business problem is the Arcade. I think the highest and best use of that property would have been to sell it and enter into a public/private partnership to buy the Arcade. So, people of good will can differ on that topic.

    The position of the RCA was to attract businesses for the use of the residents primarily, and secondarily ones that leveraged our nature as a historic village. Nothing was said by the RCA about taxpayer subsidies to businesses in the form of this parking lot.

    I don't see what the big fire drill is about getting this done now. I agree all expenditures should be revisited, even moreso now that our assessed values have been reduced. Look at the Daley parking meter fiasco. Hurry up and get it done NOW. Turns out they were shortchanged by 50%, one billion dollars.

    There is no such thing as a Senior Trustee. One could easily say that the ones most recently elected by the voters more accurately reflect their current desires. I notice you do not call Mark Trustee Shevitz. You can disagree on positions, but impugning motives, intelligence, or character is ridiculous. Anyone who would take that job is certainly interested in doing what is best for Riverside, according to their lights.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 12:08 #

27. commonsense
    Member

    My apologies for not referring to Shevitz as Trustee Shevitz. I honestly didn't realize I omitted his title until I went back to read the post. I would edit to add it but the edit button doesn't come up anymore.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 12:28 #

28. spatny
    Member

    common - you seem to lack any sense of reality at all and be completely obsessed with trashing the newer Trustees now as you did during the campaign. The facts are that it was the TOD - the Transit Oriented Development Study which was pitched by those BS consultants we had on behalf of the Metra and which always comes to the same conclusion - no matter where it is done - "You need more condos close to the tracks, as fast as you can build them, and a multi-level parking garage for commuters. " Doesn't matter if it's Riverside, Desplaines, Downers or Arlington Heights - one size fits all. That's why Metra pays for it - to boost ridership. And that was touted by people who built some of the worst projects known to man and which are also big losers - both in and out of Riverside.

    If we had made it mandatory for the VC to provide the required parking that we are now attempting to provide, they would have had to purchase land to do it, right? So in order to compare the two you need to set the same parameters don't you? They evaded providing 17 spaces by paying a miserly $5k a spot, which was the number one of the candidates that was not elected championed. Now we have to spend around $750K to provide it - which means our last Board subsidized that development by more than $650K. They aren't paying it and we have to - so how can you say that the land element is not part of this equation?

    When the last Board handed out the variances and sold them the alley, which would have parked about 8-9 cars and was the absolutely indispensable piece of property they needed to build, they gave it away for $15K. That same space will now cost us perhaps $270K. That is the kind of stupidity that got us into this shortfall situation, not carefully examining the alternatives. And of course that piece of property could also have been used to get us a better structure - design and size-wise - but that's a different story.

    And the "Edit" aspect came up on this post.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 12:40 #

29. commonsense
    Member

    Spatny - I have the same fundamental differences of opinion with the RCA as I did before the election. My comments are not politically driven, they are driven by my desire to contribute to finding the right path for Riverside. How does this work, April 6 I think one way, then April 7 I am mandated to think in lockstep with the RCA? This should be the place where critical thought is encouraged.

    I give credit where credit is due - the RCA hired a very qualified VM - great! I am suprised to find Trustee Sacchi seems to actually be an independent thinker, I'm beginning to think he is the one RCA member who doesn't care about politics and actually does what he thinks is right - also good news for Riverside.

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 13:00 #

30. Fred
    Member

    Easy solution. The land was bought by bonds guaranteed by the parking fund. If it is not a parking lot, the parking fund has to be reimbursed from the general fund. OK, it's a parking lot. It just happens to be "in progress." Topsoil and seed it and wait to see what happens. It could remain "in progress" for decades. If it ever gets to be used for another purpose the parking fund gets reimbursed. In the mean time revenues from other parking lots service the bonds. No harm, no foul, no contravention of GAAP. Why must everything be a controversy?

    Posted Thursday Jun 4, 2009 15:54 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.