Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. Elisa
    Member

    Mr. Sundstrom ~ I can see your point, but in a way you are supporting the notion that because development would occur anyway, we are not eligible for a TIF district. If development will occur (or is) and the TIF will allow us to control what the developers want to do with regards to materials, etc., then how are we eligible?

    And if the officials say we need $10 million in infrastructure, and we believe them, then isn't the normal route to have the voters vote on a bond? We get what we pay for and nothing else - it's not as nebulous.

    Posted Thursday Apr 12, 2007 17:06 #

12. spatny
    Member

    Eric - when we were spending the approx. $175,000 it cost for the B2 zoning ordinance we could have had it contain a design review that could set standards. And actually, when the architects were presenting the drawings and were asked how high the building was - in total - they said they didn't have a scale with them, so couldn't say. The roof will be over 50 ft - not sure any more how much over. And we could have had meaningful setbacks so the residential section wouldn't be so abruptly terminated with that huge block right out to about six feet from the curb - And lots more...

    The units at Delaplaine Crossing are packed in and have a cheap-o look on all sides, and you got, I believe textual changes to the code for your project, didn't you. So that is why people don't trust this Board on development issues, because they roll over for anyone with a project. Yes developers will build here - just like you. , You couldn't build the same building in Berwyn on Windsor or Stanley and get the same dollars for it, and neither could any of these other developers. You get the higher number not because of how you build it but because it is Riverside, and peop[le like the ambiance and tranquility and especially they like the schools for their kids. And this deal siphons money from those uses and goes to inducements for developers and stuff like that.

    In places where they have appropriately applied design review standards people that come in for variances have to show what they will be, and those that apply for financial hardship have to actually prove it. Doesn't happen here. Someone told me that you have the same architect that did the Buresh property townhomes or whatever they call them. I hope he does a better job for you and your neighbors don't have to face those crappy steel balconies hanging off the back of your project, and that there is a little more turn around space for cars, etc. And that you don't have that type of larger brick. And that they rake the joints. Etc. That project on 31st is abysmal.

    The Village could have absolutely controlled what was built on the VC site because it had the alley. If they didn't get an appropriate project scaled propely, they could have refused to vacate the alley. They salivated to get this project and we are stuck with it. Hence the opposition to them having this TIF generated revenue stream. That clear?

    Posted Thursday Apr 12, 2007 17:22 #

13. spatny
    Member

    The figure of $10 mil was not all for "infrastructure." Calling those expenses "infrastructure" is a stretch. And much of what is "infrastructure" is to accommodate CBD condo growth, not rehab existing use needs.

    Posted Thursday Apr 12, 2007 17:57 #

14. MikeT
    Member

    Question to Eric or anyone: I am naive to the development and all that stuff. If a developer wants to do a project, should he have to pay for it himself? If it requires infrastructure, then he should pay for those too. Isn't that what 'impact fees' are for?

    Eric said--

    There are multiple factors in play now ,that would take hours to discuss, as to why Riverside is becomeing a prime area for redevolpement. Lets just say its going to happen, sooner than later

    so in other words: if the village did not do the infrastructure work and/or the parking deck, would the developers you mention still come in?

    Finally, on the aesthetics, and building materials: we ARE relying on the ordinances and building codes and prescriptions to retain a 'Riverside look'. If that code allowed the VC (and wd allow an Olmsted Commons), which seems to me to not be in keeping with Riverside's vibe, then we should revisit that code.

    I know the fruits of relative recent (latter 20th century) redevelopment in RIverside well since there is a lot of newer (post 1950's) in the part of town I live in - PIne West Forest etc, and almost all of it is uninteresting ugly nothing people warehouses with no sense of the surrounding place in which they live. The developers obviously went cheap. I guess the went just for the numbers.

    look at forest and west - RIGHT ON THE RIVER ! - that is some of the BEST property in town (after they engineer some kind of flood control), and they are nothing bldngs.

    As Eric said, it ia free country. let the developers come, let them build - but on their dime.

    an aside: I firmly believe that Delaplaine Crossing wd be filled if it had turrets and bay windows, details, cornices and neato stone and brick and chimneys and 9.5 foot ceilings and coves and fireplaces; sort of the lincoln park look and not the berwyn look; actuallly look at the blythe park neighborhood for pretty goof architecture and materials.

    but that guy is a successful developer and I am computer programmer wage slave, what do I know.

    Posted Thursday Apr 12, 2007 22:05 #

15. spatny
    Member

    If Eric is right and the developers are on the way because they smell a profit to be made, then we don't need a TIF. We also don't need more realtors to move into ourlimited streetfront space, where they pay no sales tax. But that's what we are getting. Every time one more realty, or insurance, or investment, or bank moves in, it denys us the tax money that might be developed there, and it cuts into the volume and profits for those that are already here - like Eric, for instance. Then he won't have the coin to build the new developments, or, conversely, if enough of his employees (or associates or whatever they are called) quit and compete with him maybe he will have to develop. Building these brick or stone veneer, vinyl wndow,Home Depot door, fake schlosser and trying to sell them for mega bucks only works as long as people believe they can kite them for more if things get tough. Now that may not be the case, and people are packing up and leaving in the middle of the night. Maybe not in Riverside - YET, but it is coming. So I think we should not try and get too many spaces on the market at $31 a foot until we fill the ones we have. With small developers, it only takes one miss to sink the ship. Bon Voyage.

    Posted Thursday Apr 12, 2007 22:51 #

16. Catherine
    Member

    Anyone who is buying to flip (kite) is not too bright, as the market has stalled and headed downward. In fact, I have seen some of those units showing buyers from the developers, yet they are not occupied nor have they been resold. This is why there will be no increase in the EAV and no TIF revenues forthcoming to cover the money that has been and will be laid out. It is the equivalent of showing up a few years late for the Gold Rush of 1847, and is an activity for speculators, not "trustees" of taxpayers money.

    Posted Friday Apr 13, 2007 09:35 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.