Trustee DeVaris leads the way again

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3388 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:44 am:        I watched part of last night's BOT Meeting and was quite impressed with Trustee DeVaris' bold statement about Valley Street. He essentially requested the BOT to disavow the ridiculous claims being made by Millenium that this project is a done deal & all that remains is approval by the BOT. There are certain state mandated processes that must be followed which Millenium is trying to circumvent. The look on Calabrese, Rosen & Moore-Abrams faces was hysterical as they looked completely frustrated that Eric would make such a bold (and truthful) statement. Eric - perhaps you can repost your statement here. Howard - perhaps you can post the video clip. Nice work, Eric!   Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 2923 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:47 am:        Eric I am so proud of you thanks keep up the good work!   Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4102 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:53 am:        MHD So that was an actual meeting taking place last night? We have Direct TV so we don't have access to the town's station. I happened to be flipping through the channels while at a friend's when I came across the BOT Meeting. Watch maybe 10 minutes of it. What land was Calabrese talking about when he said the land is there but the town isn't making any money from it? (or something to that effect)? Also, what credentials does one need to be on the 'Legal Committee?'   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3390 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:17 am:        JTA, It was a continuation of the Conference Agenda meeting from Feb 15. I missed the parts you reference, so I can't comment. I did also want to give an "Honorable Mention" to Trustee Rosner for suggesting that Millenium be stripped of their Redeveloper status for the Gulf Station property on 3rd Street. Millenium has essentially said they want ALL of Valley Street or none of it. So...until all processes have been completed regarding what to do with Valley Street, Millenium should be stripped of their redeveloper status and it should be opened up with a RFP process to multiple developers. Of course, Edwin Matthews immediately said this had to be discussed in Closed Session and ended the discussion.   John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:23 am:        I am still confused as to why Millennium is trying to circumvent the process which inevitably will occur simply by advertising in the paper and making a presentation which the Chamber of Commerce invited them to. People complain when they are uninformed as to issues related to development or otherwise, and now some people want to complain that they are receiving information at an early stage such as is the case here. Obviously, the project is not a done deal, and clearly as in any other advertising by a business some embellishing does occur, but that does not mean that we should be unhappy to have received much more information about a vision for the Village at an early stage as compared to what usually occurs within our town.   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3391 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:28 am:        Lenny, In the Millenium ad it says "All that remians is the approval of the Board of Trustees" - that is more than embellishing - it is an outright lie which Trustee DeVaris wisely challenged last night. The Millenium ad also says "Millenium Homes hopes the public will be supportive of this project and will play a role in helping it become a reality". Why should the public support THIS project before we have had a chance to see alternatives?   SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 218 Registered: 7-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:50 am:        I've missed all BOT discussion / chamber presentation on Millenium. Is there a print version of their proposal available online?   SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 219 Registered: 7-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:27 am:        Just saw mention of Mark Rosner's suggestion of stripping Millenium of its Redeveloper status for the Gulf station (apparently they don't want just that parcel). Since none of the rest was promised them (I assume) when they accepted the Redeveloper designation, I applaud Mark for making that suggestion. I'll echo kudos to Eric. And I'll continue to wonder what of any significance can be discussed in OPEN / PUBLIC sessions in SO.   JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:54 am:        I chanced upon the meeting last night while flipping through stations (There must be a better way to keep the public informed of these meetings. Prominent bulletin board at train station?) In any event, I agree that Trustee DeVaris made an excellent statement about the Valley development process. His point, in my reading, was that the government needs to take a much more tangible role in LEADING this process, hand-in-hand with the public, on a timetable that makes sense for the town with the information needed to be smart about it. What is needed, he said, is to have a bona fide vision for the Village (as well as an updated master plan and notes from all studies and committees) that is defined by the village and its residents -- rather than external pressure. And kudos to Rosner and Taylor for also weighing in with proactive ideas and commentary. I was proud to see sense being spoken at one of our meetings.   singlemalt Supporter Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 1132 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:38 am:        I think we should be excited that someone is willing to invest in redeveloping Valley. Yes - proper process should be followed but the fact that someone is willing to invest millions and has a track record of getting projects completed (on time) should excite everyone in the community. Companies that do these types of projects use Public Relations to get the community excited and to get the projects moving through the “red tape” all the time. Mr. Devaris should know that what is posted in a newspaper is much different than what is required legally. Does anyone remember the propaganda about the proposed new Jets stadium next to Penn Station? Cablevision and the Jets spent a lot of money trying to sway public opinion. It’s really no different here (just on a smaller scale). Much like the now defunct S.O.A.R many in the village use anything about redevelopment as an opportunity to push their own political agenda under the disguise of political corruption, incompetence and other non-sense. They may be correct in their accusations but at what cost to the village? Our downtown is in shambles and there is plenty of blame to go around but we should consider ourselves lucky that someone is willing to make this type of investment. If we go out to RFP and there are multiple bids – that’s great! But my gut tells me there won’t be anymore than maybe a small handful of developers and none with the track record of results as Millennium. After watching the amount of grief Pulte went through to get their project completed is their any question why very few want to invest in South Orange? I’m not questioning the intent of those who fought Pulte but if I had $50M to spend I’d much rather invest in a town that would welcome my investment than harass anyone who doesn’t bend at the knee to the vocal minority (on a side note, Pulte has brought a new buyer to South Orange that has increased property values for everyone in the town – probably a good new thread topic). I am still optimistic that Beifus and New Market will eventually get done (glass half full) and having Valley Street as the other anchor will really put some needed life into downtown and attract many who have stayed away in the past. If we could only turn back time on SOPAC and build a huge parking garage we'd be in really good shape. Flame away. Malt   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 450 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:05 pm:        Go Eric! The idea of a "Vision" which is different than what has been termed as the "Master Plan" needs to be articulated. The "Vision" is a prerequisite to both the "Strategic" and "Master Plans" that is currently be developed. In simple terms the Vision provides an understanding of Who We Are and What We Want To Be - Are we a College Town, Do we want to be a destination for particular environments, .... etc. Also as to the statement made by Arthur, it is my understanding the scope of what was covered under the Millennium redevelopment area was more than the Gulf Station property and included: All the Third Street Parking facilities and the Old Car Dealership building. The underlying assumption is that we will be selling Township Assets - Parking Lots. We are "shareholders"/owners of these assets. We need to be careful/understand that we are not on a slippery slope in solving budgetary problems.   Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 579 Registered: 4-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:51 pm:        What has been relayed to the village residents time and time again is that once a developer has started and both they and the town have invested money - there is no turning back because then we would suffer a loss. So instead, the village has taken the position to "push people over the finish line". This has, in turn, led to a lot of developers taking advantage of South Orange, especially it's residents and by no doubt, the officials.   JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:02 pm:        Wouldn't it be wise to hire an urban planner with substantive credentials in working with historic, transit-based, diverse communities like ours, to assess our Village and present scenarios for development as well as feasibility studies on what each would cost and entail? Given what we're losing in revenue and stand to lose if future development is poorly managed, wouldn't this be money well spent?   Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3191 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:12 pm:        Malt: The scale of the project is too big. The number of residential units is worrisome, and the need for a tax abatement (pilot) is uncalled for. Other than that, Mr. Berkeley seems like a nice guy - do you know him? Turn back time - I'm with you 100%. PS: Eric, you bring class to the BoT! Thank you.   michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:12 pm:        What is the real reason we want this huge development? I understand the need to redevelop SO ave. But why Valley street?   michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:04 pm:        Sheena could you elaborate on your comments. What developer has taken advantage of residents? How did they take advantage of residents? You say the Village has pushed people over the finish line. Who in the Village? I am very interested in hearing your answers as I am a resident. And concerned about the statements you have made. So please elaborate.   Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2374 Registered: 5-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:39 pm:        Why should SO Ave be redeveloped? Why should Valley not be redeveloped? Valley arguably has as much business, if not more, than SO Ave.   SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 11 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:54 pm:        I agree with many previous comments. Trustee DeVaris’ statement and Trustee Rosner’s move to strip Millenium of any preeminent status, if it can still be done, are laudable. But can it still be done? To MHD’s concern about non-public/closed discussions of the BOT, has the town signed or agreed to any other ill-advised contracts, either spoken or written, or otherwise bound itself to the all-too-familiar, near-vassal status it so freely and frequently elects? Are any unannounced, non-public agreements or communications the topics of closed-session discussions? Trustee DeVaris’ statement that the term, “master plan” has been widely used and abused is commendable. In combination with the pains he took to stress the need for another plan, one he called a “vision plan,” it is much needed and welcomed guidance from the only architect (presumably with some formal training in town planning) on the BOT. I hope South Orange will benefit further from his experience. A vision plan or wholistic plan that integrates multiple, unrelated and ill-thought-through erratic stops and starts in village development, parking, transportation, environmental, cultural and numerous other quality-of-life issues is long overdue. But far better late than indelibly regretful. Glick, every South Orange resident needs to keep the distinction between embellishment and utter prevarication in mind now. Any business (or its agent) that doesn’t know the difference or knows it but intentionally blurs it in a cheap ploy of self-promotion is not good enough for South Orange. Such people should be driven from the town, with a cat-of-nine tails if necessary, so that they have not the least opportunity to prey upon it, to denigrate the corporate life of its citizens, or to corrupt and undermine its public discourse (as DeVaris noted, has happened with “master plan”). The public should never have to rely on a potential contractor to find out what is happening with development in town, nor should town communications such as the website or Gaslight be subverted into a bull horn for potential, usually out-of-town contractors. The public should be able to look to its leaders for truthful information because they have been formally and solemnly vested with the public’s trust, no matter how battered or fragile the public’s trust has become. And Singlemalt, the utilitarianism of several of your remarks is not in the town’s best interests, even if it appears to be. Corruption and incompetence, as I am sure you know, injure people and may be hard to exorcize, once ingrained in public institutions, expectations and habits. So your calling them “nonsense” is misguided and your fearing the costs to reject them, dispirited. Were the public to follow your advice of not paying a lesser cost now to resist them, only to incur far greater costs later, it could indenture the hope of the town’s commonwealth far into the future, something none of us wants. Since you unlikely are not so naive as to think that corruption or incompetence may afflict other towns but not your own, I hope you reconsider your remarks. I consider neither myself nor the town lucky to have a contractor mounting a professional campaign of public deception in its midst. On the contrary, any decent suitor would know to bathe before calling. Having said all this, I’m hoping that one afficionado or another might tell me the difference between single and double malts (are there triples?). Veritas ultimo is one kind of expert we could use around here.   Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 581 Registered: 4-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:21 pm:        Hi Michael, Although there are several examples, I will use Mr. Beifus and his development plans as an example. I've been here for about 4 years now (yes I'm a student) and so I base my comments on what I have been following since I've been a freshmen. Mr. Beifus' development progress has been lacking to say the least. He does have a great proposal, one in which some members of the BOT have contended is the best for our village and I do not disagree. However, once the Village contracted with Beifus (developers agreements, PILOTS, etc), we obviously made a long term investment with him and we can't back out of it. Since that time, Mr. Beifus has needed numerous extensions to get his development underway knowing that South Orange would not be backing out of this agreement because a) he spent substantial money on it already and b) the village spent money on it. With my phrase "push them over the finish line" - that came from Trustee Taylor and no one on the BOT countered that position at the time and instead, nodded in agreement. That says to me - that they agree (or the majority of them do obviously since we have maintained the same relationship with him). With this in mind, I feel he has taken advantage of our officials as well as the residents here. Development takes time... but how many years are we approaching now? I also feel that the contract with him was lacking in several respects. To add insult to injury, I attended the BOT meeting in which Mr. Beifus was present only to hear his lawyers, environmental experts, etc. claim that because of water problems, they need to redo the proposal yet again. In my most humble opinion... when you're making a very large monetary investment into a development project... can you not predict that being at the bottom of the hill will lead to water problems? So in turn, his lawyer responded by saying this will be a quick fix, all they're doing is knocking out the basement and they just need approval from the "planning board". Wrong again, he now has to undergo the process with all the various approvals (state, local, etc.) in order to get his project reapproved. I personally feel, that as a developer HE should have addressed the community and not relied on the BOT to have to explain his various situations. I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority is not content with the progress he has made (maybe in a decade?). Instead, he sat in the 2nd row with a stoic look on his face despite the numerous residents who spoke against him. Never once did he attempt to justify to us why everything is taking so long. So in conclusion, with respect to a macro level observation, I feel that South Orange does not offer too many developers what they are looking for currently (that may change as a result of SOPAC). I feel that all developers know the situation that we're in - being that we would really like redevelopment and would love South Orange to be better. However, I don't feel that we have the upper hand in any negotiations and as a result, favor is always on their side and thus, they get the best deals, the best contracts, can continue to take their pleasant little time, and as a result, the village suffers and our officials are the ones who need to deal with the discontent of the residents. That's my personal assessment of this particular situation. Hope that explains my point a little better. Thoughts?   singlemalt Supporter Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 1133 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:45 pm:        SOrising, I agree with your remarks but until those in power lose elections we need to work with the hand we are dealt. The constant accusations and posturing are getting downtown nowhere. If Bill C. had run a real 3rd candidate (sorry Paul) do you think Eric would have won?? Sad? Absolutely. Also, I don't know anyone involved in the Valley Street project. I am just a frustrated taxpayer who wants a nicer downtown. I am not willing to wait 12 years until people wake up and vote off the current BOT members for something to get done.   SoxHater2090 Citizen Username: Soxhater2090 Post Number: 15 Registered: 4-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:40 pm:        I agree with Single Malt. Have any of you REALLY LOOKED at Valley Street? I think Malt's point was that Valley Street could be greatly improved, and if a developer is willing to make a proposal and follow the proper rules, the Town could benefit greatly. Certainly, a professional developer with a vision wouldn't be worse than the hodge podge that is there... Let's be realistic, no one is moving to South Orange because of what Valley Street looks like ... maybe inspite of, but certainly not because of it. If Millenium is not the right developer, so be it. Isn't the issue REALLY that we NEED A PLAN (not who the developer is going to be)?   mary032 Citizen Username: Mary032 Post Number: 221 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:00 pm:        I just finished watching last night's BOT meeting. What a thoughtful proposal by Eric DeVaris. I met him when he was Main Street's president (I think he still is a member). Eric has been pushing for a Master Plan for South Orange since that time, I think it was 1997. It's a pity that it took ten years for the BOT to pay attention to his pleas. We would have been in a much better place now. Well, it's never too late. It was good that Calabrese put Eric in charge of make such a plan happen. We might see some progress eventually. Go get'em Eric. We are behind you. I am so happy I voted for you. Thank you. Mary   Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 276 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:53 pm:        Thank you all for your kind and encouraging words. SoxHater you hit the nail on the head: the real issue is not who is going to be the developer but rather that we need a vision and a plan. Millennium may very well prove to be the right developer for Valley Street, but we would know that only if we have our act put together, and only after we consider proposals from other developers as well, so that we know we are getting the best deal. In the last public meeting Village President Calabrese asked me to spearhead the process toward a South Orange Vision Plan. I am happy with my new assignment and I will forge ahead. Since the 2006 Budget and the Master Plan (now under study) are going to be two of the several components of the Vision Plan, we will have to wait for their completion, which is anticipated to be sometime in April 2006. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't start preparing for it now. JTA, in answer to your question: the Legal Committee is a committee of the BoT; its members are three Trustees appointed by the Village President. The present Committee is chaired by Trustee Moore-Abrams and the members are Trustee Rosen and myself.   JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:21 am:        Eric, This could well be the most positive development I've heard in the year or so I've been following these meetings. The Village President did the right thing, and I look forward to hearing your ideas -- as I'm sure many do. Congratulations, and BOT, please keep open minds and work with Trustee DeVaris in this endeavor. It will take a team to make anything happen. Joe   Diastole Citizen Username: Diastole Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:55 am:        Trustee DeVaris, you are not only a very kind and thoughful gentleman, you are also kind of hunky, in a Parthenon/Temple of Zeus sort of way. You're also pretty smart, and have accomplished alot in your life. It's great that you're generous enough to offer your competence and leadership to our town. If you were a few years younger, I'd put some moves on you.   Sitoyan Citizen Username: Sitoyan Post Number: 149 Registered: 7-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 12:22 pm:        Trustee DeVaris presents as an option for the BOT to cancel the appointment of Millennium as a developer of Valley Street, and Trustee Rosner went even further requesting it. I just hope that the other Trustees agree with that and they withdraw the appointment. Valley Street should be planned in it entirety, not in piecemeal, and it should be a part of a overall plan of the downtown as Trustee DeVaris very wisely pointed out. Trustee DeVaris, I join the choir in thanking you very much for bringing to the forefront the important issues of our Village. I will second MHD's request: would you please post here your statement of last Wednesday? That shouldn't be a problem since you have it already written.   joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2006 Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:31 pm:        DeVaris is bringing out the inner-Rosner, and this is good. jd   Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 277 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:39 am:        Diastole, Your quote: “If you were a few years younger, I'd put some moves on you.” My wife and I thank you for the compliment. But how much younger do you want me to be? I’m only 73. Eric   Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 278 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:52 am:        Quote: Sitoyan: I will second MHD's request: would you please post here your statement of last Wednesday? MHD and Sitoyan, Glad to oblige. Much of what I said last Wednesday about our Vision Plan was pretty much the gist of what I wrote in the “News-Record” ten years ago, back in December 1996 http://www.ericdevaris.com/news-oped1996.php and on this Board on January 2006 http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=530596#POST5305 96 Here it is my statement to the BoT on 2/22: “In light of a recent advertisement, and a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce both by Millennium Homes, I believe that the public is entitled to know what is going on with the redevelopment of Valley Street, and I believe that this information should come from this Board of Trustees, and not from Millennium Homes. So I would like to speak here about what I know about this issue and, after I finish, I invite other members of the Board, or the Administration, to correct any misconceptions I might have, or add more information. I will go through what I know has happened so far, and then my view on the possibilities for the future. Recent events Approximately two years ago there were widely spread rumors about discussions between the Board of Trustees and Millennium Homes on the redevelopment of Valley Street. Over a year ago the Board of Trustees designated Millennium Homes as the developer for a section of Valley Street bordered by Third, Valley, and Fourth Streets, and the Railroad. Also over a year ago the Board of Trustees asked the Planning Board to determine whether or not Valley Street, in its entirety or only portions of it, qualifies as an area in need of redevelopment or in need of rehabilitation, or a combination thereof. To that end the Planning Board has asked the town’s Professional Planner to study the area and to make a recommendation. It is expected that the Planner will present her findings to the Planning Board within a month. Last fall Millennium Homes, at the invitation of Village President Mr. Calabrese, made a presentation to the Board of Trustees, in a closed-door session. Five weeks ago Millennium Homes, at the invitation of Village President Mr. Calabrese, made the same presentation to the public at a regular Board of Trustees meeting. This presentation consisted of very impressive colored architectural renderings showing a development from 1st to 4th streets on the west side of Valley Street only, including Sloan Street, and the present parking lot across from the Train Station. The development also included the construction of a 3-level parking deck, in the parking lot presently owned by NJ Transit, extending beyond the river to Church Street. Four weeks ago the Village residents were surprised with an advertisement in the local press with a title: “Proposed Valley Street redevelopment to bring more than $3 million annually to South Orange”. I would like to inform the public that this was just that: an advertisement. In it there were unsubstantiated claims by Millennium Homes that their proposed development would solve the parking problems of our downtown, and it would bring a “multi-million-dollar boost in tax revenue to the Village”. The advertisement erroneously claimed that “all that remains is the approval of the Board of Trustees”, and it was urging the public to support the project “and play a role in helping it become a reality”. An experienced developer such as Millennium Homes should know that there is a process to be followed, as dictated by State statutes, that will bring this project in front of the Planning Board first, before it gets to the Board of Trustees. So their claim that all that remains is the approval of the Board of Trustees is baseless. It is surprising that Millennium Homes spent, as they claim, one year and one million dollars in preparing this expensive presentation so early in the process. Two weeks ago Millennium Homes made a widely advertised presentation to our Chamber of Commerce, during which they urged the over 100 attendees to write letters to their elected officials supporting the project. When, at that meeting, I said to the attorney representing Millennium Homes, that we would need time to review their proposal, he indicated to me that their offer will not be on the table for too long and that he needed a commitment now. I would hope that Millennium understand that if it took them one year to prepare their plan, it will certainly take us a few months to evaluate the merits of their plan and its effect on our strategic vision plan, which we have yet to draw. Where do we go from here? Once the Village Planner establishes whether Valley Street, in its entirety or portions of it, qualifies as an area in need of redevelopment or in need of rehabilitation, or a combination thereof, the Planning Board will evaluate the Planner’s findings and will conduct public hearings, where the residents will have the opportunity to express their opinion. The Planning Board will then make a determination whether or not Valley Street is in need of redevelopment, or rehabilitation, or both. The Planning Board will present its findings to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees will, in turn, hold public hearings to discuss the recommendations of the Planning Board, and then, perhaps, declare Valley Street, or portions of it, as an area in need of redevelopment, rehabilitation or both. This is a process that is not particular to our community. State statutes define this relationship between the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees. Let’s assume that the Board of Trustees designates Valley Street in its entirety as a redevelopment zone; then the Board of Trustees goes back to the Planning Board and asks for a conceptual redevelopment plan. That conceptual plan will become the basis for the preparation of a Request For Proposal, an RFP. The Board of Trustees will then have the following two options: One is to issue an RFP to developers for the parts of Valley Street which are not presently assigned to Millennium Homes, and another RFP to Millennium Homes for the area designated to them only, OR The Board rescinds the present designation of Millennium Homes as the developer of portions of Valley Street, and issues an RFP for the development of the entire Valley Street, to which of course Millennium can respond. The developers’ proposals will be reviewed by the Planning Board, as well as by the, soon to be formed, Village Redevelopment Committee, and their recommendations will be considered by the Board of Trustees. Finally, the Board of Trustees will make the selection of the appropriate proposal and will designate the developer. What do we have to do immediately? It is to be expected that this interest of Millennium will prompt other developers to come to us with their proposals. That will be good. We will need competition. However I believe that, before we examine any proposals, we should be ready with our own South Orange Vision Plan so that we know what we want on Valley Street, and we tell these developers what we want from them, rather than them telling us what we need. That is why I urge the BoT to establish now a process by which we will develop a plan that will study and coordinate all the components that make up South Orange, that is: demographics, existing residential and commercial districts, new residential and commercial development, affordable housing, open space, recreation space, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, utility services/infrastructure, public facilities and their maintenance, shared services, budget, schools, taxes, debt and debt service, safety, public art, historic and cultural heritage, etc. A plan that will prioritize all these elements, and will reflect the desires of the majority of our residents. This process begins with the hiring of a professional with expertise in conducting charrettes. These charrettes are public meetings where the residents, together with the government, establish a vision for the Village, that is: what do we want to be five, ten, fifteen years down the road. Once we have our vision, then we hire a redevelopment expert that would translate that vision into downtown redevelopment. Maplewood and other NJ communities have hired the services of such experts. Once we have our Village Vision Plan with all its components prioritized, then we can invite Millennium and other developers to present their design plans. The creation of a South Orange Vision Plan is not the Planning Board’s responsibility, it is the job of this Board of Trustees. We are the governing body that establishes policies, and the South Orange Vision Plan is a policy statement. Many of the South Orange components I mention above are not within the Planning Board’s purview. The Planning Board deals with land use issues but not with the budget, or shared services, or debt service. So, again, I propose that the Board of Trustees begin now the process by organizing a charrette for a Vision Plan. I know that there are State funds available to finance this process. Let’s get these funds and go, without allowing any developer pressure us to snappy decisions. That is the proposal I present to this Board.”   SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 14 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:55 pm:        Here’s to the emergence of several other inner-Trustees as well.   susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1376 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:02 pm:        Eric, thank you for the statement -- well said and summarized! (I seem to have missed the scheduling of this meeting, so didn't tape it. Now that I'm back in town, maybe I'll have to track it down online)   SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 16 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 3:20 pm:        Thank you for posting your statement here, Eric. Although I watched you deliver it, there is much in it that bears review and reflection and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. After reading it, I am even more convinced now that Millenium should be stripped forthwith of its privileged status to develope anything in South Orange. Its tactics are sleazy and impugn its trustworthiness. (In an analogous setting, a general contractor friend only last week advised me emphatically that any contractor who pressured a potential client to agree to a proposal by a certain deadline is a bane to the profession and should be avoided.) Given the widespread, expensive failures of so many previous development projects in town, there needs to be a radical, thorough-going departure from past procedures that have yielded the downtown blight and multi-million deficit and rising taxes we now have in South Orange. What would it take for the BOT to rescind its designation of Millenium Homes as the developer of the section of Valley Street you identified? Also, who is the town’s professional planner? How and when was she selected? Recommencing the right way with a charrette led and coordinated by a professional would be a dream come true. Frankly, this expense is far more fundamental than spending a quarter of a million just now on a particular sculpture. But given that state grants would cover the costs, it would be unforgivable not to do it. Thank you for pointing out the differences in the responsibilities of the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board. They are very important and I hope the BOT fulfills the responsibilities you described, instead of abdicating them to any advisory board, developer, or appealing quisling who happens along.   JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 4:50 pm:        The silver lining, if there can be one, to the very slow pace of development in South Orange is that we have time to now harness the ideas and intelligence of the citizens and government to PLAN for a better future. Take a deep breath, analyze the pieces of development already underway, and use the charrette process (and outside professional advice) to move in the right direction.   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 455 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:43 pm:        What I do not understand prior to making his statementis why Trustee Moore-Abrams challenged and then cross examined Eric as though he were on trial. Was she challenging his right to make a statement? see: www.howard-levison.com/bot02222006_Eric_Statement.wmv   jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 417 Registered: 6-2005 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:06 am:        She is the one who makes a big point over not being interrupted when she is talking, and then thinks nothing of interrupting others. I, too, was wondering what she was getting at. She seemed to want to stifle him for some reason.   Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 288 Registered: 4-2004 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 9:10 am:        I think Trustee Moore-Abrams should be less concerned with the content of Eric's assessment of the Valley Street Redevelopment and more concerned with whether he is Black or White. From what I have watched of Trustee Moore-Abrams - she seems to me to be some kind of self-proclaimed moral crusader who is completely caught up in her own agenda - whatever that may be.   SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 17 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 9:18 am:        I'm not sure what I would think if I looked at the video tape of the meeting. At the time, it was unclear what she was doing. I assumed she started to do something, maybe had a question in mind, then decided not to proceed, answered her on question, or something like this. In any case, it is fortunate that Eric proceeded with his statement, despite several minor disruptions. Thank you for doing so.   Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1451 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 9:24 am:        My guess is that Trustee Moore-Abrams is opposed to the Millennium proposal as is Art Taylor. She didn't know what Eric was going to say and was afraid that he was going to speak in favor of it. And Greeks are over-represented on the BOT.   michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 119 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:12 am:        If Millennium is given the approval to proceed with this project it will destroy the charm of South Orange. It will take 5-10 years to complete and during that time all the businesses on Valley will be shuttered and this will flow into town. Once the construction starts the traffic will be unbelievable and you will see more and more businesses start to leave because customers will leave. The end result will be a new housing development that Millennium only will reap rewards.   kegel Citizen Username: Kegel Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 5:00 am:        I've seen the distrust of new posters. I've also seen what happens to posters who others don't agree with (OUCH!), but here goes anyway. The new development plan for Valley Street includes knocking down the Rescue Squad (not to be confused with the paid service 6a to 6p on weekdays). I know in the past many people have taken issue with SORS, but they have actually done a lot in the past year to improve service/call times. Millennium claims that they will find them a new location and possibly even build it, but seeing how many other plans in this town have fallen through, can they be trusted? At their current location SORS is centrally located. Most real estate that is comparable to their current site is too expensive (or boarded up with coming soon signs!). If the Squad is ousted (and not given a new site) then South Orange would be dependant on a paid serivce 24/7. Does this bother anyone else?   Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4144 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 6:38 am:        kegel Welcome to the world of MOL! I think you will find a lot of us who agree with you. I didn't realize there was a plan to knock down the rescue squad building. I think this would be a BIG mistake! Look how long the fire department has been misplaced. Sadly the squad sees, less and less volunteers as the years go on. My family has never had the problems with the squad. I think if the squad does go to a paid service around the clock; those who already volunteer should be hired first.   susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1379 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 9:52 am:        Kegel, Yes, this concerns me too. Millennium is asking for far too much, and I fear our town is eager to give it, just to get some over-scale pretty buildings. Even if this turns out to be the right answer, we have got to get there by a better process than we've seen to date.   Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3225 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:55 am:        Interesting post, Kegel. Early bird, I noticed. Welcome to MOL.   kegel Citizen Username: Kegel Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:59 am:        No, I'm not an early bird. I work rotating shifts, which sometimes includes overnights. That was actually before going to bed. JTA, The squad has actually had an increase in volunteers recently. They have pretty solid coverage. They've gotten strict about not missing shifts, and now members sleep nights in the building so as to not miss calls. Unfortunately, if South Orange goes paid 24/7 volunteers wouldn't get first pick at employment at MONOC.