I don't know - and frankly I don't care - except that I think whoever owns it should have to do something about the east wall and possibly filling back in the hole if they are not going to build. I see a sign in there with the Village logo on it but was unable to stop as there is no place to park there. I'll try and see what it says. Another great idea - $700K plus row houses on Burlington with no public parking and a very problematical sunken drive at the bank that was built with text amendment changes by our vaunted planning commission. Burlington is the "Murderer's Row" of out of touch and unsuccessful developments...
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Question about Caucus tactics
(153 posts)-
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 14:44 #
-
I am very confused by the level of hatred toward the caucus here. The caucus method is used widely in small communities across the country to ensure there are candidates to keep local government operating. As has been mentioned several times on this site, just because the caucus presents candidates in election year does not prevent anyone else from also running. What we should instead aim our disgust at is the level of apathy in Riverside that results in mostly uncontested elections. What would have happened if the caucus did not find and support a slate every election? We may not have liked the people elected, but what would happen if no one ran? Would the president appoint trustees? Do we operate without? What if the president's position was not filled? We may not all like the candidates that the caucus has slated, but I don't blame them for filling the void. If we are looking for fault and to make a change for the future, we should look at ourselves, our friends, our neighbors, anyone who isn't willing to volunteer to run or to find candidates through phones calls, discussion and cajoling, anyone who isn't willing to contribute money, raise money, get petitions signed, go door-to-door weekend after weekend and spread the word for candidates we support. Apathy is the problem, not the caucus.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 17:58 # -
You are right about apathy. That is the main reason that whatever candidates Caucus has offered have generally won. I was just making the case that when a candidate that gets a vote from only 25% of the voters that go to the polls and wins election because he was unopposed it is not exactly a mandate, and people have the right to feel they weren't offered a choice. And I think some trustees have been appointed - perhaps to fill a vacancy midterm. But whatever the reason, this system is one that here in Riverside allows what I stated to happen. We can do better. We are doing better with a wide-open, red, white and blue contested election that should interest and bring out more voters. Whatever happens, we should be better served by that. Don't you agree?
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 18:12 # -
If the Caucus were more interested in a vigorous democracy than in perpetuating their own existence, they wouldn't be running the kind of campaign they have been running against the RCA.
I am looking at a Riverside Party flyer, utterly lacking in substance and containing the insinuating falsehood that their opponents must "follow a party line" or "adhere to an exclusive ideology". Of course, elsewhere the claim is the RCA has no ideology or line. This waste of tree is PAID FOR by the 'Riverside Community Caucus'.
No, no thanks. Don't do us any 'favors.' They savage everyone who DARES to oppose THEIR picks. Turnout always increases when there is competition. Their lock on the government is creating the apathy, not the other way around.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 18:22 # -
I agree with you spatny, but WE need to make sure there is a choice. People may feel they weren't given a choice in the past, but "we" have only ourselves to blame. ("We" = anyone who didn't get out and actively do something - ANYTHING - to find and support an alternative.) It isn't going to happen just because we wish it or say it. I'm one of the "We" - I personally have not done enough to make this happen in the past, but I am going to act differently going forward. There has been alternative to the caucus slate in Oak Park for as far back as I can remember - that can happen in Riverside too.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 18:44 # -
HS - I think your passion is well spent here. I wasn't going to air this thought because I know some of the people that read this will be upset, but you have stimulated me to lay it out.
What if the Caucus system of self perpetuation is in fact the root cause of the bind we find ourselves in? Since it has ruled here since the Middle Ages, what about if it accepts the responsibility for getting us, through its policies and choices, into the fiscal situation we now face? I mean, how about taking the bitter with the sweet? Perhaps if 12, 8 or 4 years ago they had adopted different policies, pursued other policies, listened to other views more carefully, would we be where we are now? I can't speak for earlier than 2004 because I wasn't here, but maybe way back when they pursued a plan and hired people that were destined to get us into trouble. Is that a valid consideration?
Nobody on the RCA ticket signed any of the agreements that they did. No RCA member bough ta bisquit or signed a check, negotiated a salary or a benefit package. No one but a Caucus dominated and controlled board did that. Do you hear them accepting responsibility for the situation they have guided us into?
Understand - I'm not saying that - I'm asking what you think and why. I remember, back when I was a sprout, how that Caucus dominated Board could not muster the citizenry to stand up and accept the gift of the Babson Estate for a park. Twenty- eight acres of prime, almost virginal land in the heart of Riverside, the great Sullivan designed house, the outbuildings that are now homes - and they couldn't convince the voters to take it. Nor could another Caucus dominated Board accept the chance to have a piece of the action at what is now the North Riverside Mall area. Certainly those were issues that needed leadership, and it was not there. Doubtless there are others. The point I'm making is that we are told by many that the Caucus system is wonderful - but we are in a tough situation that they must accept at least some responsibility for. Or?
And please, don't tell me I am being too tough on them by just asking these questions.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 20:03 # -
I still own those townhomes on Burlington and Herrick Spatny. Nothing has been going on there because of all the renegotiating I am having to do with my lender. I suggest you ask me about the project (that has ample parking per... unit 4) before you start flapping your lips about something were you have little knowledge but lots of an overbearing opinion. I personally put out the Caucus sign along with a sign for my friend on the Chamber of Commerce, Alex Galagos. That sign was removed, and whom ever did so i would like it put back. Your last premise should take into consideration that just about any town you look at, that does not have a strong retail sales component to its tax base, is in financial trouble. Riverside is just one more town in a crunch because of the way they are given less each year of the available tax pie. Hillside Brookfield and Berwyn are three towns that immediately come to mind having the same if not worse problem than us. Laying the current financial crisis at the heels of past boards of trustees is therefore, to my mind, an erroneous premise.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 21:35 # -
Eric - I'm glad to hear you did not lose it - I was misinformed by someone I thought new the facts. I apologize for repeating what info was given to me. I hope it works out for you. And I know nothing about the sign being removed - I just saw it there today. I wanted to stop to read the sign with the watertower logo on it past the east end of your building but too much traffic. Certainly there is probably not a single town that is doing well these days, and I heard this evening conflicting reports on the local (Illinois) housing and unemployment situation - almost 10% now twice that in minorities, so it doesn't look promising. I do think we would have been better off to have had a piece of the commercial development to the north, I wasn't here whenit was refused so don't know why - and I think it would have been much better to have had commercial along Ogden - but we have what we have. Please note that I did not say it was the fault of previous boards - I said that is a question that might be asked since they were in control and we are where we are. Why is it that as soon as you question the establishment view everyone gets so upset?
On the other thread - I didn't say they definitely 100% will be able to save a lot on the budget - but still it is worth looking at. Again, why shouldn't everyone know what the priorities are and what we spend on them, and what we get for what we spend? Your office is almost directly across from the parking lot project. Do you think we got a good deal taking just $5K a space from the VC developers? Or selling the vital alley for just $15K? I sure as hell don't. I think we take a net loss of $600K+ on the parking deal - minimum - when all is said and done. That's a big chunk of change in a small town like this.
Posted Friday Mar 27, 2009 23:19 # -
Eric, you might want to follow your own advice and not spread specious anecdotes like the one about the accountant.
Posted Saturday Mar 28, 2009 08:29 # -
Don,
As always, you raise some intersting points. Here's a couple for you to consider:
You said:
What if the Caucus system of self perpetuation is in fact the root cause of the bind we find ourselves in? Since it has ruled here since the Middle Ages, what about if it accepts the responsibility for getting us, through its policies and choices, into the fiscal situation we now face?
The "Caucus system of self perpetuation" is, to my mind, a fantasy. As I have pointed out, seemingly to no avail, the Caucus did not and does not prevent others--be they independents or members of a party or slate--from running for office. If no one challenged the Caucus, this was either--as HSimpson points out--a result of voter apathy, or a result of satisfaction with the system. My suspicion is that it was a combination of both.
You also said:
Nobody on the RCA ticket signed any of the agreements that they did. No RCA member bough ta bisquit or signed a check, negotiated a salary or a benefit package. No one but a Caucus dominated and controlled board did that. Do you hear them accepting responsibility for the situation they have guided us into?
That's true, as there are no RCA members serving on the Board. However, if you are going to make the argument that the Caucus has been detrimental to the village, I think you need to address the fact that Lonnie Sacchi, an RCA candidate, was a member of the Caucus. Not only a member, but an outspoken one, who inveighed against "the pernicious influence of independents" in public letters. I understand this happened a number of years ago, and that there is an argument that Mr. Sacchi underwent some Road to Damascus conversion. However, if you are going to ask the current Board (and the RP candidates) to accept responsibility to things that happened 10, 30 and 50 years ago, I think it only fair to put the same question to Mr. Sacchi.
Posted Saturday Mar 28, 2009 12:02 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.