Riverside Info » About Riverside

Segway Sagas

(18 posts)
  1. JohnM
    Member

    I thought for a while before posting this topic. On the one hand, I don't particularly care what a person does for a living. Nor am I convinced that Village elected officials should be criticized for locating their business outside of Riverside. I also reflected on the fact that I am by no means a disinterested observer, and that my views could probably be fairly criticized as partisan. With that said, I now believe that this is a topic ripe for discussion.

    As the most recent issue of the Landmark noted, Riverside-Brookfield High School is testing Segways provided by Mr. Reynolds' dealership. The article did not state that Mr. Reynolds would actually sell the Segways to RB if they decided to purchase them, so if that's not the case, this post is irrelevant and I'll retract it. However, if Mr. Reynolds is in line to get this business, I have some concerns.

    The RCA, as we all know, declined to listen to the pleas of the business community for a new parking lot. They don't believe that the lot is necessary, and seem to think that the modifications of the commuter lots should be sufficient to solve any problems. After the meeting, a number of posters on this site, and a number of people I've spoken to (and you'll just have to trust me on this) have raised the question of why--if Riverside doesn't need additional parking, and is fit for business as is--Jim Reynolds doesn't locate his Segway business here. It's green, it's not an impulse purchase that requires a high-traffic location, we have roads and paths to test drive them, and we have plenty of available retail space. Why not?

    Although I wasn't convinced that anyone should be criticized for not locating their business here, I now think this is now a valid point. Mr. Reynolds, along with the rest of the RCA, told the local business community, in essence, that "You don't know what you are talking about. You don't need a parking lot, and we'll tell you why. We have a better solution." I suppose this is consistent with their campaign, where they portrayed themselves as a group of gimlet-eyed businessment who knew the direction our CBD needed to go.

    But think about this for a second. A Village official who voted down a project that was pleaded for by our business community, who stated during the campaign that Riverside was too small to support his business (thanks MRT for that info) and whose business web site specifically refers to their convenient parking, is now possibly in line to sell his product to a local high school, a sale which if it goes through will be paid for, in part, by Riverside taxpayers. And his business is located in LaGrange. All the tax revenue goes to LaGrange.

    To be fair, there may be reasons that I am not privy to that prevent him from opening here. He may have a multi-year lease that would be prohibitively expensive to break. It may be that Segway has certain requirements for dealer locations and Riverside doesn't qualify. And, as noted above, he may not be the dealer in line to get the contract. I should also state that I don't believe the pursuit of a government contract by a government official is prohibited by any ordinance. While some municipalities prohibit employees and officials from contracting with other units of government, Riverside does not.

    However, just because something is not prohibited doesn't mean it should be done. It's fine if Mr. Reynolds won't or can't locate his business in Riverside. But when he votes down projects that our business community wants, while possibly concurrently seeking business that will be paid for, in part, by Riverside tax dollars, I think he can be fairly criticized, if in fact it is his dealership is in line to benefit. If it is, it would seem that our money is good enough for him, but our business district isn't. And that, to me, seems wrong.

    Posted Wednesday Sep 23, 2009 22:01 #
  2. JillM
    Member

    John, I completely agree. First, having an elected official (potentially) benefit financially from a deal with the school is completely inappropriate. If the school decides to purchase Segways, Trustee Reynolds should withdraw from the process. And the Superintendent should make the purchase from a different dealer. Keep the process clear of any favoritism and avoid a Trustee from becoming tainted.

    I also question why Mr. Reynolds chooses to not have his business in Riverside. Purchasing a Segway is hardly an impulse move. Plenty of room to try one out in front of the VC. And, apparently, plenty of parking...

    Posted Wednesday Sep 23, 2009 22:43 #
  3. mrt
    Member

    I was going to follow up in that other thread about reynolds but I did not want to continue to stoke an ABSURD idea - that it is somehow now a requirement for a village trustee to cite his place of business in town, in essence to work in town, and to even inquire about the the whys and wherefores of his or her work choices, failing some sort of illegal aspect to the work. So here is a segway to this topic again, and so I'll address this.

    First, I want to say that when reynolds brought this subject up during the public fora, tt was not in response to some sort of 'gotcha question' from anyone. It was actually in his free response to a question on the difficulties of citing businesses in this town - and the difficulty was not due to a lack of parking he said. He used his case as an example of the difficulty of citing certain kinds of businesses here, and he may have been suggesting that therefore there might be some kind of upper limit to what we can have here when visualizing and planning for cbd invigoration.

    There can be no culvers, walgreens, best buys, maybe even segway dealers/antique clock dealers, too, he suggested. This is along the lines that I was trying to say in a another post about riverside and 'smallness'.

    Second, I have never heard of any trustee being held to a standard of working here, nor have I ever heard issues about why they chose to work where and how they work. This seemed to come out of left field, a visceral baiting, trolling for visceral responses.

    We have never thought to hold any of the previous trustees to work here, or to ask why did they choose to work in thus and such a way vs another. Working at a bank downtown vs at any of the four or fine in town was just fine. The same for all the rest of the trustees, downtown workers, far west suburbs worker, homeworkers - believe me it is blanking hard enough to find work and just make a living wage and it is just nuts to expect, to force, our elected officials to work in town and to make judgements on why they chose to work here vs there.

    So let's please not go there - demanding a trustee to work in town, and even inquiring into the details of how and why someone chooses to make the living he or she does - unless there is real evidence of illegality. If reynolds were trying to sell something to rb, I see nothing wrong with this. If I had a skill, a trade, or a product that could be used by a school, I'd be in line asking. There is not a whiff of conflict of interest in the RB thing either since he has no control or influence in the management of HS monies (assuming he was the one that rb used).

    In the parking case, one might say that the trustees are acting like they know better than the cbd operators. Or one can say that they are trying to better manage common, and diminishing, village funds in austere times. Two different , and valid, descriptions of the same behavior.

    I heard at least on of them, was it saatchi, say 'we'll see how the extra 43 spots go'; then he'd vote for it, if needed, I think I heard him say. Weren't we gonna get 30 spots from 61-63 burlington? It seems to me that they are trying to make our bucks go longer.

    Further, there was nothing secret about the RCA dismay over the decision to expend the resources on those lots. It was all in the open; they ran on criticizing it. Maybe they are trying to be true to their campaign promises?

    Posted Wednesday Sep 23, 2009 22:44 #
  4. JohnM
    Member

    MRT,

    I think you misinterpreted my post.

    I don't believe that there should be a requirement for Village officials to locate their businesses in town. Nor do I think, under ordinary circumstances, a Village official should be criticized for failure to do so.

    However, these are not ordinary circumstances. THe RCA ran on an ostensibly business friendly platform. But when the rubber hit the road, they voted down a project that the business community wanted. That's fine--they were within their rights to do so, and this vote was, I suppose, consistent with their fiscal policy.

    But when Jim Reynolds suggests that Riverside is not a good location for business and fails to support those businesses that are already here, and then turns around and possibly seeks business with an entity supported by the tax dollars of Riverside residents, he opens himself up to criticism. Again, I don't know for a fact that Mr. Reynolds would benefit from a contract with RB. But if so, it seems hypocritical to lecture the Riverside business owners on what type of business this community will support, while possibly seeking business from the high school.

    Besides, wouldn't Riverside be a great place for a Segway dealership--as someone said, "We have some things to show off in Riverside that are out of the ordinary...The juxtaposition of the cutting-edge technology and a very old, Victorian village is very interesting."

    Who said that? Follow the link to find out...

    http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=4129&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 09:52 #
  5. PAR4
    Member

    There is a growing business on the lakefront, Segway 'parties' that start near Navy Pier and tour the area. Many businesses have been using this as a fun team building exercise and escape from the office. (A friend just did one - loved it.)

    Wouldn't a Segway tour of Riverside be something that would attract visitors - both for the subject (our beautiful town) and the uniqueness of the transportation mode?

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 11:49 #
  6. ChrisHajer
    Member

    PAR4 - Jim Reynolds was planning on offering Segway tours in Riverside last fall from Grumpy's old location, but I never saw one in action. I wonder what happened? Maybe they were never able to get that many units to offer the tours, or maybe there was limited interest in the tours?

    Here's the news item from The Landmark:
    http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=4129&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1

    Here are village board meeting minutes from July 2008 where the village board discussed a business license for those Segway tours:
    http://is.gd/3DtIx

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 12:19 #
  7. mrt
    Member

    THe RCA ran on an ostensibly business friendly platform.

    In my view,the RCA ran a 'fiscal responsibility' campaign, first and foremost. That is what I heard the most often, and was most prominently displayed on their campaign yard signs. Of course, part of that is to support the cbd. but not *summarily* spending $200,000 or so, right now in these austere times, IS fiscally responsible. For serving their campaign promises they are to be lauded, and not criticized, especially a low-blow-to-a-single-person criticism.

    But when Jim Reynolds suggests that Riverside is not a good location for business

    In the public forum I attended, I understood him to say, and certainly not in a lecturing tone, that Riverside may not be a good location for CERTAIN KINDS of business, his included. correct scaling is all, he might have been suggesting.

    and fails to support those businesses that are already here,

    Give him - wait, this issue (of supporting businesses in town) is not just about reynolds, it is really about the WHOLE BOARD - some time.

    This goes to the egregious nature of this conversation - it is singling out one trustee and isolating and examining HIM and his personal life/work decisions (imagine the complexity, difficulty, and risk of creating and sustaining your own business).

    As TomJacobs insightfully pointed out in another post about getting an Open letter to the Board, the board works the village issues as a group, all seven. JohnM, you are smart enough to know that the final vote in things human is most of the time window dressing, and the work up and discussion, OR THE LACK OF IT (same thing), prior to the vote is where much of the work, and responsibilty - here, for Board decisions - is done.

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 12:25 #
  8. Fred
    Member

    [moved by admin to the parking topic]
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/why-the-bloc-on-the-parking-lot/page/21#post-10823

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 16:05 #
  9. JohnM
    Member

    MRT,

    This isn't below the belt criticism. It's not unfair. I'm not criticizing his character or his personal life. I'm criticizing what I see as the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his conduct. Nobody made Jim Reynolds run for office. He made the decision himself. Candidates for office and elected officials subject themselves to heighted scrutiny -- remember the voting records being waved around by Shevitz?

    With respect to your last paragraph. The whole Board did not vote to kill the parking lot--the 4 RCA members did. I do have a feeling that you're correct, though. The decision to kill the lot was made well before the Board meeting.

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 16:51 #
  10. mrt
    Member

    I'm criticizing what I see as the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his conduct.

    I am criticizing the inconsistency of this criticism in that no one in this local public office past or present has suffered this kind of criticism.

    Nobody made Jim Reynolds run for office.

    Nobody in the public should be the recipient of unfair criticism that is not also similarly leveled at all the others in public office. And, nobody should be surprised by the fact that reynolds works outside of riverside. His working outside of Riverside was made plain during the campaign and at the election in his bio in the local papers and in the public forums.

    The point I wanted to make in my last paragraph is more subtle than what you said.

    But there certainly has been more attention paid to this subject which is patently an unfair criticism. my bad for stoking it some more.

    Posted Thursday Sep 24, 2009 19:44 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.