Three necessities before a TIF — 12/29/06

reply to mike sedivy querie of 12-28-06, 17:57:

thanks for reading my stuff.

i think a ‘tif with the proper redevelopment plan,’ as you put it, is something i could support — but i emphasize could, not would.

i think the administration has fallen back many yards on this play. in one of my november emails, which is posted above, as well as in my personal remarks to the board back at that time, i raise the judgment issue as well as planning and financials. it is my opinion that this administration has credibility ground to make up just to return to the prior line of scrimmage, so to speak. katy’s january 8 planning process must be fully elaborated, well managed, inclusive and befitting a global landmark masterpiece of planning, design and architecture. the kane-mckenna document, as i hope to explicate soon, was an insult.

so, the administration’s new commitment to the sort of openness, transparency and uniformity of rule application that i think is rightly questioned based on recent history must be clear throughout this process.

for riverside to thrive, whatever we decide to do, tif or no tif, we must end up with both the right plan and the right people to implement it. frankly, i doubt we have the right individuals on board to implement a tif, should we as a village in due course become convinced that the comprehensive plan, financials, specifics and alternatives analysis all end up grounding an appropriate tif solution.

i may be wrong. commitment to a rigorous and thorough visioning and planning process, with a first-rate alternatives analysis and a clear statement of how and under what procedures funds would be expended will show if current staff is up to it. based on the village center debacle, i am skeptical, but i would love to be shown otherwise.

so i guess i seek three distinct but interrelated indicies: sound plan, compelling financials and proven judgment in historic preservation redevelopment. i think the first two are possibly achievable through our new process. the third is in my opinion reasonably implicated and at best, as yet to be determined.

i hope this helps. here’s to the forum.

best,

chris

POSTED FRIDAY DEC 29, 2006 10:36 #
Explore posts in the same categories: Riverside and Olmsted

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: