What exactly is the RCA agenda?
It appears that the RCA supporters have left this site and I'm wondering why. I truly wonder if they were told not to post anymore. While the RCA has some strengths, being open to differing opinions in certainly not one of them.
The RCA was clear from the beginning that they have an agenda and they need to be voted in in a bloc to "fulfill" that agenda.
Do Gorman, Shevitz, Sacci, Reynolds have a vision for Riverside's future? If so, what is that vision?
I guess I have been known as an "RCA supporter" - but never a card carrying member of that party taking orders from the RCA, then or now. Right now, for me at least, I am giving them a chance to try to run this place - of course in concert with the other trustees.
They have obviously been working on finding a suitable VM for our town. The person seems ok to me inasmuch as I have looked at him. It seemed to indicate some thorough homework. There also seemed to be some brakes put on the Burlington parking lot - and there has been a copious amount of discussion on that other thread on this subject.
The amount of discussion on the Burlington lot thread tends to support what seems to me to be a prong of the RCA's agenda: to *carefully* examine the Riverside gov't processes and to proceed similarly *carefully*. "Measure twice, cut once." "Ask questions first, shoot later." This is what they said they'd do - and a reason probably most in the Village voted for them - and they are doing it.
As to something I would like to see done: As suggested in other threads here, I hope the current board steps back and continues the planning work that was started by the previous administration's workshops. Zimmer's ideas of a more walkable CBD could be something of a start in this exercise. This brings up another point: let's remember that our local govt is represented by both RCA and non RCA parties; the RCA is not monolithic as is suggested by this thread's question.
I have not seen odd spikes of odd behavior initiated by the RCA that would warrant (vociferous or otherwise) criticism. Examples of odd *spikes* would be the TIF and Tax initiatives from the previous admin (and supporters of a similar point of view in the Board election), the 77 pct increase the d 96 board gave to the super during the greatest economic downturn since 1940, or the st mary admin's choice to build in a park (Mary Park).
Me personally - from a practical point of view - such odd spikes would *tend to* 'light me up' (for example, I *have* been on the savemarypark blog , a more appropriate vehicle for that problem [once that place is gone, it is gone, so now is the time to say your piece] ). Also, following the chief (joseph), again, me personally, I have way too much to do on the Reservation.
I agree that the new VM seems like a winner. With that said, we are required by law to have a VM, so while I give credit to Messrs. Gorman and Sacchi for the hiring of this specific individual, it's not a situation where the administration forged boldly ahead--they had to hire someone.
I disagree with Mike in his statement that the RCA is not monolithic. It is, I think, instructive to note that the RCA has voted as a bloc so far, with the only exception that I am aware of being where Shevitz and Reynolds wanted to table the parking lot design contract indefinitely, and Sacchi voted with th others to table until September. There's nothing inherently good or bad about bloc voting, and it probably was to be expected. However, if this continues, it does suggest that the non-RCA trustees are going to be somewhat marginalized as long as the RCA trustees continue to stick together.
I don't understand why someone posted a "consiracy" tag above. The four individuals responsible for the future of Riverside have an agenda, I am simply trying to figure out what it is. All four come from the Olmsted Society, does this have a bearing on how they want the Village to look? I really don't know. Are they for organic development, are they for a master plan, or are they for no plan?
I am sincerely trying to gain an understanding of what this town will look like in 4 years.
Dear Common....I'm not trying to be cute...but my mother used to say you can't get water from a stone. I think if they knew they would explain...unfortunately I believe they do not, nor ever did, have a plan. As we know their campaign was made up of scare tactics...it worked. Now we should all be scared.
I do not know what their agenda is, but as a current board member of the Olmsted Society, I can say that their political aspirations are independent from our organization. We are a non-for-profit group and our mission statement can be found at this website:
If you have questions regarding an agenda for the RCA, you should talk to them directly.
If you would like to become involved in the Olmsted Society, we welcome all residents and visitors to join in helping our community. Please contact us through the website for more information. Our next workday is September 12th at 9am along Riverside Road (we mainly pull weeds and stuff but wear long pants and bring gloves if you have them).
It is interesting that the tone of dicourse has calmed considerably on the site. This is probably one of the "ebbs" in the ebb and flow of the passive-agressive nature of Riverside politics. During the heyday of the posie wars bands of Olmstedians were ripping out flowers under cover of darkness and chaining themselves to shrubbery. Now, it is just a landscape maintenance society? The society newsletter was responsible for bringing up the questions of who spent how much of donated money on what which led to the dismissal of the Village Forester. Now it is apolitical? At least Don and Catherine are up-front with their agendae. They may not always be right, but they speak their piece and stand behind their opinions. It is 5 months into the new administration. The "first 100 days" have passed. The current budget discussions will steer the course until January 1, 2011. I would say that this is the time for the Olmsted Society to step up to the plate and clearly spell out what they expect from the Village administration for 2010. Or they can throw easy pitches.
I am a member of the Olmsted Society. I very much appreciate the work that the Society does and I understand that as a non-for-profit organization, supporting political campaigns is forbidden. The Olmsted Society was active politically in the last election at least to the extent that the Olmsted Society Board interviewed all candidates the day before the Public Debate. They did not publicly endorse any candidate.
That being said, there seems to be an undercurrent, or tradition of sorts of the Olmsted Society members working together to lobby various issues that do not comport with Olmsted's vision, the TIF for example. This is a good thing, as the members have a common outlook and work to protect their vision of Riverside. Gorman, Sacchi, Shevitz, Reynolds all come from this group. I am trying to understand if and how this impacts on the future of Riverside.
Good for you! The best hidden agenda is the one exposed. Luck!
Fred - I should clarify, I pay the $20, get the newsletter, read the nice articles and intend to pull weeds. No hidden agenda here.
There are groups within the Society that seem quite politically active, the board for example.
You must log in to post.