| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3871
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:24 am: | 
|
I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss the Old Stone House.
Should it be knocked down to cut our losses?
Should we spend millions of dollars to save it?
Should/Can it be sold to a private enterprise to let them deal with it?
Discuss.... |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:30 am: |
|
There is some discussion about this on another thread. Here is my post on it:
The legacy of mismanagement for the OSH is the expense to stabilize it, which is a stopgap measure. Deferred maintenance is a time bomb for all buildings the town owns. People who plan simply to tear down historic buildings will not escape huge expenses to do so. Whether they are saved or intentionally destroyed, there will be great expense because none have been maintained as they should and the costs to raze them are exorbitant. Like so many other things, the legacy of the current leadership is huge, unnecessary expenses because of a lack of planning.
Because the oldest part of the OSH dates to the 1640s, it should be saved rather than destroyed. What it is used for is another question and cannot be resolved before stabilizing it. It is on the verge of complete collapse. Instead of paying hundreds of thousands to destroy it and cart away the rubble, I would rather that the town use the same money to stabilize it so that the building can be preserved for a better time in the life of the town. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 853
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:37 am: |
|
Wwhy on earth would it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to tear down a building? 
Are you just guessing, or do you know facts? |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:41 am: |
|
The only part of the old stone house that has any historic significance is the stone foundation. It is unfortunate that the rest of the building, consisting of much later additons, has been allowed to deteriorate, but at this point it is too far gone to be saved. We should cut our losses and raze the building to it's foundatons. Landscape the area surrounding the foundation, add a couple of benches and a commemorative plaque. The wall will be preserved, the hazards of a deteriorating building will be eliminated, and we'll have a little park, too. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
We should give it as a 'gift' to the Tony Smith foundation. |
Bill C. Grant, BS
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 388
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
Let's airlift Tau and drop it on the old stone house. We'll have commercial rights and sell it for millions......  |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Pave it. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Pdg, I know that it would be exorbitant to raze the OSH and discard the rubble. We might as well put the same money into saving it. The first permanent European colony on US territory was founded at Jamestown (now in VA) in 1608. The OSH, dating from the 1640s, just a short while later, is unique and significant not only for the northeastern region but for the entire country.
Lizziecat, your view of the historical signifigance of the OSH is not that of the NJ Historic Trust, nor that of the national historic agency that has granted it national landmark status.
I regret that the town has not taken care of the OSH while it has owned it (since 1953, I think, ample time to have saved it the present costs of stabilization). Now it is paying for the neglect. I guess its the price of a non-voting electorate. All very sad. I hope it changes in the next election.
In the meantime, there are far bigger fish to worrry about in the numerous arrested development sites around town. Their costs to the town will be in the tens of millions in lost revenues and lost businesses that don't want to locate near them. The OSH is minor in comparison. Keep your eyes on the ball, everyone. This one is a distraction. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 361
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Razing it is a one time cost. Saving it is a one time cost plus an ongoing expense stream.
I'm all for historical preservation but once something is so far gone, what are you really "saving?" And for what purpose?
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
At this point, the town has to be content with saving it because of its historical signifigance.
The greatest by far ongoing expenses to the town, again, are the multi-year deficit-producing losses of halted major developments. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 555
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
SORising, I disagree with your terming it a distraction.
The Village is justifying putting an unknown Police requirement into this facility as an alternative of putting a second story on the current Headquarters. Understand the Police Headquarters is in dire need for repairs that I assume would be part the second story upgrade.
The Administration claims that since the BOT wants to save the building they can leverage the monies spent on Stabilization and refurbishment to utilize what the Historical Society does not need for the Police expansion.
Understand there has been no analysis on what are the Police Needs, Historical Society use or projected financials for any alternative. We are looking at millions.
|
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
SORising:
My "view" is that of someone who spent a decade working for the state's largest private historical institution--the NJ Historical Society.
One thing that I learned is that just because something is old, it is not necessarily of great value. The old part of the old stone house is the stone foundation wall. The rest of it was added much later. It is regrettable that the building has been so neglected. I remember it when it was the Board of Ed. headquarters, and I visited it on several occasions. It was only after the deterioration was somewhat advanced that the South Orange historical society showed up at the NJHS, where I was a librarian in the attempt to prove, through research, that the old stone house was a relic worth saving. The evidence, as I recall was slim. As I remember, we could find little or no historical documentation to prove that this old stone wall is indeed an artifact from the 1640s.
I am willing to concede that the wall is that old and should be preserved. But the rest of the house isn't, and preserving it will be just one more financial drain on the taxpayers. Money is tight in New Jersey; grants from the New Jersey Historical Commission are hard to come by. Can the locals who are in faver of saving this crumbling structure raise sufficent funds to do it? More power to them if they can, but my taxes are too high already, and I don't want to pay for it.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:10 pm: |
|
The town has said, I believe at the last BOT meeting, that it has not decided how the OSH would be used. I for one am glad of it. It provides the public time to weigh in. I seriously doubt that the police force would want to use the OSH (for starters, it would be impracticable to make secure), but, again, that is not part of the discussion now and there are more important issues than this question at the moment. If there are no analyses of police force needs, it seems even less likely that the force would use the OSH.
Again, the stabilization costs, the only ones the town has thus far assumed, are minor in comparison with the exponentially greater costs of the development fiascos. If you are concerned about assigning priorities, mulitple, arrested developments, an arts center at $15-16 million the last I read, are crises. Time and effort spent on berating the OSH, are a distraction from more important needs, for me and I suspect for most who grasp the enormous difference in scale between a less expensive, irreplaceable cultural treasure and the utterly unnecessary loss of tens of millions. |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 922
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Had reason to go to the PH building recently and took a good look at the OSH from the cops parking lot vantage point. I seriously do not believe there is much there to salvage. Perhaps there's a kernel of historic stones somewhere within, but the rest is ready for the dumpster IMHO.
Back when the BOE was housed there, it was a mess, but possibly worth trying to bring back. Some 20+ years more of neglect, and I think that goal is long past.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 584
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
How historical would it be anyway if the building were outfitted as a police station? Look at Baird, and for that matter even Village Hall. The interiors have no relevance to the exterior. Preservation I would think should be a total package, not just the outside. I say forget about the OSH. Its far too gone, and I don't trust them to "preserve" it in the way I think of preservation anyway. Our budget can't handle it.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Lizziecat, you may be interested in reading the landmark documents for the OSH, both of the state historic trust as well as of the national landmarking agency.
I am not surprised that the limited research that has been done to date has not found a paper trail to document the 1640s date. It is architectural and archeological evidence that does, having to do with what kinds of tools were used by what groups during what periods, among other things, as well as excavations around the house. Carbon dating might be possible in the future, I'm not sure. Test sites around the house that were excavated are fascinating and portend more disclosure of regional history, some of it 300-400 years old. It is not just the structure alone. But with regard to the structure, the entire structure and not just the wall you reference is landmarked, both by the state and by the national agency. Among other things, stablizing the structure will allow more archeological work to proceed.
Just because the SO historical society, like the town itself, came to realize how valuable the entire site was late in the game, is no reason to lose something this valuable for all time.
I am sorry you disagree with the NJ Historic Trust and the national landmarking agency, each of which found the entire structure and its surrounding land important enough to assign landmark status. You might nevertheless find reading their paperwork interesting. |
Debra Davidson
Citizen
Username: Peanutslady
Post Number: 154
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:40 pm: |
|
The Old Stone must be saved. It is a very, very big part of the history of South Orange. To lose it would defiantly be a crime. From what I understand it was the home of the man that gave us Grove park and Montrose Park. South Orange could raise money by having some fund raiser like a big Flea Market in Grove Park, South Orange festival day in Grove Park, Having a raffle for donated prizes by local business in South Orange, Walk A Thon, The school kids could do an aluminum can drive. Please these are just some ideas of how South Orange can raise the money to restore The Old Stone House. |
george H
Citizen
Username: Georgieboy
Post Number: 163
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Not gonna happen.Too many more pressing issues which can only be avoided for so long.Present/Future issues take precedent over the debatable worth of a bldg.,which has been neglected into what will soon be no more than a footnote in some historical journal. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 150
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
I would love to see the OSH preserved, but not only is it blatently obvious that the majority of the current administration have no wish to preserve anything of worth in this town, we just do not have the money...
And why would that be I ask?
Could it be because projects that were scheduled to bring in revenue now are not even off the ground? Could it be because funds that are slated for good and fiscally responsible projects suddenly end up "elsewhere"? Could it be that rateable/taxable properties are disappearing off our landscape and "holes" appear in their place? Could it be that there has been no accountability for too long? Could it be that "our towns best interests" aren't the "best interests" of those in a position to say where our money goes?
I know there are some trustees who care.... can't they start the ball rolling, they KNOW they will have the town behind them.
|
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 229
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Pave it!
The old stone house looks just like Shoprite. Abandoned and neglected beyond saving.
Why throw money at the old stone house in a town where our tax money is being spent on more important things. Like the Tau, SOPAC, vacant properties under Pilots, paying for town attornies, etc. (Just kidding)
Instead our BOT needs to begin adopting responsible financial practices. Let's apply our taxes to benefit the community. Support our police, fire, and schools.
|
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 8:18 pm: |
|
It's funny to read the above in reference to the Old Stone House, some of you say "what purpose does it have or would it serve" , do you say the same thing in reference to Tau?
How do we find money for new projects when the village has ignored that which it presently has in its' control and has not maintained?
How do you point to the South Orange Historical and Preservation Society when they have tried for years to get the village to back it has a project. They applied for grants in the past and because the village did not back them could not follow through. The village is the owner and has always been.
Where is the Montrose Park Historical Society in all this?
How do you start new projects when you cannot maintain what you have? How will you maintain the new projects?
Read the application for the Old Stone House before you indicate that you know what is important about it.
I find it amazing that Maplewood did rise to the occasion when Pierson's Mill was threatened. I find it amazing that for years Maplewood has supported Durand Hedden House. I find it amazing that South Orange Village has so many assets and it just lets them rot..
I am ashamed. The village should be made to care and maintain what it owns or has been allowed to demolish by neglect. Many years have gone by and you all watched and now you argue about the value of something that has value. And yet... other projects proceed.
I wonder..... |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 164
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:23 pm: |
|
The following is from the BOT conference agenda April 12th 1999
7. Old Stone House – Village President Calabrese advised that a short history of the Old Stone House and a set of annotated photographs are required to complete the Preservation Plan for the Old Stone House. The South Orange Historical & Preservation Society has requested that the Village pay the fee of $1,925 to ensure that these tasks are completed in an expeditious and professional manner. Karan Hochman of the Historical Society commented that the Historical Society is willing to pay half of the fee. Village President Calabrese informed Ms. Hochman and the Board that at a recent ribbon-cutting ceremony he had spoken to HUD officials and Fran Klein from the Jewish Federation concerning the Old Stone House and was told that funds are available for conversion of the building into something manageable such as Senior Offices. Trustee Hartwyk commented that the Village Administrator should look into this along with the Historical Society. Village President Calabrese indicated that those Board members present did not have a problem in splitting the fee with the Historical Society.
So if funds were available in 1999, and the BOT members present did not have a problem splitting the fee with the historical society to complete the preservation plan in an "expeditious and professional manner", what happened??
|
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
Maybe we can hire those four 13 year olds who helped the folks out with the historic house in Mt. Olive. (JUST KIDDING!) |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 231
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 10:44 am: |
|
The money for the fee went toward costs for political endoursement mailings instead. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 360
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:54 am: |
|
That would be a crime, literally.
jd |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
SOParents, the fee you refer to, I take it, is the fee to complete the Preservation Plan in 1999. (Please correct me if you refer to another fee and let me know what other one you mean.) If so, your quotation suggests the funds available in 1999 would have been half of the price quoted at that time to complete the plan, or half of $1925. I believe that the preservation plan for the OSH was completed some time ago, although I don't know when exactly. I am guessing, but it seems possible from your quotation that the plan was completed expeditiously. You could find out a reliable answer to the question whether the preservation plan was completed and if so, when and for how much money, I should think, by contacting the SO Historical and Preservation Society.
red-alert, I have no idea what you are talking about. What fee and what mailings are you referring to? Are you talking about the supposed portion of the town's share of the fee for the plan, or $962.50? Are you saying that this or some other amount went towards a political mailing? If the preservation plan was completed, I guess finding out if the town paid for some of it might indicate whether your allegation is possible. But to know whether your accusation is true, we would at least have to know what the accusation actually is. Please explain. If there is some illegal diversion of public funds, for the OSH or anything else, the public should know about it. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 169
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
SOrising,
The way I read it (and believe me I could have read it the wrong way and would like to know if I have!) there was a fee of $1925 to complete/submit(?) a preservation plan, and I imagine this would have been done to try and get the funds that "were available". I took it to be that the S.O Historic society and the town were going to pay the fee 50/50 to get the plan done. I do not know if this ever happened, or if it did, what the outcome of the submitting of the plans was. All I know what that I read the point I posted and I see that the OSH seems to be in the same condition and wondered what happened.
Thanks for the pointer towards contacting the SO H&P Society.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 4:04 pm: |
|
I think there is a completed plan and that the stabilization is part of it. Yes, it should have been done years ago when it was far less costly, both in terms of continued deterioration and in terms of inflation on the costs of it. But for that, new members on the BOT, a higher turnout of SO voters and other changes are probably needed. |
Amateur Night
Citizen
Username: Deborahg
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Where IS OSH? |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 589
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Its back behind the police station, and the senior citizen apt. building over by Grove Park. |
joso
Citizen
Username: Joso
Post Number: 332
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Lizzecat - Bravo for your posts. I have always thought that only the oldest part (you say the foundations) is historically relevant. Anything else could/should be razed, the foundations exposed, and a marker or interpretive plaque(s) be added t explain the site. It may have been a wonderful building in its later iterations, but it seems like restoring the building of the periods would be costly and not worth the effort. It is not like SO is lacking in victorian residences. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Thank you, Joso. I think that attempting to restore the later parts of the building would be a futile waste of money and effort. Those proponants of it being a vital part of the village's past are, I think, giving in to a lot of sentimental claptrap. Right now it's an attractive nuisance. I'm surprised that kids haven't been injured hanging around it. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 590
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Its about time for the BOT to actually poll the citizens to see how many favor restoration and how many favor razing it. Of course, any poll would have to accompany the facts, such as what is the historical significance of the place and what the costs of the various options are, including razing it. And where any costs would come from...be it a tax increase or a shift of money from another project. I'm sick of Calabrese deciding for us according to some warped vision he has for the village. I feel another Tau coming on. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
jayjay, the historical signifigance of the OSH is readily available for all to learn by reading its landmark documentation. It is not a mystery. I believe a copy may be available in the library.
The OSH obviously predates Tau by a few centuries. Efforts to save it from irreversible destruction predate the Tauistas considerably as well. I agree that the town needs to be more accountable fiscally. However, if overly zealous, reform may be reactionary rather than deliberate. It would be regrettable if the town, in mounting desperation, veered wildly from one extreme to another, from a provincial oligarchy to reactionary populism. Neither guarantees thoughtful governance of the kind South Orange needs. I replied in detail about the issue of deliberate, well-paced reform when H. Levison raised the OSH issue in a thread about CBAC recommendations. Please consider it.
As for the costs of razing the OSH, talk to anyone in the industry. If EPA and OSHA standards were followed to cart away asbestos in the house and other injurious materials, the costs of disposing of the rubble would be enormous. Why spend so much and have so little to show for it?
The same dilemma is posed by each and every old building the town owns, from what I can tell. How unfortunate if people's understandable anger were vented by destroying the most historically significant building in the town, in the tri-state area and beyond. It is delusional for the town to think it will be able to escape the consequences of years of irresponsible behavior, not least of all in neglect at the polls. I wish it weren't true. I don't want to pay for the mistakes upon mistakes, the gazebo being trashed before it is paid for to put up Tau, an even greater debt. But realistically, razing any of the historic buildings in town is not a quick escape from anything. If you really think it otherwise, please enlighten me. I just can't see any easy answers.
What seems far clearer is that people who have arranged for the town to have open construction pits for years on end while forfeiting the town's revenues for years into the future are justly deserving of populist wrath. Please do what you can to focus it where it will do the most good, not where we would shoot ourselves in the foot, head or heart, depending on how you look at things. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 592
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Has anyone really vetted the costs of razing the place or restoring it ("restoring" it is a whole other issue...be it a bona fide restoration or a quasi restoration as a police station)? You have to consider the on-going costs of maintaining the place as well, and the village has a miserable record on maintenance. Plus if you truly restore it, would it be like Hedden House in Maplewood, a museum-type place, or something else.
My bias is to raze it, since no one has really spelled out the other side in terms of costs, uses, maintenance, etc. Perhaps we should consult with the town Ho-ho-Kus. I seem to remember them restoring a home called the Hermitage. i wonder what that costs, how they paid for it, and how they now use it. Perhaps a fellow blogger knows. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 558
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:26 am: |
|
SORising, your point is well taken. But, under the current situation the Village does not have the financial resources diminished by various projects and property purchases: Gulf Station, Car Dealership, Beifus, Music Store, Midus, ShopRite, "Flat Iron" Building, Sickley, SOPAC, Sayid Plaza while assuming increased expense of Bonds to cover the purchases.
We have an infrastructure that is in disrepair! We must set prioirities. Take a close look at our facilities - Town Hall, Library, Connett Library, Baird Center, Police Station, River ..... The Old Stone House is representative of negligence on the long term.
Do we Bond our future hoping for these new projects to come on stream providing the additional revenue to resolve these increasing infrastructure needs? Or are we creating new problems because of our attitudes toward maintenance.
Why would one assume that after spending some unknown amount (millions) for the OSH restoration that the current situation will not reoccur? |
Crazy_quilter
Citizen
Username: Crazy_quilter
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:49 am: |
|
isn't OSH landlocked? it can't be a little museum or anything because no one can get to it. i guess that's why the thought is to make it something for the police to use? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
I seriously doubt the OSH will be used for a police station. But, that decision has not been made and it is something the public could and should voice an opinion about. I like Lizziecat's idea of creating a park around it.
It is precisely those poor property purchases and dilettante developments that are costing the town tens of millions, HL. This is the source of costly mistakes. The OSH, a singular cultural treasure of the town, should not pay the price for them. The people who made those mistakes should pay for them.
Since we agree on the greater harm, I suggest we act to reverse that and not sacrifice the OSH in the process.
jayjay, I think its a good idea to talk to Ho-ho-kus, Maplewood and other towns that have historic buildings. Perhaps you could help the town or the SO Preservation Society do that. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
The Old Stone House is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places based on two different criteria. One is as an archaeological site. The other is because of its association with William Augustus Brewer, perhaps the most significant Village resident in the second half of the 19th century. He built the Victorian shingle-style portion of the building, saving the older stone part in the process. But the newer part is an integral part of the historic significance of the building.
Because the building is listed and is municipally owned, it cannot be torn down (or significantly altered) without going through a historical review process. So the cost of tearing it down is not just a matter of renting a bulldozer.
Twenty years ago, when the South Orange Historical and Preservation Society first took up the case of the Old Stone House, half a million dollars would have totally restored it. Several years ago, when the preservation plan was developed and a preservation grant obtained, that much money should have been enough to "mothball" the house to stabilize it while preservation funds were raised. But the Village managed to delay the process until costs have risen substantially. Just another endless frustration in South Orange. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 593
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:12 pm: |
|
I say, let whoever has to do it, initiate the process to raze it. Its a shame, but as I get ready to pay the upcoming quarterly tax bill, I see no other alternative. To do otherwise is to venture down an endless money pit the town can ill afford. Let whatever money which we would have allocated to restoration go toward restoring and fixing the buildings we've got before it is too late for those too.
This government needs a top to bottom shake-up for some real change in how the finances are handled and the money spending decisions are made. This "project of the moment" mentality has got to go. |
tom vilardi
Citizen
Username: Tlv350
Post Number: 41
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:13 am: |
|
To All,
Read these posts with some interest. All this has been discussed and the history of the place laid out in the Old Stone House thread of a few months back. The South Orange Historic and Preservation society has also had a number of "open meetings" to elicit input and come up with a plan for the preservation and community use.
A few things that should be clarified though - Re. the age of the house - English land Deeds mention the house and creek in Sept. of 1680. Further research is being undertaken, but as I understand it the house was possibly in existance prior to the British Takeover of New Amsterdam and Purital settlement of Newark which was in the 1640's.
Contrary to what some have posted there is MORE than ONE stone wall that dates to the 17th/18th Centuries. The ENTIRE back portion of the house dates to this era. While during the Board of Ed's use the house was fairly well preserved, the deterioration has brought to light beaded ceiling beams (had been covered by a drop tin ceiling) and mortise and tenon construction of the roof rafters among other things. Much of this information was not verifiable when the original Historic Preservation paperwork was filed. The House is actually TWO Houses - one (circa 1860's-1880's) built directly in front of the other. The entire rear "house" is the oldest and still fairly well preserved due to the overengineered nature of the construction (8x8 and 6x8 beams and rafters).
Another thing that was not known at that time is that the Old Stone House IS the OLDEST in the State. The Spy House in Monmouth had that title BUT then it was discovered that the oldest portion was taken down a century ago. Other houses in that category have been moved from the original site, disassembled and rebuilt, torn down and rebuilt or so compromised that the existance of anything of the pre-English Colonial era is doubtful.
So we have the "honor" of having the oldest stone house in NJ and yet a quandry as to whether we should just "tear it down and put in a parking lot". I had hoped we were better than that.
The Preservation Society is trying to raise money and obtain state funding to help offset any tax burden. The website is www.sohps.org Brian Hanlon is the President, Mary Kaye Mitchell the VP. They're knowledgable and willing to discuss the House. The Preservation Society also needs you to volunteer your time, share your suggestions/ideas, construction knowledge, etc.
I'm happy to talk about it too 973-378-3929. Been in it recently.
Tom |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 3486
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
Thanks Tom to know we have such a piece of history in our village... |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 181
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:30 am: |
|
I know it's going to be a drop in a VERY large ocean, but where can I send a donation?
|
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
I think the challenge for the OSH is the same as the challenge that should be facing Tau. However nice to have, our BOT proposed a 13.5% tax increase. That is not acceptable, and should force some hard choices.
The vague plans being proposed for the OSH (police use, etc.) have not been well defined and have the potential to lead to much higher expenses in future years. I can easily see the BOT a year or two hence saying "well, we spent the first $500K, so it only makes sense to spend the next million..." It has happened with enough other projects.
We need a real plan, or at least the beginning of one, either public sector or private, before we move forward here.
Maybe we should spend the stabilization money, but only if it is followed by a full stop before we make any more spending decisions about this house (even if fund-raising and decision making take years). I always want to err on the side of preservation of our very few, very old bits of history, but this one is hidden, has no plan, a fairly obscure history, and the potential to become a money pit.
I'm happy to see people trying to save it, but we need a plan that does not make it a financial albatross for South Orange. |
Jim Murphy
Citizen
Username: Jimmurphy
Post Number: 275
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:59 am: |
|
Gee,
I wonder which is more likely to draw interested visitors to our town - the oldest house in New Jersey, dating to colonial times, already on the National Register,
or a sculpture that can already be seen at Hunter College in New York City?
Hmmm.....
|
JoRo
Citizen
Username: Autojoe51
Post Number: 102
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
|
Again, why do we have highly-developed plans for the River Corridor (Nov. 2005, 35 pages) and Bicycle Traffic (83 pages, March 2005), but a grossly outdated Master Plan? We need expert outside help to see through our current problems, including how to best become a destination and what to do with historic properties. We aren't the first to deal with these issues. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
Agreed, JoRo, but how do we act before one is in place or if the BOT never does what you suggest?
The only money approved to date by the BOT is for stabilization. I suggest anyone interested in this contact the SO Historical and Preservation Society to let them know what your views about usage of the building and surrounding property are. You may also try to contact trustees. I think they will ask the SOHPS for its views, so your views might carry more weight if expressed to the SOHPS. Best would be to tell both: the Society and the trustees directly. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2744
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
SO Rising: Exactly right. People should contact both the society and the trustees.
The OSH issue has been discussed for years. The questions have been where will the money come from and what is the best use for the OSH? I think most people would like to save the building but we need to have a reasonably fair estimate of the total cost and what will we use the building for going forward. Since I have been on the BOT, I have yet to see any specifics to the cost for all the work needed. I have heard several ideas tossed out there for the potential use but nothing has been decided (or really discussed ).
I do suggest people take Tom Vilardi up on his offer to discuss. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Who owns the OSH/land around it? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Soparents, the town of South Orange owns the OSH.
There is a volunteer clean up of the OSH this Saturday morning. People are needed. It would be one way to see it and learn about it first hand. The officers and board members of the SOHPS will be there together and it might be an easy way to get questions answered by several people. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Soparents, I think you could send your check to the SOHPS and designate for the OSH. Call them to verify.
And the town of SO also owns at least some of the surrounding land of the OSH. Again, call the SOHPS to make sure. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 564
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
Maybe someone from the Historical Society can recall what happened to the stone date marker that was removed when the Police Department expanded the parking area/driveway.
It would be interesting to know the date that was inscribed on the marker. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
The Village can't even renovate the S.O. Firehouse in a timely manner and now you want to convert a derelict 17th century eyesore into a police facility? How smart is that? To think that this dilapidated ancient structure can be restored to anything other than a historic keepsake is ludicrous. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 568
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Brett, I never made that suggestion (see my posts above)! If the Village would only answer the questions we (CBAC) have asked before committing any significant funds toward the Old Stone House.
|
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
I understand, Howard, but somebody is attaching this project to proposed police expansion and that sounds as ill-fated an idea as there is. Somehow, such "piggy-backing" of one project onto another has not seemed to have benefited the Village in recent years. And I personally wouldn't house a dog in that eyesore much less the local gendarmarie.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 570
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
It is our VA and BOT's that assume since they are going to invest in stabilizing the Old Stone House that it will cost less to upgrade it to the Police requirement as compared to some other alternative.
The stabilization proposal - $500,000 will not provide a functional building. All it will do is prevent further decay. Temporary roof, boarded windows and some structural repairs.
The problem is that there has been no analysis - costs, requirement or alternatives! |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Typical... |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 370
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
bump |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page