Riverside Info » About Riverside

Workshop 4 - To TIF or Not to TIF

(16 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by ChrisHajer
  • Latest reply from spatny
  1. ChrisHajer
    Member

    At last night's workshop, DLK referred to workshop four as "To TIF or Not to TIF" and the village newsflash just came across with the same headline. I think it's amusing that the binary nature of the referendum question: “Shall the Village of Riverside establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District?— was initially derided for being distilled to such a simple question, but now it appears that the village is using the same language that was being criticized.

    Also, I think they owe Kim and Holly rights to the phrase "To TIF or Not to TIF":
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/to-tif-or-not-to-tif/
    from November 9th, before the workshops were ever contemplated.

    :D

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 10:15 #
  2. MikeSedivy
    Member

    If the question were framed appropriately, I am sure it would take too much space on everyone's computers - wouldn't you need the Redevelopment Plan, TIF Boundaries, suggested modifications, Vision Statements, etc. as attachments??? I think the Village Board's position on the wording of this particular referendum question is pretty clear.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 10:19 #
  3. spatny
    Member

    I would like to interject:

    To TIF or not to TIF? A Plea for Sanity.

    The Village Board of Trustees, the Village President, and the Village Manager all want to establish a TIF district in Riverside. They have the power to do so, despite the fact that a sizable, and perhaps a majority of the residents, don't want it. If they go ahead and do it, without ever presenting a concrete plan for what they hope to accomplish with the funds they will grab and sequester, what recourse do we have? Sadly, practically none. With a simple majority vote of the Board they can put in motion a mechanism that will allow this Board and future Boards to spend somewhere between $20 and $35 million dollars over the next 23 to 35 years on what has so far only been defined as a rather ephemeral effort to bring retail businesses to downtown Riverside.

    We don't know exactly how they intend to spend these funds because there has been no concrete plan presented. We can only surmise what this Board, and future Boards, will do with the funds that they extract and sequester for this purpose. Our only clue as to what they might do lies in what they have already done, such as overriding the zoning code they themselves established in order to saddle us with the Village Center - that ugly, oversized monstrosity that is now not yet half way to its ultimate height at the former Henninger's site.

    Who besides the developers will benefit from the more than $6 million dollars in additional sales revenues that height variance made possible?

    When this Board goes so far as to label homes and property on Pine Street as the site for future “purchase— for the construction of a multilevel parking structure, when letters are sent to other property owners in the proposed TIF district informing them that their properties are “blighted— or that they are “under-utilizing— their property, when “special— single-agenda item meetings are held to discuss giving a specific developer “inducements" for projects already agreed upon, when undefined buildings and parking lots are drawn into areas that we believe should remain vacant, what are we left to think?

    Obviously, only the obvious - that this TIF money will be used to induce developers to pack downtown with more and more high density condominiums that may or may not have successful retail businesses located on their ground floors.

    Riverside, because of its unique design, has a unique problem. We have a street pattern that brings us some seclusion, and leaves us what Olmsted intended - a tranquil residential community with a small Service Core to provide convenient and necessary services for the Village residents. It was never designed as a “Central Business District— or laid out so as to attract visitors from other places.

    Our Village was perfectly designed to be and create what it is - a peaceful, tranquil oasis in a vast sea of mediocrity. Packing it with retail shops, compacting it with condos, will only detract from Riverside's best qualities. No one ever bought a house here because they thought it was a great place to shop, and sadly, the harsh realities of retailing today dictate that off-the-beaten track locations in high priced new buildings are not viable for any but a select few businesses.

    That, coupled with the fact that much of Riverside's prime downtown property is in the hands of an owner who has not shown any willingness to improve his property, makes it all too clear that this thrust toward emulating the larger commuter suburbs is foolish, at best. More likely it a mere smokescreen to cover the drive to build the two hundred plus new units that the Metra-sponsored TOD study recommended and that our leaders can't stop salivating over.

    And what about including our prized park, the Swan Pond, in this mess? Labeling the beauty spot of the Village as “blighted—, stating that it must be “improved,— harping about inane and inappropriate projects such as a paved “river walk— complete with a souvenir stand, an amphitheater, a boutique hotel and catering facility, a community center - all in or bordering what we consider to be our cherished, tranquil riverside parkland, is patently foolish - if not criminal. Why, one wonders, can't our leaders just leave all this alone?

    The answer, of course, is money. Real estate tax money. Legal fees. Sales tax money. Commissions on the sale of condos. Higher salaries. A few will make a little more money. Everybody else will get more kids and less money going to the schools, more strains on the infrastructure, more traffic in the center of town, more people from someplace else to come and utilize and throw trash in the parks. Just what we need.

    Look at the record. This Board has botched every development project it has dealt with. Delaplaine Crossing. The Village Center. The Arcade. I believe that allowing this Board in particular, maybe any Board, to be able to grab this kind of long-term money stream and divert and spend it as they see fit to decide somewhere down the line, for whatever ill-defined projects they may conceive, is simply stupid and will be a serious blow to what Riverside's residents really care about - the quality of life here - now and in the days to come.

    Don't let this happen. Rise up and tell this Board of Trustees that, until they have presented a plan as to exactly what they propose to spend these funds for - NO TIF. If they still want to proceed they should do the work they should have done before they ever raised this issue, and allow the entire Village to participate in that planning., A well conceived plan that is supported by a majority of the residents should be a precursor to any such tax initiative. I urge all my fellow residents to tell this Board - loud and clear: NO PLAN - NO TIF!

    Now, a month after I initially wrote this, I can't see how it has become any less valid. Having these workshops is an interesting exercise, but with less than 2% of Village residents attending, and so many ideas being thrown around in such a short space of time, I fail to see what it accomplishes. It seems to me that taking a full year to have a first class architectural school " study our studies" and develop some concrete and more detailed visions for us to look at is the minimum that should happen. If we really need to fix any water or sewer lines now, we can have a bond issue vote for that. Most of the rest can wait until we know where we are going, and what is behind all this "Rush to Judgment."

    Let's stop hiring these high priced consultants for 12 months and see what other expertise we can get from a school that is interested in doing a project like this for an Olmsted Village. In the meantime, the Dam engineers can do their thing and we can see what, if any, effect the new river flow has on the Swan Pond. The EDC can produce something that will induce visitors here to see our architectural treasures and maybe bring Zoo patrons into town. The VC will finish and fill up - or not - and we can strengthen our codes so nothing like that ever happens again. We can plant some more trees and cut back on paying lawyers and consultants so much money. We can find out what we want, what we can afford, where we want to go, before we act. What's wrong with that?

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 10:32 #
  4. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Don Spatny said: "Having these workshops is an interesting exercise, but with less than 2% of Village residents attending, and so many ideas being thrown around in such a short space of time, I fail to see what it accomplishes."

    I agree. DLK last night solicited input from the attendees on the sort of things we would like to see financed, and the plan (I think) was to use those responses to guide the process moving forward ( in a non-binding sort of way. ) I think it's dangerous to use such a small sample (how many people were there last night?) to guide the future of Riverside. The sample from the NIU study in 2005 was 646 people, which is still less than 10% of the village residents. And the 2001 masters thesis from the University of Michigan that Aberdeen posted had an even smaller sample.

    I think the results are interesting to look at but it is still dangerous to use such a small sample for something as important as the future of Riverside.

    I like corbi's idea of involving Kellogg to construct and administer another survey:
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=94&page=2&replies=61#post-1257

    We need better data.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 10:52 #
  5. spatny
    Member

    Why is everyone afraid to invite a school to study this problem? It would make a fascinating exercise for them, and what have we got to lose? Who is against that concept, and why? Similarly, since we can get FREE high traffic locations - the Zoo, the F LL W home, bookstore and the OPVC for some minimal cost brochures, why not try it? Can't anybody in this Village make a command decision and do something? They decided to do these Workshops and they cost money even with the donation of services from DLK. Come on folks - step up.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 11:00 #
  6. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I am not against the concept of a school. And I thought your flier ideas were good too.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 11:03 #
  7. spatny
    Member

    I didn't say you were. But you, like me, don't speak or act for the Village. W have a lot of people that ran for the Board or volunteer their time - a lot of it - to and (presumeably) for the good of the Village. They are the ones that have to say, "How Much?" and then "Go" or "No." They should do that and then get out of the way. If it works - they can take the credit. If it doesn't - they can blame you and me. That's OK. It would be better than starting this TIF "fiasco in the making" and have it last for years and years.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 11:11 #
  8. Catherine
    Member

    The reason they are framing the question that way is to imply by parallel construction that raising property taxes or eliminating the retail requirement are the only alternatives. I don't mind it though. No, yes, yes.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 23:55 #
  9. MikeT
    Member

    Catherine said--
    I don't mind it though. No, yes, yes.

    Pls remind me of the 1,2,3 questions that you are answering. My understanding is

    1 - want a tif?
    2 - in leiu of a tif, want a tax incr for cbd improvements
    3 - do you want the village to remove the street level constraint for commercial

    Me, I would go N N, and I 'll think more on 3.

    I don;t want the cbd 'improvements'. they seem to be for more high density infrastructure work including giving them money for a parking deck on Pine to accomodate said high density build outs. thus, I think that they are not improvements but the turning up of the poor frog who is already way too hot ("charming tranquil riverside").

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=58&replies=4#post-593

    Posted Saturday Feb 24, 2007 00:18 #
  10. KimJ
    Member

    "Also, I think they owe Kim and Holly rights to the phrase "To TIF or Not to TIF":
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/to-tif-or-not-to-tif/

    Chris,
    Although I thank you very much for the enthusiastic support about the quote
    "To TIF or not to TIF" I am sorry to inform you that Holly and I 'borrowed' that line from a flyer about TIF from DesPlaines. You can read the flyer at the link above.

    It is ironic that the villagers of that city fought against their TIF in the same manner we are (actually, they even made t-shirts, sorry guys!) They too went ahead and put together a referendum question. Their village board went ahead and enacted the TIF a few days before the election anyway, ouch. (Interject youtube image of someone getting a spanking here.) The people went ahead and overwhelmingly voted against the TIF anyway, as they planned. I guess what it comes down to for our trustees is, do they follow the will of the people, or does the easy cash stream trump what is right? "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash." (Interject image of ...... sorry can't help myself)

    Sure hope classic rock does not lesson my argument in some cheap and trashy way!

    Posted Saturday Feb 24, 2007 07:42 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.