Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

41. spatny
    Member

    Presumably everyone likes the concept that, no matter why they bought into Riverside, they like the idea that it has good schools, yet many did not vote for recent referendum. Presumably they like the fact that the property value of their house or condo is climbing, but they don't like the increase in taxes. There may be people who moved to Riverside because they thought it would be better if we increased condo density, traffic and added shopping opportunities to the CBD, but I don't know who they are. On the other hand, I just had friends of mine here for dinner from Lincolnshire, and they thought the older buildings were beautiful, the layout which discouraged traffic was wonderful, and the parklands, Swan Pond and river were amazing. They were saddened to see the VC going up, because they have lived in Highland Park and vicinity for a long time and understand that it has changed greatly, and in their view, not for the better.

    Now I believe that Workshop Two - Visioning - will give everyone an opportunity to say what they would like to see - and it won't be very exciting to say "Less is more." Someone will want your pizza restaurant, another a health food store, a third will think a consignment shoppe or an Ace Hardware or a Mini Brewery or a Furniture Store is just what we need. Others will say it's a Civic Center, or a Community Center, or a Senior Center. How about a synagogue? Or a Sikh Temple? Or a Soul Food Restaurant? Seventy to one hundred more downtown condos? A tapas bar? A dance studio? A bookstore? "If you build it they will come?"

    The question is, will having these places open and close and reopen and adjust so as to draw people into Riverside increase the quality of life, preserve the character of the Village, or harm it. You tell me since you are going to anyway? I'd just like to have people give some thought to what is really important and what preservation really means. The trees I plant today I'll never see fully grown. But others - including Olmsted and the Riverside Improvement Company took the time, expense and trouble to put about 40,000 trees and plants so that the people that are here today would have this tiny little island in a sea of mediocrity to enjoy. I believe we should try and live up to their example, even if it means foregoing some of what we think we need.

    Posted Sunday Jan 28, 2007 11:14 #

42. MikeT
    Member

    I need to remind Mr Spatny that, if indeed Mr Sterner's vision is not the valid one that the Village is going forward with - as was said above by Ms Grace - then ...

    ...that concrete box to the east of the swinging bridge that Mr Spatny was complaining about is still in the plans.

    Then this also means that what Trustee Smith said in the last Board meeting to Mr Spatny, that the concrete box is gone, is wrong and misleading to him and to all of us who do not want to see a concrete box in that space.

    I am one of those people.

    From Trustee Smith's body language, I THINK I can put two and two together and get that the SPIRIT of his msg was that the current TOD is just conceptions/working crayons jots. But this flies in the face of:

    1) the TOD was formally voted on and 'adopted' in June 2006 by the board.

    2) the action items noted in the TOD were also put in the initial phase of the TIF plan (eg, removing properties to make way for a c-ment parking structure on Pine)

    3) in a recent (december?) water bill insert/newsletter, the Village manager called the TOD a mini comprehensive plan that is directing the TIF plan in response to the charge that there is no plan informing the TIF proposal.

    4) the TOD is being used as the BASIS for the current wkshops

    This is very confusing, and actually quite harmful. It bears repeating that it reminds me of the movie 'Brazil', where significant and life altering things are done by the State in a willy nilly manner. In addition to the concrete box just east of the bridge, there is another concrete box, on top of my home!.

    .
    miket

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 13:57 #

43. EricSundstrom
    Member

    I'm curious about the opinion some posting here have with regards to not wanting a buiding going up next to the Riverside FD, adjacent to the Swinging Bridge. Trying not to be sarcastic you do know there allready is a building there that in my opinion is a total eyesore, the old rec center. There has been talk throughout the years of placing a new community center there, but it has never come to pass mainly due to lack of funding. Untill now I've never heard anyone voice an opinion against creating a space in that location for the children and citizens of Riverside to utilize for community activities. I have no problem with a tastefully designed structure going up to replace the ,essentially vacant ,rundown building that is now in place. I think this would be the wisest use for this village property, and it would be of a benefit to the majority of Riverside's residents.

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 15:20 #

44. KimJ
    Member

    There is actually, on the TOD, some kind of box on the other side of the swinging bridge as well. At the open mtg. in November, KRush said she thought it was a parking lot. Although a rec center would be a nice and welcomed addition to the village, we do not have the funds to accomplish it at this time. If the village thinks a rec center is in our best interest, the most suitable location should be sought, bids received, and a referendum on the ballot to allow people to decide if they would like their taxes to increase to afford it. (Like we did with the tunnel.) To use TIF money to build the rec center is a waste of TIF funds. If we need a TIF to solve our budget woes, sinking TIF cash into "no-profit" projects like a rec center, emerald ash borer, cash to the swim club, capital improvements at the schools, doesn't make any sense. These are the promises that make the TIF palatable for the people still on the fence. What everyone forgets is that TIF money is not free money, you will still be paying for it.

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 15:43 #

45. MikeT
    Member

    Yes, Eric, Mr Spatny was referring to the area *east* of the swinging bridge. I had to think twice when he mentioned it, too.

    I agree that the old c center, come evidence storage center, is an absolute waste of some of the best land in the village. But what is on the east side is just fine the way it is right now. I am not sure what s/ go on the west side.

    miket

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 15:47 #

46. EricSundstrom
    Member

    I'm in the Tif district and I'd rather see my taxes go towards something this village really needs as in a community center, cash generating or not. Most towns surrounding this village have community centers, many of them well planned and fully utilized. A quality town like Riverside deserves a center especially with regards to our children having a place to use. In my opinion this is something that is a need, not a want.

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 16:00 #

47. MikeT
    Member

    I agree that Riverside needs a community center - it can be used for kids of all ages. I also was totally for the tunnel - also a need to me at least.

    If there is not enough money in the village till to pay for these things, we need to bring our case to the people and ask for the extra money.

    An idea: Maybe we can even collect a certain amount from everyone who wants in, buy some parcel, get the zoning and go for it! I guess that wd be the swim club model. Maybe the swim club can be changed to 4 season and be opened and expanded to more people, call it the community center?

    miket

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 16:22 #

48. spatny
    Member

    EricSundstrom: I was not speaking about the old Youth Center/DPW building. I was referring to the "opportunity site" shown in the TOD study p. 5-2 - which is the basis document, remember, for these TIF workshops - that is SEAST of the Swinging Bridge walkway. Across from the triangle. It is shown with a separate driveway from Riverside Road, a parking lot and a small building. There is a larger building (opportunity site) shown that covers part of the Youth Center and most of the parking lot now used by the police and others. These twin "opportunity sites" seem to be, according to the TOD study, prime for a "Community Center." It has also been labeled, in other versions, a "Civic Center/Restaurant" or a "Boutique Hotel". My objection is to inserting any building or parking lot, FOR ANY PURPOSE into the green area along the Riverbank on the south side of Riverside Road, from the pathway leading to the Swinging Bridge all the way to Miller Road and the Forest preserve. And I think, if the Village wants to use the TOD study as a basis for these workshops the Board should declare if they are willing to put ANYTHING into this greenspace.

    If people want to fund and build a "Community Center" - whatever that is - or a restaurant or a hotel or anything else back there to replace that terrible, cheap, ugly and essentially misused old Youth Center I would just like to point out that, since it seems almost everyone drives to these places (see Woodside Road at 3:00 PM), they should think about parking - for the visitors, for the staff, for the people like the Town Hall workers, Mike Hullihan, the police and fire guys - who now use that lot. Hotels, restaurants and even community centers (I guess) get deliveries, have trash, and need parking and delivery space. DOES ANYONE AT ALL think that the scenic riverbank should be used for that? If so, stand up and be counted.

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 17:03 #

49. spatny
    Member

    I should have said, "be identified." Excuse the typos - fingers still swaddled.

    Posted Tuesday Jan 30, 2007 17:06 #