Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

21. DouglasPollock
    Member

    Catherine,
     
    Clarification: I never said that TIF's were low risk.  What I said was that a conditional TIF in Riverside with the conditions being: pay as you go, no bonds, no eminent domain, and full reimbursement of the school district would be low risk for the Village of Riverside.  With these conditions the TIF revenue pool would be money that would otherwise be going to Cook County, MWRD, Triton College, and the other large taxing bodies.  I see no reason why Riverside residents would not want to take those tax dollars, which are generated locally, and invest them locally.
     
    My remark regarding the downtown buildings was that the one-story buildings on the north side of the street, between Longcommon and Riverside Foods, do not contribute to the Olmsted plan's legacy.  I was not aware that there were any first floor residential units in any of these one story buildings and I do not recommend moving anyone out of their home involuntarily.   I think the 2 or 3 story buildings (I think they are two stories) on the south side of Burlington in this area are great - both in terms of land use and architecture.
     
    In regards to the underpass, I agree with the voters and I would not spend a dime on that existing tunnel.  It is dank, scary, and inaccessible (for bikes and the disabled).  An underpass like the one in Western Springs would be much more attractive and I believe welcomed by the community.  I live south of the tracks and my kids are scared of crossing the tracks and scared of that tunnel.  A clean, open and accessible underpass would be hugely beneficial when they start walking to Central, Hauser, and RB. 
     
    In terms of architects and architectural design, it is an extremely subjective matter and people's perspective on the matter is subject to change over time.  However, I see no reason why we cannot do better today than the architects of the mid 20th Century did with the aforesaid one story buildings and car shops.
     
    Let me add: I appreciate your comments and I hope you realize that my primary intent in joining this forum is to try to keep the forum focused on known facts as they relate to Riverside.  I do believe that the Village should do a little something to help our downtown and I believe that a conditional TIF could raise revenues for that purpose with no negative local impact.  I encourage more comments from everyone about what a downtown plan should be, rather than what it should not be.  I think I will start a new topic in this forum asking that question.

    Posted Sunday Dec 10, 2006 12:01 #

22. Catherine
    Member

    I see nothing wrong with the one story buildings to which you refer.  They are certainly better than that behemoth called Village Crossing, also shoved down the throats of the residents.
     
    I think you have your answer as to what people here think it should be: left as it is to grow organically.  Your remark presumes anyone wants a change.  The TIF does not offer "a little help", but rather radical changes. Your effort to get everyone to assume a plan and then just comment on what it should be is one, I think, that would be much approved of by certain parties.  It is not, however, the focus of this forum.

    Posted Monday Dec 11, 2006 05:21 #

23. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Catherine: I think Doug's comments are well within the focus of the forum. From the front page: "This website is provided as an instrument to help the citizens of Riverside make a completely informed decision about the proposed TIF." I find Doug's comments informed, even when I don't agree with them.

    --Chris

    Posted Monday Dec 11, 2006 08:53 #

24. DougPollock
    Member

    Thank you Chris.  After reading the prior comment, I promised myself that I would not make any further postings in the forum as I was beginning to feel my comments were not being taken objectively.  But your comment is so gracious that I had to respond.  Thank you. 
     
    I am trying to be objective and factual while not hiding the fact that I think there is some merit to the idea of a limited TIF in Riverside. 
     
    I have to add: Sunday I got an opportunity to escape the house for an hour so I went to Grumpy's, got a coffee to go, and walked our downtown streets.  I have to say, it reconfirmed my thoughts that downtown Riverside can be better and that with a little help from the Village, improvements can be made without detriment to the residents, the schools, or the financial position of the Village government.  I have said all along that I to do not agree with certain aspects of the downtown plan.  My goal is to convince people to take a positive stance and ask our Village leaders to make changes to the downtown plan and to the TIF. 
     
    The Village Board has taken a pause in the TIF process.  I take that as an opportunity to craft a policy that more of us can support. I for one am wiling to contribute to that cause.

    Posted Monday Dec 11, 2006 11:00 #

25. Catherine
    Member

    I also found that last paragraph of your comment to me ungracious, Doug, as it has a patronizing tone and also implies that my remarks are not focused on Riverside.
     
    As to your wanting to pose the question of what people would suggest for the CBD, you posted it and I answered it for my own part under the string that Trustee Smith had challenged us to do so.  Your comment in this regard in the last two paragraphs also imply that those in oppostion are negative and not positive thinkers.  This is a canard.
     
    Perhaps if you lived within the district of the TIF boundary, with no good idea about why your home is included except perhaps an ominous one, you would not feel so sanguine as you walk through it.

    Posted Monday Dec 11, 2006 20:01 #

26. MikeT
    Member

    Catherine, as a fellow Tif district member, I have to say that I like this exchange. I think it is reasonable, respectful and a productive source of information for both sides. It is as about as articulate a defense of the tif that I have seen. I did not think Mr Pollock ungracious in his comments. But that was my interpretation.
     
    Curiously, Mr Pollock is giving away  a lot of the power, the function and the teeth, of TIFs. With TIFS, for example, the use of  eminent domain is enabled - it provides an almost incontestable avenue to take property by the Village since it is assumed to be in the public interest to redevelop properties in the TIF district (see page 3 of the summary in the McKenna TIF plan doc).
     
    Or, if you choose not to use eminent domain out of decency, or fear of a complete PR disaster, you can always threaten to use it in order to get the property -- *IF* it has not been taken off the table via resolution.
     
    But with Mr Pollock's suggestion that the use of eminent domain w/in the TIF district be verboten, it might be likened to *pushing* a riding lawn mower. You're not getting the full oomph of the tool.
     
    There is a real lot in Mr Pollock's comments; good stuff, too. This was my quick first impression.
     
    Mike Tomecek
    56 Pine

    Posted Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 00:51 #

27. Catherine
    Member

    Mike, thanks.  Perhaps offense, like bad architecture, can be said to be in the eye of the beholder.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Village has a SEPARATE right of eminent domain that is always in place, irrespective of any additional rights they may have under the TIF.  It is my understanding of the law that no government can alienate itself from this right.  Any doubts about this right can be cleared up by speaking to the Village Manager!  Therefore, to repeat the idea that the government can by resolution decline to use eminent domain in connection with the TIF directly does not ensure that they cannot do so under cover of this separate right, and is to confer a sense of security that is unwarranted.   I think the TIF heightens the risk of this use of eminent domain. If anyone knows law to the contrary, I would like to know what it is.  My primary concern is with eminent domain or any concomitant decline in property value. 
     
    Secondly I am concerned with Olmsted, including bad architecture in view of the Olmsted area.  Walking west on Burlington this morning, I can see that any multilevel structures on the south side of Burlington will obliterate the view from there of the water tower.  This would detract greatly from any charm Burlington might have as a tourist shopping area.  This is but one example of why it would be good to have a well thought out plan before proceeding with a TIF.  As anyone can see from the Nov 5 memo, p1, para 4, now posted to the Village website, this is now a last resort option the local government is considering.  I suggest anyone take a look at that paragraph in order to determine which of the options they would like to advocate in the next Board meeting.
     
    I do not understand what the rush is to approve this TIF without a plan around which more consensus can be built, and therefore have not heard any explanation of the TIF that persuades me otherwise.  All I have to go by is the building at Longcommon and Burlington.  Need I say more?
     
     

    Posted Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 11:37 #

28. DougPollock
    Member

    Catherine,
     
    I believe your immediately preceding statements about eminent domain are absolutely correct.  It is my understanding that eminent domain is an expressed right of local government which no Village Board can forfeit.  They can, however, approve a policy Resolution stating that they will not use eminent domain in downtown Riverside (TIF or otherwise).  
     
    The Village Board can also pass a Resolution reversing that policy.  And certainly, it is logical to ask if the TIF revenues would enhance the Village's disposition toward using eminent domain due to its improved financial position. 
     
    However, a Resolution reversing a Village Board commitment not to use eminent domain would be subject to public scrutiny (it absolutely cannot be done other than at a public meeting of the Board).  If TIF were to be approved with the "no eminent domain" condition and the Village Board came back to reverse its commitment on eminent domain, I am guessing you would hear an outcry equal to or exceeding anything we have heard to date regarding TIF.  And I can add that you and I would have absolutely no disagreement on that matter.  I feel the same way about the recommended commitment to reimburse the school district in full.
     
    Finally, I agree with you that we need to be have a better downtown plan.  And I see no reason to change any of the buildings on the south side of Burlington. 
     
     
     

    Posted Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 12:34 #

29. MikeT
    Member

    The lower standard in which the village can use a nasty tool such as eminent domain legally is only one part of the negative or deleterious effects to private property within a TIF. The other is stigmatization of the property, and the associated impairment or injury to the property's value, merely by being encircled in a TIF district.

    Catherine refers to this in her line,
    My primary concern is with eminent domain or any concomitant decline in property value.

    As your property is in a TIF district, it is associated with 'blight'/'ghetto' and the like. When you go to sell the property, it should be disclosed that your property is in a TIF district. This would impair final selling price. It will reduce the number of buyers who are looking. It will encourage 'bottom feeding bargain basement hunting buyers' such as developers (obviously, and no disrespect intended to developers) and other like minded people. and don't even get me started on the village as buyer.

    I don't know if there is a statutory requirement in Illinois for sellers to disclose this, but if I were a buyer and I found out later that the property were in a TIF district, I would think I would have a basis for a lawsuit if it were not disclosed. Also, it is just the right thing to do (disclose).

    Stigmatization in real estate is a lot about perception (it is actually classically applied to properties where murders and other crimes were done; even though the structure is not impaired, the property's value is impaired as a result of an intangible stigma;).

    So even if the village by resolution prohibited the use of e.d. within a tif's boundaries, in addition to the real problem of the difficulity of a municipality dissociating itself from a basic right, there still will be injury done to the single family dwellings for a lack of a compelling public good. THAT would be a crime. This is one reason a TIF would not be a good fit in landlocked unblighted Riverside.

    Posted Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 14:30 #

30. Catherine
    Member

    Yes and yes.
     
    If they could forfeit the use of eminent domain, the law on which and - more - the likelihood of which I am still dubious, that would go a long way.  To what law do you allude? (They were told as much at the open meeting on TIF.)  My building is not on the hit list but is said to be in a conservation area. Still, it interferes with the quiet enjoyment of my home and the prospect of its resale.  (Mike, now Mayor Daley is claiming that LaSalle Street is blighted!) 
     
    Yes, the buildings on the south side of Burlington have some excellent brickwork, although their maintenance is terrible as is many of their ground floor presentations.  However, the rear of these buildings are just the view proponents would seek to improve.  Only Riverside Bank has done that.
     
    If we could see a drawn plan overseen by an architect of the caliber of the ones who oversaw the Water Tower restoration, that would also go a long way.  I would also like to see a feasibility study as to how much tax revenues would increase if the maximum result were achieved, what that does for us, and how likely this is to occur.  I think that is rational.

    Posted Tuesday Dec 12, 2006 15:54 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.