| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 612
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:40 am: | 
|
Based on the dialogue from the last meeting it seems that members of the BOT view the SID differently than the Administration (Administrator/Counsel).
The Administration is concerned that if the SID Board were elected through a "democratic" process that they would immediately dissolve it. They state that the public is disturbed that the downtown needs a sanitation service but Village does not have the funds. So it proposes to tax businesses.
The Board members state that the initial SID Board should be for a limited fixed time frame for the purpose to establish by-laws and then through a democratic process elect a permanent Board. If this Board decides to dissolve the SID, so be it.
Just view the following clips:
Counsel View: <www.howard-levison.com/bot06122006_sid_counsel.wmv>
Administrator View: <www.howard-levison.com/bot06122006_sid_administrator.wmv>
Board Member Views:
Mark Rosner: <www.howard-levison.com/bot06122006_sid_trustee_rosner.wmv>
Arthur Taylor: <www.howard-levison.com/bot06122006_sid_trustee_taylor.wmv>
Now can we get back on track and discuss how we can implement a DRMC. We need a vision and then a plan to achieve that vision - not declaring areas blighted and then calling for redevelopment.
What is your view? |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3767
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
Didn't I run with you for office?  |
patjoyce
Citizen
Username: Patjoyce
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
The reports created by the last two committees which evaluated the options in detail, say it all. Unfortunately the Village Administrator and Village Counsel have yet to agree with the findings. Their continued stonewalling has delayaed, again, the creation of an INDEPENDENT, downtown management board. Name it whatever you want, but at some point the Village needs some entity to spearhead the redevelopment. The Village Administrator is also the Treasurer. A new tax on businesses brings money into the town coffers. What money manager would turn his back on an income producing idea. The BOT should tell The Village Administrator that they are tired of the snail's pace of construction and development. They should create the entity which will turn "coming soon" signs into income producing commercial development.
Patrick |
Nicky D
Citizen
Username: Nickynewark
Post Number: 8
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Right on....Patrick |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4277
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Nicely put, Patrick.
However, it appears that the SID is back on the agenda for Monday, so we may finally get to see if it will pass or fail
http://www.southorange.org/agenda.asp?page=2006/06-26-06RM.htm |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 617
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Curious that the SID Ordinance on the WEB site seems to be the same as it was previously proposed. Will we get a chance to see the updated version or will it be a supprise to everyone including members of the BOT? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4307
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
FYI...the REVISED SID Ordinance has now been posted online: http://www.southorange.org/clerk/RevisedSidOrdiance.pdf
I think Trustee Abrams had it right - what's the rush? Why not wait until there is a strong & thriving business community before bringing this forward? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 624
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
It looks like there is a difference of opinion between running mates on their campaign platform and some distancing in their relationship. Terriann has it right on the need for a SID and is exactly the position she took during the campaign.
see www.howard-levison.com/bot06262006same_team.wmv
I think an important lesson for Stacey who claims to be a consultant is to listen to what people (clients) are saying rather than trying to "sell" a concept.
Also, everyone should read the "new" version of the SID ordinance and try to understand the differences. I do not think it represents what the BOT was asking especially Arthur's notion of an interim board - such as establishing a benchmark by creation of bylaws. Once that is completed, then elect a new board. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page