| Author |
Message |
    
Jgberkeley
| | Posted on Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 7:36 am: |     |
Do you see parking to be an issue on S/A or in the Village, and if so, what needs to be done that that the current TC has not done to solve the problem?
Now that KFC has pulled out of the S/A and Yale property, and now we know that any business that may consider using the lot would dump traffic into the neighborhood, and be short on parking, what do you propose the town do with the property?
Do you support building anything into the open vistas of our current parks? i.e. dog runs, soccer fields, more courts. If so, why and what? |
Dave
| | Posted on Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 8:46 am: | |
Hi George,
You got here before I had a chance to seal off the area to candidates-only, which I just did. However, your question stands  Like the BOE election questions can arise outside of this area and I will post them here for candidate response or non-response.
Meantime, I have created user logins for all candidates and have given privileges to Mr. Profeta's account (he was involved in prior debates on MOL). I have even given access to Ajc, who although not being a D is in fact on the primary ballot. There is no challenge to Ajc, but without granting him access the other Ds would unfairly build up their name recognition. I will be sending the login information to people I know in close contact with the candidates and/or the candidates themselves, if I have their e-mail addresses.
Let's look forward to an informed issue-oriented debate. |
Artchristensen
| | Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 2:00 pm: | |
Thank you David..... Thank you George......
Let me begin by saying I often have more questions than answers. Often, my suggestions can be developed into solutions. However, to solve the problems facing our town, we need team work, cooperation, and less negative conversation about what won't work, and more about what will.....
Yes, parking has been, is, and will continue to be a problem unless we do something more about it. If we want to see our Village and SA grow, we'll need to have more parking. It's called the vicious circle.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE BALL ROLLING. THIS THREAD IS MEANT TO BE A DEBATE. WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, ARE SUGGESTIONS, NOT NECESSARILY THE ANSWERS. HOPEFULLY WHAT COMES OUT OF OUR DEBATE WILL HELP THE TOWN IN THE FUTURE, REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS THE ELECTION IN THE FALL.
More businesses, more customers, more customers, more traffic, NOT, I would like to see one of our Jitney buses, run all day throughout the town, on the half hour, back and forth, to the train station. At the moment I'm trying to read the 2002 Municipal Budget of the Township of Maplewood.... The print is small, and the truth is, I could use a good bean counter to help me out. Either way, we need to spend, beg, borrow, but NOT steal the funds from other areas to implement the program. Yes, there are many other possibilities, details to follow....
As for the S/A and Yale property, it's not an easy problem. The node is maybe the most important one on The Avenue. If the town wants to get a strong hold on the future of SA, we need to take some bold steps. Lets show everyone we're serious about a real transformation of The Avenue.
The first thing I would do, to give us the necessary control over the site, is to buy it!! Then if nothing else, close off Yale Street, and turn it into a parking lot until we get the right developer, and the right business, or businesses to invest in it... Hey, so we might lose a few dollars in taxes, but the property is not going to go down in value is it? I sure hope not!
I am not in favor of spending anything at the moment that is not absolutely necessary. I have already come out and said we could raise the license fees on dogs, and ear mark that for some fencing along the railroad, some place away from people and houses, and make a dog run. But first lets hear from the dog owners in town. Ask them when they renew their license if they want a run in the first place, we sure can help them out a little.... Then again, a few residents barking a lot should not be cause to spend our tax dollars, or adversely affect the rest of the community. |
Artchristensen
| | Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 3:32 pm: | |
David,
After last nights debate, all my answers as stated herein still stand! Did I understand you to say the candidates will now be posting answers to the questions? |
Fredprofeta
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 7:42 am: | |
Do you see parking to be an issue on S/A or in the Village, and if so, what needs to be done that the current TC has not done to solve the problem?
All Maplewoodians are familiar with the frustration of circling the Village and its parking lots, trying to find a space convenient to the shops. The arithmetic is simple. There are 300 such public parking spaces available in the Village. At any given time, up to 100 of those spaces are occupied by the merchants and their employees. That is a figure that was presented to the Township Committee by its own Transportation Committee.
That same Transportation Committee submitted a report which stated that the solution to the problem was to provide more merchant parking close to the shops. The recommendation was for the Town to acquire many of the underutilized parking areas behind the stores on the west side of Maplewood Avenue, north of Highland. Some of this parking space is not utilized at all. And these underutilized areas are right next to the dog-leg portion of the Womens' Club lot, which goes unused most of the week. The Transportation Committee recommended, in 1996, that the Township negotiate for acquisition and consolidation of these spaces for dedication to merchant parking. So far there have been no meaningful negotiations with the merchants.
Negotiations with the Womens' Club ended when the Club rejected the Town's offer. But negotiations should not stop when one party rejects the offer of the other. Through concerted and continued bargaining, parties can often reach mutually acceptable positions. The Maplewood Village Alliance (which I founded and served as its first President) recommended this very approach to the Township Committee in 1997 and repeated it in October of 2001.
Ms. Sharif-Drinkard and Ms. Leventhal discuss the "option" of eminent domain. But this unnecessarily raises the spectre of invading private rights. Why not simply pursue a business-like approach to the matter? The Township Committee has yet to do this.
There is another solution to the Village's parking problem. This relates to the Post Office. Maplewood's Transportation Committee long ago recommended that the Post Office be induced to move its back room operations to the Springfield Avenue area, leaving the service counter and boxes in the Village. This would free-up considerable land for additional parking (or, alternatively, for a commercial ratable). A transfer of most postal operations to the Springfield Avenue area would aid in its revitalization, as postal employees would shop and eat close to their base.
Maplewood owns the land on which the Post Office is located. The lease expires in about 10 years. The Post Office should be persuaded to make its inevitable move now, providing its own operations with more space and acting in the best interests of Maplewood. The Township Committee did commence negotiations on this subject several years ago, but they were not pressed and have not resumed. This should be done immediately.
A good place to start would be with the office of the United States Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (which has jurisdiction over the Post Office). I have been assured that Senator John Corzine would be willing to facilitate the effort.
Additional parking is, of course, also a problem on Springfield Avenue. Some of the problem could be alleviated by proper signage which directs parkers to hidden municipal lots. Further than that, we should not consider the actual construction of additional lots until we begin work with a full-time economic planner and a developer. When that process gets underway, we will have a much better idea as to the parking needs of the precise businesses which we intend to recruit. Why should we assign locations of parking lots now before we even know what additional enterprises are apt to join our revitalized Avenue?
 |
Fredprofeta
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 12:51 pm: | |
Now that KFC has pulled out of the S/A and Yale Property, and we know that any business that may consider using the lot would dump traffic into the neighborhood, and be short on parking, what do you propose the town do with the property?
I differ with the questioner's premise that "any business that may consider using the [Amoco] lot would dump traffic into the neighborhood and be short on parking." KFC fit this description because its high volume operation generated a need for 53 parking spaces. This need could not reasonably be accommodated without a tremendous impact upon the neighborhood. However, there are many alternative businesses which would not bring the parking requirements that KFC did.
As I noted in my reply to question no. 6, the intersection of Yale and Springfield was designated as a "pedestrian node" in the May, 1999 report of Abeles, Phillips & Shapiro. On page 24 of that report, it was proposed that development of these nodes should emphasize "a concentration of neighborhood-oriented retail located in storefronts that are built up to the sidewalk, with no front yard set-back." Low turnover sit-down family restaurants fit into this category, and there are business interests which have expressed a desire to place just such a restaurant on the Amoco lot. Art shops, antique stores, and other retail operations of similar dimension would nicely flesh out the Abeles vision. The strategy should be to find businesses which encourage pedestrian traffic, not vehicular traffic.
The role of the Township Committee in all of this should be to obtain the services of the full-time economic planner and business recruiter which I also mentioned in my response to no. 6. The services of such an individual are the only way to implement the plans for this intersection on a rapid and coordinated basis. Guidance would be provided by the market studies already conducted by the Springfield Avenue Partnership and the Abeles firm.
 |
Artchristensen
Citizen
Username: Artchristensen
Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 1:07 am: | |
Fred and Ian,
Congratulations to both of you on winning the Primary. Are you ready, or do you guys need a rest for a few days?
Art and Mark
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 3131
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 2:37 am: | |
Art,
Congrats to you, as well.
(Message edited by dave on June 5, 2002) |
Artchristensen
Citizen
Username: Artchristensen
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 9:37 pm: | |
Fred and Ian,
I have noticed what appears to be a drop in the number of lawn signs around town. Do you have anything to do with that?
You already know that Mark and I are not going to distribute them for our campaign. As a matter of fact, we will not even make it an issue any longer.
The truth is, we figured once we were able to count 51% of the homes in town with your signs on the lawn, we would be willing to concede the election to you.
So, have you guys made up your mind? |
Artchristensen
Citizen
Username: Artchristensen
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 2:39 pm: | |
David,
I just figured it out.... the resaon Fred and Ian have not posted is because the Primary is over. This thread is old stuff.
So, would you please up date this area so we can get this campaign going? We have less than 5 months until election day, and I think there are a lot of things we all need to cover. Thank you. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 3155
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 7, 2002 - 4:25 pm: | |
You're right. I'm going to archive this over the weekend, but I think we may need a break before the online debate section re-opens for November elections. Happy summer, all.
Art, the Soapbox is the place for continuous debate, if you'd like to start up or continue topics there. |
Artchristensen
Citizen
Username: Artchristensen
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 4, 2002 - 11:42 pm: | |
David,
You're the man! Right? Do you think Fred and Ian have had enough time off since the Primary ended? They have been off line for two months. Now that is one great political vacation.
W e have less than 90 days left before the election, and I think we need to get this campaign show on the road. There have been a lot of things going on in town during the last two months. I have put my butt on the line on issue after issue. I hope the voters in Maplewood want to know both sides, or is it a foregone conclusion that Profeta and Grodman already won this election?
I support MOL almost everyday as the most important tool in voter campaign spending reform, and the most effective means for the public to interact with the candidates. It's time. Don't let us down!
Thank you. Art Christensen and Mark Gardner.
PS:
I have noticed a high level of outside influence on the Message Board in the past. What is your position on posters outside of Maplewood who might try to disrupt our election process? Both candidates have gotten hammered in the past. This could go along way to determine the value of on-line campaigning.
What do you think about real names being used just to ask questions for the candidates? I don’t know what else would be helpful. It’s your call. Thanks again.
|
Artchristensen
Citizen
Username: Artchristensen
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, September 7, 2002 - 5:00 pm: | |
David,
Still no Fred and Ian. They have now been off line for over three months. This is past being funny, plus no one else but me seems to care anyway.....
A few questions asked, but not one lousy post with interest to start the debate. Honestly, why don't we just forget about it. |
|