Thanks Candi. I just started noticing signs this week.
Thanks,
Chris
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Protect the Swan Pond and riverside parkland
(49 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 15:41 #
-
Personally, I wish we would return to no drinking in public places, but leaving the nanny state aside and back to the subject. Spatny, I recall reading that something would be done about the Riverside Lawn area of Swan Pond near the Swinging Bridge. What control do we have over that area. The path through those woods is excellent if it could be kept clear. Not to mention I have seen people camped out in their cars there and gang signals painted there. Also, what are those buildings in the TOD on the green space abutting the river on Riverside Road SOUTH of the Swinging Bridge meant to be?
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 16:44 # -
According to k rush at the big public meeting (Nov. 21?) that the public was allowed to speak, parking!
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 16:54 # -
PARKING along the river on Riverside Road? On the green space along the river? Is that not public land? Tell me this is not so, or I am going to be ill.
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 17:02 # -
Ask k rush.
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 19:36 # -
Let me preface these remarks by saying that the Burke Engineering drawings I have are B&W photocopies and very hard to read, so I can't be 100% accurate as to where these projects end or begin. The TOD study shows two buildings or sites for buildings east of the Town Hall. One is larger and forward, that is toward Riverside Road, of the present old youth center/public works building - roughly halfway into the present parking lot. The other shows a smaller building surrounded by a parking lt south/east of the walkway to the Swinging Bridge, on the riverbank side of Riverside Road across from the triangle. This area is where the engineering study by Burke Engineering, dated July 24, 2006, calls out "the construction of (a) new segment of retaining wall at the eastern end of the riverbank to replace the existing concrete blocks, construction of new was (wall) as necessary to support a concrete walkway..." and "...new perimeter protective walkway rails along the river's edge..."
It is possible that the Village has no intention of building east/south of the Swinging Bridge, but if that is the case, why will no one step up and say that. Likewise the area everyone thinks is part of Guthrie Park south of the depot, but is actually not parkland.
Posted Wednesday Jan 10, 2007 20:02 # -
Mr. Spatny - you are incorrect in saying that the area between the train station and the parking lot by the swim club is not parkland. This board made it parkland last spring. Furthermore, although we can't make it as strong as the original parkland deeded by the Riverside Improvement Company, we directed our attorney to make it as hard to change as possible. We all agree that it seems like it's part of Guthrie park and should stay that way.
Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 18:05 # -
Candace - I am happy to hear you say that, but my recollection was that the area was not joined to Guthrie Park. Do you have documentation to show you are correct, or can you get it? Believe me, I am not doubting you, it is just that my recollection was that it was not joined and protected, and that Trustee Shields was the one that said "we might want to build something there." Of course, I'm aging, and these meetings tend to run together because we in the audience do not get to see the paperwork unless we track it down later. Please, if you have documentation of this wonderful event please post it. Thank you.
Oh, one more thing. Where do you stand on the issue of building "anything at all" on the riverbank side of Riverside Road, east of the Swinging Bridge? Here's your chance to lead...
Posted Thursday Jan 11, 2007 19:57 # -
You are correct in saying the area is not joined to Guthrie Park. Guthrie Park is one of the 'deeded by RIC' parks that can't be tampered with. So we had to make this a separate park legally. However, it is now officially a park. And we also had two options as to who controls it - the board or the rec department. We made it the board, because that limits what can be done with it. So, it's tied up the best we could do. Of course, as with anything one board does, another one can come along and undo. But our hope was that if any future board wanted to undo its park status that the hue and cry would be so loud that they wouldn't change it. That area has to stay parkland because it ties in so much with Guthrie park and Swan Pond.
Sometimes I do not post here because I don't have the exact answers at my fingertips when I'm reading from work or my pda. And because I'm a trustee everything I say is read with a heightened interest. And I've found myself quoted out of context or what I've said exaggerated or mocked. Having said all of that, I think it's clear that:
I am not in favor of any additional buildings or man made structures anywhere on the river with the following exceptions:
1) If the WPA river wall or steps in Swan Pond need repariing then we should do it.
2) That ugly old youth center/public works building should come down. I'd like to see that spot used for something the entire community could enjoy. It's one of the most beautiful views in town and it's used for police evidence storage. What a shame.
3) On the river, behind the Township Hall and that ugly old youth center/public works building, I would like to see a place where people could sit and enjoy the view... whether that's a small terrace or a wide walk, I'm not sure.Now, I've said the above a number of times and in a number of places. And what I've heard back is that I want a rierwalk like Naperville has. So you can imagine my hesitancy to post this here where it will be cut and pasted into other posts, emails etc and not with the full text. But, I'm taking a leap and posting it, because at this point, if people want to misquote me, that's fine.
Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 12:52 # -
Candace - you are the first Trustee to make such a statement, even though it is a qualified one. The old youth center is an eyesore and in very bad shape. I think the engineering report that I saw - dated July - assumes that it will be removed. If opening up the area to a viewing platform or something with benches where people could enjoy the view that sounds worth pursuing, but the talk and the TOD study are pointed at a "Boutique Hotel," conference center, restaurant, or all of them. The space simply isn't there to accommodate such a thing. The controversy isn't about keeping the river wall in good repair, it's about all the other stuff the report talks about. Frankly, the back of the Town Hall is not a thing of beauty, and coming up the hill on the existing drive, walking past the front of the Library and Town Hall to the Swinging Bridge seems to be a better solution than some quarter million dollar amendment to the rear. What I want people to declare themselves on, is whether they are in favor of building anything on the river side of Riverside Road - east of the Swinging Bridge. You didn't include that in your view, but it's a start. Maybe your colleagues will also answer and give their vision.
Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 13:52 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.