In my opinion, studies are the lack of growth in other parts of a town when a TIF is in place is not relevant to Riverside, since no one wants any growth anywhere else in Riverside. I previously posted a similar study to make another point, but do not think this one discussed has any force.
I don't think Harlem Avenue meets a "but for" test either as I am not aware it is lacking development.
Elisa - We are not going to straighten Delaplaine. We might have to take out stop signs. Without a traffic study we won't know for sure if we must or which ones. We'll get a half million dollars. To me, this is a tough decision given how cash strapped we are. However, those stop signs are important. I'm not sure how I'd vote on this one. And, it's so far into the future, that I may not be on the board by then :)
That's a very tough call, I can appreciate that. People use it to avoid Harlem and the train tracks, sometimes speeding down it.
I don't know if the person was an out-of-towner, and I don't think she was found at fault, but I recall the funeral of the boy that was killed there a few years back, not to mention Harrington Park.
Yes, in a case like this, I can appreciate the difficulty of the board's position. Is Delaplane really so bad the way it is?
I have just read Mr. Spatny reply to an apparent letter he received from the Village Manager. I have changed my assessment as it relates a particular development based on Mr. Spatny's response to the arcade building here is his own words:
"I don't want to see us be blindsided with some new permutation based on either the structural integrity of the building or "financial hardship" as the VC developers claimed." which can be found under Village Manager, President question area.
My blunt assessment from working in development, Riverside better figure out something to help the arcade building b/c if the developer sues for "financial hardship" and wins all bets are off and nobody's opinion on this website forum matters. Mr. Spatny used the keywords "financial hardship". Riverside will eat the court decision and national historic district won't matter much. Its ironic for me to be on this side of the issue but from experience the community opinion won't hold much weight in cook county courts.
Has any one though of a two tiered system i.e. keep exploring TIF while focusing on something for the arcade building? i.e. different incentive.
Ms. Catherine, this is what i meant? you are likely seeing the earlier words of developer litigation. so perhaps there is a developer in Riverside big enough to challenge the village.
CandiGrace said--
As for a 'comprehensive' plan, we don't have one as is usually considered. However, Olmsted's plan is world famous so it along with our zoning and the fact that we're 'built out' suffices.
But right now, with major apologies to President Lincoln, we are on a major battlefield of 'redevelopment' with the already built out Riverside. Planning is an important activity that should be done. And we s/ respect the ordinances even at the risk of losing a development project, especially if it is not in keeping with the 'Riverside vision'.
In the VC case, there were variances on the ordinances granted. Katy enumerated three variances.
Some kind of vision statement or comprehensive plan or whatever you want to call it, might help in guiding the choice to vary from the (overall) carefully crafted ordinances. In other words, if we all (VB and Village admin) were real clear on what is most important to protect, reveal and serve in Riverside, then we might be more judicious in the granting of ordinance variances.
Now, the stuff that JGage is bringing up about deep pocket developers is a real curve ball on this redevelopment battlefield (excuse my metaphor mixing).
Also, on this battlefield, it looks like a redevelopment is not a redevelopment (they are not all the same). We all can agree that Henningers could be lost. In this case the issue is what replaced it.
With the Arcade redevelopment, on the other hand, we cannot countenance that same thing. I think I heard that financial hardship is a sufficient grounds to demo and re-do the Arcade. That would be worse than the VC (sorry, VC haters).
Nuts and bolts question on Arcade: isn't there some kind of Landmark designation (local, state, OR Federal) that can protect it? Can it force a sale to another owner if the current owner is only willing to execute a demolition option?
Yes, Riverside, we got developers, and they can be ...deep pocketed and willing to raze Riverside...'cause they CAN! We're like the the dog who finally caught the car wheel he was chasing! It is like the adage, Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!
EDIT: I have got to add here that there IS good development going on in Riverside: my Pine Av condo conversion re-developer neighbors are doing a great job restoring and bringing out the charm and detail of the Tudor revival building they bought. And I bet it will improve EAV of that building too. Ironically, and incredibly, they were on the initial demolition list of the housing impact study of the TIF proposal. They are off that list now.
miket
I have to say I do think its ironic that on the one hand we don't want government to force TIF or certain aspects on us but on the other we want the government to force an owner of the Aracade building to sell.
Government: can't live with it; can't live without it.
mikeT
with apologies to women :)
What happens when you buy a home and then cannot pay for it? The bank forecloses. It is the market that is forcing them to sell, and the Arcade owners who are looking for corporate welfare.
Was the Arcade bought with cash? If not, who is holding the mortgage?
If they truly had onerous carrying costs and needed to be rescued with TIF as some in the EDC have claimed, they would be looking to sell it.
Well, go ahead and sell it. A good real estate firm, that is to say a national one, will have no problem marketing it far and wide.
Are they trying to extort TIF funds out of the village?
Catherine, I think I heard in this forum that there might be a fear, imagined or suggested by the Wexford group, that Wexford may, or could, demolish the Arcade and re-build it. It would be easier, more cost beneficial to demo it than to do all the historical renovation/restoration.
To anyone who knows: it this an accurate representation of the 'worst case' for Riverside vis a vis Arcade?
miket
CandiGrace said--
Actually Olmsted's plan is perfect in terms of 'traffic calming'.
Maybe this is one reason customers do not come to Riverside as they come to retail establishments in Lagrange thru Lagrange Rd, or to Berwyn businesses thru 22nd st, or to OP establichments through Lake and Harlem.
Yes, Olmsted space has that calming effect.
Let's try to keep Riverside calm.
miket
You must log in to post.