| Author |
Message |
    
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 246
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 9:53 am: | 
|
I'm creating this thread mainly to re-post something I posted elsewhere, but I encourage other posts following the general theme. I missed last night's board meeting, so I don't know what happened with the SID, but would be interested in reports and opinions on that.
By way of introduction, over the last few months there have been various posts on MOL and comments at BOT meetings that leave the impression that SO needs to figure out what it wants TO BE. That seems off the mark to me.
SO Village government needs to re-evaluate the things it tries to do, limit them to the things it should and is best qualified to do, and then learn how to get them done. Part of that can be assigning things to Main Street and a SID or one of the other biz development mechanisms discussed.
A big part of it is letting the "invisible hand" work its magic and allowing private parties to bear the risks and rewards of development (if Calabrese wants to be one of the private parties, he should step down. Period.)and the second big part of it is figuring out how to protect taxpayers and residents from developers who don't have the capacity to do the projects they're taking on. Protecting us financially and protecting us from the blight created by half completed (or much less than half completed) projects.
Here's the original post:
Calabrese's comments at last week's meeting (March 13) made it clear he thinks we somehow need to attract people to our town and he's busy spending our money to create the attactions - SOPAC, sculpture, etc.
[Nevermind the disconnect between this great need to attract people and the fact that he said: SO used to be a flight town, but now we're attracting new residents, we must be doing something right]
What was not clear from what he said was WHY? He seemed to link these "attractions" to the viability of our restraurants, shops, etc. I don't think these attractions are at all necessary to improve traffic in our shops and restaurants.
Sure, we go to the movies in Montclair, Maplewood and Millburn and do tend to eat dinner when we're there, but we go to those towns just as often just to eat dinner (MW far more often) - no movie included.
South Orange needs to capture its own disposable income. Some restaurants do a good job and are rewarded for it. The Village's role should be to create an environment for these private businesses to succeed, it shouldn't busy itself - and put our $$ at risk - by getting involved in RE ventures or these art projects that are way out of scale in cost and risk relative to our population/budget.
I really think all the town needs is:
(1)thoughtful planning with regard to traffic and parking;
(2) good taste and sensibility in its choice of landscaping/ streetscaping/ building facade improvement programs; and
(3) a Village government that does the basic blocking and tackling of providing village government services within a reasonable budget so that SO remains an attractive place to own residential and commercial real estate.
I don't know if I'm the only one that feels this way, but going into the commercial part of town depresses me - literally. Or, it gets me agitated (see Village Hall, library, gazebo to be torn down, construction sites - should be called Destruction Sites because nothing seems to go up).
Who wants to go to dinner and deal with that depression or agita (sp?)
Instead I can go to Montclair or Maplewood and wonder why they seem to do the blocking and tackling very well, lettng the private enterprises flourish (within environments the towns/mainstreet orgs have prescribed and helped create).
We don't need to figure out what kind of town we want to be...we're a suburb of NYC with a 29 minute train ride to Penn Station with a diverse and interesting population, great historic housing stock and a scenic location. That is all we need to attract people...it's happening already! (as Bill noted)
We just need to get the blocking and tackling - the basics - right and stop making these expensive mistakes and entering into these risky real estate ventures that never seem to work out right.
If we don't, SO will become a flight community again - instead of whites fleeing changing demographics, it will be taxpayers of all stripes fleeing a town with a crushing tax burden and deteriorating public services. |
patjoyce
Citizen
Username: Patjoyce
Post Number: 103
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Two seperate citizen groups comprised of residents, property owners and business owners have submitted reports to the bot regarding this issue. These reports were the product of some extreemely hard working citizens who represented a cross section of political persuasions. The reports made clear three pertinent points.
a) It would be insulting to the property owners and business owners to impose a special tax (SID) upon those in the business district while redevelopment is in the stae it is in now. Businesses have had to survive the wreckage of the snail's pace of these "cornerstone" projects. To ask them to pay extra to clean the streets and pick up garbage at this time is unfair.
b) Any business improvement district personnell should be seperate from the governing body. The obvious reasons being, (1)those who have spear-headed re-development up to this time (Bill Calabreese, John Gross and Ed Matthews) have not done a very good job and (2)cronyism is far too the norm in this town>
c) A person with experience in Municipal Planning and/or commercial development should be sought to fill the position of planner/director.
It is very disturbing to we who worked on those reports to think that the presently constituted bot would reject the recommendations so cavalierly.
Patrick |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
Thanks for the post, Patrick.
I admit to being late to the debate on SID vs. other types of entities. I know this was discussed ad nauseum earlier, but would you mind repeating the type(s) of entity that the these groups did endorse, if there was one?
I take it the key differences between a SID and the recommended type (s) are the a, b, c points you make above.
Does anyone know what happened with the SID last night, if anything? Is a SID now a done deal? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
|
patjoyce's comments make sense to me. Especially true is "a". The attempt to make others pay for particular individuals' multiple, habitual and ongoing mistakes is repugnant. Those reponsible for the mistakes should have to pay to remedy them. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:42 am: |
|
patjoyce, are the reports you mention available for download anywhere? |
Elaine Harris
Citizen
Username: Elaineharris
Post Number: 125
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
Thank you Patrick Joyce. That is exactly correct and I would have used the same words, albeit some I would have spelled differently. I reaffirm all you said above, and to add: The business owners and property owners already DO CONTRIBUTE "TAX" TO THE VILLAGE. Every club, organization, group, etc. seeks and gets donations and contributions every day from our businesses. This is expensive and does add up. For example, the ad for the Seton Hall Pirates which just appeared in the NR. Look at all the businesses that paid for ads. Yet, the businesses have suffered tremendously by the inept way the redevelopment was handled, the insufficient parking, the rude business interruption, and the failure to complete the projects as promised. Listening to the Trustees casually discussing a "tax" for the business owners is enough to make one's blood boil. How dare they. In case they are listening, hear this: if you attempt to impose this ordinance totally against our collective will, we will protest. I think a recall would be in order. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Patrick: I pointed out last night, once again, that the BOT already passed a resolution agreeing to a DMC. The only thing left to discuss was the "details". As I have said more than once to Trustee Rosen, I did not think anyone (on the BOT or on the DMC task force committee) thought that meant where the funding was coming from.
I would like to know what your recollection of what those "details " were to be discussed (and I have said, I thought it mostly related to legal matters).
|
patjoyce
Citizen
Username: Patjoyce
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Mark- My recollection of the "details" was how the original board would be chosen. Some on the bot favored permitting the DMC to select its own initial board, some were adamant that to "retain control" the bot should select the board. A tax in the form of a SID was not even on the radar. The report clearly states that at some future date a SID tax may be needed. The information gleaned from reports froom Montclair, Millburn, Westfield, Maplewood and others made it clear that a SID only works when the business community is on board.
Its this "retain control" syndrome which the report tries to address. Today the business district is in shambles. Those in charge want to retain control. Why? So that we get more of the same?
Last May the reports were posted on the Village Web Site, I don't know if they are still there.
In case people hear that the report was stacked with anti-SID faction, please note that the report was signed by all participants (including leaders of Main Street) except for some of the representatives from the Parking Authority.
Elaine - sorry about the spelling, the nuns are ashamed of me, too.
Patrick |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Pat: That was my recollection too. It is very disappointing.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page