| Author | Message | ||
     argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 806 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would like to buy a beautiful Monet to hang above my fireplace. Unfortunately, I can't afford it. But it would be really beautiful hanging there and show everyone I appreciate art. Should I take out a second mortgage on my house and buy it? | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 31 Registered: 3-2006 |
While you were trying to make a valid point, the truth of the matter is that the Monet painting would appreciate more than your house does. | ||
| Raise The Money, $$$ Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 371 Registered: 6-2005  |
How will this appreciation serve the taxpaying public... with increased security and insurance costs? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3780 Registered: 5-2001  |
SOParents, Next BOT Meeting is Monday April 10. You can always find the schedule of Meetings online at http://www.southorange.org/Calendar/ | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 102 Registered: 5-2005 |
Thank you MHD, I was looking in the wrong place... | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 544 Registered: 6-2005 |
Appreciation is only a valid concept if you can actually sell it. Once its installed, I doubt it could be sold (though one can always hope!) Personally, I think we should sell it right after it is fabricated in order to avoid all the installation costs. Then we could put the money to good use. | ||
| Bailey Citizen Username: Baileymac Post Number: 205 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here's a question.. Does the family of Tony Smith, who generously donated the rights for South Orange Village to build a copy of Tony Smith's Tau, who specify that it is only to be installed at that location, allow as part of the deal that South Orange can one day sell it for profit? If not, it's value does NOT appreciate, as far as we're concerned, only it's insurance costs to our Village will. Is the contract between the town and Smith's family public? | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 32 Registered: 3-2006 |
My reference wasn't to the sculpture. Smythe was talking about taking out a second mortgage and buying a Monet painting. And for the most part, the Monet would appreciate at a faster rate than real estate in most of Essex County. That is all I was saying. | ||
| Crazy_quilter Citizen Username: Crazy_quilter Post Number: 241 Registered: 2-2005 |
Hmmmmm. i wonder wether art would appreciate more than real estate. My house has apparently more than doubled in the past 7 years. Has Monet's work doubled in the past 7 years? sometimes art is a good investment, sometimes real estate is, sometimes silver is and sometimes the bottom drops out of everything. Plus, it only is a good investment if you can sell it. Which it seems we can't do. | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2006 |
The reference was to Monet, not any art object. If it is Monet, you could expect a 20-40% increase over the last 10 years. A few specific items climbed more. And if you bought the painting before 1950, look for 200-300% minimum. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 286 Registered: 1-2006 |
What about a copy of a Monet? jd | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1464 Registered: 3-2002 |
Total red herring Frederick...and it sounds like real estate has beaten Monet hands down in this neighborhood. But still, unless we would sell the sculpture, the appreciation matters only to our insurance premiums, as noted above. Not a reason to purchase it. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 287 Registered: 1-2006 |
If the Smith family holds copyright, they can cause more copies to be made, and that will suppress the supposedly hot market for our not-yet welded copy. The fact that they could do so would also suppress the market. When the copyright expires, anyone can make a copy. No market. jd | ||
| vermontgolfer Supporter Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 398 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jonathan, I don't know you and I know you don't know me, but you seem to be someone who appreciates art. Having said that, how could you support the installation of Tau where it is planned to be placed. While I'd be the first to admit that I'm not terribly knowledgeble in this area, how could you support this sculpture where it is planned to be placed. It's so terribly out of place with the train station and the firehouse, that I'm continually amazed that the supporters of this think this is where it belongs. This is to say nothing of the way the project has been handled, which is skeptical to say the leats. Just my two cents. | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2006 |
Susan 1014. Who wants to see it? I think we should have a sculpture garden or park. Combine the project with botanical material and gardens. | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 35 Registered: 3-2006 |
Sorry, I meant to say, who wants to sell it. I guess I got too excited thinking about more sculpture. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1465 Registered: 3-2002 |
Frederick, if you think we need botanical materials and gardens around it, then the current site is all wrong, as it is highly hemmed in by train trestle, train station, road, traffic circle and firehouse and will never have more than a few trees in the sidewalk. No space for additional sculptures or gardens at the selected site. (all I was saying is that if we would never sell it, then the discussion of how much it will appreciate is utterly irrelevant) | ||
| Rob E Bank Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 373 Registered: 6-2005 |
Where the Smiths ever sold on the river corridor project to include the Tau? Perhaps the supporters of Tau and one or a few trustees could convince them otherwise. I'd really not like to see the sculpture placed at Sloan... | ||
| Frederick Schmid Citizen Username: Carlfrederick Post Number: 36 Registered: 3-2006 |
Never said the sculpture and botanical garden should be at the train station. I agree with you that would be awful. I said that there should be more sculpture and I believe the artwork should be dispersed around the town. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 453 Registered: 7-2005  |
I feel that decently paved roads, actual resident surveys, and government honesty should be dispersed around the town. I'm not even a taxpayer and I'm ticked. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2745 Registered: 5-2004  |
Frederick, I thought you live in California, and were moving to Maplewood. Perhap you shouldn't be so free with the word "We". | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3183 Registered: 9-2003 |
To answer a couple of questions (as I understand the answers, but I've not read the contract): Future Selling? No - we have contracturally agreed never to sell it. So Bailey's point about appreciation is well taken. Other sites? Yes - the art committee looked at several sites around town including river walk and the duck pond. There are several pieces in the collection that they permit to be fabricated. They specifically chose TAU for specifically that area across from the firehouse. Jonathan - I happen to love TAU, but I think that at this time, South Orange cannot afford it. I also don't appreciated being lied to and manipulated by our governing body. They knew 2-3 years ago that the grant money they expected to pay for TAU was denied. It is only recently, after TAU was a "done deal" as far as they were concerned, that they shared that knowledge with the public. We cannot allow that type of deception to go unchallenged. | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 547 Registered: 6-2005 |
SoOrLady- I don't think you can say that the BOT's "only recently...shared that knowledge" of the funding with the public. I think "share" is far too generous. They tried to obfuscate the facts all along the way. Only the relentless pursuit of the truth by a few citizens who put themselves out there before the BOT in public meetings drew out the truth. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3186 Registered: 9-2003 |
point well taken jayjay.. I stand corrected. | ||
| Jonathan Glasser Citizen Username: Zoro Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2005 |
A couple of points I'd like to reiterate. My reading is that the cost of the project to the Town of South Orange will be $250,000. This is not a great deal of money in the greater scheme of things. Tau will be a fantastic thing for the town. If what most of you say is true, it is certainly logical to be mad at the BOT and vote against them at the next election. If you like Tony Smith's work and would otherwise be proud to have it on Sloan Street, it would be illogical to oppose it based on the BOT's handling. We are the town. We would be hurting ourselves to make a political point. There must be another less self destructive way to make the same point. Thanks everyone for the education and the opportunity to have a great dialogue! | ||
| vermontgolfer Supporter Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 399 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jonathan, I'm still a bit confused with your term on "WE" and how "WE" should be happy about this. I thought I remember you posting that you currently live in CA and are planning to move to Maplewood. Since neither CA or Maplewood are going to be responsible for one penny of this, please help me understand how you are 'WE'. Next, please correct me if I'm incorrect, which I'm sure you'll do, but I thought I also recall you posting that you would like this sculpture in an open area with trees and other sculptures. Now you are saying it belongs where the gazebo is. If you've been in CA for a number of years and are planning to move back to Maplewood, do you honestly even know what the gazebo looks like? Just curious. Onf final thought. $250,000 of taxpayer money that could/should help improve a myriad of other things in SO would be a more prudent way to spend this money, to say nothing of the apparent misleading way this whole project has been handled. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3789 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jonathan, The cost will be AT LEAST $250,000 - PLUS any cost overruns, PLUS funds not raised by the fundraisers, PLUS the additional costs of moving the Gazebo, PLUS the additional costs of relocating the existing fountain, PLUS the debt service we are already paying for the gazebo, fountain etc. I don't understand how you can state "This is not a great deal of money". This is almost the amount of money the town spends on road paving for the entire town. This is almost the amount of money needed annually for MANY police officers. This is almost the the amount of money that my entire house cost. The question has been asked numerous times - can you name one other town with our population (and our tax burden) that spends such an enormous percentage of their budget on art as expensive as this? Now factor in the absence of ANY public dialog about the expenditure, followed by the LIES when asked and I really don't understand how anyone can support this in good conscience. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3191 Registered: 9-2003 |
Jonathan - the cost to the town is at least $250,000. The entire project has been estimated at $440,000 with the balance of that amount coming from fundraising - if, however, the fundraising falls short, the BOT committed the town to making up the difference. The money "found" to fund this project is buried in a bond issue under sidewalks and roads. I see a problem with that. I love the TAU, but will not be silent while misappropriated funds pay for it. If TAU does find its way to Sloan Street it will only serve as a monument to the Calabrese agenda and a very sad time in South Orange history. | ||
| Jonathan Glasser Citizen Username: Zoro Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2005 |
Vermontgolfer, you live in vermont, right? How dare you weigh in on this local matter! Just joking. I don't know where you live, but I live in South Orange. I also want this sculpture on Sloan Street. I guess my posts are just like some other guy's who you think is me. MHD (a/k/a angry bee) you and I just disagree but that's ok -- totally. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 764 Registered: 5-2004  |
vermontgolfer, you are thinking of Frederick Schmidt who also argues the merits of the TS Sculpture. He's the one who is moving from CA to Maplewood. ________________ SOLady, I completely agree with you, except to clarify that the cost is at least $250,000 plus interest over time. _________________ Here is a quote from Cheryl Arnedt's 2/23/06 Letter to the Editor of the News-Record:
I wonder what supporting documentation Ms. Arnedt, Director of the Tony Smith Sculpture Project, has to back up the "overwhelming majority" statement. Surely she wouldn't mislead the public further by publishing incorrect suppositions as fact. Overwhelming implies well over 50%, which would mean well over 8,482 people! Wow! I suppose a formal poll or survey was done after all. I would very much like to see it posted somewhere on-line. Perhaps one of her MOL-posting supporters could suggest that it be posted on the village website since she is reluctant to post on MOL. Then we could at least provide a link to it on MOL and clear up much of the confusion surrounding this publicly funded project! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2755 Registered: 5-2004 |
Jonathan, There are several dimensions to this that people are either OK with, or oppose. It is not as simple as "We want it" or We don't want it." People are upset about: -The sculpture itself - I personally am fine with the piece, but some don't like it, don't consider it appropriate, or don't think it is right for the town. -The location - Even this dimension has several sub-dimensions - The size for that location, the fact that it the sculpture was designed for a "park setting" and he fact that the area was recently redeveloped. -The financing - many people simply don't thin this is the right thing for the town to be doing with our money at this point. You see $250,000 as small amount of money. In reality, it is approximately 1% of our annual budget on a single piece of art. That would be akin to NYC spending approximately $500 million on a single piece of art. Do you thin there would be uproar about that? -The BOT's handling of the situation - The funding was buried in a Sidewalk and Road maintenance line item of a bond ordinance. So obviously someone was trying to keep this out of the spotlight. Further, several trustees admitted that they did not understand how the funding was happening, even though they were previously adamant about how it would be funded. The VP actually stated that the funding was explained, and though not everyone understood it, "including members of the board of trustees," it was explained. Unfortunately, it was explained after the town made the commitment, which made public debate prior to financing impossible. Much of the ire is aimed at the BOT, but it is not simply for the handling. It is also for the expenditure itself. It is too much money for a town this size, given the financial burdens we currently face. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 217 Registered: 2-2006 |
Pdg, I had not seen the quotation from Ms. Arnedt previously. I am shocked to see it now. She has not simply exaggerated but lied. This is inexcusable and another reason not to support the sculpture. (You may want to see the thread "Where's the poll? There is a petition." if you haven't already. It deals in detail with why even her previous claims are fallacious.) | ||
| Lewisinsov Citizen Username: Lewisinsov Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2006 |
The Tony Smith debacle is already causing outrage in the middle east. In case you were wondering, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, would definitely be anti-Tau. I wonder if we can get a fatwa on the BOT. See: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/48AA33FF-8E95-44A0-A89A-528BC4A6A34F.htm | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 766 Registered: 5-2004 |
SOrising, I have seen that thread and actually had sort of defended Ms. Arnedt in it, saying I had observed her start to object to one of the Trustees saying during a regular meeting that there was a survey done. Since then, I read through the packet of materials given to me by Cheryl and noted her letter to the editor, which was one of 10 that she had copied and included in an informational packet. Also in that packet are copies of the three newspaper articles which supposedly served to "amply" notify the public of this project. * Not one of them mentions the use of taxpayer dollars for the project. * All of them suggest that the Tony Smith Sculpture project and/or the Lennie Pierro Foundation will be raising the funds necessary for the fabrication and installation of the sculpture. * None of them mentions that the gazebo will be torn down with the recently renovated site re-renovated at a huge cost - in some articles it almost sounds like the sculpture will be installed near or in the area of the gazebo, suggesting that the sculpture will be of modest size! *The 11/6/03 article in the New Record is particularly troubling in that it states:
It is clear to me that not only has the public not been properly included in and informed of this project, they have been, quite frankly, lied to, and not just by the BOT! | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 767 Registered: 5-2004 |
And to clarify, yes, it does say $500,000 has been raised to date. That was not a typo! | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 219 Registered: 2-2006 |
The sense of entitlement running through much of this propaganda sickens me. I used to think the Pierro Foundation was a decent organization, without knowing much about it, because I basically thought it was probably a good thing to have in town. But how can the board of directors of the Pierro Foundation allow it to be associated with such lies and manipulations of public funds? Does anyone know who is on the board of directors of the Pierro Foundation? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 220 Registered: 2-2006 |
Am I correct to think, Pdg, that you now repent of "sort of defending" Ms. Arnedt and her actions? | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 771 Registered: 5-2004 |
No regrets here, because at the time it was the truth based on what I had personally observed. She did start to object, and I believe regrets that the false impression of an offical survey is "out there" and being repeated in official meetings. However, after reading what she wrote for publication, signing her name and title, I also feel compelled to point out the seeming contradiction, since I did come to her defense previously. I'm all for full disclosure of all the facts!  | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 773 Registered: 5-2004 |
The Trustees of the LPMAF are: Judy Wukitsch, President Cheryl Arnedt, Vice President Jo Jochnowitz, Vice President Anthony Pye, Treasurer Susan Napack, Secretary | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 774 Registered: 5-2004 |
For your further information, two members of the 32 member "Advisory Committee" are Bill Calabrese and Eric DeVaris |
