| Author | Message | ||
     Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 162 Registered: 12-2004 |
phd6786: If you care so much, why didn't you attend? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 571 Registered: 1-2004  |
The meeting was more of confrontational session than one of listening and offering comment/dialogue on the issues presented. What was the purpose of the meeting? To have dialogue/discussion or a recital (at least Trustee Jennings could have had the latest version) of the proposed ordinance? If so, what purpose did that serve? Has there been a census of all businesses and commercial property owners within the proposed SID district? If so, can that be published. I think a pro forma Business Plan would help everyone understand what is being proposed. A somewhat limited detailed plan over the first three years of operation that includes descriptions of the proposed organization structure (the operational Corporation not the Governing body) (Job positions / duties / Salary), accomplishments/services to be provided and projected cost and revenue streams. The ordinance states the SID can be dissolved by 2010 - on what basis. Is there some "Service Level Agreement" that can be used to measure the success of this venture? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 332 Registered: 2-2006 |
I also was surprised at the fact that business owners were not allowed to speak their mind last night. It had every appearance of being something that Trustee Jennings is determined to force onto business owners who don't want it because she thinks its a good idea. So much for her "opinion". If she goes through with this tyrannical abuse of her office, I hope she is voted out of office before her term ends. While a few people were allowed to speak, they were challenged at almost every turn and many others weren't even allowed to approach the microphone. Jennings kept saying she had to "read the ordinance". It is clear it was a pro forma exercise to fulfill a requirement to enacting it into law. Jennings seems determined to drive what few businesses are left in downtown out of business. Attitudinally, she is not the least bit interested in supporting or following the wishes of businesses that actually have to operate in the bomb-crater zone of downtown, or in any number of residents who don't own businesses downtown who participated in a thorough study of the question a few years ago. Why is she doing this? It seems she has gotten caught up in some kind of ego contest and is determined to bring something with her name on it into law, no matter how ill-advised or injurious to the town it is. Her presumption that she should have as much to say about establishing a SID as business owners who will have it forced onto them is an incredible display of ignorance and arrogance. She actually announced that because she lives in South Orange, even though she doesn't shop here, she should have as much to say about whether a SID should be forced onto downtown businesses as the business owners themselves. This woman has the judgement and pervserse will of an officious potentate of some backwater province of the former Soviet Union. All the taxpayers of South Orange need is a cheerleading trustee determined to impose her compulsive need to "collaborate" like some misplaced preschool official, onto adults who have been "collaborating" the entire length of time they've been business owners, to drive them out of business, further degrade the landscape and quality of life downtown, and increase the tax burdens on residents before they sell and find towns not yet in the clutches of an inept politburo. Sorry Howard, even if these people threw together a business plan, would you trust it? It would be about as credible as the whacky ideas that generated it, with as much pretense at "input" as the proposed SID already has. If she persists in her ridiculous performance, I really don't know how the town will endure Jennings and Calabrese until the next election | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1724 Registered: 3-2003 |
Last night Trustee Jennings said although the business community was opposed to a SID several years ago, the demographics of the town have changed such that it was her opinion that more business owners might be receptive to a SID. She had also made a similar statement at an earlier BOT meeting. Trustee Jennings is the one who can best explain what she means by this statement, but is there anyone else who can explain what she is getting at? | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 682 Registered: 4-2005  |
Why would Trustee Jennings or non-business owners not have as much say as the business owners? That would be like saying that people outside the art community shouldn't have a say about tau... Right now taxpayers pick up the burden of the downtown - whether or not she shops is irrelevant (although it's quite a shame) - she pays for it. I hoped to attend the meeting but I'm a little consumed in final papers, etc. so I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what's being said in this thread. I'm just don't understand the rationale of why one groups opinion should be more important than others. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3965 Registered: 5-2001  |
This is now the 2nd time she has referred to "new demographics" in town during a public meeting. What does that mean? | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 216 Registered: 10-2005 |
One the way home last evening I visited several businesses in town that I frequent and I asked the owners if they were in favor of a sid. Not surprising to me the businesses that I spoke with are willing to listen to what a sid was all about. None of them had firm information on what it would cost them or what it would do for them. Just propaganda that has been circulated. My point here is quite simple. It is not true that 100% of the business community is completely against a sid....at this point. I believe all the information of the cost and benefit of a sid should be supplied to each and every business that will contribute and then and only then can we say that 100% or 50% or 25% or 5% of the local businesses do not want a sid. Seems pretty sensible to me. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1725 Registered: 3-2003 |
My question is how this has now changed the dynamics of the establishment of a SID, which Trustee Jennings says has happened. What is the relevance? | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 438 Registered: 7-2004 |
Did the other two-thirds of the BoT's Planning and Zoning Committee, Rosner and Taylor, attend or participate? As committee members, did they collaborate on developing and vote to support introduction of this ordinance? As an initiative of the BoT's "Planning and Zoning Committee," to what extent has the Village's Planning and Zoning Board been involved in reviewing, discussing, or voting on recommending this ordinance to the BoT? Wouldn't the formation of new zoning for a SID legally fall within the purview of a municipal Planning & Zoning Board -- not simply an informal committee of the trustees, spearheaded by the unpaid "Assistant" to the recused, conflicted VP? Did the BoT's Planning & Zoning Committee hire expert counsel (i.e., someone who has implemented a SID) to draft this ordinance, or did they simply cut and paste language from other towns' SID ordinances? Since the actual ordinance has changed since it initially was released to the public, at least with respect to Board members and appointments, legally must the public and BoT review process re-start from the beginning? Why are Irvington Avenue and South Orange Avenue (east of Prospect), and Valley Street (south of Memorial Park) excluded from the proposed SID? Is there any logical rationale for this gerrymandering? Did Jennings, Bresson, or village employees bother to update outdated 2001 projections regarding actual financial impact to SID properties, whether raising $1000, $100,000 or $1,000,000? Why are none of the SID's Board members selected by the taxed business community that they are supposed to represent? Do the framers of this ordinance have any historical recollection of the scuffle about taxes and representation, a few years ago, in Boston Harbor? | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 217 Registered: 10-2005 |
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! I AM BLOWN AWAY! CAN SOMEONE POST HER EXACT WORDS? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 333 Registered: 2-2006 |
Sheena, Jennings' view that she should have as much say about the SID as a business owner forced against their will to pay for it is analogous to me taking money from you, imposing a committee that would be able to dictate how you have to conduct economic activities that you depend on for your livelihood and survival, and paying the committee with your money, taken against your will. It is outrageous, stunningly inconsiderate of the years of abuse downtown businesses have already endured as a result of inept leadership, deleterious and likely to further injure the downtown and everyone in the town, undemocratic and simply intolerable. It is not irrelevant whether she shops in town, nor is it irrelevant whether she publicly announces that she shops elsewhere. She is a public leader who is supposed to support, strengthen and assist South Orange and its downtown area. She is not doing so when she announces at a public meeting she is chairing about the fate of downtown that she does not shop in downtown South Orange, that she does not support it by her example as well as by personnally investing in it with her purchases. But it was the height of stupidity for her to link her desire to dictate the formation of a SID with her announcement that she does not personally support downtown businesses. These remarks injure South Orange and its downtown. They are not the remarks of a thoughtful or skillful leader of South Orange. They are the remarks of someone who wants to impose her thoughtlessness on many other people who don't want it. | ||
| Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 163 Registered: 12-2004 |
The proposed ordinance would have 18 members on the board of the SID and not a single one of them would be chosen by the business community. All 18 would be chosen by the Board of Trustees. What kind of planning and logic created that proposal? Not even one single person would be allowed from the business community unless hand picked by the Board of Trustees. How do you imagine the business community will like to work with a board like that? The proposed SID will have borrowing power. That is dangerous. Mr. Gross explained that this is for "cash flow" so that they can cover bills until the Village gives it the annual stipend. So for example, if they overspend or spend foolishly, we will have to pay, and if we do not pay, there can be a lien on our property to secure repayment. They are proposing a business (SID) that has no business plan, is already contemplating cash flow problems, has no provisions for the repayment of debt, and will look to me and others similarly situated to pay for this. If we do not pay, for whatever reason, a lien will be on our property and it could be foreclosed. When asked, Trustee Stacey Jennings had no idea what the borrowing limits were. She said she was not the only one on the committee, in other words, it wasn't her job to know this answer. So far no one has offered any positive reason why this is a good idea. While Sheena has said she likes the idea, her opinion is merely what is called a "net opinion" based on no reasoning, just a position. Aside from the fact that she is not a person targeted to make payments under this plan, which makes it a lot easier to be "in favor," she really has not offered even one concrete reason why this is good. | ||
| Racey Stacey Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 402 Registered: 6-2005  |
I think the trustee lady is a pig. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 572 Registered: 1-2004 |
SORising, the Business Plan would give an understanding of what this concept (SID) is about and some level of expectation of what it is to accomplish. I think Elaine brought up a number of great points but was shut down by Jennings defensive responses rather than listening to and understanding an individual who represents the Business Community. The impression of what Jennings was trying to accomplish was to correct the words of the ordinance rather than listening to valid input from the community as part of a determination if this ordinance is actually needed and should be a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Board. Where were the other members of the Board? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 405 Registered: 1-2006 |
SID: Taxation Without Representation. jd | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 439 Registered: 7-2004 |
"This is now the 2nd time she has referred to "new demographics" in town during a public meeting. What does that mean?" What exactly is this "new demographic" that Jennings randomly invokes. Does she have one shred of census-based demographic data to support her assertion? And, if she does, does she possess one iota of retail shopping expertise to know how it translates into central business district demand or shopping patterns? As someone who now has publicly boasted that she doesn't shop in South Orange (an interesting choice by the BoT for leading the formation of a SID), does she have any firsthand input from experienced business owners in the proposed SID zone? Has she personally consulted with any of the them during the drafting of this ordinace? If her "new demographic" are NJ Transit commuters from West Orange or Livingston, downtown residents in the Gaslight Commons, or patrons of our many restaurants, what is about their needs that factually supports a SID assessment? If her "new demographic" is a thinly-veiled comment on the racial composition of our historically diverse community, perhaps she could shed light on how it bolsters the need for a SID at this time. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9282 Registered: 4-1997  |
The new demographic is people who speak without thinking. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 685 Registered: 4-2005 |
Elaine - as you may recall, I made several posts this summer when the issue was initially being discussed. I have already made my reference to that. You were involved with that thread and we discussed the issue back and forth, thus, it's obvious I'm not bolstering a "net opinion" and I provided my concrete information then. Do you remember? I supppose I can go search for all of it. Edited to Add: /discus/messages/3133/85542.html?1122476980} | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 686 Registered: 4-2005 |
Just FYI - The comments I made this summer were derived from information at that time. I have not seen the ordinance yet or researched it so it may not reflect the same opinion. However, I can say that if it is the BOT who gets to select the composition, I'm in full opposition to that. | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2006  |
It appears that Jennings ran a bad meeting and made some serious blunders. For a public official to not support the businesses of SO is appalling; to admit it in front of a crowd of SO business people is plain stupid. No surprise here. It is inexcusable that the other two members of her Planning and Zoning Committee, Taylor and Rosner, were not present. You’d think that they would plan the meeting when it would be convenient for all three of them. I agree with Sheena: residents in town must have as much say on the SID as the businesses. SID’s are successful in other NJ towns only because the businesses went along with it. The reason that it would not work in SO, as explained here, is that our businesses do not support it. My question is: why, if it is successful elsewhere, our businesses object to it? Some reasons? Is it because Elaine Harris, the only vocal opponent so far, is against it? Or is there something wrong with our merchants and landlords? | ||
| jeep Citizen Username: Jeep Post Number: 86 Registered: 8-2005 |
Sheena are you aware that Seton Hall may very well be within the are that could be part of the SID? And if this it true my guess would be it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and there is nothing they can do about it. | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2006 |
Two Senses: who is the unpaid “assistant” to the VP you are referring to? That's news to me. What is his/her involvement to the SID? And in what other areas does he/she "assist" Calabrese? Is he/she a front for dealing for Calabrese in areas where he is legally required to recuse himself? Please enlighten us. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 3552 Registered: 5-2005  |
Bressen???? | ||
| FlyingSpaghettiMonst Citizen Username: Noodlyappendage Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2005 |
IF that's true Jeep, finally we will be getting SOME money from that institution that sucks up so much of our tax dollars in fire, police and rescue. | ||
| jeep Citizen Username: Jeep Post Number: 87 Registered: 8-2005 |
Sheena you came up with a figure once before that Bunny"s would pay $425.00 per year. Would you please take a moment and calculate the cost for Seton hall using the same formula you did for Bunny's. It might possibly be a very good thing for town as Seton Hall will be paying a huge amount. Please calculate the amount for me. thanks | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 688 Registered: 4-2005 |
Jeep - I'm not understanding you. Using a tactic such as saying 'Seton Hall will pay' will not deter me from thinking the goals behind a SID are good. I've agreed several times that there is a lot of things that SHU can do for the community both financially and non-financially - but that's not the discussion... so I'm not quite sure what it is you want me to say? If you think I will change my position based on whether SHU is in the SID or not, you're highly mistaken. | ||
| Harvard A.Ganif, Phd Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 403 Registered: 6-2005 |
Fair for you to cast a stone, 6786phd. The mirth of your question leads me to believe you too are perverse in your thought processess and should not be taken seriously. More than one spoke last evening. Did you remain for the BoT meeting and the updates provided for Redevelopment? Leadership has failed our community beyond recognition for the past 10 years, can you deny this? Look at the downtown - the Beifus Pit, the Sterling Dumps, the Choi-less Chow-Rite, the Plaza in Afghanistan, you must be naive to think businesses see this proposal as worthy of support. The problem with the downtown is a direct result of the failures of our BoT. A sid will not restore the business livelihoods until such time as the redevelopment efforts have been successfully implemented. The implementation of a sid is not a vehicle to bail out the failing results of our local leadership. We have witnessed that they have no clue as to how to implement, direct, review or foster a vision for our future. The residents and businesses continue to suffer because of their ignorance! Should we place blind trust in their favor? I say NO - enough is enough! | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1726 Registered: 3-2003 |
Re SHU, Section 1.c. of the proposed ordinance says that "Tax exempt properties are excluded from the foregoing special assessments." | ||
| jeep Citizen Username: Jeep Post Number: 88 Registered: 8-2005 |
Sheena, Elaine made this statement-Aside from the fact that she is not a person targeted to make payments under this plan. Which I feel is very valid. If Seton Hall pays in some respect you pay. This is a huge expense for some businesses and it could very well be a tremendous cost to Seton Hall. But you have said you opinion on the SID will not change. I respect that. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 334 Registered: 2-2006 |
Traditionally, religious institutions and other non-profits are excluded from SID taxes and special assessments but not from SID benefits. But the people putting this together haven't a clue about what SIDs really are or else they would know they would fail without strong support from the businesses in the SID. It may be that Rosner and Taylor weren't at the meeting because they don't want to be seen to endorse the ridiculous proposal of a downtown SID imposed on businesses against their will. Jennings is the unpaid assistant to Calabrese, even if she is deluded into thinking otherwise. | ||
| phd6786 Citizen Username: Phd6786 Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2006 |
Ganif, All I did was ask questions, and now I cast stones and I am perverse? So be it. Would you answer my questions anyway? Here they are: if a SID is successful in other NJ towns, why do our businesses object to it? Is it simply because Elaine Harris, the only vocal opponent so far, is against it? Or is there something wrong with our merchants and landlords? Or what? I don't disagree with you on the miserable state of our downtown and the culpability of our leaders, but that's beside the point. We are talking about the rational for having or not a SID. Your point of view interests me. Can you respond with a minimum of name calling? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9283 Registered: 4-1997 |
Why do you think Elaine only speaks for herself rather than the Chamber, which voted unanimously against the SID? Answer that first. Then I'll tell you why a SID won't work. | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 220 Registered: 10-2005 |
Dave I really think a sid would work. If run properly it will work. The questions are will the businesses support the sid and will the team heading up the sid put the funds collected to good use. But does a sid have the potential to work in our town? yes | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 337 Registered: 2-2005 |
Why wouldn't the zone include buinesses at 319 South Orange Avenue? Cluck U, Village Pizza, the barber shop, Chinese Restaurant, and the liquor store. Its only three blocks east? | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 573 Registered: 1-2004 |
Michael, so would a DRMC! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9284 Registered: 4-1997 |
"If run properly it will work." That's a big "if". | ||
| Smarty Pants Citizen Username: Smartypants Post Number: 1 Registered: 4-2006 |
A DRMC might work, but you'd still need a way to finance it; unless we fine residents of South Orange would rather pay for a SID or DRMC, the work of which benefits those who own the business and/or the properties (who may not be South Orange residents, btw) more than us residents. Why should pay extra for services that are for the downtown businesses only anyway??? Btw, how much is the SOCC dues each year??? And, Ms. Harris, what do they get for their money other than you and networking lunches that they have to pay for each time anyway?} | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 441 Registered: 7-2004 |
A SID or BID simply is a funding mechanism, used when business district property and business owners want to improve and promote their district, and when the taxing jurisdiction either doesn't have the money or doesn't choose to spend the money to accomplish the property and business owners' goals. While a residential neighborhood can lobby for a new playground, improved security, or better maintenance, their is no legislative mechanism to create a mandatory tax assessment among a sub-section of residents -- unless they live in a condo or planned urban development. There is just such a mechanism for business districts. SIDs/BIDs have generated phenomenal, positive results in Manhattan, elsewhere in NYC, and in dozens of surrounding NJ communities. HOWEVER, EVERY SID EXPERT WILL CONFIRM THAT A SID CAN NOT AND WILL NOT WORK, IF IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BUSINESS DISTRICT'S STAKEHOLDERS. Either the BoT and Village administration intentionally have ignored every shred of evidence regarding how to successfully launch a SID, or Jennings is a naive, uninformed trustee being set-up to fail. (Why, pray-tell, were Rosner and Taylor absent?) For starters, they should hand every property and business owner a plain English primer on the pro's and con's of implementing a SID in South Orange; explain precisely what a SID could do for them in 12-18 months; and, explain why the Village cannot do more than it's already doing. Then, they should identify and recruit a meaningful group of property and business owners who want to pursue implementing a SID, and ask them to speak with other property and business owners. And, if they can't find these property and business owners, they should re-channel all of this wasted energy towards completing the bungled redevelopment projects that lay festering like rotting corpses in our downtown. Phd6786: The VP's unpaid "assistant" routinely can be seen at Village meetings, aimlessly wandering about Village Hall wasting employees' time, attempting to steer South Orange non-profits' boards, and in our local Rx conferring with his "boss" -- when he's not running, Rove-like, officially endorsed trustee election campaigns. | ||
| Mustafa Laughfa Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 404 Registered: 6-2005 |
Logic and practical information do not seem to apply here with respect to this consideration. Phd6786, you cannot contradict your perceptions? To deny the facts of the state of our village and the blight of our downtown would be illogical and is the prima-facia concern of the business community's willingness to address a sid favorably. One must not give in to contemplate this perversion of state laws. First, you envelop the town with a redevelopment zone, extend pilots and after 10 years show nothing for it. It appears to be a journey to Babel, via TAU, that they further this mandate upon an unwilling recipient. Thus, the true function of logic and applied sensory perception is a matter of visual experience which you relate to daily. It is analytic rather than constructive; taken a priori, it shows the possibility of hitherto unsuspected alternatives to appease the would be shopper to our little hamlet without the undue financial burdens upon the small shopkeeper. Adding quasi government patronage positions is not what we need. The wrongs must be righted, as the residents suspect, the true cause is a failed policy and a diversion to an implementation of a DRMC and shared services. Our disillusionment in the direction and vision is the just cause for both residents and businesses. If we promote dialogue, we can address many issues together. Taxes paid are plentiful, our return is negligible. Tax and spend is a stricken mentality, patronage positions are plentiful, but to this plan we will cause fail because of the deceit and lies of the administration! | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 574 Registered: 1-2004 |
Smarty, start with <http://www.southorangechamber.com/> |
