I didn't think Shevitz or Gorman were heavily involved in the Olmsted Society. I'm pretty sure Shevitz is (or was) a member but I don't think Mr. Gorman is. Reynolds and Sacchi have both been president.
I'm an Olmsted member too. I joined to get cheap tickets to the housewalk a few years back.
Fred, wasn't it the petunia wars?
"I truly wonder if they were told not to post anymore."
Really? Do you think the two most vocal members of this site, Catherine and Spatny, would hold their tongue just because someone asked them to? I don't think anyone has that much power over them. I think what's more likely is they got bored with the discussion here, or maybe they're just out enjoying the weather. I do know it's been quiet here since they've last posted. If they did start a new website, I will miss them.
During the campaign, the fact that some members of the RCA were active in the Olmsted Society ("active" meaning holding officer or committee-chair positions) was of enough concern to the RCA that they addressed the issue on their web site--I can't find the correct link, but it was something to the effect of "Don't worry--we're not anti-business."
The issue, I think, is not whether the Olmsted Society itself is politically active--it is not. Rather, it is the fact that a significant number of Olmsted members have significant roles in Riverside government.
1) Sacchi, Reynold and Shevitz--2 former FLOS presidents; Shevitz was chair of at least 1 committee.
2) The individuals who helped Shevitz conduct the parking study are former FLOS officers.
3) New members of the LAC, ZBA and other Village commissions are former Olmsted Society officers and committee chairs.
I think the FLOS and its members do a good deal for the Village. However, an active member of the FLOS is going to bring different priorities to the table than, say, the owner of a local business or someone whose main interest is the schools. I think the FLOS view is important, I think it has merit, and I think we're lucky to have such an active organization. However, I think we need balance, and my concern is that we're seeing the balance tipping too much. Having said that, I presume that the majority of Riverside residents are comfortable with this since they voted these guys in.
You're right Chris it was petunia. I could never get it straight because the whole issue was so silly. Are you going to terminate this thread because of posey vs petunia? Tough to be the ref and in the game, isn't it?
Here's a good page about the RCA Business agenda:
http://www.riversidecommunityalliance.com/platform/sustainable-businesses-downtown/
Rather, it is the fact that a significant number of Olmsted members have significant roles in Riverside government.
.
.
.
3) New members of the LAC, ZBA and other Village commissions are former Olmsted Society officers and committee chairs.
It doesn't seem like this will matter, as the RCA majority on the board appears disinclined to listen to input from Village staff or commissions. At August's Board meeting alone there were three instances of them disregarding informed input and going with personal opinion.
The way I see it; you can a) ignore the politics b) complain about the politics or c) you can take action about the politics.
I am not an Olmsted Society member, but I feel that folks are confusing it (and what it stand for) with the proactive "conservative" prior (and maybe current) memebers that have taken action.
I'm back to my point. IS there agenda, if so what is it? The only identifiable agenda so far is to "stop the flow" of all spending and do the opposite of the administration that preceded them, on principle alone. The RCA majority has managed to alienate our business owners by blocking the parking lot. The RCA board is reluctant to maintain or fix anything. They have no regard for the other trustees on the board and disregard the advise of commissions and department heads. Who knows how they are going to balance the budget by November.
Other than the hiring of a good VM, they have given us nothing to get behind.
JillM,
That's a good point. However, it's also interesting that the Board shared the view of the RCA-appointed members of the LAC, who voted against the acceptance of the $5k. In other words, it was the minority of the LAC--the RCA appointed members with Olmsted Society connections--who won the day on that isssue.
CuriousResident,
I see what you're getting at, but I want to make it clear that I'm not--at least I'm trying not to--confusing the FLOS as an entity with the actions of its individual members. However, it seems to me that there are a number of active FLOS members, who seem to have a more conservative view of the FLO plan and legacy, who are now serving in elected and appointed positions in Riverside. As you said, they decided to act, rather than just talk, and they won. My point is that the interests of this group of FLOS members are not necessarily in what I see as the best interests of the Village. Case in point (and I'm going to continue to flog the body of this dead horse) is the cultivar issue. I think Riverside would have been much better served by accepting a generous donation from a private citizen, rather than turning the gift down out of misguided (in my view) notions of Olmstedian purity.
Just my perception, the RCA did show partisan politics on the $5k tree donation.
I watched the video and it was fairly clear that Gorman and Shevitz had no real concerns about the issue. Reynolds made the stand against and Sacchi confirmed...and the other 2 aligned. And there was that red herring about "all anyone has to do is throw money at us and they can plant anything they want"...oi.
Oddly, it really didn't seem to be about "cultivars" at all. Not only has our forester has been planting the proposed "experimental" trees for a few years, there are cultivars in the 50/50 plant a tree program...doesn't seem to bother anyone.
What I saw was other issues being danced around...asphalt vs concrete, "you know what happens if you pay to plant trees you can't get commercially" & "cheap shot".
So again, I'd wager that $5k donation being turned down was not about Olmstedian purity.
BTW, google 'Valley Forge elm' or 'Jefferson elm'...there are 100% Ulmus americana, but they are considered riskier (by some) than the hybrids. I'd support trying some of both...the ARS & NPS do!
You must log in to post.