| Author | Message | ||
     Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 86 Registered: 5-2005 |
I haven't seen activity today, sorry... I've only driven past there 6 times today, maybe I should look more.. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 270 Registered: 1-2006 |
Which month? jd | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3766 Registered: 5-2001  |
Joel - pay attention. He said "THE month". Isn't that clear?  | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 272 Registered: 1-2006 |
No. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13355 Registered: 1-2003  |
Maybe at the next meeting, if a trustee says that something will (or should) happen by a certain date, you should ask, "or else what?" | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 273 Registered: 1-2006 |
I did on Monday, asking the BOT for their plan B for the Beifus site. There was silence. Silence. jd | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 537 Registered: 6-2005 |
It was also asked at the BOT meeting on 3/13. Rosner said he voted against the Pilot, which he did; Rosen said he always thought it would be delayed, which it has been; DeVaris queried whether the questioner really thought another developer could be found, to which the questioner responded "yes"....the others just sat there...and nobody intiated any proposal to actually do something...whether to sue Beifus for breach of contract, condemn the property, levy fines, anything. While there are some who obviously feel frustrated, other like Calabrese, seem perfectly content. But even the frustrated, for some reason, don't press for any action other than wringing of hands. | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 373 Registered: 4-2004 |
Let's face it - there is no way in hell Beifus is going to start his project. Awhile back he told a mutual friend that he really woudn't start construction until he landed an anchor type store for the retail portion of the project. Now that the Planning Board nearly unanimously voted to allow for the elimination of the basement (and with that went all retail storage) what major retail chain is going to move in - or any retaler for that matter? The Planning Board had the opportunity to stop the bleeding. They didn't. Why would the BOT do so? Is Mark Rosner the only one who understands this problem? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 208 Registered: 2-2006 |
Maybe there could be a recall petition for Mr. Calabrese that would keep moving forward as long as the Beifus site is not completed. If he won't assign a deadline to Beifus development, there should be no halt to his recall process. Tie them together. I can't remember what MHD or someone else said about the number needed for a recall vote. If it is a percentage of those who voted in the last election, it wouldn't be that many. The petition already has 200 and is still climbing. Anyone? | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 538 Registered: 6-2005 |
If it is really true that he is waitng for a major retail chain, then he won't do a thing. I can't imagine any retail chain wanting the space. Its just not that large, since they plan on having 4 or 5 stores there, as I recall. Plus, the parking will be lousy, and there are no basements. No major chain will want that. I'd like to know what chain he thinks would want that location. Also, does anyone know why his firm is now a different corporate entity? It is now a new corporation with a new name. I wonder what's behind that. | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 94 Registered: 5-2005 |
If someone has an agreement with a corporate entity and it changes name and possibly other terms aswell, does that negate the agreement? Would it depend on what others T&C were perhaps changed? Is this a name change only? | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 540 Registered: 6-2005 |
Watch the last planning board video. You'll see the Beifus attorney field a similar question. Its hardly audible, but I think he said there was an assignment clause in the contract. I still think someone needs to answer why they had to change their corporation. I think it now reads something like Candlewyck Properties Urban Development Corporation, LLC. What I particularly like is the "urban development" part. I guess we are no longer a suburb. | ||
| vermontgolfer Supporter Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 395 Registered: 12-2002 |
ENOUGH ALREADY. IT'S TIME FOR MR. BEIFUS TO BE SHOWN THE DOOR. Sorry about the shouting, but I'll be at the next BOT meeting, this insanity has to stop. Its beyond embarassing at this point. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3178 Registered: 9-2003 |
Exactly. Time for our new trustees to step up and out from under the VP's control. Take back South Orange!! Take the Beifus property and turn it into a parking deck!! | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 95 Registered: 5-2005 |
Can we see a copy of the contract? Can this be made public due to the level of interest? | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 96 Registered: 5-2005 |
SOrising, I remember a post within about the last week saying that 2000 signatures would be needed for SOMETHING, but I can't remember what the something was | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 520 Registered: 1-2004  |
The following (www.howard-levison.com/Beifus_Project_Tracking.html) is the ongoing saga of the Beifus project extracted from the BOT minutes. Interesting reading how the BOT/Village Counsel/VA spin this issue but there must be a point which the spin stops and an alternative action taken. That point is long overdue! | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3411 Registered: 11-2001  |
Some track Howard, unbelieveable.... | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3768 Registered: 5-2001 |
SOparents, The "2000" represents approximately 25% of the number of registered voters in town. I believe that is the number of signatures needed on a petition for a referendum be put on the ballot for anything - like a recall election. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3772 Registered: 5-2001 |
 | ||
| vermontgolfer Supporter Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 397 Registered: 12-2002 |
MHD, You have to much time on your hands. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 281 Registered: 1-2006 |
Howard, a critical fault is that our village attorney permits the proposed developer to draft and submit the contract for review. This puts the developer in the driver's seat. The village has no term sheet, no commitment letter, no completion bond requirements, no penalty clauses, incorporated into the deals, because the lazy way out is taken when we contract for the heart of downtown. We let the other side of the deal do the paperwork. This is grossly wrong. It may come from Calabrese, or the Board, or the attorney. Probably all of them don't know what they are doing. Seems Rosen tried, but was whistling in the dark. jd | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 542 Registered: 6-2005 |
And now we've got TerriAnn who objects to spending money to hire competent real estate attorneys when the town gets involved in these development deals. How much has incompetence cost us, TerriAnn? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3777 Registered: 5-2001 |
Another video clip: www.howard-levison.com/Noprogress.wmv | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2744 Registered: 5-2004  |
Jayjay, I agree. She seemed to either completely miss the point of everyone was arguing about. Or maybe she was being intentionally diengenuous. I'd rather think the former than the latter. It's not about spending money. It's about spending money frivilously, and witout proper discussion and disclosure. Moeny for a commercial real estate attorney could be well spent. I would think it would be worthwhile to at least hire one to review current or past contracts to determine if they reflect the best interests of the town. Then go from there. | ||
| Rob E Bank Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 372 Registered: 6-2005  |
I've wondered whether the Mr. Choi of South Orange coming soon fame is still in the mix of players for the shop rite site. Does anyone think he is? I would think his financing has tail spinned out by this time. Speaking of tail spinning, I wonder if Beifus' financing has tail spinned yet or is ready to? The delays are incredulous. And the revised plan is less than the public initially bargained for in the developers agreement. I'd say that the one sided devaluation of the agreement can be considered as public money lost that could possibly eclipse the value of the Tony Smith Sculpture...? Any opinions... | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1641 Registered: 3-2003 |
If he ever builds, the PILOT payments to the Village remain the same. (I know your brother Jos. A.) | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 546 Registered: 6-2005 |
I am still wondering why Beifus changed their corporation, along with their plans for the site. And speaking of changed plans, the architect for Beifus said at the Planning Board meeting that based upon the footprint of each retail unit, he felt such retail space was appropriate for "a card store." Perhaps Mr. Beifus, who it is said is waiting to build until he lines up a major retail chain, should speak to his architect. What major retail chains qualify as a card store? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 522 Registered: 1-2004 |
Maybe he is just waiting for SOPAC to open with the possibility of increased property value and then SELL. BTW, is anyone concerned about the contaminated water? Maybe our Health Board may want to comment on the situation - Eric/Terriann? | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 562 Registered: 6-2005 |
Anyone who is interested in or has been following the saga of the Beifus site MUST watch the Planning Board video of APril 3. The Beifus people lied to the Planning Board about work they claimed to have done. Only Mr. Skrobe of the board took the initiative to see if they had done what they had claimed, and took photos to show board members that they had not. Calabrese then becomes an apologist for them, and tells the board that they will start work in two weeks. "Work" consists of sprucing up the site so the pool go-ers won't see the mess that's there. Apparently "work" doesn't mean actual work on a building!!! And why Calabrese feels it is ok to talk privately to the developers and the contractors on a project which poses a potential conflict, by his own admission, is unbelievable. This town doesn't belong to you Mr. Calabrese. Have the good grace to resign, or disclose what deals you've got going. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 297 Registered: 1-2006 |
The deal is against the public interest, removing property from tax rolls, no start date, and no consideration to town, to boot. So, it is unenforceable. Condemn property now. Hire a lawyer to do it. Then sue the officials who gave us this tax drain and eyesoreforever. jd | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3812 Registered: 5-2001 |
jayjay, I finally watched the video clip from Monday's Planning Board Meeting - WOW! You are right, Mr. Skrobe did a tremendous job to call out Beifus for his "material misrepresentation" during sworn testimony (isn't that called Perjury?). What is it going to take for the Village to do SOMETHING to takeover this property from this unqualified "developer"? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2779 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD, it is truly disturbing to watch that video. I watched it on my way in this morning. A few notes... Does Bill not know that the meetings are public, and that Beifus and his attorneys can see this discussion? Sending a letter is ridiculous. He's talking about threatening Beifus with a less friendly Planning Board, when there is not necessarily any need for Beifus to come before the planning board again. Taylor scared me a bit with his thing about the public sector, but after Mr. Skrobe set him straight, that this is not a public sector project, he turned around. Taylor does seem open to the idea of shutting Beifus down if he doesn't do anything. He appear frustrated, which is more than Calabrese. Calabrese doesn't seem to care about any of this. Mr. Skrobe brought up that there is an incorrect statement in the minutes of the Planning Board. What everyone seems to miss is that the minutes are, I believe, legal documents. So if left uncorrected, there is a belief that they are accurate, and that the statements within them are accurate. Since no one challenged him at the time, the statement stands. Bill keeps saying things like "We can put it in [the letter], but I don't think we can really enforce it." Again, does he not realize these are PUBLIC meetings? Finally, he is the sole advocate for Beifus on the committee. Everyone else is either a sheep, or wants to hold Beifus accountable. Kudos to our Tax Assessor, Ms Malgieri, for standing up with Mr. Skrobe to not approve the minutes. But when it comes time to put up, Calabrese abstains. While I have argued that there is no need for him to explain why he abstains, in the past he has cited a potential conflict. If he does not feel he can vote on the issues, he should not talk during them. I don't think he needs to leave the room, but to advocate for something, and then imply that he has a conflict and therefore cannot vote is ridiculous. Further, when it came time to approve the measure, no one would make a motion to vote. Calabrese had to. It was not until he did so that someone else was able to summon the "courage" to second it. So he put forth the motion, and then abstained? Is THAT legal? I guess it probably is, but smacks of wanting to have it both ways. He can say that he didn't vote for it if things go wrong, and he can say he made the motion (and was part of the planning board if, by some miracle, Beifus gets his •••• together. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 3359 Registered: 5-2005  |
Don't you get it Mr. Beifus has a developers agreement and no one can take that away from him!!!! Unless he wants to sell it? | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1664 Registered: 3-2003 |
I asked the rhetorical question in another thread "is there anything the BOT has touched where it got it right." It's standard procedure in this kind of development agreement to have the developer post a perfomance bond which is subject to forfeit in the event certain milestones aren't met. The purpose is to prevent exactly the kind of games Beifus has been playing. There is none in the Beifus agreement. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3813 Registered: 5-2001 |
Spitz, Exactly. However - read the contract the Village signed with the Tony Smith Estate which completely opens the door for litigation if the Village uses the wrong paint on the sculpture. Why do we have an attorney that CONSISTENTLY approves agreements that favors the OTHER party? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 301 Registered: 1-2006 |
Because the BOT approves his work, and pays his bills. Because he does not draft any of the so-called contracts; the other side, the one we pay, drafts them, and then he says: perfect - pay me. The Smith thing is a gift. It is not enforceable. jd | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 819 Registered: 5-2004  |
And for clarification, joel dranove, you are an attorney with experience in contracts-type work, right? (I hope you are, because yours is good news if it is correct!) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3819 Registered: 5-2001 |
Watch the following video to see another example of how out of touch Bill Calabrese is with what is going on with Beifus (or is he simply lying, again?) http://youtube.com/watch?v=xf0H9GR-JAM | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2793 Registered: 5-2004 |
I have to say, after I watch that video, I'm waiting for the "paid for by the committee to elect _____" |
