From today's Daily Illini:
The village is currently debating the addition of a new bus route along Route 45. Savoy Village President Robert C. McCleary, said the annexation of a new route has been debated for two years.
"Mass Transit District has supplied service to about a third to a half of the community and some business developers have asked to see if Mass Transit could be brought in to other parts."
None of the village's current routes will be affected. Chairman of the Mass Transit District Al Anderson said what will change is that the routes will pass by new developments.
"We will not annex any of the current, call it housing partial, for the next 25 years, but we will have the option on annexing newly built housing and newly built apartments," Anderson said.
Discuss.
I am totally against the MTD going into Savoy at all.
If Savoy doesn't pay for it, why should Savoy get MTD service?
"If Savoy doesn't pay for it, why should Savoy get MTD service?"
Get a clue junior. The whole point of MTD providing bus routes in Savoy is to get their hands on Savoy property tax dollars.
Here's a wild thought. If you need MTD bus service, maybe you shouldn't move into an apartment in Savoy. Crazy I know.
Many of the people in the Savoy apartments are already paying for MTD service through their student fees. In effect, MTD gets double taxation for these folks.
"Many of the people in the Savoy apartments are already paying for MTD service through their student fees. In effect, MTD gets double taxation for these folks."
Not to mention their Federal and State tax dollars. It's not as if MTD relies only on property taxes.
Many of the people in the Savoy apartments are already paying for MTD service through their student fees. In effect, MTD gets double taxation for these folks.
That's true for all of the students living in Champaign and Urbana.
Anon 09:40 - Surely you're aware that "The Village" (if in fact we're talking about that development, as seems likely) is pretty much aimed only at students? This is a business model taking hold in college towns around the US, they build "luxury" places in the sprawl outskirts of the towns with amenities aimed at students. The condo version is only the next step after the apartments on North Lincoln (those apartments led to expansion of the 13 Silver service, IIRC - certainly the articulated bus use there). But so, without the student audience, that development wouldn't come to Savoy in the first place, and wouldn't make the tax value of that land increase.
I find it crazy students would want to live out there, but the developers of that particular complex are aiming it at students and were assuming (possibly wrongly, from the POV of the anti-MTD folks at the trustees meeting) that MTD would be serving them, as the little private vans aren't keeping up.
AH, the giant approaches! Can you hear the GOBBLE SOUND? Once again, the MTD will come to your town, wither you need it or not. The whole end game is to grab even more tax dollars from SAVOY, whether they like it or not.
Tolono, Mahomet and St. Joe are next. Chomp chomp!
I thought MTD professed to be anti-sprawl. By serving far-flung greenfield housing developments, aren't they actually stimulating sprawl?
I think MTD's perfect world is a whole bunch of far-flung attractions which create demand for transportation. Wouldn't it be better if government entities were working together to facilitate compact, dense, and therefore energy-frugal development??
Whose needs is MTD serving?
"That's true for all of the students living in Champaign and Urbana."
No, dipstick. Think again. Students in university-owned housing are not contributing to any property taxes since UIUC doesn't pay property taxes.
So the people who make the most frivilous AND FREQUENT use of the MTD are also the people who pay the least. Redundant with respect to frvilous, but these are the people who least need MTD. They should be walking their fat butts to class, not riding on buses.
To be fair to students, I think they have to pay some kind of fee which supports MTD, whether they agree with it or not.
Champaign Dweller is right - the students pay a fee on their UIUC bill.
While the students can certainly "walk their fat butts to class" (and many of them do - have you tried driving across any intersection in campustown at 10 to the hour?) many students use the bus to go to North Prospect. This allows at least a few of them to forego bringing yet more cars to town - surf over a few threads and you can find the posts about the lack of supermarkets near campus or downtown. Lots of students do their shopping at Meijer and the like on Friday evenings and weekends.
I do wonder about all these far flung greenfield housing developments, but not only the ones being served by the MTD. I'm not sure how any negotiations happened. If MTD had said flat out they will not serve the area, would that developer have built it elsewhere? Or just not built it at all? Do we even need such complexes? Someone is buying them, anyway. And Savoy will get a portion of those increased property taxes, won't it? Probably that's a nice plum to the city government - the residents pay some taxes to the MTD, but they also pay Savoy, and Savoy gets to talk about having attracted "development."
Akibare, you make good points. The only problem is that the developer built the parcel prior to any MTD service going there. It was a possibility, but no guarantee. If MTD service was important to his development, he should have waited for a decision on this issue. I tend to think it is not important to him/her because it's been in the planning stage all throughout the time that the Savoy Village Board expressed a desire to stay out of the MTD.
"To be fair to students, I think they have to pay some kind of fee which supports MTD, whether they agree with it or not."
You missed the point. Prior poster claimed that all students pay MTD fee AND property taxes (via apartment leases). This is simply not true of dormites - they pay only the fee. But they're the most intense users of MTD. People who live 5 miles from campus don't ride back and forth all day long. People who live in dorms ride many times a day.
It is disappointing to see posters saying that the students are lazy and should "walk their fat butts to class" since this is exactly what they are doing. Walking is the primary transportation mode on campus. I would speculate that more of us on this blog could stand to walk our "fat butts" than the students. You can look at the numbers if you do not believe me on this website: www.ihavemiplan.com/results/index.html
Also, the students vote to pay a semester fee every three years for enhanced service in the University District. If you look at the way they use the MTD you will see that they are using the buses to go shopping, to the movies, to work, etc. Those trips outside of the University District benefit the community and are not being paid for directly through the student fees. So, the point is that those students who choose to live off campus in locations farther from campus are not paying double. They are paying for extra service on campus and the property taxes are supporting the routes that take them from the outlying areas into the campus.
The students are not lazy nor are they making frivolous use of the MTD. If they were driving we would be sitting n a giagantic traffic jam every day because there are 40,000 of them and 10,000 faculty and staff. The university is the economic engine of this community. If we do not support the university and more of the money starts going to the campus in Chicago this community will suffer badly.
If students are choosing to live in apartment complexes in Savoy it is because the village wanted the apartments there for the revenues that it will generate for the village. Savoy approved the apartments and MTD has nothing to do with that. The representative for the apartment complex said at the public meetings that they invested in the village because they were told that they could request to be annexed into the MTD district when they asked. I find it interesting that Joan wants to deny them the choice to be in the district.
MTD should select a finite service area. They should offer frequent, reliable service within that finite area. Those who need service can self-select into the area. To the extent that there is more demand for real estate in the finite service area, property values will rise and density will increase. Those who don't need service can self-select outside of the service area, and save money on taxes.
It just doesn't make sense for MTD to provide service to far-flung developments. We should be trying to prevent sprawl rather than supporting it wherever it arises.
I think you're going to have a hard time persuading the MTD to do anything but continue to expand. They seem to have a voracious appetite for territory and taxes--they continue to build up their reserves, and I suspect at some time in the near future, the light rail issue is going to come up again, only this time they're going to argue they already have their share banked, and therefore they shouldn't require any other approval.
"If they were driving we would be sitting n a giagantic traffic jam every day because there are 40,000 of them and 10,000 faculty and staff."
Thanks for posting an idiotic argument, MTD person.
Dorm residents' alternatives are self-propelled transportation (foot and bicycle) and MTD. Their alternatives do not include automobiles. Furthermore, automobiles are simply not relevant for a ride from the library to Lincoln Hall.
The point being made is that people who can actually make relevant use of MTD, those who do not live in dorms, pay twice. They pay in the form of the property tax component of their rent and in the form of MTD fees. Those who live in dorms do not pay twice, because UIUC dorms do not pay property taxes. Yet, these users who pay ONLY the MTD fees and not the property taxes (ergo, they pay less) are the ones that make use of routes which are primarly patronized by people taking extremely short rides.
I love when you post here, because it's so obvious. Is that you, Carl? Volk? Stubbe?
Why do you all hate the students so much?
They have a right to use public transportation just like anyone else. Just because the U of I has gotten them a deal, a volume discount, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to ride a bus for 4 blocks. If you buy an annual bus pass, you too can ride a bus for a few blocks, or all around town.
Why don't you try going without your cars for a while. You can walk to Wal-Mart from anywhere in Savoy, and pull a cart of groceries back with you. Or walk to Carle or Provena, or Menards or Lowes.
See how you like it.
Perhaps you missed the part of my post that points out that the students are walking on campus as the primary way of moving around???? Maybe you also missed the part about the students using the MTD to get to the grocery store, movie theater, work, etc. The students who live on campus pay for the high level of service on campus and if it were not there more of them might bicycle. Now, let's consider what would happen if most of the students were bicycling. They would be all over the streets, sidewalks, etc. Given their current cycling behavior it would be chaos. Those who live off campus do pay the student fees and their landlord pays property taxes. All of the students use our roads, sidewalks, etc. and none of them pay property taxes for those services.
BTW, you should get a clue. I am not Karl, or Volk and Stubbe left for Chicago a year ago.
Oh, also, I am not a MTD person, whatever that means. Some of us have had the opportunity to live other places and realize what an incredible asset the transit system is here to the community. I doubt the staff at MTD have the time to read this blog and if they did I doubt they would bother to respond since it is usually inaccurate, irrational, and reactionary. I just enjoy the opportunity to respond to this without having to wipe the spittle off my face when I have these "discussions" with some of you in person.
Dorm residents' alternatives are self-propelled transportation (foot and bicycle) and MTD. Their alternatives do not include automobiles.
Hello. Lots of dorm residents have automobiles. Who do you think parks in those huge lots on the south side of Kirby west of Lincoln????? And students who live in the Six Pack often rent parking spaces from nearby landloards with excess spaces.
I might have to start posting this every time I post anything about the MTD, even though it seems obvious: criticizing CUMTD or a particular CUMTD action doesn't equal criticism of all mass transit.
Gordy..maybe he would be happy with Bruno's, and Volk's light rail system,,,,,we could all sing "Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat"
So, you consider describing the MTD as an overlord to be a valid cricizism? Very interesting. Those of us using the MTD shouldn't take it personally when folks in Savoy lob insults, name-call, and talk about how they don't want the people who ride the bus in the community.
None of us should be offended or think you are deliberately being inflammatory and attempting to create as much hostility as possible toward the MTD? I doubt that even you would claim that your "criticisms" are intended to constructive and trigger healthy disucssion. In fact, one could interprete your posts as demagogic. So, if you are going to dish it out expect it to come back at you and playing the innocent card or pretending that other people are over reacting isn't going to work.
Wow... humor is just lost on some people. At least it isn't getting as ugly as my soviet church photoshop... but sheesh! It was a Simpson's line for crying out loud.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
This group of posts represents this site at its best in dysfunctionality.
I guarantee that most of the students who have cars here still aren't driving to class. Why? Because there's no place to park.
MTD should be in Savoy. If you don't like it, move, or stop paying your taxes as some crazy form of civil disobedience.
I knew some people wouldn't get it, so that's why I included the link.
Oh, well.
:-)
The representative for the apartment complex said at the public meetings that they invested in the village because they were told that they could request to be annexed into the MTD district when they asked. I find it interesting that Joan wants to deny them the choice to be in the district.
I believe that people who are contiguous to the MTD can request to be annexed. You can probably count on a horse's hand how many taxpayers have done that. Joan isn't denying anyone the right to be in the district. Anyone who purchases property that is not contiguous has denied themselves that right.
If the developer was told that they could get in the MTD, then they were misled and they ought to tell the public who misled them. That person should be disciplined or fired or kicked out of office.
Interesting that people want some out of town developer to have a "choice" but don't care about the people in savoy who won't have a choice.
But the village could solve this easily. Give everyone a choice. Put it on the ballot. That would be fun to watch.
MTD should be in Savoy. If you don't like it, move,
I like that. You tell all the people that already live in Savoy to get out because some developer who doesn't live in Savoy wants MTD.
"You tell all the people that already live in Savoy to get out because some developer who doesn't live in Savoy wants MTD."
I'm not sure how it matters where the developer lives. When there are apartments, people need transportation. Not everyone has a car or can afford one, especially with gas prices soaring.
Should they not live in Savoy if that is the case? That's what you seem to be saying. That's why I added the part about moving. If you don't want to, then chances are high they don't want to, either.
Here's part of the problem. The developer built in Savoy, and at least now claims that he was told he would get MTD services to his apartments. The Village of Savoy now uses the existence of those apartments as a reason why there should be forced annexation of the businesses that are needed to get to continguity with those apartments. Shouldn't the Village have been having those discussions with the businesses and citizens before the apartments were built?
Should they not live in Savoy if that is the case?
That's exactly right. people without cars should not be living in places wihtout mass transit. They shouldn't be living at the corner of 700N and 800E. People who don't like the smell of sea water, ought not buy on the ocean. People who don't like heights shouldn't live at the top of the sears tower.
Is it that difficult for people to make decisions about where they live based on their circumstances and to make some wise choices? The lack of MTD service was open and obvious. No one snuck up on these people. If there is someone who lives in Murdock and wants transportation to the U of I, should we then provide service there?
"That's exactly right. people without cars should not be living in places wihtout mass transit. They shouldn't be living at the corner of 700N and 800E. People who don't like the smell of sea water, ought not buy on the ocean. People who don't like heights shouldn't live at the top of the sears tower."
And I guess people who don't like MTD taxes shouldn't live in areas contiguous to the district.
"If there is someone who lives in Murdock and wants transportation to the U of I, should we then provide service there?"
And thus begins the parade of extreme ad hominem arguments. I'm sure we'll see a few hundred of these before we're through.
"Shouldn't the Village have been having those discussions with the businesses and citizens before the apartments were built?"
You wouldn't expect a bunch of peons with no education to think a move or two ahead in a game of chess, would you? Why would you expect that the rednecks running Savoy would behave any differently?
Tempus fugit, Savoy reactionaries, tempus fugit.
You wouldn't expect a bunch of peons with no education to think a move or two ahead in a game of chess, would you? Why would you expect that the rednecks running Savoy would behave any differently?
Actually, I would have expected the guy who sunk millions of dollars intoa project in Savoy to have gotten that done first.
Good point. The investor thought three steps ahead. Savoy thought no steps ahead. Investor got to use Savoy. Cool!
The investor will have used Savoy if they in fact get MTD. But that is no guarantee, so the investor was taking a big risk.
The Anon Army knows Savoy got teabagged.
The Anon Army: On the march again.
No, dipstick. Think again. Students in university-owned housing are not contributing to any property taxes since UIUC doesn't pay property taxes.
That's only true for students that spend their entire collegiate career in the dorms. If, like most students, they spend the first one or two semesters in a dorm, they still pay property taxes AND the student fee.
Oh, and I appreciate the mature name-calling. I don't know if I've ever been called "dipstick" before, so it's at least got that.
Egads. When a student moves out of the dorm, another replaces him/her. So at any given time, there is a population of students who are paying NO PROPERTY TAXES, just MTD fees, and those are the same people who overuse the unnecessary routes.
So at any given time, there is a population of students who are paying NO PROPERTY TAXES, just MTD fees, and those are the same people who overuse the unnecessary routes.
Eh, more than 40,000 students paying $76/year is over $3 million. I doubt they're really using more than $3 million in services. In fact, the MTD's contract with the U of I is fixed, so blame the MTD for supposedly underbilling the U of I - not the students taking buses they paid for.
At any given time, 3/4 of the students are paying property taxes and the student fee, and 1/4 are paying the fee. I'm sure that works out to more dollars per student than community members pay per person.
That's enough with the insults.
Anon 8:53, if you want to repost your comment without being insulting, I'll allow it.
ok, so the MTD routes are unnecessary, and they're also overused? contradict yourself much?
That's not necessarily a contradiction - CUMTD has many routes, and some are more popular than others.