| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2640 Registered: 4-2002 |
Elaine: Your answers to the spider question: There was a landscape exhibition called "Earthline Landscape" from April through June 2001. The New Jersey State Council on the Arts paid for two curators who chose the work. The curators were Brooke Barry, the curator director for Grounds for Sculpture, a well known sculpture park in Hamilton, NJ, and Mel Liepzig, an artist & professor from Mercer County College, who is considered one of NJ's "major artists." There were five total sculptures on display. Two remain on long term loan--one in front of Baird, & the one in front of Dunkin Donuts. That one is by an artist from New York named Don Pecora. The Village paid $0 for the entire thing. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 301 Registered: 2-2003  |
The terms in Mark's info above "landscape exhibition called "Earthline Landscape" ... "Grounds for Sculpture" ... "sculpture park in Hamilton" ... evoke an green expanse spotted with magnificent shrubs and trees, where sculptures made of concrete and steel, like the one in front of Dunking Donuts, would serve as the contrast that would highlight the beauty of the surrounding nature. The hard asphalt, brick, and stone environment of Sloan Street, with cars, buses and hurried people passing by are not the right environment for our "spider". It's the wrong sculpture in the wrong place. Just MHO. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3489 Registered: 5-2001  |
The spider is made of STEEL? Has anyone noticed how horribly RUSTED it has become? Isn't this the same material being used to "fabricate" the $500,000 taxpayer-paid Tony Smith statue? | ||
| Lola Citizen Username: Lola Post Number: 6 Registered: 9-2002  |
I always thought the art object in front of dunken donuts looked like a navigational buouy from the ocean, usually in red and green. I don't think it would float - being concrete and steel. I guess everyone sees something different in art. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 119 Registered: 12-2004 |
Thank you, Mr. Rosner. Now, that was an appropriate response. Apparently we paid nothing for art that was left here on "permanent loan." What a great concept. Wouldn't that have been fantastic if we could have had the same deal with Tau. By the way, may we trade the spider for something else or is it really "permanent"? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2517 Registered: 5-2004  |
Long term, not permanent. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2006 |
Well, Elaine, spiders do have a bad rap, don't you think? They do eat lots of undesirables in gardens and other places. Maybe we could just banish it to the front of Village Hall as a hope for the future and get something else for the donut place. Correction, MHD, it wasn't $500,000 of tax-payer money; at least half of the $500,000 (maybe more as more things emerge from under rocks)was bond money, borrowed, requiring interest payments and years of indebtedness, which only later tax-payer money will pay off. Why pay as you go if you can foist debt onto others and get away with it? I think the BOT must be talking to AlleyGator. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 120 Registered: 12-2004 |
Rastro, true he said "long term." By contrast, the United States Income Tax was intended to be short term. I mention that just to put this in perspective. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 602 Registered: 5-2004  |
Eric, Tony Smith is oft described as a "park artist" as well. You seem to contradict yourself with the criticism of the "spider" thing - which you apparently do not enjoy - not being properly placed. Many of your constituents feel similarly about the Tau placement - the Tau will be much larger and also constructed of painted black steel. (As I recall, even you said the location wouldn't be your first choice.) Why is it that Tony Smith's estate get to choose the location as a condition of the "gift"? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 472 Registered: 1-2004  |
I would assume that if the Tau were placed in any other location it would not qualify for the CDBG money. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 65 Registered: 2-2006 |
But Howard, there was no CDBG money funding Tau. See previous posts. Trustee Rosner said no grant money funded it. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3492 Registered: 5-2001 |
SoRising, Correct. See my prior post stating that Taylor, Calabrese & Rosen LIED: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=554064#POST5540 64 | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 608 Registered: 5-2004 |
Howard, can you, or anyone else, please explain how the statue qualifies for CDBG money? It is much more clear to me that SOPAC qualifies, since it will provide jobs. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 476 Registered: 1-2004 |
That is how John Gross explained it at the last BOT meeting: see www.howard-levison.com/bot02272006_Grant.wmv | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3496 Registered: 5-2001 |
However - the TRUTH is found here: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/index.cfm Funny how there is NO mention of exhorbitant artwork as a valid use for the money | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 610 Registered: 5-2004 |
The above is the summary paragraph from MHD's link. Use for art work doesn't seem legit to me. Use for SOPAC could certainly work. Any legal pros out there care to help us out here? Any Trustees? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2533 Registered: 5-2004 |
(MHD, this might look familiar) If the grant money was originally requested for SOPAC, and the feds granted it for SOPAC, and it is now to be used for the TS sculpture, then someone is guilty of malfeasance. However if it was intended to be used for Tau, and the grant was generally for the redevelopment zone (or some other more general use), then I think that, while sneaky, there is nothing "wrong" with way the grant funds were handled. To me, what it comes down to is this: -What was the original intent of the grant request? -Under what circumstances and restrictions was it given? -Does using it for the sculpture violate the grant restrictions? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2660 Registered: 4-2002 |
I'll try to explain: The grant money was never allocated to the statue. The CDBG money was given to SOPAC. The village then used bond money that was originally going to be used for SOPAC for the statue. The argument presented to the village by the VP was we do not have a lot of places where CDBG funds could be allocated, so in a sense this was a way to get extra CDBG funds hence freeing up dollars that from bond money (And yes it could have been used for other things too). It is expected many people who will go to SOPAC will walk under the trestle, the statue would look nice as part of the gateway to the theater. Rastro: So, the intent was to free up money for the statue, but technically no grant money was ever given for the Tony Smith specifically. The gift did have a deadline and could only be placed in a location approved by the Tony Smith foundation. This was the preferred location, but that does not mean it was the only location they would have accepted. This was all legit although obviously confusing and I think somewhat misleading because it did sound like grant money was being used for the statue. I know some people are unhappy with the location. I know some people are unhappy with money being spent on art. and I know that some people are unhappy with the disclosures coming piecemeal and that there was not more public discussion. I also know there are some people who are happy with the village accepting the gift (with strings and with a cost). I don't think I have seen one person on MOL who has been swayed one way or the other since the discussion began. Most have been repeating their arguments and banging their heads against a wall trying to get the other side to change their minds. Seems like some of the passion genertated here is not much different than what I heard and saw in the presidential election (I mean, how could they even think of voting for that guy....). I am not sure why so many things have to take on the "us vs them" mentality, but it would be nice if people accepted that you can have a difference of opinion without resorting to nastiness. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3497 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, The problem is that everything you state above in your first two paragraphs is completely contrary what was stated by Taylor, Calabrese & Rosen at the last BOT Meeting. Someone is lying. | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 98 Registered: 7-2001 |
The last few posts seem less to be about the artistic validity and/or placement of the Tony Smith artwork. Viewing the tape of the bot meeting points to a persistent agitation to many who post on this board. The village administrator, who should be very busy tending to the day to day operation of the Village, offers the public the following. Negotiations with a vendor has resulted in the Village finding itself in the position where it must "temporarily" borrow from one pot of money (the CDBG) to meet an artificial timeline created by that vendor. Governmental entities, businesses and individual households which start to "borrow" from one pocket to pay for an expense created by a different pocket start down a dangerous, slippery slope. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2537 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD, I have a feeling that Mark is being literal, and Taylor, Calabrese & Rosen are stretching the term "grant money was used for..." Again, to me the biggest question is, prior to asking for the grant, had they planned to use the grant money for Tau? Mark is saying yes, but that the grant was not provided specifically for it. OK, it's a bit misleading to whomever provided the grant, but if the INTENT was to use the money for Tau all along, then to me, the grant was for Tau. Even if the money was spent on something else at the time. It's basically an accounting move to get the money as part of a grant, yet still be able to use it for the intended purpose. I am satisfied that my SO tax dollars are not being used to fund the $250k potion of the sculpture. But I am curious... if the town fronts the remaining $160k, what incentive does anyone have to raise funds to cover that expense? I mean, really? If the statue is paid for, why would someone contribute to pay back the town? There's talk of fund-raising and getting donations to pay the rest of the expense. But once the town covers the cost, I can't imagine it ever recouping those expenditures. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2538 Registered: 5-2004 |
Pat, in this case, it seems almost the opposite happened. Rather than borrowing money from CDBG, the money was "banked" at SOPAC until it was needed for the sculpture. I do agree with your comments regarding it being a slippery slope when you borrow from Peter to pay Paul. I just don't think they fit the specific case here. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8844 Registered: 4-1997  |
Misleading? It's defrauding the federal government. It's a misappropriation of government (HUD) grant money. CDBG funds don't cover artwork. They're to help blighted communities make actual infrastructure changes. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2539 Registered: 5-2004 |
Dave, how is that different from every single time we submit a budget to the state with inflated numbers so that we can get higher state aid? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8845 Registered: 4-1997 |
Call HUD and ask if it's legal to use their grant for something other than what was on the application. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2540 Registered: 5-2004 |
Again, how is that different from lying to the state on the dire situation in town, trying to convince them to send us more money than they otherwise would. Since we don't know what was on the application (Do we? We might. I assume we don't), we don't know that they lied outright. They may have taken some creative liberty with the truth...  | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 3078 Registered: 5-2005  |
Dave: you nailed it, that is the issue! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2541 Registered: 5-2004 |
And Dave, I don't want you to think that I think this is a good idea. I wish they would simply use the funds for SOPAC and forget the statue. I think it's a bad use of funds when they could be used for something else. I guess I wonder if they would have applied for the grant moeny if there was no statue to be paid for. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2542 Registered: 5-2004 |
And perhaps someone should turn in the town. I don't mean that sarcastically. I'm sure if there was malfeasance, someone sould sue the town to stop them from using the funds as they are. | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 99 Registered: 7-2001 |
Before a CDBG application is filed a formal meeting is held as part of a Trustee meeting. The Grant writer for the town tells the Trustees what the landscape looks like, in terms of a grant application, and attendance is taken. The Trustees then specify how the requested money will be used. As a policy matter, the board, when I was a member, agreed to dedicate all CDBG money to help build the Arts Center. Years ago a CDBG grant was awarded for the Irvington Avenue project, but the awared was rescinded because HUD determined that the mean income levels of the area (Irvington Avenue) exceeded the maximums permitted under the grant program. Patrick | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 452 Registered: 6-2005 |
I know this is a digression, but it realtes to how the town uses grant money. How was the Irvington Ave re-do paid for. On another thread, Mr. Rosner said the bulk came from a grant. Was it a different grant, or was he mis-informed? | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 100 Registered: 7-2001 |
I believe it was a State Transportation grant. Patrick | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 70 Registered: 2-2006 |
Rastro and others, you may want to look at an entry I made on Feb. 28. Here is part of it about the grant. The intent of the town and federal restrictions for receipt of federal money are not a mystery. They are a matter of record. Until you have the record generated for the grant money, I don't think you can say whether your interpretation or patjoyce's interpretation is correct. Facts, not speculation, are needed. "(Someone should request a copy of the grant application that sought this money and the grantor’s response; the original intent of the town, as well as the conditions the feds imposed on the town to accept the money would be revealed in them.) If the original intent of the town was to get this money for something merely “in the area of SOPAC ”, while it claimed later that the money was for the sculpture, its revision is a convenient afterthought. On the other hand, if they intended, from the outset, that this money be applied to the sculpture and not to SOPAC, it appears that, due to an inability to plan and execute projects in a timely fashion, they almost lost the money because they could not meet federally imposed deadlines but were nevertheless permitted to apply it to SOPAC instead of the sculpture. (Whether they have complied with other criteria required to accept this and other federal monies is, on the basis of last night’s performance, something that should be thoroughly investigated.)" | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2549 Registered: 5-2004 |
SOrising, I am not intepretting Pat's comments. He said that it was like borrowing from the CDBG. I said it was more like banking the money. Whether the town had the right to actually use the funds for Tau is a whole other issue. If the original grant application included Tau, then I don't think the town did anything wrong. But if it did not, then HUD would have a pretty credible case to get its money back given the recorded responses given at the last BoT meeting. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 71 Registered: 2-2006 |
So, in order to know if the town did anything illegal (as opposed to merely wrong, given that lying, dissembling, etc., up to a point, may be wrong but not illegal), if someone obtained the grant documents, we would know what the town has done, at least more than we do now, since neither trustees nor town employees when asked can account for their actions now. Whether the town borrowed or banked the CDBG money can only be answered by the actual record; it may be more accurate to say that knowing whether your speculation (banking) vs. patjoyce's speculation (borrowing) is true can only be answered by the record. (Assuming, of course, that that still exists.) | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2553 Registered: 5-2004 |
Actually, no. They either committed fraud by falsifying the grant application (or by misappropriating grant funds), or they banked the money at SOPAC until it was needed for Tau. There has to be a copy of the grant application at HUD. Anyone have a FOIA form handy? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3499 Registered: 5-2001 |
http://www.hud.gov/offices/ogc/foia/foia.cfm | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 72 Registered: 2-2006 |
No, Rastro? Minor, but don't follow. (All that divides us appears to be whether something should be characterized as a speculation when facts exist but are unknown. I do admire your evident commitment, if not passion, for the law, however. All the more because it does not appear to be widespread in Village Hall, on more than one issue I've witnessed.) Why use FOIA when OPRA might be quicker and provide at least partial answers? The town administration should have a copy of its own grant application and any correspondence from the feds about it. As well, accounting trails exist, presumably about whatever morphing took place with the funds themselves. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2557 Registered: 5-2004 |
Because you can do an FIOA request online, whereas OPRA requires that you fill out a form manually. I'm nothing if not lazy. Besides, I'd trust HUD's copy of the request more than I would any version retained by the township. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 73 Registered: 2-2006 |
I believe there is an OPRA request form online on NJ DEP's website. Maybe you could print the form and use it for the village? |
