Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Catherine
   Member

   The EDC began the pro-TIF discussion with the proposition that we needed a TIF to encourage businesses to locate here, and the Board of Trustees admitted this was because of the need to generate tax revenue for the operation and maintenance of the village. For this reason the zoning ordinances were changed for height and other features in the center of town, and variances have been granted.

   Therefore the EDC favored the VC and argued for developments that maximized tax revenue: retail on the ground floor and condos above. Professional services (non-tax-generating) were to be encouraged to locate second floor of existing buildings.

   Faced with effective objections to the aesthetic and people and car density results that are emerging, the EDC now shifts to claim one of the purposes of the TIF is to give the village control over developers to avoid aesthetic and density disasters.

   What is the evidence that developers would not only seek to avail themselves of TIF funds, AND maximize the use of new ordinances already on the books, as well as seek variances as have previously been granted?

   One businessman in town has already stated he could locate at a primo location on the North Side of Chicago for the rents asked for at the VC. To overcome that, any rational developer will be looking for every advantage, particularly as the market is now full of empty condos (as anyone can see by perusing the Trib real estate section.)

   Comments pro and con?

   Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 05:08 #

2. MikeSedivy
   Member

   To qualify for TIF reimbursement a property owner must demonstrate that the project would not be feasible without the reimbursement. I'm sure owners will continue to request variances. Right now the Village can say "Yes" or "No". With another tool the Village could say "What about this?" I think having some other option is better than no other option.

   I see no issue with a property adhering to zoning regulations.

   Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 09:38 #

3. Catherine
   Member

   The zoning ordinances of the B2 district are what brought us the Village Common, with the variance. Those who think it is a good thing are safe. The Village will do likewise under a TIF; there is no reason for them not to.

   To qualify for a TIF, the entire proposed area also has to meet the but for test. In my opinion, we do not.

   Posted Friday Jan 12, 2007 12:00 #

4. JGage
   Member

   A TIF is not just a TIF. There are 3 types of TIF's so i would wager the Village likely believes it fits into one. Can someone tell me what TIF they are thinking of using? Then we can see if the but for applies.

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 16:22 #

5. JGage
   Member

   I did some research a found info about TIF types at http://www.illinois-tif.com/faqs.htm#Q15

   But can someone still tell me what type of TIF the village is going for?

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 16:25 #

6. ChrisHajer
   Member

   Thanks for coming on board: I know there's a lot of information to catch up with. The proposed TIF as I understand it is a "conservation TIF."

   http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=35&replies=37#post-465

   I believe that is outlined in the Draft Redevelopment plan:
   http://www.riversideinfo.org/draft-redevelopment-plan-now-available/

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 16:26 #

7. JGage
   Member

   ok, thanks Chris, here's what its says i'll cut and paste:

   To be designated as a conservation area:
   1)least 50% of the structures in the improved area must be 35 years old;
   2) and Three of the 14 factors for designation of a blighted area and another factor entitled "excessive vacancies" must be present.

   so 3 of 14 below
   1)Dilapidation
   2)Obsolescence
   3)Deterioration
   4)Illegal use of individual structures
   5)Structures below minimum code standards
   6)Excessive land coverage and overcrowding of structures and community facilities
   7)Lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities
   8)Inadequate utilities
   9)Excessive land coverage
   10)Deleterious land use or layout
   11)Environmental clean-up
   12)Declining equalized assessed value, and
   13)Lack of community planning
   14) Sorry, 14 wasn't listed when i cut & paste

   So to meet the "but for" an example might be
   ---step 1 50% structures are 35 years or older -- I'm guessing
   ---step 2 -- need 3 qualifications so from eating at the chew chew i can say that it
   1)deteriorating building
   2)Lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities - new bathroom definitely
   3)Structures below minimum code standards -- I'm not an engineer but i don't think its ADA approved or at least not for wheel chairs

   ---step 3 excessive vacancies -- realtors please speak up

   So if you're right chris about the TIF type they possible could fit the but for test -- assuming my example assumption are right

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 16:54 #

8. CandiGrace
   Member

   JGage - you are correct. The village is attempting a conservation TIF. We do meet the criteria for the TIF - more than we need actually.

   Posted Saturday Jan 13, 2007 19:48 #

9. KimJ
   Member

   You know what, I personally qualify for a TIF. Blighted or Conservation, what a bummer.

   Posted Sunday Jan 14, 2007 04:09 #

10. Catherine
    Member

    CandiGrace, yes, but not all, if any, of the TIF area outside of the CBD qualifies. I live east of the CBD next to Cowley, within the TIF. We do not meet the TIF criteria. I suspect the government of just wanting to reserve the space to Cowley for future purpose. As far as my home and this area is concerned, I would challenge the alleged meeting of the "but for" test, not to mention vigorously challenging any attempt at eminent domain. No large budget would be required, as there are plenty of public interest lawyers who would take it on.

    Further, I think Pleasantdale and two other Appellate Court decisions show that Riverside does NOT qualify for a TIF because a) development is already occurring in the area in and near the proposed TIF district and b) lack of further development is not occurring AS A RESULT OF the factors you cite. There must be this causal connection. Therefore, the village is very open to a challenge of its eligibility and would, therefore, do well to seriously try to reach consensus.

    Posted Sunday Jan 14, 2007 07:33 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.