Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. commonsense
   Member

   I can't understand why Shevitz would throw up a road block on paving the parking lot.

   If the RCA board was against the project, they should have prevented the demo of the buildings and sold them. Instead, this board allowed the houses to be taken down and now we have a lot that looks unsightly. The plans and funding to pave the lot are in place and have been for quite awhile. Shevitz really should have done his homework and gotten up to speed on this issue prior to the board meeting. Now the project is unnecessarily stalled for who knows how long.

   I fear this is the beginning of four years of projects put on the back burner.

   Posted Wednesday May 27, 2009 15:16 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Common -Actually I believe the demo took place just prior to this Board being sworn in. There might be several valid reasons to delay the construction of that lot besides the outlay of funds. Since the new Board was seated we have seen the numbers for the shortfall increase dramatically. There is really no urgent need to have it done right now, as daytime parking is never a problem and the church lot is available in the evenings. It might be worth exploring what can be done with the Arcade building before laying out this money. The lot would not take more than 90 days to put in place, maybe 60, so it doesn't have to be done immediately. Perhaps the Prins bank would be interested in some kind of swap for the Arcade. I think that should be investigated. And I don't see that the Board has said anything about not being ready to go ahead - just one Trustee thinks that we should look at it a bit more closely. BTW, I think the estimate of the number of parking spaces given in the Landmark article is incorrect - I seem to remember the number was 23 or thereabouts.

   At the last Board meeting - the first one where the new Board was in place, the Finance Director presented some rather startling new figures and projections, so I see nothing negative about taking a closer look at our actual situation and not the earlier numbers we had before.

   Posted Wednesday May 27, 2009 16:03 #

3. commonsense
   Member

   The buildings came down a few days after the RCA was sworn in. Chris Robling posted a suggestion that the new board should file a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) if they were so opposed to bringing the buildings down.

   If the villages passes on the parking lot, one way or another the money to repay the loans has to come from the cash reserves, correct? I can't see why Shevitz would want to dip into the village's general operating fund or capital projects fund to repay the loans.

   Make it into a park, a garden, hold the farmers market there for all I care. Just decide - it is an eyesore in it's current state of half gravel half grass.

   I do hope they incorporate the existing trees into the new design.

   Posted Wednesday May 27, 2009 22:53 #

4. mrt
   Member

   A quick point / observation on the parking lot as it looks now, maybe trying to see the positive: I actually do not think it is such an eyesore when I look at it coming from St Mary's, for example. It is almost refreshing to see the open-ness there with those trees rising up in the back. One should look at this open space for a moment since it is the only open space buffering Burlington, and indeed Quincy on the other side, and the tracks.

   A couple of yrs ago, when I was doing some investigation on that idea I had thrown out to put a line of evergreen trees between the houses and the tracks, I came upon a close-up map/design of what Olmsted had in mind for the area around the RR tracks. All down the tracks on both sides til Burlington and Quincy, the map showed, it was open, undeveloped and green. Obviously later Riverside trustees had different ideas. That bit of open space with those trees rising in the back is an opportunity , right now at least, to get a bit of a *sense* of what Olmsted had in mind in that space by the tracks.

   Fast forwarding 137 years, the foregoing does not reduce the fiscal irresponsibility, in this economic climate, and including the climate when the properties were purchased, of purchasing and developing those properties when Village funds were, and are today, limited and, in addition, sufficient parking in that area is there for the moment.

   I see that someone put a 'We are broke' tag up on this thread. Views of this open space, and thinking more on what is best for the town, including some thinking and planning based on agreed upon priorities, ARE free, and might be beneficial even if some projects are stalled a bit.

   Posted Wednesday May 27, 2009 23:16 #

5. Catherine
   Member

   I am doubtful one could get a TRO within a couple of days of being elected. The $550K to buy the houses was done in any event. I do not know what costs there might have been in breaching the demolition contract.

   I agree with Shevitz. I don't think we should be spending estimated 200K until the budget is reexamined fully. Our cost for the folly of Centennial 'Plaza' was supposed to be an already ridiculous $88K. Now there are 200K in engineering overruns. So I doubt it would end at 200K.

   I see the Landmark has now taken to editorializing for their preferences in the middle of "news" articles. Infotaintment.

   Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 08:06 #

6. spatny
   Member

   Perhaps it is a wise decision to delay this thing when it is not needed and husband our resources. Here's a small item from Roubini who is currently in Seoul.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8529373

   Just to be on the record, I predict home prics will settle some 40% + below their Q2 2006 peak when this is done. You can calculate how that will effect revenue, disposable income, and how many are likely to be upside down on mortgages by next year at this time. Even on a straight 30 year mortgage you probably have to be in 20 years to have paid down that much. Case/Schiller for 20 markets is already at 33-34% below peak, and still dropping. Betterpay attention to this...

   Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 09:24 #

7. CuriousResident
   Member

   Another idea might be to avoid concrete and use some form of permeable surface.

   Crushed gravel isn't the most elegant and most municipals would probably poo poo the idea due to maintenance and snow removal (would we need to do that?).

   But it is by far the lowest cost option, the maintenance is actually as easy as it gets, there would be no concrete cracks from water table fluctuations, it would reduce water run off and it could easily be paved over later.

   A google search on the subject brought up an interesting product that might actually be a cool way to do it. http://www.stabiligrid.biz/ It would seem that it would provide a lot more landscaping options than a big square concrete slab~

   Just an idea...

   Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 10:16 #

8. JohnM
   Member

   McAdams Landscaping on Desplaines has a gravel parking lot, designed with environmental concerns in mind. I'm not sure how it can be plowed, though, and as a seasonal business (at least the public parking section) they may not need to.

   Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 10:32 #

9. Catherine
   Member

   Send these ideas in to trustees, via their email addresses posted on website. I think we won't need to plow until the driveways for pulling in and out are completed.

   I think it would be great to avoid a concrete slab or, worse, blacktop.

   Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 10:51 #

10. spatny
    Member

    We have some pavers at the entrance to the Swan Pond access road - between the sidewalk and the street - that let grass grow through, and several people around town have this type of driveway. But I bet it is not cheap to install. The Indian Gardens parking lot is gravel and is plowed (sometimes.) Likewise the access road to the Scout Cabin.

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 11:55 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.