| Author |
Message |
    
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:57 pm: | 
|
Is this the same Janet Scrobe who complained about the dugouts? |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hard to tell, since you've spelled her name two different ways, neither one belonging to the Janet Skrobe who complained about the dugouts.  Other than that, what is this about? |
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 133
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
I find it unbelievable that this woman just to like to complain. She went on and on and on about the dugouts. SO what is wrong with the dugouts? They turned out very nice. I wonder how she feels about them now?
And now she goes on and on and on and on about the gun on the hill. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 500
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
A gun on a hill in a park, taking up public space without public request.
jd |
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 134
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Joel you are preaching to the...... I also am not for it but beating a dead horse! I am tired of watching these meetings and hearing the same people complain about the same thing over and over and over again!!! Move ON!
She should just walk over and pull the flowers out! |
Steve Hickson
Citizen
Username: Shickson
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Was Janet the one who was quite vocal and direct in her dissaproval of the gun on Flood's Hill at last night's BOT meeting?
If so, I say Bravo! And I think she has good reason to be angry.
Artwork is fine, protests are fine but do we really need to use Flood's Hill as a canvas for some sort of anti-Iraq War statement---and Janet's point about how hurtful this is towards vets in our area should be considered---OK, so some artistic group wants to make a statement---whatever---can a park just be a park without an oversized AK-47 constructed of plastic flowers? Why not create a little protest art area in front of SOPAC? How about just leaving the parks alone---so people can escape, have fun and forget about the troubles of life for a while? That's why we have parks.
File the the gun art on Floods Hill under BAD IDEA---that's what it is.
Thanks Janet for having the courage to speak out last night.
Take that art down now! It's offensive and wrong, period.
|
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 385
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
People that walk past and drive past this "art" don't see the plastic flowers. They see a GUN. Plain and simple.
Mrs Skrobe spoke with emotion and conviction. She stood up there and bared her soul. In my eyes she should and probably will continue, because each time she has to speak she reminds us that there are people here who want the decent thing done. If the decent thing has been done she would have no need to speak.
The decent thing would have been to have either chosen another work of art that was on offer, or to put it somewhere where children didn't play (inside the gallery would have worked), but to date, there is nothing decent about this.
Memorial day is days away. If they don't have the decency to remove this, then at the very least for the hours that respect is being paid to the armed forces, past and present, cover this insult in a black cloth or maybe an American flag.
|
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 149
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Damnit, this DOES respect our soldiers past and present who have been and are being asked to fight in an unjust,illegal war. We were lied to and told "they will great us with flowers" when in actuality, the soldiers were greeted with AK-47s and road bombs.
This exhibit is the highest form of respect for our brave men and women who put their lives on the line on the bais of a lie. (WMBs?? They still looking for 'em) |
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 135
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
SOPARENTS I do get it but you say---Mrs Skrobe spoke with emotion and conviction. She stood up there and bared her soul. In my eyes she should and probably will continue, because each time she has to speak she reminds us that there are people here who want the decent thing done
Is she the same person who complained and stood up there and bared her soul and went on and on and on and on and on about the dugouts? If so I have difficulty finding anything she says important. If she is the same person who went on and on and on and on about the dugouts a project that turned out so nice and very useful for the children then I find it hard to find substance in her new rant. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 386
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Jeep,
I don't know.... until 3 weeks ago I didn't know this woman existed. The only thing I have heard her talk about is Floods Hill and the AK47.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4106
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:24 pm: |
|
jeep - instaed of complaining about her here, why don't you:
a) go to the next BOT Meeting yourself and express your OWN opinion
b) Contact Ms. Skrobe directly and let her know how you feel. Her phone & address is publicly listed using Yahoo People Search
Meanwhile, whether you agree or disagree with her, the fact that she got off her couch & spent her evening expressing herself publicly before the BOT gives her instantly more credibility. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9556
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
She really makes some excellent points about the arbitrary nature of selecting public art pieces. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5134
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:43 pm: |
|
And even Trustee Abrams got very emotional. Now that we know she also doesn't like the gun there maybe we can get something done to remove it. Curious jeep, what part of town do you live in? Do you live on any of the streets that border the park? |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1966
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
I thought Art Taylor did a good job with this last night. He's right -- there is a process that must be followed.
One person, regardless of how emotional she was, should absolutely not influence the decision singel handedly.
That she was not willing to participate in the process was unfortunate. She would have made a difference. She's put herself on the outside.
I have mixed feelings about this. If the artwork provokes a conversation about the horrors of war -- that's very good. If parents talk to their children about it, that's also very good. If it reminds us to never take forgranted the lives of civilians and those in the services, its also served a purpose.
OTOH my Dad, who is a veteran, would likely be aghast. That's because he lived with and in the horror of war and killing. Its something I can imagine, but not grasp fully.
And as I've noted earlier in this discussion, if we feel some of the public art that's been placed really goes against the grain of our community, then we need to ask the BOT to revisit the process in place.
Pete
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 663
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
i am still trying to understand the process that Taylor kept alluding to. This is the process as I see it.
The BOT provides funding for the Rec Dept which also includes the Gallery. (I would like to know how much the gallery represents as a percent of their funding, but that's for another thread.) The Gallery Director decides what shows the gallery will sponsor. On occassion they ask they may ask the Rec Dept head for an opinion. End of process.
If this is wrong, please enlighten me. But who decided that the Rec Dept should function as a defacto Ministry of Culture, and put on controversial (and in this case, one sided) exhibits and answer to no one? |
vermontgolfer
Supporter
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 445
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Let me add my two cents here, once again. I was at the meeting last night and probably should have followed Mrs. Skrobe to the podium to make the following point.
I coach my daughters soccer team and we have had a few games on Floods Hill since this 'piece of art' has been on display. To say it raised curiosity with teams from visiting towns would be an understatement and from the reaction I heard, not a very positive one.
Once again, we, South Orange, seems to have succesfully embarassed ourselves as we seem to do, all to often. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5137
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Pornography is legal. How many of you would be okay with a sculpture of two people in 'the act?' Many people consider it 'art.' Or what if it was something VERY offensive to your religion? Or your races? Or your Ethnicity? I can think of some other situations many people would find highly offensives. I could even post some specific examples, but I value my life.
Some of us DID try to 'follow the process.' It was supposed to start with the Recreation Committee. Those who tried were met with total disrespect.
By allowing the PG -a private organization, to continue to display what ***they*** consider 'art' opens a can of worms. If they are wllowed to use the flied, the town has no real right to stop anyone else from displaying what they consider 'art.' It's a park, where children play. Plenty of people have no idea why it's there. Do you think many of the Middle School children walking by each day know? Doubtful.
|
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 225
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 12:04 am: |
|
There were many people that presented their case about the dugouts. Neighbors came out due to the design, safety, and the possible noise since they were built by Seton Hall for Seton Hall Girl's softball. (Now they play at IVY Hill where new dugouts were built). Many people in the area around the dugouts came out especially since they were supposed to be built out of concrete block.
The issue here seems to be should people come out for what they believe in?
The dugouts do look better that originally planned and that is because the residents, many, were involved and pressured the situation. Also, some assistance from talented residents to aid the Seton Hall design team greatly upgraded the design.
Do they belong? I don't know. How much do you build in a park before a park it no longer is???
"Thanks" to the residents that got together to do something to make a change, all those neighbors to the park and those that supported them for helping to protect our park.
It would be great if people supported each other more. There appears to have been a large group of people at the meeting on monday in reference to Tau and SIDS. It seems like its usually the same people. How unfortunate, it seems to make a statement about acceptance of whatever is dished out. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Art should not be censored, but public displays of art are a reflection of all of South Orange. It is therefore incumbent upon elected officials to safeguard the image of the Village and consider all the ramifications of such a large public display in a park.
I must say this; I agree very much with the points made by Ms. Skrobe in reference to this issue, and I completely disagreed with her views on the dugouts that were constructed on Meadowbrook. My observations of both controversies find one common element; Ms. Skrobe tends to become very abrasive the more she speaks out. She also tends to repeat her views ad nauseum with increased volume rather than additional points of information, and this approach does not serve her or the causes she champions well, IMHO.
Mr. Skrobe's appearance and impassioned plea were extremely heart-wrenching, and I have nothing but respect for both his service to our nation and his anguish over seeing this display in the public parks that he wishes to visit in peace. I am at a complete loss as to how the BOT and VP can allow that display to continue without at least abbreviating its schedule presence.
For her part, Trustee Moore-Abrams may have been somewhat combative in her response to Ms. Skrobe but she did state her personal disapproval for the display. I do think she needed to move off this "let the process continue before I make a decision" stance, as the process seems designed to diffuse the controversy rather than actually address it. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
It is one thing to have a process and another to have people driving or steering the process worthy of the task. Between Tau and the pedestrian, mundane "art" on the hill, I think it is time to get new people in office, on the rec committee, head of the gallery and on its advisory board.
Who has time to go to meetings to try to undo or stop every bad decision made? Even the most concerned people who try to stay informed about SO have to pick and choose which meetings they attend, what they can volunteer for, etc.
Far more effective and a better use of time would be to change the leadership behind the really bad decisions that have been made in town. The plastic flower gun (I mean really, it might be interesting coming from children), is just the latest.
Please vote, everyone, in the next municipal elections. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 828
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Whether you agree with her or not, that meeting is the correct forum and if she has a complaint, voicing it at that meeting is the correct behavior.
Walking over to the park and tearing up the flowers, as was suggested here, is not.
That meeting is the forum for people to air their complaints and grievances. To say someone shouldn't be using that forum for that purpose is wrong. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page