Look - we spend more than we take in, so they maneuver around and make cuts to show a balanced budget. They have to offer a balanced budget. I don't see new businesses flocking to Riverside, or anywhere else, in the immediate future. Everybody wants the same thing - a bakery (or patissier if you will), a frindly restaurant perhaps serving pizza to eat-in and take out, etc. That is what everyone thinks will win the dollars of the residents. Then we come to the next tier of ideas, Starbucks, Crate& Barrel, a bookstore - but who will put up the cash for that? Wouldn't happen if Jesus Christ is on the Board. Architourism? Maybe a little, but cost of promotion could outweigh the money they will drop here. So no matter what - somewhere down the line taxes will rise.
We have a Police Chief, a Fire Chief, a Finance Director, a DPW Director, a Village Manager, a Building Deparment guy, a Rec Director. - and the worker bees under each. One person wants a SWAT team, another wants a full-time fire department on each side of the tracks, and so it goes. Nobody wants to pay more taxes for what the other guy wants - just for his favorites. Consolidating services might eliminate some staffing - some overhead. Example - Rec had a $()K+ director and an assistant - but it cost the Village a lot. Let's say they have 5000 individual "customers" - participants, whatever. Take $200K and divide, you see what it costs per participant. Maybe it's cheaper to consolidate - maybe not. We have to look at all those things. Until people started complaining and questioning we were chipping in $200K - now it's half that. So does that equate to raising the participant costs just $5. per to make up the number of dollars lost? Is that unreasonable? Is it $10. a participant - this is what we need to find out. What's wrong with looking at alternatives that don't start with these are the people we have, they are wonderful, we need them, others won't do, the sky will fall if we change, etc.
It's nice to accept grants for 80% of something, or 50% of something - if we can afford our share. If we can't, then maybe we should pass those opportunities by. Is that heresy? Right to the end Mr. Lesniak was campaigning for another $40K for Camiros to do another study -Here's one you can for nothing. Go to Harlem and 31st St. - walk south to Ogden, walk back. Ask yourself why a business owner would want to locate there, with that traffic, lack of parking, all the other aspects. I rest my case - it won't happen. Maybe if the VC fails, is bought for much less, the rent structure drops to a liveable level, someone will spend $250K plus - maybe $400K - to build out the space and open an eatery. The linguine and clams will still be pushing $20.00, beers "after they earn their spurs", will be $5. and it will be touch and go to make a living.
I think we need to look at everything and lay off the high dollar investments, incentives, consultants, etc. Just to start. No sacred cows.There are thousands more people that will lose their jobs around here,and lots and lots of empty spaces to fill. Gorman didn't say we should get less experienced people, maybe people just as good who will take less because they have different priorities and want to work for a place like this. It's possible - after all we just hired a DPW guy for less than Hullihan cost. Somewhere on this site I listed over a million in stuff we spent that we didn't need to. This bunch were chasing different priorities - development, density, etc. It patently hasn't worked. Let somebody else go at it from a different perspective.