| Author | Message | ||
     canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 440 Registered: 7-2001 |
I recently read an article in the Star-Ledger (link below) about redevelopment of Union's shopping district. Union has apparently hired the same person who was in charge of promoting the redevelopment plan for Springfield Ave, who is credited as having "helped turn around the shopping district on Springfield Ave." So I'm curious-is the Springfield Ave. redevelopment project considered complete? Is what's there now the sum total of the "turnaround"? It seems like there's a lot of work still to be done. The major improvements I see are the revitalization of the retail node between Prospect and Yale, the new Police Station, and the new condos where Orange Mattress used to be. Of these three, only one would seem to be attributable to Ms. Durso's efforts. Did the township get it's money's worth? I'm not so sure. http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1154887414280380.xml?starledger? nun&coll=1 | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater  Post Number: 2484 Registered: 10-2004 |
I would say that SA is heading in the right direction. I doubt anyone thinks it is complete. If we are lucky people will spend there money there, more useful stores will open up and the area will get even better. Personally, I see progress. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15331 Registered: 1-2003  |
Construction isn't even finished at the Vermont St crossing. | ||
| canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 441 Registered: 7-2001 |
I think the streetscaping looks great and is measurable progress. My point was that for all of the $$ that was spent on the marketing, promoting, and attempted luring of new retail, there's not a whole lot to show for it. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2487 Registered: 10-2004 |
I didn't get that point from your post actually. I think it is a bit unrealistic to think that SA is going to change overnight. Without people ACTUALLY shopping and spending money on SA, I don't really see how too many new stores are going to give it a go there. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7715 Registered: 10-2001 |
The SA redevelopment hasn't worked out. It's been highly disappointing. It's pretty obvious now it was more of a means to get elected as opposed to a means to improve Maplewood. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1955 Registered: 5-2001 |
The stores that have are in the area that's been fully "upgraded" have done quite well. | ||
| canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 442 Registered: 7-2001 |
Alley, I didn't expect changes overnight. I believe the TC first committed to the redevelopment/revitalization of SA in 1997, and nearly 10 years later we basically have what amounts to cosmetic changes. With all of the money that's been thrown to development consultants during this time, I expected more dramatic changes than what we've seen thus far. | ||
| blackcat Citizen Username: Blackcat Post Number: 722 Registered: 6-2001 |
What happened to the "Art Garden"? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8065 Registered: 5-2001 |
Canismajor: What sort of changes are you looking for? I've noticed far fewer empty storefronts, more pedestrian traffic, and more neighborhood destinations than we had a few years ago. This would seem like movement in a positive direction. On the otherhand, I miss some of the old community oriented stores such as Maplecrest Hardware and Starks which we lost along the way and which don't seem to have a chance of coming back; so to that extent, the redevelopment could be viewed as somethat disappointing. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 111 Registered: 3-2006 |
Big Dog, Where does it say that the redevelopment of SA is "complete"? Obviously what's there now is not the sum total. New things are on their way and surely more are to come. Do you consider the various new businesses cosmetic? I don't think they do. Joan, Home Depot and Lowe's have killed the neighborhood hardware store, and there's no way for any town redevelopment to bring it back. Sad, perhaps, but true. blackcat, the owner of the Art Garden decided that she had so much work visiting schools and other places to do workshops (perhaps not the right term), that it wasn't worthwhile to keep the storefront. So, the business is still going, just not in the store. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2488 Registered: 10-2004 |
I'm sorry, but there are some fabulous businesses you guys are selling short that opened up (or moved) to SA. To name just a few, netnomads, wooden you know, burnett bbq, springfields, stories in motion, the skate shop (blanked on the same sorry), and that's just a few. There are even more. So not only are USEFUL businesses opening up, but it just looks better in general. So maybe you think the progress just isn't enough for 10 years of spending (and you might be right) but I've been in town for 3 years (only) and I've even I've seen improvements. On the other hand, you could just TURN YOUR BRAINS OFF and listen to what Straw has to say. He's always right. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5541 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw will say what he says because the TC is controlled by Dems and therefore nothing good can happen. The Ave. could look like Upper Montclair and he'd just have to find a way to give the credit to Grasmere, and if it hadn't been for 15 years of Dem control it'd look like Madison Ave. in the 60s. | ||
| canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 443 Registered: 7-2001 |
I'm sorry, John, but I don't see 9 years gone by and a few new assorted indie businesses as a raging success story. Wasn't the plan to attract chain retail stores to serve as anchors to increase foot traffic? SA is still a wasteland after 6 pm. The chain retailers needed to spark a true turnaround won't touch SA with a ten-foot pole. The development planners recommend eminent domain as a remedy, but does anyone really think the TC has the political will to move forward with that? The best we can hope for is that condo developers will swoop in and replicate what's been done with the old Orange Mattress site. | ||
| phyllis Citizen Username: Phyllis Post Number: 572 Registered: 6-2001 |
I live right off Springfield and I have to say that the change in the 6 years since we've been here has been great. When we first moved here, we never went to the Ave and now I'm there several times a week. I do worry about some of the businesses, but I know some are thriving. Also, Bumper to Bumper just closed and the empty gas station on Yale has been torn down. Woo hoo! I've heard that condos are going up with retail on the ground floor - done by the same developer as the one working on the former Orange Mattress site. Canismajor - I could be completely clueless, but I never heard that the goal was to get chain retailers to the Ave. I'm not even sure that's what I'd want personally for my neighborhood (aside from a Trader Joes or Panera). In my dreams its more of a Bloomfield Ave in Montclair or Washington St. in Hoboken -neither of which has many chains and both of which have some old standbys and then the businesses which come and go. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15344 Registered: 1-2003 |
We have some sort of ordinance against chains. Maybe it's just against chain restaurants. So for better or worse, we have seen to it that they won't come. | ||
| cicely moncrieff Citizen Username: Cicely_m Post Number: 83 Registered: 1-2005 |
Tom-- really? There is an official ordinance? Where can I read it, do you know? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5738 Registered: 10-1999  |
I think Mr. Reingold is referring to the "fast-food ordinance", which was supposed to have an effect on restaurant chains like KFC. I don't think there's a chain store ordinance. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 113 Registered: 3-2006 |
There is no "no chain stores" ordinance. And I don't think there ever was a plan to bring chain stores to SA. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15348 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thank you for the clarification, nohero, Joan, and John. | ||
| cicely moncrieff Citizen Username: Cicely_m Post Number: 84 Registered: 1-2005 |
Can we set up a no-chain-stores ordinance?  | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7722 Registered: 10-2001 |
Chain stores aren't interested in SA. Not enough foot traffic, lousy parking, etc. It's better for the mom and pop shop but sadly in their case security is an issue. All told, SA hasn't worked out in a manner that's acceptable to tax payers in Maplewood. Vic and David have disappointed in this area. | ||
| frannyfree Citizen Username: Frannyfree Post Number: 239 Registered: 1-2004 |
Disappointed! I never went to SA to shop for 10 years...but in the last few years I find myself there plenty. The shops are attractive and destination stores are arriving more by the month. The new fencing facility is just AMAZING! Sorry...we are not all disappointed, Straw! | ||
| growler Citizen Username: Growler Post Number: 1000 Registered: 11-2001  |
There was a correction: A news article in Sunday's Union County edition erroneously stated Geri Durso helped oversee the revitalization of Springfield Avenue in neighboring Maplewood. She did not work for the Springfield Avenue Partnership in Maplewood. In an interview late last month Durso said she "saw what was done in Maplewood, and hopes to extend it all the way down Springfield Avenue in Union." Also in the article the marketing specialist denied numerous allegations that she is an ex-girlfriend of Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union). Yesterday, Cryan also stressed there was never a personal relationship between them. | ||
| canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 444 Registered: 7-2001 |
Thanks for pointing that out, Growler. I was about to beat a path to Ms. Durso's door to ask for a partial refund of my tax dollars. For anyone wanting to better acquaint themselves with the Township's plans for Springfield Ave., I suggest looking at the Redevelopment Plans available on the municipal website: http://maplewood.rutgers.edu/developments/econdevelopment/document_view | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7723 Registered: 10-2001 |
I think Frannyfree is a little confused.. While we all appreciate her purchasing coffee, candles, etc. on SA the purpose of the investment was to alleviate the tax burden being felt my homeowners..The goal was high end businesses desiring a spot on SA. This in turn would being mass shoppers and tax revenue.. This obviously hasn't happened since as you can see there is no Gap, no Superstore bookstores, etc. This was the original thought process. SA looks better and it does have a few wonderful stores but this should have been just the beginning instead of the norm. | ||
| deannel Citizen Username: Deannel Post Number: 171 Registered: 6-2001 |
strawberry, i just can't stand it anymore. Would you please explain how 'mass shoppers' become 'tax revenue'? We don't charge a municipal sales tax. How exactly do we transform those shoppers into tax revenue? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1957 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, This is the beginning. The stores you mention don't lead or create gentrification (which is what we are really talking about here), they follow it. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15360 Registered: 1-2003 |
I think (or hope) the aim is that commercial real estate would increase in volume and value, which would yield more property tax revenues. The patronage from retail business would, in theory, allow retail businesses to pay higher rent, which would, in turn, allow landlords to pay the higher taxes. I can't say if things really work this way. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 2714 Registered: 5-2001 |
What we are seeing on SA are small businesses that are thriving and attracting additional small businesses. Anyone familiar with the grain of rice theory? One little grain of rice looks like nothing. It's laughable to think of it as a serious source of sustenance. But, keep doubling it and you will eventually have a great pile from which to feed your family. Thriving small businesses work similarly. Looked at one-by-one they don't seem to amount to much. But the tide has turned on SA away from empty storefronts with their attendant crime and general deterioration of a community. Instead SA is moving forward, with interesting and varied new shops that draw people from the larger community. I've been watching the place for over 15 years now. It's looking better than ever. It's no longer a place I just drive through on the way to something else/better. I even look forward to traveling on SA these days (despite the traffic delays) just to see what's happening. It's not only about reducing taxes altho the net effect will likely be that down the road. Community change takes time, whether the change is good or bad. This change is GOOD and reasonable people celebrate that kind of success. | ||
| Jgberkeley Citizen Username: Jgberkeley Post Number: 4638 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, Parking problems on SA? It is a myth. I'm on the avenue every day. There is no parking problem. A couple of weeks back a school bus driver was able to park in the 1 hour area on SA & Prospect and go in to get her nails done. Last week I need a delivery and the lumber truck was able to pull up on the street parking directly in front of the store that I am working on. 3 slots were open in a row. Last week one of the store owners and I were on the sidewalk aroun 1 PM and counted 11 empty spaces on SA in front of the Prospect node stores. Yesterday I walked over to Burnett BBQ around 2 PM. Less than 25% of the Yale lot had cars in the slots. Not a day goes by that I need to pull into the Prospect lot for 30 minutes or so, it is a rare event that I do not find a spot to park. So what is this yap about a parking problem? I can take and post dated pictures if you would like. Later, George Berkeley | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7724 Registered: 10-2001 |
Well George, that's great. However if you took a poll and asked folks what keeps them away from SA this is what you'd find. 1) Concern over safety. 2) Parking 3) Other areas to shop 4) Not aware of businesses there. Now, regarding deannel, here's the answer since it seems as lf she may have been asleep during Economics 101. "Property tax is an annual tax on real property. It is usually, but not always, a local tax. It is most commonly founded on the concept of market value." So to break it down so even a child understands: More customers means better stores, better stores lead to higher rents which lead to higher property values and this all means more tax revenue for the township of Maplewood!...AND THAT MEANS YOU WOULD HOPE TAX RELIEF FOR THE HOMEOWNER.. Again the original goal of the SA development. My guess is deannel is actually one of our TC members with questions like that..  | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2495 Registered: 10-2004 |
Just a few of the many benefits to be gained if the Maplewood Town Council was comprised of only Republicans 1) The world would be a better place (AKA - World Peace) 2) Springfield Avenue would be better than Rodeo Boulevard 3) Everyone would pay SIGNIFICANTLY less taxes 4) The Democrats would suffer (finally as they deserve to do so) 5) Maybe we'd finally hear Straw shut up already (although that's extremely doubtful) | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7725 Registered: 10-2001 |
All of the above except 5 | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2373 Registered: 8-2003  |
but only if we had another reval. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5553 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, if you knew who deannel was and her background, you'd sink into your shoes and die from embarassment (yes, even you). It's in fact perfectly ridiculous that you're commenting on new businesses on Springfield Ave. without knowing her personally. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7726 Registered: 10-2001 |
People of wealth much like myself don't die of embarrassment. We just become richer. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5556 Registered: 5-2001 |
People of wealth like yourself shouldn't be all in a lather about a few bucks in property taxes here and there. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15364 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't think I'm revealing a secret, so I hope deannel doesn't mind my saying that she is the proprietor of Netnomads Cafe on Springfield Ave. | ||
| deannel Citizen Username: Deannel Post Number: 172 Registered: 6-2001 |
lol tom, thanks, but who i am doesn't matter. I am actually kind of stumped. I am not trying to be socratic here; I really don't understand how all these people think all these big stores are going to solve our tax problems. straw: That would all work, i suppose, as long as you don't take into account all the investment it takes to attract the better stores, not to mention all the land that has to be allocated to parking (which generally doesn't get assessed at top dollar). The better stores have to do VOLUME, in order to pay those HIGH RENTS, and most of them tend to require parking. And in the end, as residents we end up paying the tax anyway, in the higher PRICES that the merchants charge in order to pay the higher RENTS. But then, subtracting COSTS, from REVENUES, was in econ 201... There have been some cool studies done on this issue, but the one I'm thinking of studied Barnstable, Ma. Key findings: Big box retail, shopping centers, and fast-food restaurants cost taxpayers in Barnstable, Massachusetts, more than they produce in revenue. The study compares the tax revenue generated by different kinds of residential and commercial development with the actual cost of providing public services for each land use. Big box retail generates a net annual deficit of $468 per 1,000 square feet, shopping centers a deficit of $314, and fast-food restaurants a deficit of $5,168 per 1,000 square feet. In contrast, the study found that specialty retail, which includes small-scale businesses, has a positive impact on pubic revenue (i.e., it generates more tax revenue than it costs to service). Specialty retail produces a net annual return of $326 per 1,000 square feet (excerpted from ILSR). www.amiba.net/pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdf If you get as far as the charts in that report, you'll see that the big costs of retail are in police and public works. That makes sense if you think about it.} |
