| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4258
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 8:55 pm: | 
|
OH...You're so, right, Mary.
On February 27, Calabrese, Rosen & Taylor were simply being sarcastic when they made the following direct quotes, when asked for the source of the "$250,000" for the Tony Smith sculpture, right?
“It is coming from a grant that we received” (Calabrese)
“The first $250 thousand was a grant” (Rosen)
“The Statue obtained by a grant and and then supported by Committee”(Rosen)
“This money came from a Federal Grant” (Rosen)
“The Village is not going to spend a cent of taxpayer money” (Rosen)
“It did so without sacrificing anything we would ordinary provide” (Taylor)
“The money could only be used for that purpose We did not take tax dollars” (Taylor)
“The money was given to us for the sculpture” (Taylor) |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 595
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Well, then everything is alright.
jd |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4266
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Tonight at the Neighborhood Meeting at the Baird Center, a rather modest discussion with about 20 residents (and DeVaris, Rosen, Taylor, Jennings and Calabrese) began with various comments from a number of residents about traffic, speeding and potholes.
THEN...someone (no...not me!) asked why the Village doesn't spend more money on fixing streets and potholes instead of putting up Tau on Sloan Street and the conversation quickly turned the Trustees on the defensive. Once again, Calabrese responded that the money is coming from SOPAC & there was a "switch". (I guess he forgot about the bonding for Streets, Sidewalk & Roadway imporvements).
I had planned to stay silent & just listen during the meeting, but I was then compelled to correct the continued misstatements made by Calabrese. Note to Bill - This is NOT about ART. It is about MISPLACED PRIORITIES and irresponsible use of tax dollars. You do not buy expensive ART when the roof is leaking! How many times do we have to tell you?
Well, several other people DID tell him, but he still did not listen.
The rest of the Meeting then continued with residents outraged over the state of Downtown, lack of credibility about anything being said anymore about the Supermarket, and the depressed real estate prices in South Orange compared to Maplewood as a result.
It was quite an interesting evening! |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 693
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Did TerriAnn show for any of the town meetings? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4267
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
She was not at this one & she was not at the one on April 19: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=587728#POST5877 28 |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 616
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 5:55 am: |
|
Neither was she or Bill at the joint meeting on Shared Services. |
Mary32
Citizen
Username: Mary32
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
The situation with Trustee Moore-Abrams is unacceptable. Isn't there any process that will remove a Trustee if she/he misses so many public meetings? Trustee Rosner what is your take on this? Do you find it acceptable ? Shouldn't the BOT move on this, or at the very least give a public warning to Trustee Moore-Abrams that she has to shape-up or shape-out? If she has obligations that prevent her from her Trustee duties shouldn't she resign? Do we have to endure an inefficient BOT until 2009?
We, the residents, deserve full services from our elected officials.
Mary |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4269
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Mary,
Initially last night, the only people present were Trustees Devaris & Rosen and I was wondering where everyone was. Fortunately, the rest of them slowly arrived (except for Mr. Rosner - who stated here online that he would not be present and Ms. Abrams). (although Ms. Jennings did come late & then also left early)
To your question above, the Village Charter simply says the following: "The Board of Trustees by the affirmative vote of four Trustees shall have the
power to declare vacant the office of any Trustee who fails to attend the regular monthly meeting of the Board for three successive months."
To date that has not yet occurred, although I agree with your overall issue. |
JoRo
Citizen
Username: Autojoe51
Post Number: 121
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 12:21 pm: |
|
i also attended the meeting last night. there's no doubt in my mind based on anecdotal evidence that the sorry state of downtown is dragging down all our property values. the president often remarks about how much better sloan street is now than it was 15 years ago, but one refurbished simply cannot be deemed a success. this village should be the hottest property in the northeast ... the greatest classic suburb in america! seriously. it's got more potential than millburn and montclair combined! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4270
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
You are absolutely right, JoRo. Although, it is funny how he says Sloan Street is so much better, yet he STILL wants to spend ANOTHER $250,000 to change it again.
One funny moment from last night was when Marge Smith stood up on "behalf" of the rescue squad to address residents suggestions to close off certain streets to reduce traffic. She stated her name & address (Mayhew Drive) for the record & then said "...and no, I'm not MayhewDrive on Maplewood Online".
I had no idea I was so well known. 
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 602
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
You're not, whoever you are.
jd |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4295
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
It's been brought to my attention that my statement above that Ms. Smith spoke on "behalf" of the Rescue Squad was incorrect.
I believe I should have said that Ms. Smith spoke as a member of the rescue squad and not officially on their behalf. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
The minutes from the most recent Neighborhood Meeting have been posted online & those of you who missed it should read the minutes. It is too bad there is no video, because Calabrese's comments are Classic nonsense. Can someone please tell me where I can get the secret decoder ring to interpret his comments:
Joanne Klein of 378 Thornden Street opined that the sculpture should not replace the gazebo and
cost the taxpayers money which can and should be used to repair potholes and repair the library.
Village President Calabrese advised that 10-12 years ago the plans for South Orange included
making it a renowned arts community. He noted that when the Tony Smith estate offered the
gift (sculpture) to the Village, it also looked for the best placement within the Village for the
sculpture. The estate opined that the best location for the sculpture was in front of the train
station, which is also the entrance to the Arts Center. Accordingly, a commitment was made to
the Tony Smith estate that this would be the location of the sculpture. Village President
Calabrese noted that some people have suggested that the sculpture be placed in front of the
SOPAC. He explained that the sculpture can not be placed in front of the SOPAC because after
911, he made a commitment to build a memorial for the 911 victims at the obelisk.
Village President then asserted that the sculpture is not costing the taxpayers any more money than it would have cost 3 years ago. He noted that the Arts Center is being built through a bond which the Village is guaranteeing but will ultimately be repaid by the Arts Center Board.
He explained that money was taken from the Arts Center budget to purchase the sculpture and was replaced by a grant that went to pay for the Arts Center. He asserted that this is “all the same money” and “no new money was created.” He stated that money was simply moved from one pocket to another pocket.
Village President asserted that the sculpture will be prestigous for the Village.
He opined that the Village is much better now than it was 15 years ago because of the vision to
improve the Village.
Michael Goldberg of 39 Mayhew Drive noted that residents are outraged about the sculpture. He
then acknowledged that the right to produce the sculpture is a gift, but the cost of the project is
$410,000. He further noted that the Village committed $250,000 of taxpayers’ money for the
project. He stated that this was not disclosed until several weeks ago. Mr. Goldberg asserted
that this is an issue of priorities. People are not opposed to the sculpture. Rather, residents are
opposed to spending money for artwork when roads need repaving and municipal buildings need
repairing. He acknowledged that the Board has done a great job with Sloan Street. He further
acknowledged that Sloan Street is one of the reasons that people come to South Orange. He
stated that Sloan Street looks nice and it should be left alone. There are other sites in town that
require attention. He then stated that the Board has not “come clean” with the source of the
funding of the sculpture. He noted that residents were first told that the funding was from a
grant, then residents were told that funding was coming from the SOPAC budget, then residents
were told that the funding was coming from a bond for streets, sidewalk and roadway
improvements. He asserted that the “story” keeps changing and the fact is that the funding is
coming from tax dollars. He advised the public that he has a petition for anyone who wants to
sign it to show the Board of Trustees the outrage of the residents over the Tony Smith sculpture.
Village President Calabrese asserted that everything that is seen is because the Village has been
aggressive in improving the condition of the town. He explained that Sloan Street is great
because the Village lent the developer $500,000 to lease the property. He noted that no one else
in the State of New Jersey has been as innovative to initiate redevelopment. No one else had
thought about narrowing a major thoroughfare to make the municipality a Village. Village
President Calabrese noted that repairs on the Library were needed when the process first started,
but the priorities were Sloan Street and South Orange Avenue which have improved the image of
the Village. He stated that the Board must think of the Village as a whole and that it is
committed to making every part of the community a valuable asset to the whole. He asserted
that the downtown is the principle asset.
http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2006/06-21-06sm.pdf |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
MHD, VP C is correct, money is simply moved from one pocket to another...
It's from your pocket, and my pocket, and your neighbours pocket.... |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 638
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 5:00 pm: |
|
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
jd |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 639
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
jd |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4378
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 7:45 am: |
|
A compilation of the recent Letters to the Editor in the News Record opposing this outrageous expenditure has now been posted:
http://www.notaxesfortau.com/Editorials.pdf |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
stop the insanity! We don't have the money for this project. Is Tau already fabricated? sitting somewhere? let the estate sell it or keep it. Pay whatever fines we have to pay. Don't throw anymore good money after bad. IF the people who want Tau can pay the money back to the town then let them proceed. But we shouldn't continue just because we have lost some money. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 661
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
But, "we" are not "they," the insulated Board.
jd |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 358
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
MHD -
Thanks for posting those letters and the editorial. I encourage people to follow the link in MHD's post above and read.
So much good, common sense in our village, so little on the BOT. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4458
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Latest "news":
I have received correspondence from Village Hall stating that the town attorney has determined that the petitions are not legally binding, regardless of how many are collected!
In addition, I have been informed that the on-line petition is not "valid"!
So, it appears that if you do not want at least $250,000 of YOUR tax dollars spent for a sculpture, the only way to make a difference is to show up in person tonight & SPEAK UP TONIGHT! |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 657
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Or one of our Trustees can place it on the agenda for discussion and vote. This would be the same process that was done for the additional Open Space Trust Fund tax.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of our Trustees. The ballot question is non-binding but would provide a sense of where the public stands on the issue. |
