Can I get an answer to this question? They do not admit they are going to cut the budget. They do not admit to seeking a tax increase, although we know Kevin favors the real estate transfer tax. So, WHAT ARE they going to do?
The RCA has said NO to a tax increase for the foreseeable future, they have said they WILL cut the budget.
Does anyone honestly think the majority would vote a tax increase for the same board majority, and for a party that thinks our spending is just fine?
Hm, plenty of bull about nothing, but no answer here.
They will say they will seek no sources of revenue. Then segue into the old saw about revitalizing the CBD, bringing in new businesses to pay gobs of sales tax, but they can't tell you how they will do that. Presumably they have been trying, which is why have more empty storefronts, the nearly empty White Elephant Arms, and the Arcade sunken into a mire of problems and neglect. There efforts have not gained us sales tax revenue - they have lost us revenue from CBD properties.
spaty, there you go again.
-answering for the RP. Let's hear from the RP.
Yes, Navarro did not seem to know that if all business in the CBD were occupied and doing well, they would not 'lift the burden off homeowners' as they can always ever only provide a small fraction of the budget.
Yes, I asked the RP through Ms Navarro to have a Town Hall like the RCA did: presentation and taking questions from all comers. She said they would not do that and we could see them at the debate.
Likewise, I have just asked Mr Smith to post an answer here, so perhaps he will honor us with a visit without our having to go to a fundraiser.
The RCA has said NO to a tax increase for the foreseeable future, they have said they WILL cut the budget.
Well, a tax increase is in the hands of the voters, so that is a fairly easy promise to make.
I understand the RCA have said they will cut the budget. They didn't say where, though. And they haven't said how. And that concerns me. They have also said they will spend down the village's reserves. And that really concerns me.
Basically, I think the RCA is making promises that they can't deliver (or, perhaps more correctly, they have made promises and they will find a way to deliver on them, regardless of the impact it will have on the Village.)
The RP, on the other hand, has not made any such promises. They haven't insulted my intelligence by suggesting that our village is overspending on personnel when the evidence is right in front of my eyes that it isn't. They haven't suggested spending reserves. I find it refreshing that the RP is not promising me things that they can't deliver.
and there an RP supporter goes again: in a question about what would the RP DO, there is only a quick criticism of the RCA side.
The answer , I guess, is that the RP is more of the same. This is actually understandable since the RP is really identical with the Caucus - as shown in other threads - which is also the same as the composition of the current administration.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/question-about-caucus-tactics/page/4#post-8291
So if one is satisfied that all is being done in the best way for our town, then vote the RP. Else, if one thinks that the current way of handling the Village is not right, then vote for the RCA.
To reiterate: All members of the RP come from the Caucus, and the Caucus is what the current administration is composed of.
I just read the RCA platform. Nowhere in it do they say anything about cutting the budget.
Sorry, Mike. My concern about what the RCA will do if elected is greater than my concern about the RP's lack of specific proposals. Just as you and Don fear what will happen if Mr. Lesniak is elected, I fear what will happen if the RCA slate gets in and implements their platform.
You also said:
So if one is satisfied that all is being done in the best way for our town, then vote the RP. Else, if one thinks that the current way of handling the Village is not right, then vote for the RCA.
Do you believe there is no middle-ground here? Should I not, for example, cast a vote for Jim Reynolds if I'm planning on voting for three RP candidates?
IF you cannot do the full slate, the more DIFFERING voices than the status quo, the better, even if that means more of a chance for ulcers for the lone voice(s). For the next few years we already have THREE Caucus members on the board. It is already stacked. The RP/Caucus needs only one more seat for a majority.
One comment here: It seems that if one believes or accepts the Caucus marketing that it somehow fields *independent* candidates, then one can *think* that there is a granular choice amongst their candidates, and can mix and match. However, if one believes that the Caucus is really a political party with shared values, agendas, and motives, then to that extent there are no real choices amongst the candidates they field. Didn't the first Daley talk about votes being everything?
I do not know how you can be considered independent when you are receiving money from a group. It would be like Consumer Reports receiving money from companies.
It is not about one's viewpoint on this. The answer is in the state of Illinois website: the Caucus is listed as a political party. The RP is not. The RP is an extension of the Caucus. The Caucus website funds and gives away Blue RP signs. THey are the same thing.
I was wowed to see the RP sign right on the first page. I was kind of fooled for a while, til I looked.
http://riversidecaucus.org/
continuing...
Remember about the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Incidently, this last phrase is also one reason to go for the full RCA slate. They themselves are probably not perfect, but they more fully represent the wishes of this electorate, as seen in the last few elections. What is the worst thing that the will of the people will do? Do a Robespierre number on town hall? No.
But they will break up some standing water, remove some inefficiencies, and let the VM buy his or her own car. They will also keep in mind the vision of Riverside's unique historical nature. Give them a chance to do this. The other side, the Caucus, has had their chance for the last 80 years. At least we can be more sure that every stone was turned and looked at if and when a tax question ever comes into play.
The worst thing that the RP/status quo can do?
Continue to waste precious Village resources, leading to a virtual certainty for tax increases; more VC like structures that would erode the look and feel of RIverside's essential charm, which in the long run will reduce Riverside as an attractive and desirable place to live. It will make it more like Downers Grove, Bolingbrook, or BErwyn; in short, it would erode the singular nature of Riverside. That is the bane of the Lesniak VC like , build baby baby sensibility. Riverside will continue to be lost, as Reynolds said at one forum, one piece at a time.
You must log in to post.