| Author |
Message |
    
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8080
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 8:55 pm: |     |
Yes, assuming a reval did not become mandated for other reasons such as a sufficiently large shift in the relative value of real properties throughout town. |
vermontgolfer
Supporter
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 495
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 9:47 pm: | |
MHD,
I convinced that kathleen must be a proponent of TAU, that might also explain where she's going.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 693
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:12 pm: | |
Of course. I'm also a communist, a terrorist, a feminazi, a book reader, a Kiki Smith hugger, not from New Jersey and an opponent of the radical bear agenda -- or whatever other names you feel a deep need to call me because I don't "tau" the party line you do.
The people urging this petition are (rather haughtily) insisting THEY are the torchbearers of citizen democracy because all they want, in their purity, is "an opportunity for the residents to express an opinion."
Well, gee. When Maplewood residents were actually focused on municipal issues and gearing up to express their opinion in June at the ballot box, these same organizers of the petition reached the conclusion that the contents of this petition was the LAST thing they wanted people in Maplewood expressing an opinion about at the ballot box.
Why? Had the issue been aired during Maplewood's primary election, there were only 3 possible outcomes: candidates who supported the study lost, candidates who opposed the study lost, or it proved a non-issue. In any possible scenario, it would not have precluded the validity of a petition drive in South Orange. And the longer period of discussion MIGHT have resulted in a better and more credible process for studying shared services or consolidation in both towns.
So why didn't some people want Maplewood voters expressing their opinion on these issues at a ballot box in June?
Looks to me like the people who say they trust the voters only talk that talk, but they don't really lead with that foot when they walk.
I'm actually more a proponent of the Tao. Sayings like:
How you begin is how you'll end up.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4586
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:21 pm: | |
Kathleen,
Since VG brought it up...what was your opinion of the Tau "controversy" in South Orange? I think it is actually relevant to know if you supported the Trustees who unilaterally decided to spend over $250,000 of taxpayer money without public input, or if you supported the residents who took the issue into their own hands to have a petition drive to let the politicians know that they work for US and we have a say in how OUR money is spent.
BTW - Tau has nothing to do with TAO |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 694
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
MHD,
I see humor is lost on you. I am quite well aware that the Tao and "Tau" are not the same, at least so far as MOLers can discern.
I have repeatedly said that I am not involved in the politics or issues of South Orange AND -- please read S-L-O-W-L-Y and carefully:
I do not now have any opinion nor will I ever about whether people in South Orange should sign this petition or not, nor do I have any opinion nor will I ever whether they are right or wrong in their opinions about their own BOT, nor any of their actions regarding the BOT, nor any of their elections or elected officials.
I cannot be any plainer than that. I also don't sign loyalty oaths.
What I do find more than passing strange is that anybody in South Orange would try to influence the outcome of primary elections in Maplewood by holding back information or calculating their own political activities in South Orange with an eye on Maplewood's elections.
Are you all usually so keen on who we elect and why?
Are you Canada to our USA? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 11:55 pm: | |
Just a wild thought here.
Perhaps, just perhaps, we Maplewoodians should take our thoughts, rants, diatribes, and in general, our discussion of Maplewood politics, policies and problems back over the fence to Mostly Maplewood?
These Originos (or is that Originistas?) have some problems, and the consolodation study issue is certainly worthy of discussion; but the extended discussion of Maplewood politics, policies and problems really belongs on the other side of the fence. (As long as we still have a fence). 
Let these poor people go back to SOPAC, Shoprite, and the Sloan Street Shuffle.
Thanks to all here for letting us intrude for as long as we have. (And that does include me).
TomR |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8083
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 8:36 am: | |
TomR:
I disagree. I think persons seriously considering consolidation between Maplewood and South Orange (that is the question being proposed for the ballot in November) need to be aware of what baggage they will be acquiring along with the tax payers with whom they will be consolidating, if the process is completed and the two towns merge.
Maplewoodians need to be aware of Tau, holes in the ground, and a BOT which some South Orange posters here have described as unresponsive to the expressed needs and desires of a significant portion of their constituency and South Orange residents need to be aware of Maplewood's baggage that they would be inheriting.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 11:06 am: | |
I have learned from the MPLWD conversation, Tom R, Joan and others. Thanks. Some of us from SO hopped the fence in the other direction, you'll notice in the Mplwd section. Hard to separate them, given the topic. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 695
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 1:51 pm: | |
Interesting point. It's not just about eliminating the extra fire chief, it's about inheriting the other town's political advocates. Tau opponents should be aware that Maplewood prides itself on having an unusual number of public arts profressionals (including at least one steel sculptor and more than one museum curator) who are also politically active, and even though I've never had an opinion (and still don't) about how South Orange officials handled the finances of Tau, I do think Tau is a stunning artwork, that Tony Smith is a first class American artist of historic importance and that once you commit to building an arts complex that a Tony Smith sculpture is a fine exterior adornment in lieu of a Henry Moore, especially when first seen upon arrival from the train station.
So who knows what would be the way of the Tau in South Orange once you gave the vote to Maplewood? Aren't there more of us than you? 
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 749
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 1:58 pm: | |
Kathleen-
You continue to miss the point. Its not pro-art vs. anti-art. Its about fiscally responsible government. Many artists signed the petition for NO TAXES FOR TAU. I would venture to say there are more of us, namely those for fiscally responsible government, than you, i.e. those who will spend others money on their own personal vision. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 697
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 2:22 pm: | |
jayjay, I think you missed reading my earlier posts.
I don't live in South Orange. Were the two towns to merge, I'd have an opinion about the finances of Tau. Right now, I don't and haven't expressed one. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4589
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 2:49 pm: | |
Kathleen,
I imagine if you feel that something is "stunning" and of "historic importance" you would have no reservation at all about spending $250,000 of someone else's money on it. Why can't you admit that? What was the exact date that you first felt that way? What are you hiding? |
Two Senses
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 455
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 3:28 pm: | |
While the Snooze Wrecked so rarely prints an editorial worth considering, it clearly hit the nail on the head this week:
(excerpted)
But beyond the financial benefits, the latest effort to get the ball rolling seems to take on a more democratic flavor, with proponents of the merger working in the community to first gauge support from residents. If that support is hefty enough to warrant a ballot question, the commission could be created and the study will move forward.
This is a smart approach to investigating the viability of the proposition. As it stands, in order for the towns to merge, residents from both Maplewood and South Orange would have to approve of the merger with a majority vote.
The process of creating a ballot question will be a great way to first see if this idea resonates among residents before resources and time are spent on something that may garner very little support.
(excerpted)
We wish the coalition luck in their pursuit to make this a ballot question, so that residents will have a chance to weigh in on whether or not they see this as the future for this community. The coalition has until next month to gather the signatures and submit them to the Essex County Clerk’s office, in the effort to have the question make the election ballot.
We applaud their democratic approach to the idea and we’re glad they want citizen input on the prospect, as these are the folks who would be affected.
And as the coalition moves forward, we’d like to remind residents to keep an open mind as they consider the idea and whether it would be a good fit for our residents.
P.S. Can some look into whether there's any way to require proof of South Orange residence, maybe a tax bill, pool i.d., or receipt from Bunny's, before allowing someone to make dozens of successive, inflammatory posts on this thread about this democratic process (and Maplewood's mayor)?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8089
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 4:28 pm: | |
Two Senses:
You wrote: "P.S. Can some look into whether there's any way to require proof of South Orange residence, maybe a tax bill, pool i.d., or receipt from Bunny's, before allowing someone to make dozens of successive, inflammatory posts on this thread about this democratic process (and Maplewood's mayor)? "
I don't know what you mean by successive inflammatory posts and I certainly hope you are not referring to the posts I, a Maplewood resident, have been making to this thread. The question of whether or not to consolidate our two towns is one that needs to be discussed by residents of each of our two towns in joint discussion if we are going to determine whether or not this is a good solution to the problems facing both of our municipalities. I think at least some of the discussion on both this and the parallel Mostly Maplewood thread is beginning to move in that direction and I for one welcome the fact that residents of both our towns are participating in both discussions.
|
Sheena Collum
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 789
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 5:04 pm: | |
kathleen - I could have sworn I met you today, lol. I was in Maplewood and ran into someone who was saying the exact same comments as you have made on this board. Just thought it was interesting. Obviously she didn't sign the petition |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3774
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 5:05 pm: | |
Joan, I think it's pretty clear that Two Sense is talking about kathleen, not you.
Folks, remember that there will be at least three ballot questions regarding this. Two this November if enough signatures are gathered - one regarding whether to do a study and the other to identify commissioners - and one some time in the future to approve a recommendation to merge, if such a recommendation is made.
The current discussion should IMNSHO, be about whether we want to study shared services and potential consolidation. So many of the questions that people have here will be answered as part of the commission. This is not a vote to consolidate the towns. It is not even a vote to share services. It's a vote to formally STUDY those things.
One can be in favor of studying the issue, and not support all the people running for commissioner. One can even support the idea of a study and not support the people who are seeking signatures for the referendum.
So please, perhaps we can separate out the issues in the discussions. Being in favor of holding a referendum is not the same as supporting any individual commissioner candidate. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8092
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 7:58 pm: | |
Rastro:
Agreed.
However, voters need to realize that this is not a no cost action. Should both towns vote to authorize a consolidation/shared services study, each town, according to Fred, will be voting to authorize a tax levy funds expenditure estimated at $25,000 of their municipality's money as matching funds against a State grant.
Furthermore, as per the wording in the proposed referendum as contained on each of the two petitions presently circulating in our two towns, this study will be limited to consolidation and/or shared services of our two towns. Combining services or consolidating with additional towns will not be on the agenda since it would not have been approved by the electorate of each town impacted.
A referendum is not required to study shared services, only to study consolidation which is the prime purpose of the implementing legisation. If a person is not in favor of consolidation at all or a person feels that a consolidation/shared services study should be broadened to include additional municipalities in our region, why should that person vote for their town to spend what has been estimated to be $25,000 when they don't support the best case outcome in the first place? This is money which could easily be put to good use elsewhere given the tight budget under which each of our towns is presently operating or used to reduce our taxes slightly in the coming year if it is not spent at all. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1267
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 12:34 am: | |
OK. The idea of keeping local politics, policies and problems on one another communities' side of the fence is not feasible. It was just a thought.
As for the costs of the proposed study: lets assume for a moment that the $25,000.00, cost per town is a reasonable figure.
Let us further assume that the burden will be equally distributed on a per household basis. (It won't be, but make the leap for the moment.)
We've got about 4,300, homeowners in South Orange, and about 6,800, homeowners in Maplewood.
What does that tally per homeowner, before we take into account the non-residential taxable properties in our communities?
The study may find that there would be no appreciable cost savings in a minicipal consolidation or a joint services agreement.
But for the four to six dollars per household the study will cost, wouldn't we like to take a look at what savings might be available?
The cost of the study would be a one-time expenditure. The savings, if there are any, would be recurring.
TomR |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8096
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 7:29 am: | |
TomR:
The main purpose of a referendum - study - referendum process under the proposed legislation is to consider consolidation. Consolidation requires this legal process. Shared services does not.
I have yet to see or hear anyone put forth any hard figures to demonstate how two towns which are tied for second in the most tax stressed municipality in the State contest are going to resolve such problems by consolidating with each other but not with any other municipality.
Why should I or anyone else in our two towns support the expenditure of time, money, and talent needed to do a proper study when nobody has presented hard figures to show that such a study is going to have a positive outcome?
Others have stated that they are not looking for consolidation but they feel that we are more likely to move ahead on a meaningful shared services initiative, which has not happened through our local government process even though it has been studied for years, if voters in November pass the proposed referendum proposal. Is there anything in the study legislation which requires municipalities to act on recommendations made by the Study Commission? From what I can see, recommendations on shared services would be just that. The recommendations on shared services would still have to be approved by our municipal bodies and wouldn't that put us right back where we started from?
I would really like to see someone post some real reasons for voting for this referendum other than "lets save some money -- but I can't tell you just how that's for the study to determine" or "by passing a referendum we will be keeping our options open (the referendum as worded is too narrow for that)" or even "that's a great way to get money from the State for something we should be doing anyway."
Has anyone considered that maybe the State should be doing a state-wide consolidation study to determine which municipalities would truly benefit by consiolidating with each other and which municipalities could most benefit by sharing services and resources? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:24 am: | |
Your last paragraph is a great idea, Joan. I also agree with many of your other comments, as previously noted. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8108
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 4:02 pm: | |
I strongly suggest followers of this thread read the following before continuing with this discussion:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A0500/51_I1.HTM
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3132&post=680914#POST6809 14
For discussion of this new development check out the companion thread in Mostly Maplewood. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 700
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 2:03 pm: | |
Sheena,
That wasn't me! No one has approached me about signing the petition. In fact, I haven't had any conversations with anybody about it offline. The reason you probably ran into somebody else who told you that is because what I said is objectively true.
As to others like 2 senses: Good grief! Most of the time the only reason I'm in South Orange is to get my car tuned up (yay Getty's!) but I hadn't gotten the impression it was populated by people who hate free speech or are the sons and daughters of Joe McCarthy.
MHD,
It's not true that because I think a work of art is stunning or of historic importance that I think tax dollars should be spent on it. That's a separate issue from affordability. But just because you can't afford something doesn't mean it wouldn't be a very good amenity if you could.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 701
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 2:05 pm: | |
TomR,
What evidence do you have that the study will be done well? Who will be doing it? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:27 pm: | |
Symbolic,
There is, and can be, no evidence that a future event will be done well.
A study, if any, will be conducted by those elected, or appointed, to conduct the study.
If I've missed the point of your queries, please clarify what information you seek.
For myself, I'm waiting to hear from one, or more, of the Committee members regarding the pending legislation which Sbenios brought to our attention in the related Maplewood thread.
TomR |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:38 pm: | |
My understanding, without following very closely, TomR, is that the study itself would mostly be completed by the consultant hired. The committee reads through it, mulls it over and comes up with some kind of report I think, but the nitty gritty of the study would be done by someone with some background in the area. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:52 pm: | |
I don't have time to read the proposed legislation you referenced, Joan. Not just now, anyway. Just skimmed it.
Would anyone offer a cliff notes version of its contents? Better than nothing, I'm hoping, until I can read it.
How can we keep abreast of current (daily?) activity on this bill?
Will check Mplwd thread also. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 9:34 pm: | |
As for the cliff notes version,
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3132&post=680914#POST6809 14
As for activity on the bill,
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/
Happy reading.
TomR |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 704
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 2:43 pm: | |
Thanks, TomR. Would the proposed legislation eliminate the need for a committee? Seems like it would, if the actual study is completed by a professional consultant. Anyone? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 4:18 pm: | |
Sorising,
I'd rather that one of the Committee members address the impact of the pending legislation.
TomR |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 7:15 pm: | |
Date set for meeting on police-merger plan
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/26/06
BY ERIK LARSEN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREA
The civilian leaders and chiefs of the eight municipal police departments in southern coastal Monmouth County, which Belmar proposes merging into one force, will meet Sept. 12 in Spring Lake to discuss the idea.
Belmar Mayor Kenneth E. Pringle and Police Chief Jack Hill are the architects of the plan to combine the forces of Belmar, Brielle, Lake Como, Manasquan, Sea Girt, Spring Lake, Spring Lake Heights and Wall into a South Monmouth Police
Department.
So far, a sample of official reaction to the proposed merger has been skeptical. While municipal leaders have appeared reluctant to put too much effort into the plan, Pringle said public reaction to the idea is encouraging.
"The devil is in the details,'' Pringle said. "I think so long as everyone is assured that they'll continue to get the level of police protection they need, they will be in favor of our trying to find ways to provide police protection at a lower cost.''
Lake Como Mayor Lawrence G. Chiaravallo said he'll be at the meeting with his borough administrator. Though he was first opposed to the idea, Chiaravallo, a proponent of home rule, said he is willing to reconsider his position after he
recently spoke to Pringle about his concerns.
Chiaravallo said he now believes that the eight towns could save as much as $1 million in police chief salaries, benefits and pension costs alone. That's a figure he just can't ignore when 55 percent of the borough's $2.8 million budget goes to the town's nine-officer department.
"I said to him (Pringle): "Look, if it's going to save the town money without sacrificing police services, if we can be sure people will still get the same protection, I'll consider it and bring it up at a (council) meeting,''' Chiaravallo said. "I said to Kenny, "If it works, I'm with you 100 percent.'''
Nevertheless, Chiaravallo still has unanswered questions: "Will the police officers have parity of pay? Also, I want to know, would we have one police chief? Will the other police chiefs retire? Will they take a lesser role? Will we have our own court? Will we have a civilian police administrator? Will our police station become a police precinct?''
Three deputy chiefs
The answers to those questions are up for discussion, said Chief Hill, who … with Pringle … will lead a presentation at the Sept. 12 meeting.
Hill proposes a plan in which the eight municipalities would be divided into three districts … north, south and west … to be supervised by three deputy chiefs who would answer to a single chief.
The regional force would be established under one name: the South Monmouth Police Department, with its own badge, insignia, uniforms, police vehicles and other equipment. Civilian control and oversight of the new department would come
from a civilian commission or council with representation from all eight towns.
No job losses
While the existing eight departments would be giving up their own identity and organizational culture, no officer from the existing eight would be laid off or lose pay or rank during or after the transition.
The savings would come in the years ahead, when attrition and buyouts would trim the megadepartment to a size that best fits the needs of the region. After the merger, one collective bargaining unit would negotiate contracts for the rank-and-file officers.
"This is simply an idea,'' Hill said. "It's scalable, it can be retracted or expanded as needed. It's just an idea. We have some very talented chiefs in this area who can come up with a very workable structure and coverage plan. . . for this to succeed would be a model for the rest of the state.''
Brielle Borough Administrator Thomas Nolan said he has received Belmar's invitation to the meeting and would include copies in agenda packets going out to his Borough Council members this weekend.
"What action they're going to consider, I'm not able to advise you at this point,'' Nolan said. "There was an article in the paper, but we have no detail, no model to go on. Until we really see something concrete, I don't really think it's appropriate to really formulate any type of response.''
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4610
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 1, 2006 - 8:07 pm: | |
Just wanted everyone to know that enough official signatures have now been gathered in both Maplewood and South Orange for a referendum to appear on the ballot in November to decide if a study of shared services should be done.
Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to gather a significant number of signatures in such a short amount of time! |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 753
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 8:49 am: | |
MHD, who will appear as candidates for the study commission, if you know? |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 332
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 10:55 am: | |
In-lieu of the holiday weekend, any progress since last week?
This is definately an interesting topic in which South Orange and Maplewood can both prosper.
It's refreshing to see positive movement and actions being taken.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4618
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 11:32 pm: | |
Merger question makes the ballot
By Philip Sean Curran, Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 5:47 PM EDT
South Orange and Maplewood, two towns that split more than 100 years ago, will decide this autumn if they ought to study merging as a way to lower taxes.
More than 1,500 South Orange and Maplewood voters signed petitions to have a ballot question Nov. 7. It will ask if there should be a 10-member consolidation study commission, made up of five residents from each town.
A “yes” vote does not mean the two towns will merge. Rather, it creates the commission of members who would have to make a recommendation sometime in 2007: either to merge or share certain services.
Voters will chose the commissioners from their town on Election Day.
In South Orange, Howard Levison said that he, DuBowy and three others are running for the seats.
DuBowy, speaking Tuesday, helped gather signatures to make the referendum possible.
“The reaction was very positive. People were extremely willing to sign,” he said.
Andrea Marino, who collected signatures in Maplewood, found “overwhelming support for this.”
It was not known who is running on the Maplewood side. Mayor Fred R. Profeta Jr. said Tuesday that he would not be a candidate.
Yet he was pleased to see things move forward.
“I’m glad to see the citizens of both towns express their support for a systematic process that will supply all of us with more information about possible economies in municipal services,” he said Tuesday.
Asked if he thought the referendum would pass, he answered: “That remains to be seen.”
But Township Committeeman Vic De Luca said he does not believe a merger of the two towns will bring the tax relief that some think. Rather, he said, broad tax reform is necessary by state lawmakers.
De Luca said he is “not interested in consolidating with South Orange.”
Yet he did not rule out running for one of the five Maplewood seats on the study commission.
Maplewood and South Orange share a common history.
Up until 1904, they were one community, said Maplewood historian John Bausmith.
One of the issues that split them was over schools; South Orange felt it paid too much compared to Maplewood.
Ever since, the two towns have enjoyed a sometimes tense relationship.
For a short time, they even operated under the same name, South Orange. In 1922, residents of the township of South Orange agreed to change the name to Maplewood.
During the 1970s, there was a major division over a South Orange-backed plan to close Maplewood Junior High, now Maplewood Middle School.
But the push to study consolidation has little to do with nostalgia.
Residents in both communities pay high property taxes and want to see where savings can be found.
“I think the message is people want to save money,” DuBowy said.
http://www.localsource.com/articles/2006/09/06/news_-_record/news/local/doc44ff3 9760b79a496897988.txt |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 686
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:26 am: | |
More press on the Study Committee question.
A push to turn two towns into one
Merger of S. Orange, Maplewood studied
Sunday, September 10, 2006
BY PHILIP READ
Star-Ledger Staff
There's no mistaking William "Bill" Calabrese's deep sense of civic pride.
"Right now, we're going to be one of the best towns in the state," said Calabrese, who as president of the Village of South Orange's board of trustees is the equivalent of the mayor.
SOPAC -- the village's version of the New Jersey Performing Arts Center -- is on the verge of opening, with a 415-seat live theater and five movie screens.
The words "hip urban" are being bandied about to describe the picturesque little residential town with gaslights and stately Tudors. The word "destination" is starting to slip off people's tongues.
In neighboring Maplewood, there's no shortage of civic pride either. After all, Maplewood, which geographically wraps its arm around its smaller neighbor's shoulder, has won accolades as "One of the Best Places to Live in America" from Money magazine.
But now there is talk of combining the two into a single new municipality.
On Nov. 7, voters in each town will get to vote on a consolidation referendum, the result of a grassroots petition drive; signatures were certified this past week.
The referendum merely asks if a commission should be formed to study the feasibility of a merger.
High taxes made it easy to get people to sign the petition. "This was basically shooting fish in a barrel," Jeff Dubowy, a South Orange resident and one of the petition organizers, said of the receptive audience.
Rachel Vidal, a new arrival in Maplewood by way of Brooklyn, N.Y., and Cambridge, Mass., said she is shocked over her property tax bill.
"So much so," she said of the bottom-line impact, "we probably won't stay here forever."
According to the referendum, 10 commissioners -- five from each town -- would have 10 months to make recommendations on consolidation. Those recommendations could run from simple synergies that the governing bodies could sign off on themselves to an out-and-out marriage, requiring another public vote.
In 2003, Princeton Borough and Princeton Township walked down the same merger aisle in a "One Princeton" campaign, but voters in the former tipped the scales to the "No" column. Some there, as in Maplewood-South Orange, said a single town would just be too big.
Michael Goldberg, who also was one of the organizers of the petition driver, said the towns are, in fact, like sisters already. "Demographics. Economics. Housing stock. The general culture and the overall feel of the towns is very, very, similar," said Goldberg, of South Orange.
Too similar, in the mind of Vic DeLuca, a Maplewood committee member and former mayor.
"We're two fully built-up residential communities. There's no significant advantage, taxwise," said DeLuca, noting the dearth of commercial ratables to offset the property tax burden on homeowners.
The towns are already working together to a degree -- in the form of the South Orange-Maplewood School District -- so this consolidation is dealing with just a small piece of the tax pie, he said.
"We're talking about 23 percent of the tax bill," DeLuca said of municipal costs. "I think we have to keep it real because people are suffering. ... The people in Trenton have to step up.
"I hope we don't lose focus here. ... I don't want us to get so caught up blaming ourselves for the structural inequity of the tax system in New Jersey."
At the Prescription Counter Pharmacy, Calabrese -- who is a pharmacist -- has been filling doctor's orders since 1975 just across the street from village hall, close enough to run over to officiate at the occasional wedding.
In the pharmacy are large, framed tax maps dated 1911, showing South Orange Village and the Township of South Orange, today's Maplewood. Years before those maps were made, South Orange Village actually had been a part of the township, but had split from it.
On the counter is a small display holding copies of "South Orange," a pictorial history in the Arcadia Publishing series.
"You here to see the mayor?" asks a woman at the register who is well-versed in constituent service. "The line forms there."
Before long, Calabrese steps down from the pharmacist platform and starts poking holes in the idea of a merger. For one, South Orange's municipal ranks are made up of civil service employees, Maplewood's aren't. "That's the first problem, right off the bat," Calabrese said.
There's more. "I think it would cost both sides more money," said Calabrese, asserting that the joint school system created in the village's infancy placed the financial burden on the "richer" people of South Orange Village.
And, he said, the privilege of enjoying the village's swimming pool is $15 a season compared with at least $125 in Maplewood. "Which pool would you belong to?" he said. In the mood for a little late-night game of baseball? "All our fields are lit," Calabrese said. "They have no lights in Maplewood."
In the Village of South Orange, drivers have to pay a quarter for an hour of parking. In downtown Maplewood, there are no meters. In short, creating a town with equity could be tough -- and expensive.
All of this rubs Fred Profeta Jr., Maplewood's mayor, the wrong way. "If the difference in pool fees and parking meters were to stymie this study, then I would despair," Profeta said.
Profeta doesn't see eye-to-eye with his South Orange counterpart.
"There's no way it can cost any more money," Profeta said. "Any consolidation recommendation would have to be fully justified financially."
Tomorrow, Profeta said, he'll meet with Gov. Jon Corzine's chief of staff to discuss "financial incentives" from the state to undertake the consolidation study in the first place. "It's a work in progress," he said.
In the shopping strip known as Maplewood Village, civic pride runs deep at the Maplewood Pet Shop, established, as the window decal says, in 1946. There's memorabilia marked with Maplewood's birth date of 1922, the year it changed its name from the Township of South Orange.
"We sell Maplewood sweat shirts and T-shirts, hats, mugs, posters," said owner and Maplewood native Bill McClure. "Yeah, we do very well with it."
McClure was mum when asked about commenting publicly about the "single new municipality" referendum, but there was no hiding his hometown passion. "There's no question about that," he said of his pride. "I stand behind that."
No one, it seems, thinks the towns would ever trade in their respective names, even under a "new single municipality." But that hasn't stopped the scuttlebutt.
"Somebody was talking about South Short Hills," DeLuca said with a laugh about the neighboring, exclusive section of Millburn.
Philip Read covers West Essex. He may be reached at pread@starledger.com or (973) 392-1851. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4638
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:46 am: | |
Well, I guess we now know that Calabrese is planning to run for re-election again, huh? |
Two Senses
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 458
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 4:28 pm: | |
Just when everyone thought no one on the BoT cares or grasps the big issues surrounding studying sharing services with Maplewood:
And, he said, the privilege of enjoying the village's swimming pool is $15 a season compared with at least $125 in Maplewood. "Which pool would you belong to?" he said. In the mood for a little late-night game of baseball? "All our fields are lit," Calabrese said. "They have no lights in Maplewood."
In the Village of South Orange, drivers have to pay a quarter for an hour of parking. In downtown Maplewood, there are no meters. In short, creating a town with equity could be tough -- and expensive.
|
westside
Citizen
Username: Westside
Post Number: 23
Registered: 7-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 6:46 pm: | |
As Calabrese' comment illustrated, the REAL objection is there will only need to be one mayor of the new municipality. And Maplewood is bigger than South Orange. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 563
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:18 am: | |
"There's no way it can cost any more money," Profeta said.
Silly silly silly, there's always a way for that to happen.
Politicians telling me stuff like this makes me want to run for the door.
DeLuca's got it more right in my eyes. 23% of the budget up for potential save. Relatively slim margin of return. If it's not done carefully there's plenty of opportunity for that margin to dwindle away and for the "two towns" to be worse off as one.
I'm not against the idea of the study or potentially the idea of a merger. But I also wasn't born yesterday. Anybody tells me it's a "no brainer" or implies it "can't lose," I'm not buying it.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 687
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 7:48 am: | |
That is the purpose for the study... all we hear are hypotheticals ... let's get the facts! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 8:09 am: | |
yeah...like which pool would people go to, or it's all about parking meters. Weak. |
Dufus
Citizen
Username: Dufus
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 7:39 am: | |
Maplewood parks may have lights for night baseball games if merging the towns allocated resources more cost effectively.
Hopefully the commission can uncover many achievable ways to add value and provide both town's residents a better way of life. |
|
