| Author | Message | ||
     Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 265 Registered: 2-2003  |
The Millenium proposal for Valley Street serves only as an eye opener for all of us to the unexplored possibilities that our Village has to offer. Oh yeah, it also serves the financial interests of Millenium Homes, Inc. Other than that I see this proposal as a futile exercise in planning. Because what good is it to develop one area of our Village without knowing its effects to the rest of the Village? Suppose we go ahead and develop Valley Street to the level that Millenium is proposing, a pedestrian-friendly environment with adequate parking for itself, with all new construction and a good residential/commercial mix. If we do so, we will be turning our backs to the businesses of South Orange Av. and Irvington Av. and we will let them die. Because, if you and I know that we can easily park and shop on Valley, why would we patronize the businesses on S.O. and Irvington Avenues when they lack adequate parking? Now, if we could negotiate with a developer who is interested in Valley Street, to build us somewhere one or two parking decks that will serve both the S.O. and Irvington Aves. businesses then we can talk.  It is unfortunate that in the above discussion in this thread only very few people address the one big issue: the lack of a plan for South Orange that studies and coordinates all the components that make up South Orange, i.e. demographics, existing residential and commercial districts, new residential and commercial development, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, open space, recreation space, budget, schools, utility services/infrastructure, public facilities and their maintenance, safety, public art, historic heritage, affordable housing, etc. We need to have a few meetings where the interested public will share with the government its vision for South Orange. Once we have a consensus of where we want to be 5 or 10 years down the road, then we can define the steps that will take us there, making sure that all of the components I mention above are coordinated, and making sure that the public has its input every step of the way. Only when we have a plan like that should we seek interested developers who would follow our plans, rather than following the plans of developers, as we seem inclined to do with Valley Street. A plan like that is not drawn simply by a professional planner hired by the Village. The planner would only be a member of a Team consisting of members of the BoT and the Administration, reps of civic organizations, volunteer/members of the public with predetermined qualifications in the areas I mention above, and with professionals experienced in conducting this kind of planning. The time and money spent on this planning stage will be well worth, and it will avoid the costly mistakes and time loss that we are experiencing today in the development of our downtown. All it takes is that the BoT organizes public meetings to formulate a vision and then form the planning group. When I suggested the above to the BoT I was told that we are already doing all that now. But I haven’t yet seen a meeting where the public came and together create a vision for our future: what do we want our community to be? a university town? an arts town? a restaurant town? a bedroom community? all of the above? none of the above? something else? What we have actually done so far is spot planning without looking at the big picture. Examples: developments such as Church Street, the Gaslight Commons, the Quarry, Jessica Way, the Arts Center, the River Corridor. None of these projects have looked at each other. I plan to be at the Chamber of Commerce to see the Millenium presentation once again. However the issue of planning our future is not for them to address. It is a government issue that I hope, with the support of some of the trustees, we can convince the BoT to address. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1370 Registered: 3-2003 |
I could become the strongest supporter on this board for the development for a cut-rate price on a unit in The Villas of Positano. (I'm familiar with the project).  | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 364 Registered: 6-2005 |
Thank you Mr. DeVaris for your perspective. I agree 100%. There have been far too many ad hoc projects, with no overall vision. I don't know what the town is trying to be except a testing ground for a bunch of "wanna be" developers. Now Millenium may have a track record, but the steam roller approach turns me off. I have strong feelings about what the village should be, and I'm sure so do others. It would be very useful to gather that information. But there is poison and suspicion in the air. The citizens don't trust the Board to look out for our interests. The Calabrese/Saiyd thing creates more distrust. I wonder what it will take for the Board to do the right thing by the public. And that doesn't mean giving any developer who sings a good song whatever they want. The Board had the chance last Monday to really take a strong position with Beifus. As I looked at the meeting tape, they couldn't even do that. Two members go off on some strange tangent about diveristy. Calabrese doesn't stop it and lets the developer sweet talk him about the water problem. The lack of the sidewalk shouldn't have been up for disucssion. They should do it or get fined daily. And so on. How can we have confidence in anything with the Board. And unfortuantely, you seem to be the only one who really cares and challenges, but you are only one voice. | ||
| JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2005 |
Eric, You are absolutely right. A Village is a complex system, not a collection of parcels to be divvyed up by numerous developers driven, because they are businesses, by profit motive. What is happening in South Orange is, quite frankly, appalling. The BOT should immediately (and ideally at the behest of our elected President), call well-publicized public meetings about the vision for South Orange. Hire volunteers to hand out flyers. Send a dedicated mailing to all residents. The survey online is a good step, but not nearly enough. Experts (actual experts) should conduct studies, and communities that know how to develop should be brought in on a consultative basis. Residents with expertise should be called upon to volunteer. This is not something the government should fear, but rather embrace. Otherwise, we're going to spin our wheels for another decade or, worse, build a great mistake. | ||
| Hamburg_lar Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 286 Registered: 6-2005  |
There needs to be a dedicated full time effort. We need to rethink how we govern ourselves. Shared services at all levels with Maplewood, the consolidation of the parking authority into a DMC and various other cost saving measures need to be undertaken with funding priorities established to lead our efforts for the future. The cost of government is too big, the lack of progress is too slow. Our public facilities and infrastructure are falling apart. These issues are front and center for our mutual concern. Let's take control, it's been mismanaged for too long!! | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1371 Registered: 3-2003 |
I think that Parking's comments should be taken in combination with the excellent comments made by Eric. It does seem that to a large extent the Village government is too willing to approve projects and give PILOTs to feed the spending habit on which we are hooked. The Village does not set any priorities. Most often, if the VP wants something, he gets it. And then he'll say "you have to spend money to make money." It's time that we look at the entire gestalt. Edited to add: The most recent case in point was when the BOT approved the expenditure by the Village to acquire the easements back from the third parties in the entrance to the New Market development and the Village's undertaking of the landscaping. Eric was the only trustee who objected to this. (Sorry Mark - I don't recall if you were present or not, and if I'm mistaken, my apologies). Really - Shouldn't this have been the financial obligation of the developer? | ||
| Veritas Ultimo Citizen Username: Veritas_ultimo Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2005 |
Aside from weak and /or unfocused legal resources (especially the one special redevelopment counsel who could not even pay his property taxes), the Village may well be more hampered by continuing to use Ms. Susan Gruel as their planner / planning expert. While the Village pulls her in to support whatever project they need justification for, I am not aware of her ever having volunteered any type of plan that would make sense of all these spot projects. I knew that the Village was in trouble when, while being questioned at a public meeting, Ms. Gruel said that an example of an ideal redeveloped shopping area was the East Orange Central Avenue Arcade area. When the person giving planning advice wants South Orange to be more like East Orange, you know we're getting advice from an out of touch theorist. (By the way, Ms. Gruel may be disappointed to learn that East Orange is applying for State and Federal grants to remove the arcade awnings because the merchants feel the awnings have driven away shoppers and the cost of upkeep has become too expensive.) I think it would be to the benefit of all for Eric DeVaris put in charge of finding a new planner for the Village to consult with. Hopefully, it is not too late to actually get a plan. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonhw Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2004 |
Another question to ask is if the Planner Consulting Contract is put to the public bid process. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1373 Registered: 3-2003 |
The answer is no - it's not put to the public bid process. Neither are the municiapl attorney or engineering contracts. These are considered "specialized" services which are not subject the public bidding process. It is for this reason that several municipalities in N.J. have adopted their own pay to play ordinances, which restricts the amount that can be contibuted, by law firms, engineering firms and basically anyone who does business with the municiaplity under contacts which are not subject to public bid. Edited to add - And some municpalities have also adopted ordinances which prevent contributions from developers. This is particularly important in redevelopment area where there is no legal requirement for public bidding. The RFQ's and RFP's suggested by other posters is done by municpalties on their own. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1374 Registered: 3-2003 |
This is a link to a story in the Asbury Park Press about Long Branch's adoption of a pay-to play ordinance. http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050715/NEWS01/507150418/1004 | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8514 Registered: 4-1997  |
Received this via fax and I believe it is supposed to go here.  | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 411 Registered: 7-2004 |
So, this was a meeting held by the Village, paid for by the Village, on Village property, with Village senior management present. (The flyer doesn't even mention Hyer & Gruel.) Did this leaflet comply with NJ's public meeting statutes, was it recorded, are there minutes? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3318 Registered: 5-2001  |
Thought it might be worth bumping this, since the "informational meeting" hosted by the Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 7 at Valley National Bank is TOMORROW. | ||
| Husky Citizen Username: Husky Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2004 |
Can anyone tell me what time the meeting is tonight? Thanks! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8552 Registered: 4-1997 |
 | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3324 Registered: 5-2001 |
There were probably around 100 people there tonight for the presentation. It was very similar to the presentation given to the BOT back in December, but much "slicker", in my opinion. I thought the hyperbole was grander and the pitch was essentially that they will do anything to make everyone happy. Obviously, I'm a bit skeptical of such grandiose claims, especially by a lawyer! He urged everyone to hype up the project, write letters to the News Record and essentially beg the BOT to approve it. He did manage to take a swipe at the "one Trustee who posts online and is up for re-election next year" as being anti-development - but he didn't mention any specific name. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1770 Registered: 8-2002 |
thx for the update MHD. Who, if any, of the BOT were there? /p | ||
| John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2005 |
The presentation tonight was well done and most importantly was informative which is what we as citizens want to hear related to all projects. At least the public has some information to work with when it gets to the planning board stage of this process. The only BOT member present was Eric DeVaris. It is surprising that Mark did not attend seeing how vocal he has been on this thread. People milled around the room for about a half hour after the presentation and for the most part spoke positively about the ideas that were presented. Clearly what was presented would be a major upgrade to what presently exists on Valley Street. In fact, I overheard several people speaking with Eric DeVaris in a positive manner and he appeared to also be impressed by the ideas presented. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1383 Registered: 3-2003 |
John - I think most people in town would agree that something should be done to upgrade Valley St. But how did the proposal expand from redevelopment/rehab of Valley St. to re development of Sloan St. and First - Second? My guess is that there were some discussions between the VP and Millennium that we needed additional parking for SOPAC. Millennium said we'll give you additional parking at SOPAC if you allow us to develop Sloan St. and First - Second. The Village made a gigantic mistake when it sold the property to NJ Transit for a parking lot. It seems now, in order to try to rectify that mistake, it is making another mistake if it allows Millennium to build on the most valuable piece of property in town, in order to get additional parking at SOPAC. In addition, I think there is going to be a gigantic traffic problem if Millennium is allowed to build on Sloan and First-Second. Perhaps Millennium should provide the additional parking at SOPAC if it is named the redeveloper for just Valley St. Just MHO. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3326 Registered: 5-2001 |
Some of the other points that I think were absurd: - Berkely (the lawyer) said that in the projects in Rahway and Harrison "not 1 single schoolkid was added as a result of the project". Well, frankly, the school districts in those towns are horrible, so it's not surprising that people either didn't move there with kids, or sent their kids to private school. -Also, he kept throwing around the fact that the properties in question around Valley Street curently only contribute $154,000 to "the Village". He kept sidestepping the $400,000 that is currently contributed to the SCHOOL district that will be LOST as a result of this project. -In addition, someone in the crowd raised the good point that as a result of the increased number of residential units being proposed, it will alter the Village's COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) obligation that will need to be built and those units will be required to have schoolkids (not sure of the exact legalese on that one) Honestly, I agree that Valley Street needs serious rehab. However, it's these blatant "half-stories" that are being told by this developer that really worry me about what else they aren't telling the whole story on. | ||
| Husky Citizen Username: Husky Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2004 |
I was not impressed with the presentation at all. Specifically, the person making the presentation made some very outlandish claims. For instance, he claimed - not just once but multiple times - that village traffic problems would be "alleviated", not made worse, with the addition of 500 residential units and approx. 2000 parking spaces in a 4 block radius downtown. Such a claim is not just a "half-story", it's a lie. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1384 Registered: 3-2003 |
Paul Mulshine had an op-ed piece in last Sunday's Star-Ledger about Transit Villages and traffic and congestion. After clicking the link, go to "Sic Transit Villages." http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?base/columns-0/1139118822100 520.xml | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2536 Registered: 4-2002 |
Husky: That is exactly what I stated at a meeting. JGlick: I have seen the presentation three times already. I was not invited by the COC or Millenium to this presentation (Eric is a property owner in the downtown so he probably was formally invited). Plus with three nights of meetings this week, last night was my only one to stay home. If LB thinks I am anti-development, it is because he does not understand the criticism. I would like to see proposals from other developers. I would like there to be some open dialogue with professionals (hired by the village) to hear their comments. When we are talking about a project of this size and magnitude, I don't think we should just be giving a developer carte blanche to do what they want - especially considering they want a PILOT. We should have some say into the design and we should have some kind of goal for what we would like to see built. | ||
| John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2005 |
I believe that Mr. Berkeley stated that the BOT had the option of requesting that a portion of the over $3 million in additional funds that the Village would receive in taxes as compared to what it presently receives could be provided to the school system. This would be an issue that the BOT and Board of Education would have to debate. As for the traffic issue, Mr. Berkeley stated that as is the case in all of the much larger projects that Millennium has been involved in as compared to this proposed project, the BOT would need to retain someone to study this issue and if changes needed to be made to the project such adjustments would be made. It is important to also note that Mr. Berkeley stated that the drawings displayed were the current designs, but that they could be adjusted based on discussions down the line, such as if the BOT moves away from the position it has expressed of not wanting additional office space in the Village. While clearly adjustments from the presentation need to be made, I viewed last night as a step in the right direction as far as a plan to revitalize the village. Ultimately, I believe that we as citizens need to attend BOT meetings when issues as to Valley Street are addressed and provide the trustees with our thoughts of the project and what changes we would like to see. If we simply leave it to the trustees to make this determination on their own, it is apparent that their track record is such that redevelopment will not be handled properly. Hopefully, a project such as this will be a chance to change how redevelopment is handled in a positive direction. | ||
| JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2005 |
Since they have long-term implications, the PILOT and tax aspects of any development plan are worthy of debate, as MHD and MRosner note above. It would be beneficial to have the Village outline different financial scenarios for residents so that informed decisions can be made about the best way to proceed. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2537 Registered: 4-2002 |
John: Some BOT members specifically said we preferred more office space (so not sure why someone thinks otherwise). Also, it should be understood that there will be hearings held by the planning board first (on redevelopment and any specific plans from a developer) and those would also be an excellent opportunity for people to ask questions (or to offer their opinions). Another point raised by the BOT to Millenium was that they were not adding any parks or recreation areas for the public. With the large increase in residential units being proposed, there needs to be a comprehensive look at how this development will impact everyone in the village and not just on valley street. Clearly traffic will be diverted to other streets (prospect, third street, etc) and it would seem pretty obvious third street can not handle much more traffic (especially considering our rescue squad is located there). It is nice to see the vision of one architect, but there needs to be a more dialogue and discussion going forward with how we want to proceed. | ||
| JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2005 |
Developers get paid to want things done yesterday -- not a bad thing. But in light of this, it will be important for our elected officials to be on their toes, asking good questions and helping the public filter all the information that will be provided. There will be a lot of facts and figures (and hype!) to distill in the coming months. This is why you were elected, and we look to you. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 2782 Registered: 5-2005  |
It might be helpful it we had an atttorney who could write up a contract that would look out for the taxpayers. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 92 Registered: 12-2004 |
Up above, post 2536, Mr. Rosner states that "(he) was not invited by the COC (Chamber of Commerce) or Millennium" to the public meeting held last night. That is not fair. In prior post number 73 on 1/27/06 I SPECIFICALLY invited Mr. Rosner, and said that I hoped he would attend. In my post number 70 on 1/26/04 I invited the entire world, and, of course, the full page ad from Millenium also invited the whole world, and yesterday the printed Chamber notice was posted on MOL. How much more of an invitation is required??? 200 other people came, but only one Trustee. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3328 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lucy - LOL! I thought the exact same thing. Last night, Mr. Berekely said the PILOT could be structured so that some of the money went to the schools, or a certain amount would go to the school for each child that lived in the development - as long as those things are negotiated up front. Onbiously, he doesn't realize that the people doing our negotiating don't have the expertise or foresight to even THINK of such things. Mark - I appreciate your "cautious" approach & desire to see other proposals first before jumping into bed with this guy. | ||
| John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2005 |
I agree with Elaine that more trustees should have shown up at the meeting last night, especially in view of the fact that the trustees keep stating how large and important this project is to the redevelopment of the Village. If the trustees are concerned about various issues related to the project, the question and answer session most likely would have provided certain facts which will be useful to them down the line in evaluating this proposal. In addition, surely it is at this type of meeting where trustees can obtain more accurate feedback from its constituents, as I observed Mr. DeVaris receiving, as opposed to hearing the views of people on a message board or at a later point in time. As I previously stated, I was impressed by the proposal and its vision to revitalize the Village, although there are obviously various issues that will need to be addressed, and from my observation the people who attended were for the most part impressed based on the discussions following the presentation. Hopefully, Mr. DeVaris will convey his observations to the other trustees so that they can obtain accurate feedback as to the publics reaction. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2538 Registered: 4-2002 |
EH: I did not see the post on MOL - sorry. I did not look at the millennium ad in the News-Record. Either way, I have seen the presentation three times and did not feel a need to see it again - especially considering they have been unwilling to consider any changes or suggestions from the BOT. However, as I have said before, I think we need to have the redevelopment hearings first, then let's see proposals from more than one developer. We also need to hear from professionals (traffic consultants, engineers, etc). It would seem with the amount of money they are spending on ads and presentations, that they would be willing to do this project without a PILOT. | ||
| I. Kabish Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 303 Registered: 6-2005 |
And certainly without a pilot for residential development. I'd like to see a little more give me what I want than what I already have. You know what I mean.....enough with residential, I got this covered with my partner(s). | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3329 Registered: 5-2001 |
Another thing that troubles me is that THIS developer is touting their projects in CARTERET, HARRISON, GARWOOD and EAST RUTHERFORD. Historically, not exactly the nicest towns in NJ. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8567 Registered: 4-1997 |
Pilots should be illegal in South Orange and I'm amazed they haven't been challenged in court yet. Basically, a PILOT is a form of taxation without representation. Whenever South Orange gives a green light to a PILOT it increases taxes for Maplewood residents because it removes funds from the school system. It's crazy to offer incentives to developers at the expense of our schools. Only Calabrese and his cronies could cook up a ponzi scheme like this. Quick fixes with no vision, no plan, no nothing. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1773 Registered: 8-2002 |
PILOTs in SO do increase Maplewood school taxes, that said, unless BOTH towns agree to stop granting them, this will continue. I do think its erroneous to say that PILOTS are at the expense of our schools. Not at all. The school budget stays the same -- its just how its apportioned that differs. So -- while a PILOT (in theory) should decrease my village taxes, at the same time my school taxes will go up (some). (and, as noted, more so for Maplewood tax payers). (so -- either SO or Maplewood taxpayers file a class action suit to block PILOTs or -- we have 2 distinct school districts (either physically or on paper) - to eliminate the unfairness of the school tax increases via PILOTs) Pete | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2541 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: How do you feel about the PILOT agreements handed out in Livingston and Montclair (I am sure there are others, but I know about these two and did see copies of them). They do have to be approved by the county and there are all kinds of legal requirements set forth by the state. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3334 Registered: 5-2001 |
I still think the numbers are "fuzzy", at best. I believe, Mr. Berkely said these 500 units would sell for around $500,000 - $750,000 and would pay around $6500 in taxes per unit. At today's tax rate, that means they would be assessed at around $100,000 per unit. I can't imagine this will be acceptable to people in Village Green Mews etc who will be unable to sell. In addition, the question was posed last night about the impact of the reval will have and the answer was something to the effect of "we haven't looked at that yet". Since the reval is imminent, I think SOMEONE should look at that. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1385 Registered: 3-2003 |
My understanding is that the reval will have no effect on the PILOTs. Their payments are fixed, subject only to increases in the pilot payment equal to the increase in the municiapl tax, at least in the earlier years. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10587 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think MHD has hit on one of the major problems with residential PILOTs. They are grossly unfair to other homeowners. There can be reasons to do this. Livingston really needs a downtown and the old department store in Montclair has been sitting their molting for, what, a decade? However, I don't consider the Valley Street area exactly blighted. |
