| Author |
Message |
    
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:02 am: | 
|
Ms. Cheryl Arnedt, a member of the board of directors of the Pierro Foundation, has claimed that an "overwhelming majority" of SO residents agree with her purpose and methods of obtaining public funds to bring a Tony Smith sculpture to SO and destroying the gazebo in front of the train station. Yet she has also denied conducting a poll of public opinion on the matter. So how can she know if an overwhelming majority of SO residents support her or not and why does she presume to speak for them?
The Pierro Foundation has supported her efforts. Why has it endorsed Ms. Arnedt's lying in order to drum up support for their pet project? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3798
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
The same question could be posed of the BOT - why are they endorsing "lying"?
In the Star Ledger article from Jan 9, 2003, Bill Calabrese was quoted as saying "The town is 100 percent behind this". What was the basis of his "poll"?
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=569803#POST5698 03 |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
So, a Faustian bargain between the Pierro Foundation and BOT: get it here any way you can, no matter how many lies and misrepresentations you have to promulgate. People in SO don't vote, there won't be any repercussions. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
But what I cant understand is why the Tau still has replace the gazebo. If all this is a known and there is no basis anymore on funds or coordination with SOPAC then why cant this art work be placed somewhere that it can still be shown prominently but not cost us money to demolish something that is one of the good things they have done?
Is there no one in power with any damn common sense? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2759
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hoops,
Because the TSSP negotiated the location with the Smith Family, and that is the site they agreed upon. More people will see it if it is in front of the train station, near SOPAC. Therefore, that is the location it will be placed at. Changing it would breach whatever agreement the town has with the family. (not that I am opposed to that) |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 117
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Rastro,
The TSSP negotiated? Did the BOT have no input on acceptable locations? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2760
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
The sarcastic side of me would say that had the BOT been involved in the negotiations, we would be paying for the rights to the sculpture. Or something about the BOT not being bothered with such trivialities.
However I must confess that I am assuming it was the TSSP alone, and not in conjunction with the administration. That was the implication from what Ms Arnedt said at the BOT meeting a few weeks ago. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:15 pm: |
|
I get all that but why cant we reopen negotiations. Its not like we arent paying through the nose as it is?
Someone on the BOT has to stand up and say stop the madness. I am sure that there must be at least 1 other location in SO that would be acceptable.
theres are great big hole on Vose that I would vote for
I mean really. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 794
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
I completely agree! Put it in a place that has not recently had bonded tax-dollars used to improve it! No place in S.Orange merits two renovations in one decade! |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 119
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
This is a posting I had done today to start another thread, does anyone have the answer for me? i will also add to the post, does anyone know how much money was spent on the area?
Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:25 am:
Can anyone answer this for me? I am not a long term resident, I have only been here 3 1/2 years, but I am hearing all this stuff about the gazebo etc being razed to make way for the sculpture..
Just a thought. That area looks very "finished" to me, almost as though a great amount of effort, thought and money went into it. What was the idea behind it? WHO was behind it? Was this something that the town wanted?
I think it's very pretty, but that is not the point of my post. I was just wondering that if it was something created with pride for the town, why it is so easy to get rid off...
Can anyone answer this? |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 796
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:25 pm: |
|
You have to submit an OPRA request.  |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3802
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
I have posted the agreement between the Village & the Tony Smith Estate here:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=576418#POST5764 18
Enjoy! |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 799
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Oh My Gosh! 
We signed that?
If yes, we agreed to fund the complete project, in its entirety!!!
I guess we better be extra nice to the TS Sculpture Project people b/c apparently they have nothing to compel them to contribute the $160,000 they've supposedly agreed to! |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Quite a contract (I've no clue if this is standard boilerplate language for this sort of thing). We are on the hook for everything, including not moving it to another location for at least 25 years. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Note sure how my post ended up where it did so I will repeat it here.
The "Site" is not clearly defined in this agreement. The agreement refers only to "the plaza outside the Village train station". Unless there is a separate agreement that was signed (in which case it is not clearly referenced in this agreement), it could easily be construed to mean the site currently occupied by the obelisk in front of SOPAC.
Do we know whether it was the Village's attorneys or Ms. Smith's who drafted this agreement? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3804
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Stuart,
I replied to you in the other thread, as follows:
Thanks for pointing that out. There IS an exhibit attached to the agreement, which simply consisted of pictures of the architectural rendering - very similar to what was posted here:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=568968#POST5689 68
I was simply trying to minimize the amount of photocopying required |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3805
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:14 pm: |
|
It really is amazing that someone in our Village agreed to sign this contract:
Quote:The work shall be displayed at the site and in the manner that I approve...
Quote:within thirty(30) months
The agreement was signed in March 2005. By my calculation, that gives us until September 2007 to install this. So, why the urgency????
Quote:If the Work is damaged, the Village will consult with me before any restoration
I wonder what THOSE consulting fees will cost??
Quote:A breach by the Village of any of the provisions hereof will cause me permanent and irreperable injury and damage
In other words, if we cancel this project they will SUE the pants off of us?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2766
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
MHD, perhaps I'm missing something. Is there someplace that a representative of the town actually signed and agreed to this contract? The PDF you posted only has Ms Smith's signature. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3806
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Rastro,
Yes...the town signature was on the page prior to "Exhibit B". It "just" had signature information and I was more concerned with sharing the CONTENT of the Contract. Sorry for the confusion. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:40 pm: |
|
What (in)competent lawyer would allow us to sign such a one sided document?
Even a layman can see that the contract is a bad one. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9112
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Damage the democratic process by lying? Who cares!
Damage someone's feelings about a reproduction? Get sued!
What a world. |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 3197
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Interesting that the contract doesn't spell out the perscribed remedy for "permanent and irreperable injury and damage" How would she be hurt if we do not proceed with the project? What benefit would she gain if we do proceed?
Still, I can't believe the BOT agreed to this! |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 806
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Who signed it? |
Agrackle
Citizen
Username: Agrackle
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
SoOrLady, my guess is that the "permanent and irreperable injury and damage" is more likely to result from neglect of the sculpture and/or failing to fix and consult on actual, physical damage to it. I seriously doubt that the estate will litigate or even care if this project doesn't move forward...they would probably prefer to sell the rights to a private collector or institution anyway.
But, add yet another item to the list of embellishment and ineptitude on the part of certain members of the BOT....the whole "it'll increase in value" argument goes right out the window by the language that only allows the town to donate it to a museum or public institution after the 25 year window. I guess the town can claim the tax benefit from donating it in 2031, right? Oh, sorry, the town doesn't pay taxes! Brilliant argument guys!
Seriously, when do we all expect Expedia and Travelocity to begin booking the tour packages? I don't want to be left out.
|
Agrackle
Citizen
Username: Agrackle
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Sorry, misspelled irreparable. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 154
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Following the link to the rendering of the art piece, to me, the work is plug-ugly. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Law, law, law.
If you refuse a gift, too bad to the gift giver.
This document is a piece of legal crap, typical of Beifus "deal" paper.
Again, town gets nothing, and someone takes from us with impunity.
At first blush, this is another nonenforceable document.
But, Calabrese signed a doc which says if there is a lawsuit, loser pays winner's legal fees.
Incredibly bad lawyering.
Flush the Augean Stables, now.
jd
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 299
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
The conditions in the paperwork refer to the maintanence and siting of the metallic copy.
Cancel now.
Pay the costs incurred, if any.
The voters will not forget, since the black blob will remind them of the BOT's folly come election time.
jd |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
SoOrLady
Thank you for taking the photos of the rendering.
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=568968#POST5689 68
I think Bailey's photoshop exercise is actually more accurate.
This architectural rendering is skewed to make the sculpture seem more appropriate to the context...
Why are the streets off white?
What kind of trees will grow to that size in those conditions (what will roots do to sidewalk if they do?)?
The train station has lots of architectural detail, this rendering intentionally glosses over that.
This rendering reminds me of closet organizer commercials - you know, all the clothes in the closet are the same color or similar colors, so, of course it looks clean and organized.
Bailey's work trumps this.
With modern computer graphics, there is absolutely no excuse for the supporters of this project not to produce an accurate computer rendering in context. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
Given the number of contracts the town has signed that injure the town, do any attorneys know if the citizens of the town would have standing to sue the attorney representing the town for malpractice? By increased taxes and debt and lost revenues, they are the injured parties, not the BOT.
Anyone? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page