| Author |
Message |
    
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4280
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:54 pm: | 
|
Dave you said
>>>questions about misusing federal grant money and/or lying to South Orange citizens are solvable and perhaps that's where this topic should focus.<<<
I totally agree! |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4281
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
AO1969
I hope you go to the BOT Meeting Monday night! |
AlleyGater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Pdg and JTA pointed out to me what a butthead I've been. So let me formally apologize to everyone here. I don't live in S.O. and really have very little opinion about the funding of this sculpture project and know less than nothing about Beifus, Supermarkets and the inner workings of S.O. politics. I do feel passionate about art. I'm sorry that I got fired up over some of the comments people made here. At times I felt that people were unfairly bashing a great artist and his work. Other than the few insults I hurled, I honestly tried (and possibly failed) to keep my points about art and generally stayed away from the other issues I knew little or nothing about. Please accept my apologies and I will now TRY to piss off a few less people...although I can't promise anything. Sorry CrazyQ. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4286
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 12:08 am: |
|
Alley-
You already more then apologized earlier today. Not to worry! And I still respect what you have to say. I think Dave hit the nail on the head with his thoughts about the real issues. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 619
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 7:51 am: |
|
I appreciate it very much, AlleyGater! I think you'll find we are quick to forgive.
I, too, respect the essence of what you have been saying and realize you are very passionate about the art you appreciate.
Thanks, and Have a nice day!!  |
Lewisinsov
Citizen
Username: Lewisinsov
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
As a newcomer to SOV and this dispute, here are my thoughts, which you can take or leave.
If it is true that the $250,000 is the proceeds of a bond issue for SOPAC that was not required because of the federal grant, then effectively it is a loan that was not required for the purposes for which it was borrowed.
I wonder whether the trustee could shed light on how much interest SO is paying on those bonds.
To me, the purchase of the artwork using debt seems a lot like me purchasing a sculpture on my credit cards. Even if the sculpture is a great deal, I still have to pay off the credit cards.
To treat the additional $250,000 as "money in the bank" seems plain wrong. The money shouldn't be "returned" to the taxpayers; it should be used to repay the bonds or at least for an infrastructure project.
I also doubt that it is legit to use the proceeds of municipal bonds to fund the acquisition of artwork. I would be shocked if there were no restrictions on what the money can be used for.
Don't get me wrong. I think having the sculpture would be nice, I just think it is fiscally irresponsible to borrow money to acquire it. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 477
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 6:40 am: |
|
What we needed is a transaction flow that can help answer these financing questions. Allan, as chair of the Finance Committee can you request this from John Gross and either post or present at a BOT meeting. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 225
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
Cross posted from New Market Timeline thread:
Eric
Nice "rhetorical" device. Susan1014 asks perfectly reasonable, but uncomfortable, questions of you and you re-direct.
Eric, I suggest you and the other Trustees take a moment and think about what you're doing on this sculpture. Pretend that the project is not the Tony Smith sculpture, but some other project the Village is funding (I realize this is a difficult leap of imagination, as most of what the village spends money on is a suitable use of public resources and the TS sculpture is not, but please try).
- You have an OPTIONAL Village project of very significant size - the equivalent in cost of TOTAL annual budget for Street Repair - but even that budget number is not firm
- You do not have established sources of initial funding and no sources of ongoing funding for ongoing maintenance (this imaginary project is expected to be a target for graffitti)
- The project will transform the physical appearance of the most prominent piece of real estate in town and yet the vast majority of residents have no idea the project is happening and those that do know, have not been shown a rendering of what the project will look like
YOU WOULD VOTE TO SPEND MONEY FOR SUCH A PROJECT?
The unfortunate answer for a number of trustees and the VP is that they repeatedly support such half-baked projects that inevitably leave us, the taxpayers, holding the bag.
Eric, I thought you were part of the solution.
This project is the sort of project that should be subject to a referendum. At bare minimum, I request again that a detailed budget and drawings in context be published in the Gaslight.
Eric, you're hiding behind the activism of the few. If you really cared about the view of most residents, you would support shedding maximum light on this project. The advocates of special interests never favor that approach, so I suspect you will not in this case.
I'm cross posting this in TS sculpture thread so no re-direct is needed. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 481
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
The Tony Smith sculpture is not an isolated situation. Reported in last weeks NewsRecord “Old Stone House gets $500,000 for repairs” is just another example of understanding priorities and impact to our taxes.
Not that these are worthy projects, it is how our government makes what seems to be decisions as though it has deep pockets – at the same time there is a run away budget and high probability of two digit tax increases.
We have promises from well-meaning groups representing that they can raise funds to cover these debts.
The CBAC made a reasonable recommendation about these projects:
The CBAC recommends that the Board of Trustees take immediate action to stop the further deterioration of the Old Stone House by immediate non-historic prophylactic repair.
The CBAC recommends that a discussion of capital priorities be initiated before proceeding with stabilizing the Old Stone House. A decision about stabilization and further development should be made according to the project’s place among these priorities. Consideration of proposed uses for the Old Stone House requires greater project and financial detail.
In our opinion, various infrastructure needs throughout the Township have a greater immediate claim to funding than the Old Stone House, whether from bonding or the Open Space Trust Fund. Some current high-priority projects would include a new roof and air conditioning for the New Library; a new roof for the Old Library; extensive external repairs and a new or repaired roof for City Hall; and a new or repaired roof for the Baird Center.
Therefore, before proceeding with the stabilization project, a discussion of Village-wide priorities and assignment of funding sources should be initiated. A decision then can be made based on these criteria, which should include greater project and financial detail for multiple proposed uses for the Old Stone House.
Some specific items that need to be addressed include the following:
1. Defining Police Department use requirements;
2. Defining Historical Society projected use of the facility;
3. Defining the scope of the proposed stabilization
4. Projected other sources of fund to include but not be limited to Grants (naming specifically which and how much; and Fundraising (projected amount over what period and who will implement;
5. Projected costs of both PD alternatives as it relates to No. 1 above requirement; and
6. Projected cost of current maintenance required at the PD that would be included in the second story addition alternative.
Did the BOT follow through with this recommendation? I have doubts given the statement from the NewsRecord article, “I think we’re going to find some use for that building, no matter what, Calabrese said. He estimated it will cost more than $1 million.”
Current commitments for the Old Stone House are from the Open Space Trust Fund: $108k (tax dollars), Historical Society Trust Fund: $155k, and Bond Issue: $240k (tax dollars). The stabilization does not provide historic relevance (roof material, boarded windows etc) but rather future repairs if funded will provide that.
Now, lets take a quick look at the SOPAC impact. A bond issue for construction estimated to be between $10-14 million – to be paid back starting 2013 over a 30 year period for over $600k/year. In addition, the Village has budgeted a contribution to operating expenses at $350-500/yr. Currently $230k/yr CDBG and $176k Cinema lease has been identified as funding sources.
What we need is a little “sunshine” on these projects as well as understanding the other priorities the Village faces to the deteriorating infrastructure. As Trustee Rosen stated “It’s really a crime what’s taken place.”
|
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
The only part of the "old Stone House" that has any historical significance is the stone foundation wall. The rest of it consists of much later additions, which are in a state of advanced decay. Sinking any money into it would be a waste. Raze it down to the stone walls, stick a plaque on it and add some plantings and a bench or two and we'll have an instant park. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 483
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Note correction to my post above:
Now, lets take a quick look at the SOPAC impact. A bond issue for construction estimated to be between $10-14 million – to be paid back starting 2013 over a 30 year period for over $600k/year. In addition, the Village has budgeted a contribution to operating expenses at $350-500k /yr. Currently $230k/yr CDBG and $176k Cinema lease has been identified as funding sources. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3516
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Howard,
So...if the Village spends that $230K from CDBG on a statue instead, where does the additional $230k come from?
EDIT to add: That also means that the "fundraisers" must now raise $210,000 to reach the total of $440,000 for the project (and they have only raised $50k so far in 4 years!) |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
SOPAC is the biggest black hole of all, dwarfing all others. So I guess it isn't too surprising that it sucked the TS sculpture into its orbit of debt-burdened funding.
Its sad that the memory of Tony Smith is so dishonored and tainted by the clandestine, illicit fiscal machinations of town leaders. He, his widow and family deserve far better. |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3601
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Let's see where this goes...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Wallace-and-Gromit.html |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3530
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/News/9905/12/showbuzz/#story4 |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Going back to SOrising's comments about SOPAC above, the deceitfulness about SOPAC's financing is remarkable. Last night, in trying to explain the financing of Tau, BIll C. said it was always understood that SOPAC would require public funding.
This is completely untrue. SOPAC was always touted as not costing the taxpayers anything, and that it would be completly financed by grants. I don't have access to any of the interviews, but Bill C was interviewed on CNN about seven years ago and said the great thing about SOPAC was that it was going to be completly funded by grants and wouldn't cost the taxayers anything. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3531
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Something untrue being said by Calabrese? I'm shocked. Totally shocked!  |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 599
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
In respect to the word "grants" which we throw around all the time (along with the BOT) - they, too, are taxpayers dollars... so in essence wherever money comes from (that is not private) -it comes from members of various communities.
Please note that I'm not trying to sound like an oober libertarian or anything (I'm not) - just an observation. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Sheena - Bill specifically said that it wasn't going to cost the taxpayers anything. This is how it had always been pitched. It was before your time in South Orange. Whether it was grants or anything else, the cost to the taxpayers was always said to be zilch.
My problem is that at least be upfront with something. Maybe Bill actually thought back then that it wasn't going to cost the taxpayers anything. But to say that it was always known that
SOPAC would need taxpayer funding was not the way it had been presented.
Once again, you weren't around when SOAPC was first discussed.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3533
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Spitz,
It wasn't even THAT long ago. In Dec 2005, the following was in the Star Ledger:
Excerpt:
The projects in South Orange and Weehawken have received state funding in the form of direct grants from the Legislature and community development block grants. That's a problem for Burd, who believes politicians should be thinking about the long-term success of a project when making capital grants.
"Let's not just pour money into the community because it's our community. Let's make sure it's the right thing," said Burd, who notes that after funding construction, communities often stop their support.
In South Orange, Village President William Calabrese said the community is ready to help the new arts center -- what he calls "the jewel of the downtown revitalization effort" -- after it opens next fall.
"We're in for a couple hundred thousand (dollars) a year for the first four or five seasons," said Calabrese. But after that, municipal officials expect it to be self-sufficient, thanks to the movie theaters and the party rooms included in the plans.
When told that the most successful of arts centers --even those with revenue streams from parties, parking or the like -- rarely achieve self-sufficiency, Calabrese bristled.
"This is South Orange. This is a well-managed community," he said. "We don't waste money."
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
MHD - That quote of Bill C's that "we're in for a couple hundred thousand of dollars for the first four or five years" isn't even correct. The budget this year calls for the Village (i.e. the taxpayers) to pay $350,000 for SOPAC.
The first that I heard that the Village was going to have to subsidize SOPAC was about one year ago when the new president of SOPAC indicated that the Village would have to subsidize SOPAC. And then it was for a year or two.
The deal as originally presented was that construction financing would come from non-repayable grants and low interest loans which would be repaid from the revenues from the movie theaters. The revenues from the movie theaters were also supposed to cover any other shortfalls from the theater.
Now Bill C says it was always known that the Village would have to fund SOPAC, and this cost is the same as any other costs the Village incurs in connection with its recreation program.
Why didn't we just build a movie theater? It seems that this is what most people are intereseted in, and it's the theater part that's going to be the black hole. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Hey, $200,000, $350,000, what's the diff? Chump change.
How many people in SO do you think will know that the movie they just enjoyed cost the taxpayers $350,000 a year? My guess - 5%. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Spitz, your statement is based on the assumption that people will actually go to SOPAC. IF what I heard about them carrying artsy movies all the time is true, you'll see me at Essex Green. Cus' SOPAC sure as hell won't have the new Waynes brothers movie! (Wheneever a new one comes out ) |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 602
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Glock - It's not only carrying 'artsy movies'.... who said that?
Spitz - I'm not arguing that the BOT didn't say that, I just wanted to point out that "grants" are tax dollars. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:24 pm: |
|
O.K. By the way, Mrs. S's comment was indeed a compliment.
Edited to add: She really was impressed by the entire presentation. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 478
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
Since this sculpture is supposed to be installed in the fall, are there any architectural renderings of the area which is to be re-worked by the train station? If there are, I suggest they be posted by the train station so people can look at them. Also, shouldn't construction have to start soon, if they hope to meet the deadline, or won't the village risk having to incur additional costs for storage of the sculpture? |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
i keep picturing a scene from Spinal Tap where they reproduce Stone Henge and it is only a few feet tall. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 507
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Mark my words...This sculpture will be COMING SOON. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 486
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
JayJay, the clock has started. The fabricator will be shipping the sculpture in six months to be installed on a foundation supplied by "others."
I also assume that the Village will be the "others" and issue a RFP, PO and payment for the construction/installation.
I agree that the design should be posted (SO.org) so that there can be public comment. I was on a tour yesterday with Main Street NJ consultants who were providing design recommendations/suggestions for our business district. One of the discussed focal points was where the sculpture is to be installed.
|
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 231
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
The fact that the Village executed a contract for fabrication without having the private money in hand is one of many troubling aspects of this project from a process / governance perspective.
If the private funders are supposed to provide $160K, what happens if they don't?
The Village will have already spent the money fabricating the sculpture and incurred other costs.
Why did they execute a contract for fabrication without having the other funding in place?
This is totally irresponsible. Mark, Eric? Any defense of your actions on this narrow aspect - not your general support, but your contractual and financial mismanagement?
Don't think the sculpture supporters don't get this...since they have no moral conscience about having taxpayers fund more than half of this already, why not let taxpayers carry the full load? Anybody familiar with The Tragedy of the Commons?*
Private money fails to materialize in quantity expected and then the Village faces the choice of junking the sculpture or writing off the contract to fabricate, or stepping in with the other funds. Guess who gets screwed.
* From Wikipedia "The parable demonstrates how unrestricted access to a resource such as a pasture ultimately dooms the resource because of over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, while the costs of exploitation are distributed between all those exploiting the resource." In this case the rest of us aren't exploiting our tax revenues, we're simply asking for them to be used for customary municipal functions for a village of 17,000, not the purchase of "world class" art.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 487
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Can anyone accept John's justification
( www.howard-levison.com/bot03132006_Explanation.wmv )
after viewing his statement at the prior BOT meeting
( www.howard-levison.com/bot02272006_Gross_Explanation.wmv ) ? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page