Tax hike referendum not a good idea for Riverside
Riverside officials want to raise taxes about $200 per year, per family, but in order to make you feel better — guess what — they will lower your city sticker $20!
What moron decided this? How many people living in Riverside can figure this out? Are we a bunch of idiots?

I don’t know of any community in our area that pays for stickers like we do. Some are even free, or for seniors, much cheaper. I don’t think many people are going to vote “yes” on this referendum, so we still think you should lower city stickers. Vote “no” on the referendum.

Ann Ostrander, Riverside

Letters have shown people confused about Palin

Two letters in the Oct. 15th issue about Sarah Palin had problems with veracity or reality.
Hillary’s fans flocked to Palin? Quite the opposite. Sarah Palin stands for everything Hillary does not, and the fact is that most women for Hillary were disgusted with the choice. The only thing they have in common is their gender, and that is not enough to sway a vote when the values are so divergent.

The implication was made that Alaska is prosperous because of Palin; in fact, quite the opposite is true. She took over Wasilla while it was debt-free and immediately started spending money. She wanted to build a sports complex complete with indoor hockey rink and started putting in the infrastructure before getting clear title to the land, leading to years of expensive litigation. Wasilla is debt-free no more. She raised sales taxes 25 percent to pay for the complex. Imagine that, an increase in taxation from a Republican.

Alaska itself is prosperous because of oil revenues and rebates money to its citizens every year, all true before her election. Sarah Palin’s inauguration was paid for by big oil, and she is highly cooperative with anything the oil firms want – including drilling, drilling, drilling. She seems more like George W. Bush and his cronies.

You say that Palin has a state free of corruption and nepotism, but the inaccuracy of that has been proved by an investigation into her dubious practices, like using her office to promote her own agendas including revenge and firing people who get in her way, and her misuse of state funds to cart her family around so they could watch her husband race.

A comment that Palin is like Teddy Roosevelt in terms of the “Speak softly and carry a big stick” philosophy. She may carry a big stick, but as far as speaking softly, you can’t be serious. McCain has been enjoying her role as attack dog.

Karen Busic-Miller, Riverside

Vote ‘yes’ on ballot to keep Riverside going strong
We in Riverside are truly blessed to have a great place to live in a safe and beautiful village. We are further blessed with good neighboring villages, and the Brookfield Zoo, on all sides.

We and our good neighbors have, for many years, cared for infrastructure and public safety within our towns and whenever needed, mutually.  We must keep our village in step with increased costs of employees, mandated benefits and very real emergencies like flooding and tree-insect infestations for the benefit of all our people, and in fairness to our neighbors, who do their share.

Some of us question the need for a reserve and increases, but our Village Board of unpaid trustees has sought the advice of paid administrative and unpaid finance commission members. They have been given fiscally responsible advice and look to us for support before there is a deficit.

These are tough times for everyone, and it would be easy to vote no, but a no vote negates the recent high school and elementary school increases. What is the point of improving the schools if we don't support the streets, water mains, trees, police and fire personnel that make the schools what they are and can be?

Joseph DiNatale, Riverside

Writer urges support for tax hike referendum
The Riverside Village Board (unlike the corporate puppets in Washington and the Cabal that rules our state, county and city of Chicago) is a group of ladies and gentlemen whose reputation is beyond reproach.

I trust them and their judgment and will vote “yes” on the tax referendum. A reminder to those who are undecided: If you moved your house one mile in any direction it would depreciate nearly 50 percent. We have a gem here and let us keep it that way.

Donald Farnham, Riverside

Now not the right time to raise taxes in Riverside
The Riverside Village Board should be encouraged to reconsider any property or other tax increases at this time. People are aware of the costs and problems of maintaining the village, and most of the residents understand as they are also stressed by joblessness, decreases in wages and benefits, increased cost of living.

Village officials desire to maintain a high quality of service in the village, but they must realize, however difficult it may be, the village must pare down expenses, services and lower the budget to avoid any tax increase at this time, considering the state of the economy.

What do residents have to do with the present problems they face? They cut back drastically in many cases, especially those with large families and those with low or no income if out of work.

And what about the elderly on limited incomes in a time when savings interest rates are so low and investments are failing these citizens? What many residents are doing is painful to them.

They have been forced to cut back on necessities. Even of greater concern is that many are forced to sell their homes and some are losing them. Another reason to not increase taxes at this time is the most recent high property reassessment on real estate in Riverside at a time when property values have significantly decreased in value. This new reassessment will also bring more funding to Riverside, possibly making a tax hike unnecessary.

Yes, there are people who live in Riverside who are doing well and may desire the best of everything. They should be encouraged to understand there are a significant number of others who are in serious financial trouble.

There should not be any consideration of new or increased taxes at this time. The village should consider the present state of residents’ economic plights and caring and compassionate. If and when property taxes are raised, the village itself should make provisions not to raise property taxes of those property owners over age 65 or at least allow for only a very modest increase at best.

Paul Straka, Riverside

Writer wrong about referendum comments
In his letter published in the Oct. 4 edition of this newspaper, Mr. Mark Shevitz makes several inaccurate and misleading statements concerning Riverside’s upcoming property tax referendum.

First, Mr. Shevitz overstates the dollars that are in the village’s undesignated reserves by $450,000. The village does have an undesignated reserve of $950,000 that is held as an emergency fund, much in the same way that families set aside funds for their own emergencies.

Second, Mr. Shevitz states that the Village Board has “created an artificial budget crisis” by designating $1 million for capital projects. The village does not have a regular source of funds for capital projects. In other words, if money is not set aside by the Village Board for ensuring our facilities and assets do not deteriorate, such work will not get done. Mr. Shevitz would have us believe that maintenance of the village is cost free. Maintenance is not cost free. 

Third, Mr. Shevitz stated that “residents were not allowed to speak” at the recent meeting of the citizen-comprised Long Term Finance Committee. He implies residents were not able to participate — which is not true. Citizen comment was solicited repeatedly during the meeting, and each question was read aloud by the chair. To state otherwise is unfair to the residents serving on the Committee.

Finally, Mr. Shevitz states the Village Board is using “fear” and “threats” to explain the implications of the Nov. 4 referendum. Again, this is absolutely not the case. I would encourage all residents to go on to the village Web site and check the facts for themselves. Provided on the site is the budget for 2008, including projections for upcoming years. Also provided are several years of financial audits conducted by an external auditing firm. The Web site contains detailed information on the use of the proposed increase in tax dollars and a formula for calculating how much more in taxes a homeowner can expect to pay.

One can’t help but ask who really is using “fear,” “threats” and inaccuracies in talking about Riverside’s financial situation. An open dialogue based on the truth can only make our community stronger.

Jean Sussman, village of Riverside trustee

Village president believes tax hike should be passed
The media is filled with rhetoric pro and con about the Riverside tax referendum. Accusations are flying, signs are appearing and neighbors are talking.

On Nov. 4, the village of Riverside will ask residents to consider a property tax increase. If the additional revenues are approved, the village will be able to continue to provide services at existing levels. The village also will enhance service levels in certain areas that have been identified as high priority by the community and the Village Board.

After years of cutting all possible expenses that would not affect service levels, the Village Board has concluded: Without additional revenues, the next step is to cut expenses that impact service levels.

Space constraints will not allow me to fully describe here either the service enhancements proposed or the cuts to be implemented depending on the outcome of the vote. A full description of both is available at the village Web site.

Opponents of the referendum cite several disjointed and diverse accusations as reasons to vote “no.” However, they avoid confronting the underlying issue — revenue has not kept pace with the expense necessary to provide core service levels. When confronted with this fact, opponents simply say the Village Board should reduce expenses.

Now that the Village Board has identified serious service cuts to avoid substantial deficit spending in the future, opponents cry “foul.” They claim the Village Board is using intimidation to get a “yes” vote. They suggest that village savings be further depleted to maintain popular services that face reduction or elimination. They suggest that the Village Board has not been fiscally responsible. Repeatedly, the village has asked naysayers to bring forth their fiscally responsible plan for balancing our budget. But they have been either unwilling or unable to do so.

I recognize asking to impose additional taxes is always difficult. Neither I nor the Village Board takes this matter lightly. But I believe the cost is modest compared to the degradation of village services and the quality of life issues, which will occur if you turn down this proposal.

Jack Wiaduck, Riverside village president