Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

131. Elisa
     Member

     I guess my biggest concern with the transaction (now that it's a done deal) is that the Village actually got the money - and that it wasn't something that was due sometime in the vague future. I feel better knowing that the 'cash is in hand'.

     What I would like to know, though, is if this money is turned around and sunk into the infrastructure - along with the 1% sales tax monies. It might be good PR for the Village to say, "Look, residents, we got x dollars from such-and-such a project and replaced the sewer line (or whatever) in a section of the downtown." Now they may already do this, and I'm clueless about it; but if not, it would help with perceptions. They might need to connect these dots with a strong and heavy line!

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:00 #

132. Catherine
     Member

     JGage, as I have said before, there is a reason the workers' and servants' homes of days of yore were placed on Burlington and Quincy: it is a less favored because loud and obnoxious place to live. If a condo had been available on Longcommon when I was buying, I wanted to buy there. No one is for long, if ever, going to want to pay @1M to live on the railroad tracks, unless they are hearing challenged. This is not rocket science, but real estate people frequently are not the brightest bulbs in the pack.

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:06 #

133. DougPollock
     Member

     I do not intend to be argumentative, but for the record, there are a lot of homes in Burr Ridge, Hinsdale and other places that people built for 1 million and even in excess of 2 million dollars which are within 50 to 100 feet of the Tri-State Tollway and similar proximities to heavily trailed freight rail lines. There are also a lot of expensive condos being built along train lines in places like LaGrange, Clarendon Hills, Elmhurst, Glen Ellyn, etc. I understand that most if not all of those projects have sold and resold quite well.

     Intuitively, it makes sense to think that people would not pay a premium for homes that have significant noise issues. But market evidence seems to indicate that this is not always the case - especially as it relates to downtown condos along train lines. The market for downtown condos in the various train station suburbs around Chicago has been and to my knowlege remains quite strong.

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:38 #

134. Catherine
     Member

     Ok, Doug Pollock, that is interesting to know. It makes me wonder why there is always such trouble with those condos on Quincy, and why no one wants to buy at Delaplane Crossing.

     I do not speak intuitively, but from experience. I am glad to hear your opinion that I would have no problem selling my condo.

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:42 #

135. JGage
     Member

     Ms. Catherine, oh i agree but i'll bet those real estate people know the trains schedules to the minute and only show those condo's at exactly precise times :)

     But on a serious note, i think that you're right $1 million maybe high but perhaps i believe too much in the market and as they lower the prices eventually some young doctor or lawyer is going to like the train location to take into chicago and deal with the noise.

     Second if you ie. government structure your incentive right, such as the TIF, your likely to lose out though the developer may, however that in and of itself may keep you from getting the incentive anyway and development.

     Thinking on the fly here, why not say OK we'll try TIF or other incentive but on such and such terms i.e. legal protections like in construction contracts. If developers don't like it or don't believe in the community they won't take it and the village loses nothing. If you have structured it right and the developer takes the incentive, if you have done it right well doesn't that say the developer believes in the community and that should the development fail the village doesn't get hurt. I mean if my employer puts protections in leases and construction contracts the village should be able to do that with incentives.

     So why would a developer who believes in a community but doesn't want to play by the incentive rules want to take the incentive. From what i said in earlier post. The public sidewalk across the street is ugly and needs repair. Perhaps an incentive such a store improvements could make their development better. i.e. help out an ugly business neighbor to raise all boats through downtown synergy

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:46 #

136. Catherine
     Member

     1) I know I certainly have been shown apartments and condos in Riverside at such times that the noise was less and only later did I learn the rude truth.

     2) We have discussed this before. The TIF opens the door to wall-to-wall monstrosities like the Viet Cong Center, and there is nothing in the law to stop it. This is owing in part to the B2 CBD ordinances. So now we have ugly, with more money to induce the making of more ugly. There actually exist people in this town that do not recognize that this is ugly. These people should not be driving a process that concerns a national historical landmark. The less money these people have to incent other tasteless people to ugly up our town with, the better. Sorry, but I have to put it plain, as I have made this point before and before you arrived.

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 11:54 #

137. JGage
     Member

     No problem even you have made the point before, its hard to keep track. A like the phrase Viet Cong Center.

     However, if the VC center happened before TIF:

     1)it can happen with or without TIF

     2)correct me if i am wrong but are your prejudging TIF, Incentives generally, or both? just seeking clarification

     3)$$ matters and incentives allow you to have a seat and say as to the ugliness, I will state that TIF may not be right for riverside but if you already have the Viet Cong Center b/c the Village lacked $$ then it will repeat itself as i mentioned in by discussions about litigation strategies.

     Remember the developer listens to a certain extent to the community but in the end it is "private property" and they'll litigate and win and whether the community or property is ugly or historic or a national historic landmark will not matter. $$ will make the developer listen harder. The reality may come down to the community have to choice between the lesser of two evils. 1)do you want no incentives and little say in what VC buildings developers construct or 2) do you take/create programs that generate $$ that you can use to influence.

     I know many will be afraid by this statement but Riverside's national historic landmark status has little value to most developers and probably smaller developers see it as an obstacle b/c it costs them money. Upside is smaller developers less likely to challenge: downside mentioned before is that small developer sells to bigger developer who will challenge.

     Posted Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 12:18 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.