| Author |
Message |
    
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:31 am: |     |
On Thursday, May 1, 2003 at 8:00 p.m., the Maplewood Township Committee will hold an Open Public Meeting regarding a proposed settlement of the lawsuit brought against the Township of Maplewood and the Maplewood Board of Adjustment by the Estate of Cantor for the property located at 1578-82, 1584-96 and 1608 Springfield Avenue, formerly the site of Apter Chapel. The meeting will be at the Maplewood Municipal Building, 574 Valley Street.
The legal issues involved in the case will be presented and the settlement terms will be described. The public will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments during the meeting. At the conclusion of the public comments, the Township Committee will consider a resolution to settle the lawsuit.
All interested parties are invited to attend.
Individuals within 200 feet of the properties in question, individuals who testified at the hearings before the Board of Adjustment, and members of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Board have also received letters with this notification
Jerry Ryan |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:06 am: | |
Jerry,
For the sake of time management at the meeting,and for those of us unable to attend the meeting, will you be willing to answer any questions here on line?
Thank you for the notice. Art |
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 12:43 pm: | |
I forgot to put my usual note in the posting: if you have questions about the agenda, please post them here as a followup to this thread and I will try and get them answered.
Jerry Ryan |
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1195
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 1:06 pm: | |
Here is a more detailed agenda from the Clerk's office.
Jerry
-----
AGENDA
TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD
THURSDAY MAY 1, 2003
1. SALUTE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG
2. STATEMENT
3. ROLL CALL
4. STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR
5. PRESENTATION BY TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY
6. COMMENTS BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTORNEY
7. COMMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER- DAY SAINTS
8. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
9. DISCUSSION BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION – Regarding Proposed
Settlement of Cantor litigation
11. ADJOURNMENT – To meet again Tuesday May 6, 2003, 7:30 P.M.
|
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1363
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 11:23 pm: | |
Jerry
1) Please post a summary of the legal issues.
2) Did the TC deny the proposed use properly?
3) If the TC acted properly, why litigation?
4) If the TC acted properly, why settle?
5) How much tax should that site pay?
6) Would the proposed use pay no tax?
7) Has the TC already decided to settle?
8) Will a decision be made Wed night?
9) Would settling set a bad precedent?
10)According to the Springfield Avenue Master Plan, what is the ideal, tax-paying ratable for that site?
Ed May |
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 12:34 am: | |
Ed: You have many of the details wrong here, let me try to give you some correct information and address some of your questions. Hope this helps.
-jerry ryan
-----
(2) An application was made to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to put a church into the Apter site, not to the TC. The board denied the variance based on the evidence presented, which is the proper way to grant or deny such variances. I think they acted properly. This, by the way, had nothing to do with the Township Committee.
(1 and 3) The applicant sued the board of adjustment claiming that they had acted improperly, and the township claiming that the town's zoning violated RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). That act says that you can't treat churches different from other places of public assembly. You may remember that the township made some changes to the zoning ordinances on Springfield Ave in an attempt to get itself out of the RLUIPA suit.
You'd have to ask the person who sued why they sued.
(4) Why settle this, or any lawsuit?
Is the cost associated with defending a suit prohibitive to the taxpayers? (One could argue that RLUIPA is unconstitutional and will eventually be found to be so, just as its predecessor was. I wouldn't spend our taxpayers dollars to challenge it up to the Supreme Court, especially if one's opponent is well funded and does not have taxpayers to answer to.) Is what happens as a result of a settlement better than any risk associated with a suit going forward? Does the total of any money received as part of a settlement, plus the avoidance of any legal fees, plus the elimination of risk of a suit, result in a net benefit?
Those are the factors I would look at in deciding to settle or not settle.
5) I don't know off the top of my head here. It will be discussed at the meeting and will be a consideration about accepting a settlement offer or not.
6) Yes, it is a church and would be exempt.
7) The TC has discussed proposed terms a settlement. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss it with the public and have comments and questions from the public before making a decision... so, no, no decision has been made yet.
8) I would think so.
9) I think not.
10) The "MAPLEWOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN", was written by Abeles Philips Preiss & Shapiro back in in 1999; the Township Committee and Planning Board have been guided by this plan, which laid out much of the improvements and changes on the Avenue that we've been working to implement. The site is near one of the pedestrian nodes but is not actually in one, and it has lots of parking. This suggests a retail use like an apparel store, food/grocery store, or a restaurant. |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:36 am: | |
Jerry
Thank you for you quick but detailed answers to all ten of my questions. I think I have a better understanding now, and do plan to be at the meeting. I guess what I do not understand is: by settling would we get a church, or does the church go elsewhere, in which case Springfield Avenue gets the opportunity to bring in a ratable?
Ed May |
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
Settling the suit means that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would move into the Apter building. |
eliz
Citizen
Username: Eliz
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Does the lost tax revenue over say a 5 to 7 year period exceed the legal costs to fight the lawsuit?
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 1236
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:00 pm: | |
Jerry, a few answers please...
Is this suit on a fast track? If so, who put it on and why?
What will it cost to begin to defend this suit, can't Roger's firm begin the process, and couln't it be settled anywhere along the way?
Does the TC have to make the decision to settle Thursday night, and if so, why on such short public notice?
Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a litigant along with the Cantor Estate, and will copies of the lawsuit be available for the public to see?
Has the Cantor Estate been asked to consider any other developer, and/or a better offer?
Thank you. Art. |
Tom Carlson
Citizen
Username: Tomcarlson
Post Number: 61
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Jerry,
Will this special meeting be televised on Channel 35? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
I think Ajc's questions touched on an important point - who exactly is the plaintiff right now? If the Cantor Estate is the owner/plaintiff, it isn't seeking a religious use for the site, it's just trying to sell it. If the LDS church isn't a plaintiff, and wasn't on the application for the variance, then does their involvement technically matter, for purposes of the viability of the RLUIPA claim? Without an actual religious institution as an owner/applicant/plaintiff, is there an viable claim against the Township at this time? And, is there a pressing need to make the decision on settlement at the meeting on Thursday?
Let me add that, in light of the obvious seriousness of the decision on the settlement proposal (whichever way it goes), I think that the Township Committee's decision to hold the public session on this, and include presentations from interested parties, is a good one.
|
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:01 pm: | |
Eliz:
Don't know numbers off the top of my head, exactly, but there is some compensation in the settlement offer.
Art:
No disrespect intended to the legal profession, but I don't know of ANYTHING that goes fast in the courts. I don't think this is on a "fast track".
My experience is that settlement discussions go on constantly, sometimes even while trials are going on. So... it does not have to be settled tomorrow, or ever for that matter. There is, however, a cost and a risk associated with every decision, and the deal offered is likely to be different at different times during a case, depending on how much money has been spent to date, how people feel about their chances going forward, etc. All those factors determine how a settlement offer looks and how one might feel about accepting it.
Tomorrow night I expect to hear about legal costs to date and projected future costs. Understand that another consideration here is that there is a significant penalty (multiples of damages and legal fees) if the township is unsuccessful.
The township does not HAVE to decide to settle on Thursday night. If the township DOES decide to settle, it has NOT been done with "short public notice". In our ever-present interest in open government, the township committee made a special effort to go far over and above the minimum requirements here: we called a special meeting, we noticed it in the papers, and we sent personal letters to every interested party pretty far in advance of the meeting. That does not sound like "short notice" to me! 
The LDS church IS a party in the suit. The courts permitted them to be substituted for the church that originally made the application. We fought that ruling (because actions of the Board of Adjustment are on a case by case basis, and because the LDS church is a different church from the original applicant, we felt that they should NOT be allowed to substitute, and should instead file their own application and be heard on the merits of their OWN requests). We were not successful.
I do not know what the status of legal paperwork on this case might be, sorry. I don't know what is public and what is not. The draft settlement agreement will be public.
I know that a lot of people have asked the estate to entertain other offers. Better is for them to decide, I would think.
Tom:
I expect so.
Jerry Ryan |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Jerry - Thanks for the information. It really helps explain the issue you're considering on Thursday. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:06 pm: | |
Jerry,
Good info, and a timely response, the public attending the meeting certainly has a frame of reference they didn't before.
Who exactly is bringing the suit? And who are the attorneys for the plaintiffs?
While I'd rather have a ratable, having a church might be a good community anchor at the east end of Springfield Ave.
|
Jerry Ryan
Citizen
Username: Gerardryan
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
The suit is being brought by the Estate of Cantor (the owner) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I don't know the lawyers. I believe the church is being represented by someone from Utah but I am not positive. |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
Question for Jerry or Dave Ross ~ which thread or threads has addressed this issue as it evolved? Archived or active threads? Can we get linked to them?
Ed May |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 9:01 pm: | |
To Whom It May Concern: (Comcast? Cablevision? CCN? SOMACOM? Ch 19? Ch 35? Mr. Mullin? Jerry?)
The May Family gathered in our living room tonight to watch the re-broadcast of the May 1st TC Committee Meeting on Cable TV. Kind of a chance to relive May Day (which is, of course, named after my family). We had uncorked the May Wine, re-raised the May Pole, and cooked up a hearty batch of Maypo. But alas: no re-broadcast! The Schedule periodically came up to tell us that said meeting would be re-broadcast at said time. 8:00, 8:10, 8:25, 8:45 but no MAY DAY TC Meeting. May we have an explanation? Did I hear someone say "Mais Oui?".
Ed May |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 9:42 am: | |
OK, seriously, where can we get a reliable re-broadcast schedule for the TC meetings? Anyone.
Ed May |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page