There is another community website, but it's pretty low traffic:
http://riverside-illinois.us/wordpress/
And although there are only a handful of vocal posters on board these days, I wouldn't say the site itself has any particular slant, for or against either the candidates or the slates. Everyone makes up their own mind and everyone is welcome to post their opinion.
I'll skip the name calling - I know nothing about Mr. Gallegos but what I have read, namely that he thinks we can have development here that pays for itself by attracting commuters from Naperville and Hinsdale to get off the train and shop and dine here onthe way home. That concept is clearly enough to leave me with the impression that, while he may have the best of intentions, his stated reason for wanting to be on the Board is out in left field. Two of the RC candidates I do not know, butI have read Trustee Smith's comment that they all have different views. That is what we purportedly have now - and it is not working. The RCA candidates are focused - to my mind - on strategies that stand the best chance of seeing us through the difficult times that lie ahead - and working as a bloc and applying their individual expertise should be able to enlist the cooperation of the other remaining Board members - or at least some of them. One is, I believe, beyond hope.
We in Riverside have had a single party Board for a long time. I believe Trustee Smith ran as an independent his first time around, and his own view of the Caucus bunch was not so flattering I seem to remember, but now he has jumped into the fray as the leader of that group. Well, I'm not surprised - I've sat through four years of board meetings - and I'm one of the few who has - and watched him strut, explode, waffle, and posture. I can hardly think of a less likely person to bring people together, unless it would be myself. Of course, all these people running are nice people, friends and neighbors, fellow Riversiders. Attacks, disputes, arguments are not about them personally, but ather about their public stands and personas. So please let's not have this pollyanna view that it is wrong to criticize. It is our duty to state our views and questiion their decisions if we don't like them. All ofus, from all sides.
The Board donates their time.... blah, blah, blah. We all know that. What I think we need is a Board that understands why we as a town don't have a "vibrant" CBD, not concoct some zany scheme to lure others to come here and support it. Our Board can't seem to arrive at a consensus idea and execute it except when it comes to wasting money on projects that don't work. The RCA has two people that have small business "risk-taking" and retail business experience. The other two are professionals that have something new to add to the Board. I only know two of the RP candidates - Trustee Smith and Mr. Lesniak. Both of them, after spending many taxpayer dollars on consultants to create the CBD zoning code not only waffled and granted the variances that created the too large, too high, inappropriate VC, but they also established the ridiculously low $5000. per space parking buyout fee and voted to see the alley under the VC to the developer for a paltry $15,000. This was patently an indirect and un-voted upon incentive to the developer that has ended up costing the village upwards of half a million dollars to provide - through the purchase of 61 and 63 Burlington and the attendant costs to tear those buildings down,do the engineering and actually make a parking lot out of them. Similarly, they approved the concept of the four story nine condo rehab of the Arcade and telling the developer, initially, that he would not ned to provide more parking. So Wexford bought in. Then when the Village learned that parking would be required, they did a bait and switch and had their infamous, single agenda item weekday morning meeting to see what other kinds of handouts they could give Wexford. Thank goodness we moaned and groaned publicly because it stopped them from handing anything else out for Wexford to walk with.
I attended every single one of the TIF and TOD meetings and workshops. I saw that those who came were overwhelmingly against the TOD idea of taking green space for condos and building a building and parking lot on the riverbank, yet for months they, including Trustee Smith, hedged and wouldn't dump those ideas. I went to the B2 Zoning and objected vehemently to the raising of the height limit from 27 to 48 ft., and saw Commissioner Lesniak OK it. I saw his objection to throwing out those most aggregious permitted use changes. So I have no doubt what his view is on how to develop Riverside, and it is certainly not mine. Riverside is not Countryside. It is not Burr Ridge either. It is none of that crap.
Let's elect people who value our natural resources and will do whatever it takes to preserve, protect and nourish them. Let's get realistic about what we spend. If all we can afford is a $90,000 Village Manager, let's get one. We were told when Mike Hullihan leftthat they couldn't work Nathan into the job because they needed an engineer, so they spent upwardsof $15 thousand on a search and then hired one who is not an engineer. If we can't sfford to salt the streets then we just have to plow and drive more carefully. We are told money is tight but we spend on the Rec building, the SW wellhouse for a Museum, all kinds of stuff that are nice to have but hardly urgent. This bunch has lived in la-la land andwe need a new broom to sweep out the dust. Yes, it may cause us to sneeze, but that's not fatal and we'll get better soon if we have some reality.
When I first objected to the VC I suggested that we do as they do in many places - if you want a variance for height, bulk or setback, you have to erect story poles for 30 days so people can see what you want and how it will effect the community. Ifthat had been done we wouldn't have this bloated monster forever in our midst. Trustee Smith himself once told me it was a vast improvement, and that the old Henninger's building was such an eyesore. Well look what his "Golden Age" of Riverside developement hath wrought. This awful "slum of tomorrow" monster in our midst, the Arcade reduced to a vacant shambles, failing condo developments all over town, and the TOD sudy with its call for 100 more condos "as fast as you vcan build them" and way finding signage and all that garbage still hanging around as the "Official" plan for development. Hence theresurfacing of the"westward oriented" tunnel project again -the one they aleways wanted to connect our "vibrant" arcade project to "Centennial Plaza" and the parking garage they wanted to build over our neighbor's homes, right there where it would be handy for those commuters and the new condos they wanted to rezone for on Pine and Forest. I see where the candidates I know are coming from, how they think and what they want to do. So I back RCA and I hope you will too.
When you vote, forget all this at your peril... that's my view.
Catherine - Thanks for your thoughts. You have some strong opinions.
I too noticed that some parts of both platforms are similar. I have lived in several small suburbs (outside Cleveland and Grand Rapids) and have been involved in one way or another in local politics. Very,very often you find that opposing slates or opponents have very similar platforms or ideas. This is because in a small town the government very little they can do. Both sides work with the same (for lack of a better word) "modeling clay." So you end up with similar plans. With a larger amount of "modeling clay" (think county, state, federal) you can create more things. The winners are usually those who can articulate realistic ideas. I am trying figure out which side's are most realistic. I most likely need more information.
I am not sure what you mean about TRP not having business sense. I would think Miezio and Lesniak count as businessmen. The others have applicable experience as well as do the RCA candidates.
You said “They (TRP) deliberately waited for the filing deadline to be reached in case, I think, they had to co-opt someone else's platform.— I checked the Illinois State Board of Elections' website and it says that the deadline is Tuesday, 27 January. I am not sure if either RCA or TRP filed yet but both have a few days until the deadline. You make it sound like you have to turn in your platform with your petitions —“ is that true? I know of no election board that cares about platforms —“ not normally their job.
I am not sure what you mean about the campaigns for the board being run from people's living rooms. How do you think Obama started? You start small and work your way up. I would love for some debates. They would be great for Riverside. LET—S GET READY TO DEBATE!!! RCA v TRP Live at . . .
Catherine —“ I spent some time reviewing your posts from the last couple of years. It seems that you know how the town should be run. I am surprised that you are not on the ballot —“ Riverside needs people like you who care to run. Hopefully I will reach your level of passion and think about running in 2 years.
Yes, it went over your head. I guess you haven't read Gallegos' quotes. He is opposed to both parties, yet will have to work with one or the other. Please read the newspapers and what the man has said to avoid misrepresenting him. Honestly, why even opine on what you have not informed yourself of? Lone ranger is what he is, and he has two issues, and has not recognized he will have to work with people he has called divisive, which is itself divisive. Smith called the RCA the four musketeers; maybe you should send your novenas his way.
Gallegos wants live entertainment in Riverside, whatever that might mean, Lesniak is the author of the Tavern plan that one trustee said in print no board would vote for, and which was roundly decried at the Board's last meeting. He did not listen to what people wanted and wasted a lot of time and, I think, money, not a good start. Others will know more about the hijinks of the Plan Commission. All I know is I received 2 weeks notice they wanted to reserve the right to put a tavern across the street from me amongst single family homes, and then Lesniak claimed we had had a year's notice. False. The other two RPs, nothing to recommend them to me particularly. One lawyer is sufficient on the Board; we need business people now.
Yes, I know Obama was an early habitue of the Ayers/Dohrn living room, one I mercifully was not privy to, but he didn't win his first election that way. We have entire decades that go by here without public debate; that is why you get 800 people showing up to vote, emerging from the same living rooms. Transparency requires discussion in the public square: transparency is the whole point of the Open Meetings Act. If you are going to govern in public, campaign in public. Obama also made that point well.
I have opinions on how the town should and should not be run. I have been asked to run for trustee. I do not because, like Smith, I have a terrible temper that ill suits me for public office, and I would no doubt end up like him yelling at people I think are morons. I am a data person, not a people person. There are some commission members who would also do well to recognize such limitations of temperament. I like Smith personally but do not think he is suited to public office, and I don't think he is suited to be president, certainly. I nearly dropped my teeth when he claimed he was a calm consensus-builder. Like him as a person to the little I know him.
In case it escaped your notice, Fred, I posted this thread, along with one on the Caucus and the RCA. I am the one asking for open public discussion and debate and the avoiding of in-crowds.
Catherine -
I am still wondering about this:
You said “They (TRP) deliberately waited for the filing deadline to be reached in case, I think, they had to co-opt someone else's platform.— I checked the Illinois State Board of Elections' website and it says that the deadline is Tuesday, 27 January. I am not sure if either RCA or TRP filed yet but both have a few days until the deadline. You make it sound like you have to turn in your platform with your petitions —“ is that true? I know of no election board that cares about platforms —“ not normally their job.
No, I didn't say you had to turn in any platform. I did say that the RP waited for the RCA platform so they could co-opt it, defend against it, and take ideas from it. I do believe they waited to see if anyone else would run. Seems pretty unlikely as of this week, no?
For example, after RCA said they would post Board meeting materials on the website for the public before meetings, this functionality was magically announced and added to the current administration website. I don't know how long you have been living here, but that entire RP platform are ideas that came from referenda campaigns run by the people who are now running in the RCA, and the Olmsted Society. I see nothing original in it, and therefore find it calculated, therefore incredible. It would be interesting if I knew there would actually be follow-through on it, but as it is, I cannot believe it. So, debates, eyeballing, convincing. We know what happens to campaign promises so often.
What about the deadline you mentioned?
It is now known no one else is running or putting up a referendum. I'm afraid I cannot say how I know this. But I do think it is straining at a gnat whilst swallowing a camel.
If you are new to elections, I presume you are new to town. I suggest you research the years-long zoning debacle, the TIF, the proposed use of eminent domain, the increased spending, and the proposed property tax increase, so you can see what the histories of these folks are. You can also watch some Board of Trustee meetings on DVD from the library.
Well actually I think it was my constant requests to Ms. Krush and the Finance Director asking for info and wondering why we couldn't have the checkbook posted as the high school adopted and does that finally did it. Also a couple letters to the media on those lines. To their credit they chose not to fight that any longer and adopted it, going one better to include the packet materials. Whether that would have happened without prodding is open to question by those who have filed for info under FOIA. There, for example, they stonewalled and took the max time allowed so that they could say it was available only after the votes were cast- or at least that's how I see it. But this is a new era of openness so let's just be glad that the stuff is posted NOW, and thanks again to them for doing it.
Looks like a contested election could be a healthy thing. Honestly Don, very gracious of you to give credit for something the administration did right. If the process leads to better explanations of programs, clearer definitions of strategies, and clear stands on issues like infrastructure priorities, service priorities, and staffing objectives the election process will be worth it. If one party or the other sweeps the election, we may be "well served" but not "best served."
You must log in to post.