The Village board forum tonight was informative and very well attended - SRO. One thing that struck me was a line by trustee candidate Lesniak about how he likes to build things. What he says is true. I believe he approved an important aspect of the Village Center design as a member of the Zoning commission. Anyone with eyes to see and a voter's registration card, you tell me how good of an idea it was to make that building that displaced the first or second best commercial property site in the town. You decide if you want more of the same.
Here are a couple of threads and exchanges from this forum apropos to tonight's forum and to the contest in April.
I recalled the following post by another candidate for trustee, Lonnie Saatchi (emphases are mine). To quote saatchi then, which seemed to also be consistent with his message tonight (pure development, or 'building' for its own sake or for high density ends, is not good for this town;...
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/discussion-from-workshop-2-sat-feb-10/page/11#post-3045
You've identified the real reason for the TIF. It's to aid developers with public money. I was at the Plan Commission meeting where the $5000 parking figure was voted on. Discussion initially focused on $10000. Commissioner David Lesniak thought $5000 would be better, i.e. more developer friendly. The reason for not charging the going rate to developers for the "in lieu of" parking requirement was because it was felt that the parking would benefit all of the village, not just developers. In my opinion, this is another example of the "development at any cost" mentality that we are seeing in recent commission appointments. The village is not an advocate for its citizens, our government has become a tool of developers at the expense of its citizens.
Another bit about Trustee candidate Lesniak in this space (emphases are mine). Note that the subject is how we spend tax money, which is precisely the issue in the Village Board contest. In this case, candidate Lesniak was for a $50,000 allocation to consultants. In tonight's forum, I heard repeatedly from the opposing RCA candidates, Reynolds, Shevitz, Saatchi and Gorman, that they were not for such expenditures ....
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/50000-for-a-study-by-camiros#post-6056
$50,000. for a study by Camiros?
I thought we were broke? Now the idea from the Planning Commission is to spend $50K for Camiros to tell us what would be good businesses on Harlem Avenue? This gets more absurd all the time. The Camiros rezone for that area is awful, so how can we even contemplate hiring them for more of this garbage. Don't forget, they are the ones that made it possible to have that great success - the Village Center - and also the zoning variance process that allowed the Board to OK building it as it now stands. After this we will need a TIF to allow them to peddle the properties to a developer and we'll have a whole row of them down there - along with lots of kids for our already full schools. Better watch this one.
Posted 1 year ago #
2.
KimJ
Member
Are you talking about the "Camiros B1 District Revisions" under resources on this websites home page? Is this something different? Is this in addition to the previous report?
Posted 1 year ago #
3.
spatny
Member
Yes. "The Riverside Village Board is trying to decide if it should hire a consultant at a cost of $50,000. to the village to help determine what businesses would be a good fit along Harlem Avenue." So says the Suburban Life of Sun. Jan 27/08. Moe from same article: "David Lesniak, Plan Commission Chaiarman, approached the Board asking for the trustee's consideration of hiring the consultant fiirm Camiros to help determine what type of business would be most viable along Harlem Avenue..... If Plan Commission feels they need a comprehensive scope we need to respond to that," Shields said. "And understand the financial contraints." One hand washes the other,but this could not possibly be of value commensurate with its cost.
I don't believe anyone mentioned, nor were they asked explicitly, anything about dealing intransigent landlords who own the lion's share of the cbd, and who make progess difficult. I believe I did hear that the RCA would put in a person to deal as a laison with cbd landlords and tenant businesses to facilitate problem resolution. Maybe they meant the intransigent landlords, too.
Posted Wednesday Mar 4, 2009 21:18
#