| Author | Message | ||
     joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 305 Registered: 1-2006 |
Yes, I am. And, I have even dabbled in criminal defense work - the flip side of presumed good faith by all involved. But, the BOT can stonewall, and the only remedy will be a new governing board, and lawsuits against those who gave us this mess. jd | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3820 Registered: 5-2001  |
LOL. Paid for by Citizens Resisting Arrogant Politicians  | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2794 Registered: 5-2004  |
Citizens Resisting Arrogant Pandering Politicians - Your Board Of Trustees | ||
| SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 262 Registered: 7-2004 |
 Has anyone noticed that the entry for this site is NOT aligned with the driveway in the curb? It is as if they never expect to have large trucks moving thru the entry. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3821 Registered: 5-2001 |
The gaslight and the traffic light blocking the entrance were another dead giveaway that they have NO INTENTION of ever building there. | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 381 Registered: 4-2004 |
I, too, just watched the most recent planning board meeting and found it to be quite fascinating. A few things I noted: 1. I loved when BC said with regard to the Beifus contractor "he wouldn't lie under oath ..." 2. I thought it interesting when Ellen Foye said "Bill's not going to like this, but ..." when she was trying to come up with something to enforce a Beifus start date. 3. When asked by Mr. Skrobe if there was a schedule/start date in the developer's agreement, BC replied that there was. Too bad there wasn't anything else in the contract to protect the Village against a developer who has no intentions of building his project. 4. Along the same lines of Rastro's post. Obviously BC spends fifteen minutes defending the misstatements of the contractor and trying to come up with a solution to aid Beifus in this perjury. But he also tells us that he has been speaking directly to Beifus' contractor and engineer to come up with a way to beautify the pool side of the property. Speaking directly to the engineer and contractor??? How close is he to this project that he is having meetings and/or phone conversations directly with the developer's staff yet he abstains at the end? Wow. Conflict of interest ... hmmmm ... it's just so hard to tell ... | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 253 Registered: 2-2006 |
I watched the April 3 planning board meeting. Worth the time, yes indeed. The town owes a huge thanks to Daniel Skrobe, a man of integrity who is trying to do his job conscientiously. He was the only one on the board to actually go down to the site to verify the sworn testimony of the construction manager who clearly lied. Most of these people just don't get it. Why oh why do they persist in doing business with someone who can not, that is, for the sake of the town, should not, be trusted? Don't they understand its generally a bad idea to do business with someone who habitually fails to do what he says he will and whose hirelings lie under oath to them face-to-face because they think they can get away with it? Why do they let him get away with it, why don't they protect the town as they should? The sound was poor, unfortunately, in the video. So I am not sure about the point about whether the minutes should have been approved. It sounds like if the transcriber accurately recorded the false testimony of the construction manager, then the minutes were accurate. I'm not sure if the board forfeited the opportunity to rescind approval because of the construction manager's lie or not. (If anyone can clarify, please do.) And if Ellen Foye, as a few others have noted, was trying to support Daniel Skrobe's position by voting no with him to whatever they voted on (again, bad sound), good for her. If she was trying to stop the blatant mendacity of Beifus' construction manager to the town, the town should thank her as well. I hope Skrobe and Foye can inject some courage and backbone into the rest of them. I hope they also can get Taylor to see the light; he's leaning but not there yet. At least he is asking what their options are if the construction manager lies. Now he needs to act on them. Because Mr. Calabrese apparently can not or has no desire to control what he says on camera, he definitely should be leaving the area during discussions and during votes when he has a conflict of monetary (or any other) interest. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1665 Registered: 3-2003 |
By way of information, Dan Skrobe was also the individual on the Planning Board who first called attention to the fact that Saiyd had illegally filled in the hole he had dug at the ex-rug store site. Saiyd had dug the hole, left it open for a very long time, and then filled it in with soil from SOPAC. Saiyd came before the planning board to ask to amend his plan to eliminate the basement. Skrobe told Saiyd that he should have asked for a soil disturbance permit from the Planning Board before filling in the excavation. Furthermore, the fill dirt required a certificate that it was not contaminated. As it turned out, the soil had come from the SOPAC site and was contaminated. It was never determined who had authorized the transacton. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 257 Registered: 2-2006 |
Is there truly no end to it in this town? So tired. Going to dinner. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 533 Registered: 1-2004  |
Was it contaminated water or was it an excuse to save some money ($500,000) by eliminating the basement? It seems that it may have been expensive to fix the water volume problem they encountered and used the excuse of contamination to justify the changes presented before the Planning Board. This is the only conclusion I can come to since no one seems concerned that there is an unknown source of "Petroleum Products" that flows in the ground water along South Orange Avenue. Was this contamination a fluke/temporary situation or is it real that required "Filtering" before releasing into the Storm Water system? The impact of removing the basement alters the type of businesses that can use the proposed retail spaces that most likely are less desirous. Did the Beifus attorney overstate the situation? Just listen to: www.howard-levison.com/bot01232006_Beifus_Contamination.wmv | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 382 Registered: 4-2004 |
Howard: I remember hearing at the March meeting that the basement elimination would save upto $750K. I could be wrong. I thought of the monetary savings with the basement, too, when I heard Mr. Skrobe bring up the removal of part of the original project due to increased steel costs. Well, steel is not going down in cost anytime soon and will continue to rise in price. By the time Beifus decides to build this project it will end up being a tee pee. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 536 Registered: 1-2004 |
Is this what is called a construction "fabrication"? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 258 Registered: 2-2006 |
The $750,000 figure sounds right, JH, just from remembering that meeting which I watched live. Didn't you or someone else report the water contamination to DEP, HL? If so, what happened? | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 383 Registered: 4-2004 |
SOr: Not me. I guess Sal Renda would know best as he was in contact with the State with regard to this issue. But do we really believe that there is water contamination? Does anyone also believe that the basement had to come out? If Beifus did not dig out in preparation for pouring the foundation then how did they truly know what the water situation was going to be? And what is wrong with having a sump pump system to keep water out? The bottomline is Beifus does not intend to build. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 537 Registered: 1-2004 |
Or he does not have the funding for the project. You know the water situation by drilling "test" borings. | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 384 Registered: 4-2004 |
Well, he does have $18 mil of private funding for this project according to Mr. Williams. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2795 Registered: 5-2004 |
Accroding to the recent Planning Board meeting, the DEP was called in to check out the water, and they determined that it was not contaminated ground water. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 262 Registered: 2-2006 |
DEP evidence then suggests that the construction manager lied about more than one thing, Rastro. Yet another reason for the planning board to take the project away from Beifus. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 542 Registered: 1-2004 |
Speaking of lies. Has anyone seen any activity at the site as promised - "work will continue" - listen to: www.howard-levison.com/bot01232006Continue_Construction.wmv | ||
| Josh Holtz Citizen Username: Jholtz Post Number: 385 Registered: 4-2004 |
Per Howard's video - is there a construction trailer on site? Mr. Skrobe said during the last planning board meeting that there was no trailer there. Can anyone confirm? | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 134 Registered: 5-2005 |
There are Creamer(?) vans outside the site this morning, but not sure if they are for this or something else unrelated. | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 430 Registered: 7-2004 |
Since this Sunday, which marks the 11-month anniversary of Beifus-Shovel-in-the-Dirt Day (May 9, 2005), is a legal holiday, let it now be proclaimed that another month of zero progress has passed. Furthermore, let it be proclaimed that we're half way through Beifus' 60-day period leading up to the re-re-re-re-re-promised start date of construction on this redevelopment site. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3849 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'll repeat what I have said in previous posts: You might wonder, What can YOU do about this? Here are some suggestions: Write a Letter to the Editor of the Star Ledger: Please e-mail to: eletters@starledger.com (letters to the editor) oped@starledger.com (op-ed articles). Submissions may be mailed to: Editorial Department, The Star-Ledger, 1 Star-Ledger Plaza, Newark, NJ, 07102-1200. Letters must not exceed 200 words. Op-ed articles must not exceed 800 words. All submissions must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Write a Letter to the Editor of the News Record: editorial@thelocalsource.com Must be submitted by 9am on Monday for printing in Thursday's edition and must include your real name and phone number Write a Letter to the Board of Trustees: ajosrosen@aol.com arthur@mec.cuny.edu mrosnernyc@yahoo.com stacey.jennings@hp.com nishesq@optonline.net WCfuzzy@aol.com edevaris@southorange.org Attend the next BOT Meeting and SPEAK UP Venting on MOL has NO impact. If you are tired of this behavior, DO SOMETHING | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 329 Registered: 1-2006 |
Go to Board meetings, and speak during public remonstrance. Tell them what you think, what you post, what you read and agree with, (you can read to them if you so desire), tell them the harm they have done to the town and to their credibility. jd | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 570 Registered: 6-2005 |
According to Mr. Calabrese who spoke at the last planning board meeting, Beifus will begin "work" at the site shortly. UYnfortunately, Mr. Calabrese thinks it is okay to define "work at the site" as sprucing up and disguising the site so it is less visually disturbing to pool-goers. The only planning board member who has his eye on the ball, Mr. Skrobe (sp?), believes that "work at the site" should consist of agressively marketing the condos via signage, etc., and actually building something for people to buy. Duh! BTW, does anyone know how long construction loans are usually go for and will banks renew them indefinitely? I thought I heard the Beifus attorney say Beifus had a loan through Boiling Springs Banks. I'd have to relisten to the tape to be sure. But will that bank just wait? | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 434 Registered: 7-2004 |
A community gathering on May 9th (in only two weeks) in front of the Beifus site would be a great way to celebrate the first ANNUAL anniversary of Beifus-Shovel-in-the-Dirt Day -- the day our leader publicly stipulated one year ago would be the absolute last deadline before the Village would take possession of this blighted site to create interim parking (for the soon-to-be-opened supermarket?), until a qualified replacement developer could be identified. Sounds eerily like another great leader, who just this week said: "I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation, but I'm the decider and I decide what's best. And what's best is for ... to remain..." | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3950 Registered: 5-2001 |
Two Senses - great idea! It also closely corresponds to the 5 year anniversary of the closing of Shop Rite! (and the 1.5 year anniversay of the last March on Village Hall) | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 394 Registered: 1-2006 |
With media attention to the suspicious history, we might have something to build upon. jd | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 567 Registered: 1-2004 |
When is enough, enough! Now almost one year later the same questions being asked and what we get are the same answers. We have seen substantive reductions in this project – what will be next – reduction request in their pilot payments? From the BOT minutes: OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 27, 2005 “Daniel Goldberg, 59 Glenview Avenue, asked for an update on the downtown redevelopment projects such as the Beifus site.” ... “Trustee Taylor then made a statement about the Beifus project. He noted that there are some who would like to make the Beifus project “a lightning rod.” He stated that he was now addressing the Village as a whole about the Beifus project. He said that the Beifus project has caused the Board more aggravation and headaches and pain trying to get the project into the ground. He asserted that the Board has done everything that is reasonable to make the project succeed. He noted that there are numerous residents who recommend putting an end to the project by kicking Mr. Beifus off the site and start all over again. Trustee Taylor stated that he does not favor that course of action because it is not the best option for the Village.”... “He then continued his statement about the Beifus project and asserted that if a developer invests close to $1,000,000 of their own money for architects, lawyers, planners and surveys, then the Board has to assume that the developer is serious about the project. Trustee Taylor then asked about the available options if for one reason or another the Board decided not to support the developer in his efforts. He rhetorically asked if the Board should kick the developer off of a project which has been approved by the Planning Board, and by Main Street and is a “keystone” project for the downtown area. Trustee Taylor asserted that this is a quality project which meets the needs of the Village. He then noted the time-consuming alternative of kicking Mr. Beifus off the project, developing another project and obtaining another developer. He opined that it is in the best interest of the Village to “drag Mr. Beifus and his project across the finish line and get him into the ground kicking and screaming all the way.” ... | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 229 Registered: 5-2005 |
If I had close to $1,000,000 of my own money invested in a project I would definately want to see a return on my money... I am therefore confused why even the suggestion that someone with that "invested" would need to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way.. I know plenty of business people. My own brother owns a business park which is currently going through the redevelopment process. I talked to him this morning about our town. He laughed.. Once he stopped I asked him why he was laughing. He said the ineptitude was hysterical. He told me that it would only take a penny of "his own money" to make him want to get a project off the ground to get money coming his way. He said if architects etc don't perform, fire them and get those who will. He said if there are stalling tactics find out why and get them "unstalled". If plans are rejected, review, redraw and regroup. He said this all comes down to money. Time is money - Follow the money..... He then made an interesting comment, he said the only time it may be beneficial for someone to stall while having so much invested is if they know that down the line that land/area is worth gold, if they know that not only will they get their investment back but a huge amount more.. Why pour money into it if you know that there is a way you will get more with the land undeveloped... | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3952 Registered: 5-2001 |
Of course. Beifus, is simply waiting for SOPAC to move along, have the Village realize how woefully short of parking they will be and he will then look to have his property acquired for a substantial gain. The longer the Village waits, the more it will cost US. But, as they have shown time & time again - they don't care. The sheer fact that Taylor would characterize Beifus as a "quality project" shows how uninformed he is. Has anyone looked at the "architectural" renderings? The project is a sterile "box" with no architectural charm at all. This project is straight out of Brooklyn and if/when it is ever built, people will exclaim - "We waited for THIS????" | ||
| Soparents Citizen Username: Soparents Post Number: 230 Registered: 5-2005 |
A "Quality product" is one that has been created/researched/manufactured/built. I cannot call an idea a quality product. I cannot call a dream a quality product. Quality has to be substantiated. Something has to be PROVEN to be worthy of the word quaility. It has to be solid/there to be see and felt. A Good idea is one thing. A drawing/redering could be pleasing to the eye, it could be described as beautiful/breathtaking/stunning etc, but you cannot describe it as quality. One definfition of "Quality" I came up with online is... consistent performance of a uniform product meeting the customer's needs for economy and function. So, to describe the Beifus project as "Quality" is wrong, as it does not meet our economic needs and since it is unbuilt and likely to remain unbuilt, there is, alas, no function... | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 612 Registered: 6-2005 |
Mr. Skrobe, the only man of honor on the planning board from what I can tell, hit the nail on the head when he said at one of the meetings that if Beifus were serious about building, we would be seeing marketing signs which are usually posted in advance of construction to drum up purchaser interest. For a developer who claims he is going to start any day, I ask "Where are you advertsing banners"? There must be a money trail here. Once we figure it out, all will be revealed. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2006 |
So, I take it from reading these posts that South Orange will have massive demonstrations and tar and featherings of officials when the results of your re-assessment arrive and you have no additional commercial ratables? Should the roads leading out of South Orange then need to be barricaded to protect neighboring communities and deter a massive flood of refugees? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9273 Registered: 4-1997  |
re-assessments are revenue neutral | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 569 Registered: 1-2004 |
But just wait for the redistribution - McMansions nearby? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2006 |
Sorry Dave, it is a re-evaluation, and no they are not neutral. Taxes went up in Millburn/Short Hills after the 2001 re-val, also in Maplewood. Whether your taxes go up significantly or not depends on what the town tax rate is and your new assessed value. In most instances people pay more after a re-evaluation if they are living in a more desirable area of a town, and pay less if they are living in a less desirable area, real estate sales-wise. I think S.O. is a great town, I just wonder why I am still reading about re-development in the NewsRecord since 1999. What happened? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2926 Registered: 5-2004 |
Actually, a reval is absolutely tax-neutral. It is only the budget that changes. Now, the budgets that make up our taxes (Municipal, County and School) are never going to go down. So it may appear that the reval itself is not neutral. But since the tax rate is determined by the budget and the total value of property in town, and not by the value of any one property, a reval is, by definition, tax neutral. Now, some politicians might take the opportunity to raise the budget and have its effects rolled up in the reval, but the reval itself does not raise taxes overall. If the budgets stay the same, then the overall amount of taxes collected will stay the same. Individual homeowners' taxes may go up or down, but the total amount collected has nothing to do with the valuation. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1718 Registered: 3-2003 |
The only way taxes go up overall is if the local officials use the timing of a revaluation to hike taxes. The Star-Ledger did a story on this a little while ago. Evidently, from what I've gleaned online, that's what happened in Maplewood. In basic terms, assume the tax rate is $5.60 per $100 before a revaluation, and the assessment ratio is 50%. After the revaluation, without any increases in the budget, the tax rate is $2.80 and the assessment ratio is 100%. (Thanks MHD.  ) And we're drifting. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3962 Registered: 5-2001 |
you mean $2.80, right? |
