| Author |
Message |
    
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 140
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:53 am: | 
|
Mr. Devaris are you on the Tony Smith committee?
And if the answer is yes then please tell me as trustee and member of the Tony Smith committee how did you not know that there was not a grant in place? |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 603
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
He's not on the Tony Smith committee... if he was, it would have been a conflict of interest and he wouldn't have voted. |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Mr. Brant,
Your post illustrates my reasons for signing off from the Tony Smith sculpture issue on MOL. (see: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=555069#POST5550 69 ) I find that I keep responding to the same questions/arguments, most of them by the same people (maybe not you).
Both of your questions have been previously addressed in other threads.
If you go to this link:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=554528#POST5545 28
you will read that “…I am … not a member of the Committee responsible for the fundraising for the Tony Smith Project. My name is listed in the stationery of the Lennie Pierro Memorial Arts Foundation under the Advisory Committee listing. As such I do not have to participate in any meetings (and I don’t), and I do not receive any compensation. I just lend my name to the listing together with 28 other S.O. residents.”
And if you go to this link:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=554510#POST5545 10
you will read that I never said that “I did not know that there was not a grant in place” as you claim in your post.
In fact you will read that I had the correct knowledge of the finances even though I was not in the Board of Trustees when these decisions were made. Here is what I say in this link:
“The Village has committed $250K for the project. My understanding (and I could very well be wrong because all this has happened in the distant past before I was on the BoT) as to where the money comes from is this: our application for $250K federal (CDBG) funds for the Tony Smith project was not approved; our application for $250K federal (CDBG) funds for SOPAC and similar art projects was approved; the Village had already issued bonds to pay for its SOPAC obligation. Since SOPAC got the extra CDBG $250K (which was not anticipated when the bonds were issued) the BoT decided to transfer some ($250K) of the SOPAC bonds money to the sculpture project. Apparently all this is legit.”
If you want to know more about my stand on the Tony Smith issue please refer to:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=441148#POST4411 48
and
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=441148#POST4411 48
There you will find answers to any other questions you may have on my stand. If not, please do not hesitate to ask me.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3541
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Eric,
In your post on August 25, 2005: (http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=441148#POST4411 48)
you stated "The Village has allotted to the project $250,000 it received from the County’s Community Development Block Grant"
It was not until March 6, 2055 - after the vote was taken to fabricate the sculpture - did you post "our application for $250K federal (CDBG) funds for the Tony Smith project was not approved"
It would have been in your best interest & the town's best interest for you to be informed PRIOR to voting. |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Sorry, the last link should be:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=444654#POST4446 54 |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:22 pm: |
|
MHD,
Please read:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=555069#POST5550 69
|
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 144
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Mr.Devaris please clear this up for me.
Prior to Mondays meeting did anyone on the BOT ever say that tax dollars were going to be used for this project? |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 232
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Eric -
Have you responded to the question as to why it was necessary to sign a contract for fabrication prior to the private money being raised? Why isn't it enough that the BOT voted to spend its supposed share of the cost and approve the location? That should have been enough commitment to get the private funders on board.
From other thread...
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.
|
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 640
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
"junking the sculpture"
Sort of like they are "junking" the gazebo and fountain. I still would like to know what the costs associated with those improvements were! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3542
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:44 pm: |
|
On Monday night, Trustee Devaris said "A referendum can be caused by a petition of 2000 people. If you can collect 2000 signatures....please present them to us...If there are 2000 signatures, I would consider it"
It really is interesting to me that before he was a Trustee and he was a member of CPSO, Eric Devaris advocated an Open Space Trust Fund be created via referendum. Significantly fewer than 2000 signatures were presented by CPSO to the BOT, but the BOT agreed to hold a referendum anyway. |
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 148
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Devaris please clear this up for me.
Prior to Mondays meeting did anyone on the BOT ever say that tax dollars were going to be used for this project? |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Mr. Brant,
The answer is yes: Trustee Rosner did so months ago, and I did so months ago as well as in my post on MOL on March 6.
I never tried to hide the fact that I was aware that the $250K was coming from the taxpayers money. Read this from my August 25, 2005 here on MOL:
Granted the $250,000 CDBG money could have been used to reduce our taxes for 2005 by approximately $44 per household ($250,000÷5,600 households). And although to some these $44 would have made a difference in their budget, it is a worthwhile sacrifice when it comes to enriching our downtown with art, and further enhancing our reputation as a vibrant arts' community."
You'll find that statement here:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=441148#POST4411 48
I can not speak for the other Trustees if they did so or not. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
If bond money paid for the sculpture, it is still misleading to say (merely) that tax revenues paid for it. Tax revenue is income. Borrowed money is not. Bond money is borrowed. It is not income from tax payers. It is a loan from bond holders. It requires interest payments and years of indebtedness of the town as the price of receiving it. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Sorising - exactly.
In simple terms, a grant is like a "gift" that doesn't cost you anything (unlike a Tony Smith sculpture).
A bond is DEBT. It is a "loan" that is taken out that must be repayed, with interest, by the taxpayers. |
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 154
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
thank you |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:29 pm: |
|
SOrising, michael brant, and MHD,
It is obvious that no matter how much I try to respond to your questions, no matter how much I try to share with you all the information that I have, no matter how much I try to give my reasons for my actions, it is never enough for you. You will never stop dissecting what I have to say until you get what you want: my admission of wrongdoing, and my adoption of your points of view. You'll never get either from me on this issue.
I understand your frustration with some of the things going wrong in our Village, I share your concerns, and I plan to take action on them as I go along, perhaps not at the speed or at the fashion you'd like but in my own way. However you have to understand that there will always be areas where you and I will disagree.
Let's respect each other's opinions and let's agree to disagree.
You can express your resentment toward me on this issue as much as you want but, please, don't ask me any more questions on the Tony Smith sculpture, I will not respond. I've already signed off once on this. This is my second sign off. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3549
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Trustee Devaris,
I do agree to disagree with you, but I don't think I asked you any questions above.
I simply expressed by disappointment that your stance on having a referendum seems to have shifted, based on whether you agree with the issue or not. The following quotes on your campaign website, also seem to have "shifted":
“Ban the issue of bonds for projects in which the Village acts as a banker (e.g. SOPAC), unless they have a detailed business plan that provides for tax revenues sufficient to cover the payment of the debt when it comes due.”
“Strictly enforce the existing “pay-as-you-go” policy. “
In my opinion, you are too personally involved in this project to see what the lies of Calabrese, Rosen & Taylor symbolize for an already overtaxed town. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 234
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I'm feeling left out.
Mr. DeVaris, is it that you really don't have an answer as to why it is okay to sign a contract for fabrication of the sculpture without having the private funding in place? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2603
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:58 pm: |
|
SO1969,
There was never a promise that private funding would cover a significant portion of the cost. Whether CRT (Calabrese, Rosen and Taylor) said there would be is realy irrelevant. I don't remember anyone from the group raising the money actually promising a specific amount.
I don't know why you ask the question - did you think there was some expectation that we would not build it if there was no private funding avialable? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
Eric, unlike many on the BOT and the town administration, you do try to address people's questions on MOL and elsewhere. And this distinquishes you greatly from those who don't.
It just appears that even now you don't understand how the sculpture is being paid for. This may be because no one in the town knows, or it may be because someone is not telling you the truth about it. But it is your responsibility as our representative to discover which is the case. That is why we keep conversing about it. (I also did not pose a question to you in my post just before this.)
As it is our duty to find out from elected officials how major expenses, especially voluntary ones, are paid for and why we need them, most of us believe it is your duty to provide accurate, reliable answers to such questions. It still appears you do not have or at least for some reason are not providing these kinds of answers.
There is a significant difference between tax revenues of any buget cycle and borrowed money received during it. It is disturbing that you seem not to know the difference or that you think the distinction is irrelevant to whether the town should pay for the sculpture. It is disturbing that you don't understand how major expenses will be paid for before you agree to the expenditure. It is also disturbing that you do not think it is wrong to do so, that you seem poised to do exactly the same thing for any number of other large expenditures in town.
South Orange cannot afford the kind of real estate speculation and approval of major expenses that are sending it further and further into debt, driving taxes higher and higher in a state with a $3.5-$4 billion cumulative deficit many years in the making. This is not a disagreement about art. It is a disagreement about whether the leaders of the town have any realistic plan to get the town out of debt and to protect it from the consequences of the State's debt. Not only is there no realistic plan to get it out of debt, the way decisions were made about the sculpture indicate South Orange will only be plunged further and further into debt, ad nauseum.
There is plenty for you to do about all of this. I very much hope you attend to these issues much more carefully than you did to the question of how the town would pay for the sculpture before you approved expenses that even now cannot be determined. And yes, you probably do take heat for many who do not even attempt to answer questions. But the BOT and the town administration operates as a group, not merely as a collection of individuals, as I am sure you know. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3556
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
Quote:You will never stop dissecting what I have to say until you get what you want: my admission of wrongdoing, and my adoption of your points of view. You'll never get either from me on this issue.
Here are a few other "promises" from Mr. DeVaris' campaign website that I am starting to question:
Restore the public’s trust in, and perception of, the Village government.
Open channels of communications with the public and the local media. |
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 158
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:44 am: |
|
I started out really liking this man. I am very disappointd in him. MHD thank you for your post.
I was unaware of his promises. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I simply fear that we are going the direction of NJ, with each administration happily leaving more bonded indebtedness for the rest, until it gets to great to bear, and the house of cards collapses (I hear the state budget will be a bear this year)
Sculpture, Old Stone House, etc. are each "nice to have", but we need to control the overall budget. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4343
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Can't we just give this 'gift' back? Or, can't we wait until after SOPAC is finished? Then decide what to do? This would also give those who want the statue so much the time to raise the rest of the money.
It's been pointed out some of Tony Smith's family still lives here in town. Are they aware of the debate surrounding the statue? Are they willing to modify the conditions and deadlines of the 'gift?' |
rosen
Citizen
Username: Conway1099
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Mr. Devaris and Et al,
I have been reading the posts re: the sculpture and have enjoyed the respones.
Understandably you will have people who like art and are indifferent re: art.
I am sure that if the sculpture was entirely paid for by the family, this sculpture would not have raised as many eyebrows.
However, in this case it was not totally free but came with a cost. We all know when money is involved you will have people on either side of the fence.
In this case the issue seems to be around the $250,000 and where did it come from.
From Mr. Devaris posts, it would seem that the $250,000 was received from Essex County in the form of a Community Development Block Grant to be used for some special purpose. I will assume that the town applied for this grant to be used for SOPAC.
Apparently some MOLers believe that this money needs to be paid back to the county. As some have posted that they believe the $250,000 to be a loan.
So my question for Mr. Devaris or Mr. Rosner is:
1) Is the $250,000 from the county a grant, that does not need to be paid back to the county or a loan which does need to be paid back to the county.
2) Was the $250,000 initially intended to be used for SOPAC? For what purpose?
3) It would also appear that there was an attempt to tie the two projects (SOPAC & Sculpture) together due to the proximity of the sculpture and sopac. Thus we see the money moving from SOPAC to the sculpture. Was this the case?
4) If the $250,000 was originally applied for to use for SOPAC, where is the money going to come from to replace it? Does it need to be replaced?
If the $250,000 was truly a grant (no money needs to be repaid back to the county), then the next question would be why shift money which the public was informed to goto SOPAC (if I am correct on this) to the sculpture without the public's knowledge (or more likely the public was not totally clear on what was happening and perhaps neither was the BOT) between(in my opinion) unrelated projects.
I believe this is the main point of contention from all those upset with the BOT. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2684
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Rosen: You really need to go back and read all the threads. Basically, there was no grant money for the statue. The grant in question was given to SOPAC and does not have to be paid back. SOPAC needs the money.
The $250,000 needed for the statue is coming from a bond issue which means the taxpayers are responsible.
I think the point of contention is that it was stated by the VP and repeated by others on the BOT that a grant was being used for the $250,000. I think had there been more information earlier in the process and more discussion, then there would not be so many people being upset.
At best the explanation for the funding was confusing if not misleading....
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Thank you, Trustee Rosner. Yes, Rosen, do scroll backwards for answers to your questions.
Another point that has upset people, clearly, is that all of the costs associated with installing, insuring and maintaining the sculpture have not been identified, yet this has not stopped the BOT from approving all costs to pay for it that are not donated (and at the moment donations are minimal). People are enraged at the BOT for approving blank-check payments. Who ever does this with their personal finances? Why is it acceptable for public finances? |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Why not stick the thing, only if we are iron-clad contractually bound to it, on the traffic circle island next to the gazebo?
Or is it too big?
jd |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2685
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Joel: I think that was discussed and dismissed because it was a safety issue (cars not being able to see around it).
It probably is too large for the circle too.
|
O'Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8909
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Why don't we put a door and window on the sculpture and put the village president's office in it? Then lock him in it until the private funds are raised to pay for it? |
campbell29
Citizen
Username: Campbell29
Post Number: 377
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Maybe we can raffle it off? If every resident committed to selling 100 $10 tickets I bet we would get almost enough to recoup the investment.
Or possibly build a box around it, show movies on it,call it an IMAX theatre and charge admission to it. |
Josh Holtz
Citizen
Username: Jholtz
Post Number: 339
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
I say use it to fill in the crater on Vose Ave. At least we'll see progress on that site. |
rosen
Citizen
Username: Conway1099
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Thank you Mr. Rosner....
one other question. What else is the bond issue being used for? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
When asked at the last BOT meeting, the town administrator could not recall which bond paid for the sculpture. He promised to find out and provide the answser to Mr. Goldstein, or whomever asked him about the bond that funded part of the sculpture's costs.
Has anyone gotten a copy of whatever contracts were signed about it? I think H. Levison said he may have gotten one. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 656
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:30 pm: |
|
I heard that the reason that the sculpture wasn't planned for the center of the traffic circle is that the firetrucks regularly need to drive on the circle in order to get in/out of the station. So the circle will never have anything on it but the one-way sign.
(More amazing planning by the powers that be!) |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 3623
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
-s. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 184
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:47 am: |
|
Shrink the tau, i.e., tau lite, and put it there.
jd |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 186
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:53 am: |
|
ED:
Please read the comments about the bus shelter posted in the Maplewood section, referencing tau.
There are more positive remarks there.
I like the suggestion that tau go directly to the recycling center.
jd |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page