The landmark has an article about a $500K+ grant for a tunnel with $2M more pending. Among the purposes of the tunnel is continuation of a bike path which would link Salt Creek trail to the trail which runs thru Lyons. Is it a coincidence that it would also serve the previously proposed location for a multi-story garage at Pine and East Ave. Has anyone approved of either the bike path extension or the garage? How do grants of this size suddenly appear?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Tunnel Grant
(23 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Jan 7, 2009 16:39 #
-
Isn't it good the voters in their fiscal prudence would not give the village government $4million for that tunnel? Now someone else is paying for most of it. Still, don't know where "our" contribution is going to come from. It's not really a good time to be wasting money on nonessentials. The problem with these "grants" is they often end up costing us money. That is what the people who solicit them do not seem to grasp. Free money only, please.
Posted Wednesday Jan 7, 2009 16:52 # -
You missed my point. This project could resurrect the possibility of taking [EDIT] resident's houses [/EDIT] to build a multi-story garage. It is based upon putting a bike path through the Village. This is exactly the type of project which the challenging party should weigh in on. Why no comment? Are they asleep before being elected? For that matter, why didn't the current administration make some mention of the initiative? This is exactly the type of issue which should define our next slate of trustees.
Posted Wednesday Jan 7, 2009 18:16 # -
This will be part of an orchestrated roll-out of "see what we did for you" initiatives by the incumbents. Of course it relates to the idea of (eventually) rezoning and lining the south side of Pine and parts of Forest with four story condos near a multi-level parking garage, all at the "gateway" to Centennial "Plaza." This is called the revitalization of the CBD in conjunction with the concepts they voted to accept (the TOD study) as the official vision for the village. When Tony Peraica showed up at a Board meeting to pitch the idea of having the bike path from the Portage monument at 45th and Harlem connected via the Swinging Bridge to the Salt Creek Bike Trail near the North end of the zoo they rejected the idea. All it would have entailed was a couple of signs and a line painted along Woodside and up 31st St., but they wouldn't go for it - that was back before they got on the "green" bandwagon.
We are already committed to putting up about $80K for our part of the Centennial remake for the "Museum Campus" - don't you love these buzz words and phrases - and you can bet when the costs are all in it will be more - maybe twice that. And what will this wondrous development accomplish? They haggle over nickels and then take the bit that is offered them by the Ringmaster and trot around in circles to see who can be the favorite. Meanwhile, while wasting time and dollars on this they ignored the condition of the Swan Pond from the September flood and never came back to finish the pick up of the debris nor to regrade the path and clear some of the sand and shells that washed in. This could have been done in a day by a couple guys and a backloader and truck, but instead iot is left unfinished and is now buried in silt from the last incursion. Adding more things that we are told we don't have the money or man hours to maintain is foolish. But they love projects... at least starting them.
Posted Wednesday Jan 7, 2009 22:15 # -
No Fred, I didn't miss your point; I was uninterested in it, but I did have the tunnel on my mind.
Yes, the "Plaza" is costing us 80K and the Tunnel looks set to cost us 400K I think. Grants are irrelevant; this is the cost. They were told by the people to close the tunnel, yet they persist. Girls have been accosted there. A crossing guard there told me they should have a cop on that tunnel and, as it is, they are taken away from their posts having to check on children stalled in there. That will be a lawsuit.
Maybe they are going to apply for a grant to "beautify" Swan Pond. It is an old trick to let things deteriorate to the point where the 'beautifiers' get what they want. See the VC.
Posted Thursday Jan 8, 2009 11:03 # -
Well the plaza really is a wash as the resurfacing of east ave and pine would have been more than the 80k village match and this resurfacing would have had to be done anyway. But the tunnel is another thing altogether. Shouldn't someone have asked for input from the electorate before even applying for a grant? The ballot question was for $4M to fix the existing tunnel. There was never a question posed regarding whether a tunnel, in any configuration, should be supported and at what price. Say matching funds could be obtained from other agencies (say METRA or the west suburban mass transit district) so the Village contribution would be zero, should we let the Village administrators/board go ahead with the project without a referendum?
Posted Thursday Jan 8, 2009 17:08 # -
With all due respect, I drive there almost daily, and I think that concrete could go another ten years at least. Originally they wanted to pave it with brick to "link" it to the train station platforms. That would be great to plow and mark up, wouldn't it? The point is, we. like everyone, need to tighten our belts and recognize that the buggy ride is over. How about we spend what is appropriate to maintain the beautiful place we have, and not look to spend (squander) on unnecessary augmentations. Riverside, contrary to what some Trustees have espoused, does not need to enter the 21st century. Indeed, perhaps our charm and our greatest asset is that we are not the home of a Starbucks, a GAP, a Crate & Barrel.
The other night at the Board meeting Trustee Smith, who is now campaigning for Board President, when asked if he had any items he wanted to cover, spoke about how high the Police Department's overtime is running, obviously to lend the inference that the police have so much to do. He then stated that we need to get more officers so we can cut overtime. Today I get an e-flash from the Chief that informs me how many arrests the WEDGE task force, which we participate in, has made. What I did not get is a breakdown of how many of these arrests and investigations are in Riverside, or how many overtime hours our officers are being paid to kick in doors and stop gang members elsewhere. I have no complaint about the Police - I think Chief K built up a great system here, but I have noticed how many of the arrests are for traffic and DUI on Harlem, Ogden and First Ave. I think there is no way we can keep drunks from driving past Riverside, and I wish all cars had a breathalyzer lockout so you had to Blow before you could go." But I wonder if we are - in an era of reduced circumstances - not expending more than we can afford on a lot of things that may not be cost-effective. I'm not saying that's the case - but I think a fresh, new look should be taken at EVERYTHINg - top down. Don't you?
Posted Thursday Jan 8, 2009 19:37 # -
Actually a "top down" approach implies that the functions/personnel at the bottom of the pyramid are all justified and working at top efficiency and the savings are to be found in the upper level of organization. I think a "bottom up" approach is more appropriate. Pres. Carter called it "zero based budgeting." It is essentially what you were doing in analyzing the functions which the PD is performing (e.g. traffic stops on 1st Ave, WEDGE participation, etc). If everyone can agree on what level of service (mowing frequency, recreation programs offered, fire department response time, ambulance service or not) then the analysis of staffing levels and personnel requirements is pretty easy. I think the toughest aprt is coming to agreement on acceptable levels of service. You think that East and Pine Avenues have an acceptable surface. The guy who runs the garage may think he deserves a street as good as Akenside for his taxes. It would be nice for the candidates to articulate what their "minimum acceptable" levels of service are. The silver bullets of "do more with less", "we can make up the difference by not using consultants" or "the non-union personnel costs can take the hit and make up the difference" just don't hold up when compared to the published budget numbers. I don't agree with your view of the proper solution to the Village fiscal sitaution. I do appreciate the healthy discussion though.
Posted Friday Jan 9, 2009 07:34 # -
Once again Fred, you are critiquing the RCA for not having a position but failing to state one of your own. What precisely is your view of the proper solution? You claimed the RCA position is not fleshed out, but failed to comment on the fact that the Caucus has no platform whatsoever.
No, East and Pine do not need to be surfaced during a severe recession. And we certainly don't need anyone "beautifying" a perfectly good green space.
If we have to spend $400K during a severe recession on a tunnel that one study showed 50 people used per day as opposed to 500 crossing over the top, together with the criminal danger, then, yes, there should be a referendum. My recollection of that tunnel in the 90s was that it was locked for years on end. Once I noticed it was open, I used it. It smelled of urine. We are not going to have time for a referendum, though.
You are falsely equating levels of service with number of personnel, just as the Long Term Finance Committee majority did. Anyone who has worked for a business knows that is absurd. Personnel can be cut: that is called increased productivity by those who remain. But was it not amazing how the director position of Parks and Rec went on the chopping block when their entire funding was threatened.
The RCA proposal is not a couple of "silver bullets." A "top/down" review does not imply what you are stating. It simply means that no job is too high on the food chain for the chopping block. There has been no analysis of the efficiency of government spending that was not done by the departments and government itself. That is ridiculous when spending has increased 47% since 2001. The party is over.
I think if you are just here to criticize the RCA and not the Caucus administration or candidates it would be wiser if people here just ignored you.
Posted Friday Jan 9, 2009 09:31 # -
Re-read my post. I didn't limit my recommendation of a "bottom up" review to the RCA slate or the caucus slate. They should both communicate their stand. There is at least one other, independent, potential candidate who should weigh in with his funding priorities. Communicating these priorities would demonstrate a knowledge of the decision-making framework in which the Village must operate. The repair of roads, for example, is funded from fenced infrastructure monies. It can't be used for operating expenses. Road paving, therefore will occur, or the monies will go unspent. The whoile supposed issue of the water tower campus project cost match is a red herring. The matching funds are infrastructure funds which are either used there or for some other road. This is the type of basic fiscal understanding which the candidates (all candidates) should demonstrate if we are to believe that they will be competent at finding a reasonable way ahead. Your comparison to the business world is well taken. We must insure that our public officials understand the mechanisms of the business of government, listen to the wishes of the electorate, and act resposnsibly to carry out the latter in the confines of the former. Don't mean to preach, but perhaps the discussion could use a few "blinding flashes of the obvious."
Posted Friday Jan 9, 2009 10:04 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.