"It is abundantly clear we need more parking in the CBD...it is the general consensus of the business owners and residents of this town."
I don't think sweeping generalizations like that are useful. The business owners want more parking, yes. Some residents want more parking, true. But want does not equal need. I want a million dollars and a pony, but I don't need either. And I don't think stating it as a fact is helpful. It's an opinion, not fact.
A million dollars and a pony would be a luxury...and to most a "pipe dream", it is not a need! Parking is a need...and according to many of the business owners I have spoken to it is a necessity. It would be a slap in their faces to equate a million dollars and a pony to a request that they need for their livelyhood.
The whole parking lot discussion is getting pretty silly. We bought two lots, we tore down two houses, the village board needs to decide what to do with the space now that that's all done. If they need more information before making that decision, then they take it and they take their lumps for either moving too quickly or dragging their feet. Hopefully they'll get input from all interested parties and make the best decision they can once they have all the information.
I am watching the board meeting and wondering how the RCA part of the board has determined what their vote will be on the parking lot before the vote was taken
Well the board just voted... And as I could have predicted the RCA voted down the parking lot. What a slap in the face to the business owners. I am appalled at the disrespect the RCA has for its residents. It is fine and dandy to have an open and transparent government...but it means nothing if you cut people off, roll your eyes and act disgusted when people do not agree with you. I fear we will be looking at an eyesore for the remainder of their term...which I feel will be a looooong time.
In the run-up to the election, I recall many residents, voting citizens of Riverside, expressing opposition to the outlay of money for that parking project. Maybe the Board members who voted this down were remembering these people, the people who got them into office.
Also, they ran on a save-where-we-can platform ("fiscal responsibility") based on diminished Village revenues. Maybe this is another attempt to save some money, which would be an attempt to stay true their campaign promises? Did they give a rationale for their decision?
That area to me looks like a (temporary) parking lot that can be used now or maybe a work in progress. The cbd is clearly a "work in progress". Didn't we hear of other options for cbd parking?
OK, so when we bring new potential business owners/home buyers into town, we just tell them to close their eyes so they don't see the crumbling Arcade building or the eyesore empty lots.. Maybe we just put a big sign up that says "Future Home of Something BIG!" - brought to you by the RCA.
If they don't want to spend 30k on a study, how about a 30k landscape job with a fountain and patio and seating - at least it might attract more people to come enjoy our town - and they'll have plenty of parking, right Mark?
Oh yeah there were other options...43 parking spaces with additional parking at the Masonic Temple...cost still to be hashed out. Sounds like a plan?????
mrt
According to your earlier statement that the RCA gave their voters what they wanted...Well I guess the merchants didn't vote for the RCA and thats why they were screwed out of soumething they wanted.
par4, you mentioned the crumbling arcade building - precisely one reason to take a step back and attempt to figure out some possible options to deal with the arcade AND 61-63 burlington, and dont forget the brand new VC building - we have a crumbling 19th century building that was a prototype of the modern mall and a brand new hulking blond brick building, both empty; maybe we can look at the cbd problems from a viewpoint that is higher up than one lot at at time?
also, par4, you mentioned, "Future Home of Something BIG!" One thing we might want to keep in mind as we think about the cbd and how it can be - and this can be fleshed out with planning sessions - Riverside IS small, and our cbd IS small (facts). To me it is an (essential) attribute of Riverside and its cbd, an attribute that gives RIverside its identity and its 'brand disctinction' if you will allow such phrasing. So whatever happens, it is best to stay with our assets, and to 'stay small'. In the end, if we stay small - please think 'small and charming and something out of yesteryear' - I bet people might be more attracted to this place. They will have a distinct sense of place when they visit.
I like to bring up the library, 'sort of' a new addition to the cbd (1930) :) - its materials, lines, and size look like a small english cotswald village - to conjure up a feeling of the scale and aesthetic sense that the cbd should yield to visitors. Th elements that will work best in Riverside will be *something like* the library, kind of small-ish, but well done, and above all in scale with the smaller surroundings.
newriversider, I was responding to your statement,
I am appalled at the disrespect the RCA has for its residents
I am suggesting that the RCA probably was attempting some respect to their campaign promises, presumably a reason they were voted into office. Of course (I assume) they are going to try to help the cbd owners get what they need. I think I recall they consistantly said they wanted a healthy cbd. Again, what they (cbd owners and the board) need MIGHT be a better thought-out vision/plan (my speculation).
MRT stated:
In the run-up to the election, I recall many residents, voting citizens of Riverside, expressing opposition to the outlay of money for that parking project. Maybe the Board members who voted this down were remembering these people, the people who got them into office
If that's the case, then the Village is not being well served. As trustees and president, the RCA board members have an obligation to look out for the interests of the Village as a whole, not just the interests of those who voted them into office.
MRT also stated:
That area to me looks like a (temporary) parking lot that can be used now or maybe a work in progress. The cbd is clearly a "work in progress". Didn't we hear of other options for cbd parking?
Unless we change the zoning code, that space cannot be used as a temporary lot in its current condition. Even if it wasn't a zoning issue, walk by it today after the rain and see if you think its a viable option in its current condition. Are you seriously suggesting that we suggest to patrons of our local businesses that they park in a muddy, stony lot?
FInally, (and MRT, you are quite loquacious lately), MRT stated that:
Of course (I assume) they are going to try to help the cbd owners get what they need. I think I recall they consistantly said they wanted a healthy cbd.
The business owners at last night's meeting were very clear what they wanted. Terri Tabor, Dave Moravcek and others got up and practically begged for the lot--or even for the study to be carried out so it could be built if the Board later concluded it was necessary. The response was Mark Shevitz appearing hurt that they didn't recognize and appreciate his work, and the Board voting 4-3 against the lot.
I also note that when asked what they wanted in lieu of the lot, or what they would see going there, the RCA members had no ideas. They simply retreated into statements that the vacant property is "a village asset." I suppose in technical budgetary terms it is. But it's an asset that produces no revenue--either from taxes or fees, that requires (I hope) maintenance to ensure it doesn't become any more of an eyesore than it already is, and makes the CBD look shabby and run down.
You must log in to post.