| Author |
Message |
    
Mlj
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 12:27 pm: |     |
We very much miss Maplecrest Hardware and Karl's. We have shopped at DiPietro and Ricciardi for years. Also World Tire. Very, very happy to learn that adult store is gone. Thanks, Jerry for posting that. |
Patty
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 12:48 pm: | |
Note to Njjoseph: the Ziti's site will have a new restaurant, "Verjus," run by a Maplewoodian chef with a New York pedigree, who aims to make it affordable but delish.
Also, another vote for DiPietro's. Great neighborhood store! |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 1:45 pm: | |
Any idea when "Verjus" is planning to open? And has the chef cooked anywhere in Maplewood before? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 1:53 pm: | |
Can't wait -- if you hear of it's opening, please let us know!
Mlj -- I'd love to have Karl's here, too! |
Harold
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 6:02 pm: | |
A few things guys: there is no CVS on Spring.
Also, there are TWO porn shops ....one at Spring. and Boyden,[not the one that closed...another one across the street] the other at Spring and Prospect.
My wife and I were not too happy with two porn shops so close to Seth Boyden and one close to St. Joe's.
Unfortunately, the fine french restaurant is scheduled to close soon.
When we first moved here, there was a bakery,butcher shop, a five & dime,hardware store,etc.,...you get the point. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 8:02 pm: | |
Okay, Harold, you got me. It's a Rite-Aid (I think, I'm still relying on my imperfect "mental inventory". I'm still at work, so forgive me).
I must confess, I just have no idea what the "porn shop" at Springfield and Prospect is. If you include places that sell "Playboy" in your definition, that's a different story.
As for your last point, Harold, since you do such a fine job talking up our community to people from other places, I can't imagine why those other businesses you mention would no longer be on the avenue. (If there was an irony emoticon, I'd put it here). |
Dave
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 9:44 pm: | |
This is the irony emoticon
:-\ |
Harold
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 9:55 pm: | |
In my definition, places that sell "Playboy" are not porn shops [you can probably get Playboy at Barnes & Noble]. What do you think a "porn" store is?
Yep, those stores are no longer in business because of me. :-/ .
At the corner of Spring. & Prospect. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 11:41 pm: | |
Dave - Unfortunately, one can get a lot of use out of an irony emoticon on this board.
Harold - (Even though I am now violating Step 10) I still do not know what businesses you are referring to as "Porn Shops", given the locations you describe.
As for irony - no, I do not think that you single-handedly caused the deterioration of Springfield Avenue (Don't you read my other posts? It was the party no longer in power.  ).
However, you seem to embody an attitude that says, "There's nothing good about this town, let's turn our back on the stores, the schools, and the people". A lot of us do not feel that way. See you on the Avenue. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:22 am: | |
Gosh folks. I start talking about Springfield Avenue and the fact it appears to be doing pretty well from a business point of view. Casually I mention that there is a "porn shop". The whole conversations seems to be about porn shops. LOL
One of the speakers at the TC meeting on Tuesday said that the Township was going to spend $10mil on Springfield Ave. improvements. I find this hard to believe, but no member of the TC disputed this. Is this the case?
From Mr. Ryan's spread sheet I added up the change in assessment for the entire street and find that taxes are being reduced by over $1,1mil!!
What is going on? I travel a fair amount and almost every area I visit has a street like Springfield Avenue. A street with auto dealers, repair shops, etc. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:12 am: | |
First of all, your assumption that the fact that they stay a long time means they must be making money isn't necessarily so. A lot of those businesses own their buildings and don't have to cover rent. They should be calculating the 'opportunity cost' of renting it out to someone else as a cost of doing business..but frequently the high personal toll of starting over somewhere else tends to keep them where they are even when it isn't profitable, strictly speaking. When it comes time to retire, the numbers just aren't there to continue. Lou Rose had a very successful flower shop there. His son, Jerry, chose to move to the village and is doing quite well.
A lot of those owners also live here in town and are loathe to give up. Maplecrest Hardware fought pretty hard. The owner was involved in starting the 'springfield avenue project' and i think the owner of maplewood tire is very pro-active as well. The owners of Di Pietro's also live in Maplewood, and that store has been there some 35 years. Anyone who has been involved in this town a long time understands that the avenue is vitally important to the continued vitality of this town. Some of them are committed to that.
I don't see how lowering their taxes can be called 'social engineering'. No one has answered my question, but i don't think it is legal to tax their property any differently than any other, based on market value. The market value of those properties has dropped.
They are, however, an important amount of the tax base of this town (as you have aptly pointed out by quantifying what it is costing us to let it go.) Spending money to get that area back up to snuff is the best way i can see to reduce the tax burden for residential homeowners. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:02 am: | |
Harold stated that the french restaurant, which I assume to be Le Jardin, is closing. Can anyone verify this? I'm new here, but it's the next restaurant on my "romantic evenings" list. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:08 pm: | |
Melidere:
Unless you have an unlimited amount of capital and are willing to shovel it down a bottomless hole, if you are not making money in a business you either go bankrupt or close it before you go bankrupt.
While a Starbucks may be, on a square foot basis, more profitable than a button store, the button store wouldn't remain in business if it was not making a profit.
My arguement is that we have given Springfield Ave. a huge tax break. Was it justified? Since many of the commercial buildings have apartments on the second floor and above is rent control an issue as Mr. Nolan suggests? Should the town spend $10,000,000 (if that is the number) to try to get rid of the button stores and bring in the Starbucks? Can a street that is a main approach road for downtown Newark be turned into Yuppie Heaven? Is its current use for auto dealers, tire stores, deli (see I didn't forget this time) a realistic use and the best that can be expected? |
Jfb
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:56 pm: | |
As my mother likes to say, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
I wonder if that is what we are trying to do with Springfield Ave.
Make a "Maplewood Village" out of a strip of necessary but less than glamorous businesses.
To add to the mix, these businesses are spread out over a mile on a thoroughfare from Irvington/Newark to the Home Depot/Rt. 78.
To borrow seven million for this may be a mistake... |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:10 pm: | |
I think if we added a supermarket to Springfield, that might encourage more people over to Springfield. I don't go to the King's on the weekend because I'd do major shopping and don't want to carry all the bags so far to the parking lot. I go to stores in other towns for my weekly, and go to King's for supplementals during the week.
Plus, as much as I like King's, when I go in for some specific merchandise that I'm used to my old King's as having, I can't find it. The King's in town is too small to carry everything. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:35 pm: | |
bobk
you are absolutely right...but 'opportunity costs' can be hidden.
If i own a building worth 500,000 free and clear, and i have my business there, i may well be able to afford the taxes on the building with the cash flow from the business, and consequently i am 'making money'.
However, if i have to rent that building for $5000 a month, it may well be that the cash flow from the building doesn't cover my costs.
The owner ought to realistically be including the 'opportunity cost' of the $5000 in foregone rent against his revenue and would see that he/she is 'losing' money.
Most don't, however. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:43 pm: | |
As to the other question, we haven't 'given' the owners of those businesses anything. Property taxes are based on property values and i don't think they are any different. (i keep waiting for someone to point out a way we can tax these business higher mil rates...but no one is coming forward).
The property values on the avenue, and the houses surrounding the avenue, have not kept pace with the rest of the town.
If we want to equate the avenue, and the surrounding communities, to a 'sow's ear', we are perfectly free to do so. We've just been handed the bill. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Melidere:
I believe commercial real estate is taxed on economic return. I know the mil rate is the same as for residential and that is fine.
Given was a poor choice of words I admit.
I guess most of the building owners on Springfield also operate a businees and thus are in the same boat as you are as respects opportunity costs. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 3:29 pm: | |
i don't understand what you mean about taxed on economic return.
you mean corporate income taxes? |
Nolan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 4:29 pm: | |
Any rental is analyzed as a commercial property the value of which depends on its income generating potential, basically its investment value. Since rent control imposes limits on revenues without limiting costs it reduces value. It generally reduces other values by tending to discourage maintenance and capital improvements. This last aspect also tends to run down property values surrounding the rent controlled property. By the way, as the allowable increase in rent is tied to the CPI, for year 2000, a 2% increase was the legal limit in Maplewood, absent special cases too complicated for the space here. Since most of the approxiamtely 200 rent controlled properties arein the eastern regions of the township, it has obviously pushed down values there for residential units and also stores with upper level apartments, thereby increasing the burden elsewhere. Everyone who owns property on the east side is getting shafted by this ordinance as are those who own elsewhere in town. The entire TC is responsible for this atrocity except for Burt Liebman. They will tell you there are justifications for it or that there are ways to get relief from it. No answer given by any of them survives the smell test. The ordinance survived only as a political sop to renters in a situation where the proponents know that the cost of the ordinance to the people of the town is hard to measure (which by no means suggest the cost is not large). When I put this on the 2000 EDC agenda, Vic Deluca violently objected and we were told that we had no business studying the impact of rent control. Draw your own conclusions. I hope this is useful to wake up my fellow Maplewoodians to this fraud on the tax payers. |
|