| Author | Message | ||
     MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3944 Registered: 5-2001  |
I thought I'd start a new thread to debate/discuss the SID issue. What benefit does it bring to our town? What harm does it bring to our town? Would it ever make sense? Elaine - since you have the most information, I think we'd love to hear your impressions. | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2006  |
I would like to know why the SID is working in other towns and why it wouldn't work in South Orange? I am not for or against it. I just heard that there are towns that have a SID and they are happy, so I would like to know the difference. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 156 Registered: 12-2004 |
Studies have shown that unless the business community is behind it, the SID will fail. Obviously, our business community is not behind it, so one must question the motivation going on here. Here are the 10 top reasons not to do it, and I have tried to be brief: 1. Four major studies done in our village with representatives from all factions have all concluded: Not recommended, not now, maybe sometime in the future. Definitely, not now. Many persons worked long hours and many days and evenings on these four projects. The BoT totally ignores the reports. 2. Business in South Orange is very fragile, with frequent turnover, and not any significant longevity. Add to this: insufficient parking, quiet foot traffic, market saturation and competition. Profits are simply not generous enough to afford the "luxury" of another tax. 3. There has been no articulated stated purpose for imposing the SID at this time. There is no definition of the "additional services" that "they" say we need. Not even one substantive reason has been offered. This is coming from a vacuum out of nowhere. 4. Our local businesses have already lost substantially during the two year construction of new sidewalks, when business came to an abrupt halt. They have not recovered from these losses and they were never compensated for them. By the way, the construction workers ate from lunch pails and did not even use our local restaurants. They did sit on the restaurant stoops while they ate. 5. All the studies showed that if a tax were collected, it would only afford enough revenue to pay for administrative salaries for the persons who they will hire to work for the SID. There will be no surplus for anything else. All these new jobs will impact on taxpayers of the future, too, because of pensions, perks, etc. 6. You know all those properties that will have PILOTS? Well, if they ever build them, they will contain retail establishments. How fair is it that those new businesses will not shoulder the same burden as the businesses outside of the redeveloped areas? Businesses compete. The businesses that pay a tax are not on a level playing field with the businesses that do not pay a tax. 7. Once the SID is enacted, there is no end in sight for the tax. It will go up and up. 8. I question the legality of having a SID where we already have redevelopment. The two concepts are not the same and a person whose property is red lined by redevelopment is not in the same status as one in the Special Improvement District. Most places that have a SID, did the SID first and used redevelopment only as a last resort. 9. The Board of Trustees is not intending to impose the SID in the Irvington Avenue business district. There is no logic for this gerrymandering. This inconsistency has given rise to speculation and suspicion that the Trustees are being guided by political motivation and not taking into account the best interests of the business community. FYI: the single largest property owner in the Irvington Avenue business district is Sayid Nagim, and you know the rest of the story. 10. Trustees Calabrese and DeVaries can not vote due to a conflict of interest. It is my position that Trustee Moore-Abrams also has a conflict of interest as she has an office on South Orange Avenue in the Tublitz building. If she votes in favor of a SID, the vote will be tainted by her conflict of interest. Even if she votes against it, her vote is still tainted. She has refused to address this conflict of interest. OK, so now you have some more food for thought. | ||
| SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 291 Registered: 7-2004 |
Lack of fairness to current businesses seems to rule this out. My limited understanding is the SID can't fund things that the Village would otherwise/had previously provided, so there should be a large burden of proof put on the SID advocates as to what exactly they will provide and how it will benefit the businesses. Seems what local biz needs is for the Township to do its job in providing the basics and planning better for parking and traffic. Am I being too rash with guessing that the SID would be a mini Triboro Bridge and Tollway Authority for Calabrese & Co.? Think Robert Moses. A revenue source and a public body subject to different laws/regulations than the township is. E. Harris's point #5 may be most important: 5. All the studies showed that if a tax were collected, it would only afford enough revenue to pay for administrative salaries for the persons who they will hire to work for the SID. There will be no surplus for anything else. All these new jobs will impact on taxpayers of the future, too, because of pensions, perks, etc. They want more patronage. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3945 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hmmm....I wonder which Former Trustee and wife of Village Administrator John Gross is already being eyed for the position?  | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3946 Registered: 5-2001 |
BTW...the SID ordinance is online at http://www.southorange.org/clerk/SIDOrdinance.pdf | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 605 Registered: 6-2005 |
Based on the document, shall I assume that the VP's property on Scotland is not involved with the SID? And why is that? How about all of Saiyd's properties on Irvington Ave.? Don't all these parcels deserve Ms. Jennings' claimed "added value"? | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 606 Registered: 6-2005 |
I stand corrected as it looks like BC's drugstore property is included. I did not see Saiyd's Irvington Ave properties though. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 676 Registered: 4-2005  |
I still stand by the position I made this summer on the SID discussion. I fully support it and I hope it comes to fruition and I hope the business community can consider a joint venture with the public to improve the downtown. The cost can then be shared between both entities. Elaine - I still fully respect your position on this issue as President of the Chamber of Commerce and I look forward to your insight on Monday. (P.S. Don't think you have to worry too much about #10 - Trustee Moore-Abrams probably won't even be at the meeting given her record of attendance at meetings that are not deemed "regular"). | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 562 Registered: 1-2004  |
It would be helpful to have a description of the proposed SID in terms of expected functions, projected costs and revenue sources - what is commonly called a "Business Plan". | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 563 Registered: 1-2004 |
I would assume that SOPAC will be exempt from the "SID Tax". I would also assume that SOPAC is one of the major drivers for a SID - conflict? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3956 Registered: 5-2001 |
Reminder, the first SID "special meeting" is tonight (Monday, April 24th at 6:45 pm) in Village Hall. Note that this meeting is BEFORE the regular BOT Meeting, so therefore I assume it will not be televised. I don't know if I can make it, but if they are solicitly changes to this ordinance (other than eliminating it altogether), can someone please ensure it has a clause stating explicitly that the "director" of the SID cannot be a former elected official, former officer or the spouse of either. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 3257 Registered: 9-2003 |
I'm not completely opposed to a SID - but am I unreasonable in thinking that those who will most benifit from having a SID should pay the "tax" - i.e. the people who OWN the building, not their tenents? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2923 Registered: 5-2004  |
SoOrLady, either way the tenants will pay. If costs go up, so do rents. | ||
| Duck Duck Goose Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 399 Registered: 6-2005  |
There is no benefit. It's just another politico job for some skunk who needs a paycheck! We are a small community, let's not think mega complexes as we have with sopac, beifus, shop rite, gaslight commons...... If you want to speak to the issue of forming a DRMC, those criteria are far different. There we will need to think outside of the box. Shared services, consolidation, elimination of administrative dead weight///// you get the picture! | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 210 Registered: 10-2005 |
----Obviously, our business community is not behind it, so one must question the motivation going on here.------ Elaine how do you make such a statement? Who are you to say OBVIOUSLY our business community is not behind it! I happen to know several business owners who are either for it, against it or have not made the decision yet and would like to hear more about it. So where do you come off making such a statement that the business community is against it. The Chamber of Commerce went around town last week handing out to the local businesses a stop sign printed on a piece of paper saying no to SID. Personally I think that the Chamber should play a more positive roll in town and not be handing out cheap looking negative signs for a business to put in their window. Why not explore the possibilities of what the potential upside a SID would be for a business and then take a poll from the businesses to hear their opinion. I am not saying I am for it but before I hear the potential upside I am not willing to totally discount its viability to help local business. And interesting I have not seen a single sign in a business window that was handed out by the chamber. | ||
| Duck Duck Goose Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 400 Registered: 6-2005 |
You haven't walked the town much lately. This issue has been front and center with the Chamber for the last three years. Members were committed to the group who had studied the proposals and delivered their findings to the BoT. The BoT as usual decided this is not what it wanted to hear and pursues an end rush to get this crap passed. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it will not be enacted upon the CBD. The business community as a whole will ensure that adequate legal recourse to this little old man we call Calabrese is known for who he is - a lying, conniving belch. It's outrageous that people like you can be as dim witted. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 211 Registered: 10-2005 |
Interesting the business owners I know are open to it. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3960 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here are some meeting minutes from previous discussions on this issue every one of the past years, going back to 1999 (which includes some comments from Business Owners): http://www.southorange.org/minutes/1999/04121999c.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2000/06122000c.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2001/07232001r.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2002/04152002s.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2002/05202002s.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2003/9-15-03CA.htm http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2005/07-25-05RM.pdf http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2005/10-24-05CA.pdf | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1717 Registered: 3-2003 |
Since the business owners are the ones who have to vote to approve a SID, it would be interesting to hear business owners who are in favor of it as well as those who are opposed to it speak at a BOT meeting. Edited to add: I made the suggestion above because I'm not sure that a lot of readers or residents know that the BOT can't just pass an ordinance inposing a SID on the business owners. A SID can't be established unless a majority of the business owners vote in favor of it. | ||
| U.Nosey Fungi Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 401 Registered: 6-2005 |
Michael: I'd certainly think in your consideration that the tax if enacted should be community wide, including a florist on Hoskier - don't you think?  | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 158 Registered: 12-2004 |
To: Michael Brant: Name just one. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 212 Registered: 10-2005 |
Elaine I know of several. I would not name them unless I ask them if they minded. You information is not correct. You speak like the authority for all the businesses in town. Name the ones that are against a sid. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 159 Registered: 12-2004 |
Michael Brant: you came on board pretending to be an innocent new person in town. You gave yourself away. Yes, I speak like the authority for the businesses in town and that is because I am. I am the President of the local Chamber of Commerce and they have given me that authority. They like me, they respect me, and they trust me. I feel the same about them. Where do you fit into the picture? Do you own a business? No. Do you own commercial real estate? No. Do you hide behind a phoney name? Yes. Are you involved with the government in any way? Yes. End of story. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 213 Registered: 10-2005 |
End of story? I am involved in commercial real estate but not in town. I am not involved in the Government of the town so you are wrong. You are not the authority in town and please do not speak for "THE TOWN". If you plan on playing in a field of professionals please try to be more open minded and not attack people who challenge you! Instead of defending your point of view on the sid you chose to attack. Obviously you are wrong . end of story michael brant | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 436 Registered: 7-2004 |
Spitz: I believe our trustees can approve a SID without any business or commercial property owner support whatsoever, which the BoT appears hell bent on doing. NJ statutes merely require that business and commercial property owners within a SID constitute 50%+ of the SID's board. | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 437 Registered: 7-2004 |
The proposed SID Board, http://www.southorange.org/clerk/SIDOrdinance.pdf, is a bit confusing and sloppily crafted. Section I, Paragraph 4.B refers to terms for Seton Hall's representative and Planning Board memberS, but Paragraph 4.A makes absolutely no reference to a SHU representative and only one Planning Board member. Our lead newbie trustee carrying the flag on this one, our VC, and the (recused, conflict-of-interest) VP's "unpaid assistant," who probably drafted this, apparently neglected to proofread the SID ordinance before promulgating it. And, SHU's representative apparently ended up on the cutting room floor, probably after saner BoT members decided to exclude its vast, non-commercial property (and monster assessed value) from the SID. Every SID Board member will be chosen by the BoT, except the Planning Board member, which is chosen by the Planning Board, which is chosen by the BoT. SHU gets to choose its representative, who unfortunately isn't actually on the SID Board -- which probably is a better deal for SHU than shouldering 25% of the SID assessment. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 329 Registered: 2-2006 |
michael brant, your empty assertions are unpersuasive, your methods suspect, your harrassing the President of the Chamber of Commerce, who clearly speaks for business members of the Chamber, is obnoxious. As she said, you give yourself away. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 214 Registered: 10-2005 |
SOrising I disagree. The chamber absolutely speaks for SOME businesses in the town but not all. Now to say my methods are suspect? All I did was say that perhaps when the Chamber makes such a statement that obviously our business community is not behind a sid it is not correct. I am not a business owner nor am I involved in the town politically. But I do know business owners that are either for the sid, against the sid or are interested in hearing how it could benefit their business before they pass judgement. So the statement that the business community is against a sid is incorrect. That is all I said. And if you choose to read more into it than that then please do. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 677 Registered: 4-2005 |
Elaine - from your knowledge, what percentage of business owners are opposed to a SID v. how many favor it? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2932 Registered: 5-2004 |
And what percent of the businesses owners are members of (and represented by) the CoC? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9276 Registered: 4-1997  |
As in any other community in the US, the local chamber of commerce is the voice of the business community. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 679 Registered: 4-2005 |
Nice question Rastro... kind of like you need "quorum"? | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2006 |
Elaine and SOrising, You are attacking Michael Brand as someone involved with the government, with suspect methods who obnoxiously harasses the President of the Chamber of Commerce - oh my, how did he dare? You both claim that he gave himself away, he is with the enemy, because he asked questions and challenged Elaine's authority! Earlier on this thread I asked questions myself. Am I bad? Am I on your blacklist? Oooo. I'm ascared. Do you mean to say that anyone who is for a SID must be "with the government"? Is it not possible that some business owners are SID supporters? Is it not possible that Michael Brand is a member of the Chamber but he does not agree with Elaine's, the President's, position? Have all the dissenters to Elaine's position on SID been abolished from the Chamber of Commerce? I read this thread to learn about SIDs but your harassment and name calling for someone who differs with you gives little credibility to your assertions. I guess I'll have to look somewhere else for credible info. Probably the government. It's been fun. P.S. BTW I am not in government, I am not a member of the COC, I am not a merchant, I am not a commercial landlord, I don't know who Elaine Harris or Michael Brand or SOrising are, and I don't have a crystalized opinion about SIDs. And if you believe all that I have a bridge I want to sell you for $24. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 215 Registered: 10-2005 |
I am not saying a sid is the right path for the South Orange business community but I do believe it is a option that should be explored by the local businesses. Someone or some organization needs to take the bull by the horn and do something for the business community to help to create a positive retail environment. It is clear at least to me that one does not currently exist. | ||
| Agrackle Citizen Username: Agrackle Post Number: 44 Registered: 2-2004 |
Aren't the real issues that need to be addressed with respect to our downtown's revitalization slightly larger in scope than what a SID is intended to address? My understanding is that a SID is not designed to duplicate municipal or town services, but rather to enhance and/or supplement what already exists. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1719 Registered: 3-2003 |
Two Senses - You seem to be correct based on the reading of the proposed ordinance. My understanding was that the law governing SIDS was set forth by state law and that a majority vote of the business owners was required to establish a SID. Perhaps this can be cleared up at a BOT meeting. I know that Elaine said she will be attending tonight - Elaine, you can probably clear this up for us (or at least for me.) | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1720 Registered: 3-2003 |
Here's a link to a description of New Brunswick's Special Improvement District. In the second paragraph it says "At least 51% of owners in the district must approve the added tax before the district can be established." http://www.newbrunswick.com/citymarket/specialimprov.asp | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 160 Registered: 12-2004 |
Tonight's meeting was rather bizarre. It was supposed to be for feedback from the community, but instead Trustee Jennings read the proposed ordinance and in between some of us had a chance to make comments. Sheena, and others: To date, the business community is 100% opposed. Two posters above like to tease that they "know" of some businesses in favor, but they must be very bashful because no one has thus far spoken in favor. I spoke with many people before and after the meeting and absolutely no one was in favor. What was extremely interesting was the unashamed admission from Trustee Jennings that she does not even shop in South Orange because she prefers Montclair and Maplewood. According to her "opinion" (she loves that word), South Orange has nothing to offer her. Way to go, Trustee Jennings! | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 7 Registered: 3-2006 |
Well? How was the meeting last night? How many people were there? How many businesses, landlords? How many spoke for and how many against the SID? What info was given out other than the reading of the resolution? Anybody? |
