Riverside Info » About Riverside

Village Budget and Strained Finances: Please Comment

(137 posts)
  1. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I'm pretty sure it's Village Center. 99% sure.

    And I wouldn't put too much faith in the website being up to date. I know some companies that haven't updated their site for years. Seems odd that they show no current development on their site, but I wouldn't put any faith in that. I saw a smaller crane there last week, on Longcommon, setting the iron beams on top. I doubt it's stalled. If anything, maybe they're waiting for an inspection of something. I know on new construction there's an inspection after all the major stages before they can continue.

    Plus it was a holiday on Monday. Maybe they took a break?

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 00:50 #
  2. MikeT
    Member

    sounds right. chris, I bet you are right, as usual. village center.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 00:56 #
  3. Elisa
    Member

    Chris H.
    Yep, it's Village Center! And you are probably right about the non-updated web site! Perception is everything - I was thinking that they hadn't worked on it since the 2nd story went up.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 01:03 #
  4. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I walked past it this AM and consciously looked at the sign, since I know we've been confused. I don't have a Landmark here to check the back page, but I'm pretty sure. Maybe 98%.

    The Burlington Realty site doesn't have a name on their listings for the units in that building.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 01:07 #
  5. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Elisa, nah. They were setting beams on top on Friday, now that I think about it. I recall walking past in the afternoon and there was someone welding the beams in place. Don't stare at the arc!

    The website is sometimes the LAST thing to be updated.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 01:10 #
  6. Catherine
    Member

    A pig by any other name still smells.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 01:20 #
  7. spatny
    Member

    The "Architects" web site shows a different rendering from what is actually being built, just as does the sales literature that the realtors use for the project. When I noticed the difference in the number of window openings and questioned the Village about it, whether the change in what is being built from what they show on plans and pictures had been sent back to the Preservation Commission for approval, guess what? It hadn't! The Building Department evidently just approved the plans they brought in and issued the permit. Now Ms. Rush states, "This will result in the Plan Commission considering a minor site plan amendment at either a Special Meeting to be called or at their meeting of Jan. 22." Seems to me that since it is a change in the way it will look this should not have been allowed to happen? Maybe there are more such undocumented alterations. None of the different renderings I have see exactly match what is being built.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 08:47 #
  8. CandiGrace
    Member

    Elisa - The village received that payment for parking and the alley. The parking money is in a segragated account. I'm not sure about the alley payment.

    The name of the development is Village Center.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 09:50 #
  9. JGage
    Member

    Ms. Catherine, you are correct that at this moment in time or even 3 months from know the condo/housing situation may not be much different. However developer time horizons can be much longer. If a developer thinks its going to take 18 months to actually build a building then when he is looking at property or thinking of purchasing a piece of property it could be multi-year. Now the current situation may not apply to downtown riverside. But could the housing situation change in 10 months and a developer speed up his time table. Yes, that is what makes it hard for communities when they are trying to influence development b/c the public's timeframe is often different from the developers it terms of perception.

    I think when talking about incentives, in this case TIF, citizens should think in terms of influence. $$ is influence and no $$ is no influence and my perception is that the village currently lacks $$ money for influence or the legal authority to require certain things b/c they are not home rule.

    As a side note i talked with my former boss and he said not to compare yourself with chicago for anything unless your in chicago b/c they write their own rule for everything. His example/experience he gave me was constructing the same building in Chicago versus the burbs was totally different b/c chicago's sheer size and, which I was surprised to find out, the state has given them a lot of home rule power even more than your "normal" home rule community means they basically write their own rules.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 10:00 #
  10. DougPollock
    Member

    Elisa and Trustee Grace referenced payments for parking and vacation of an alley related to the Provencal project. I am not familiar with this particular situation in Riverside but I am quite familiar with the process for selling excess public right-of-way (alleys and streets).

    Under state law public right-of-way can be vacated by a municipality if it is determined that the right-of-way no longer serves its original intention as a public access route and cannot be reasonably anticipated to be used for public purposes. The process for vacating ROW is mandated by State law. An appraisal is done and the adjoining property owner buys the vacated ROW at that price or an agreed upon price. No one else can buy the vacated ROW other than the adjoining property owner. The proceeds from the vacation of right-of-way typically go to the municipalities general fund. To my knowledge, the proceeds from the sale of ROW are not not restricted in any way.

    In regards to the parking fund payment, it is common practice in downtown areas for a municipality to establish a common parking fund and collect payments in lieu of parking from new developments and then use that money to construct or maintain common parking areas that can be used by all. The law does require, however, that those funds be placed in a segregated account for their specific use for parking - just as Trustee Grace noted has been done in Riverside.

    This is common practice, I believe, because it represents good urban design and planning. It is not desirable to have each building in a downtown with their own parking lot. That would make it hard to maintain the type of physical environment that is needed to make a downtown attractive and successful.

    Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 10:43 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.