| Author | Message | ||
     Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 280 Registered: 2-2003 |
MHD raises something that I wanted to address before. If I've already made this point in a prior post, my apologies for the senior moment. The Financial Accounting Standards Board defines Fair Value as "the price at which an asset or liability could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, unrelated willing parties" If the gift has as a condition that the Village may not sell the sculpture to another party, then its fair value is ZERO, no matter what the sculpture would otherwise appraise for, because a transaction with another paying party is not possible. Having the sculpture in town MAY increase the fair value of other things in town (your place of business, my house, etc), and it MAY have aesthetic value (like having a park has) that cannot be put into dollars. Tau proponents should focus on these arguments (which are legitimate matters to debate). But any assertion that, "the sculpture is worth X hundred thousand dollars, how can we turn it down?" is simply unsupportable given the conditions of the gift. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 2057 Registered: 8-2002 |
Stuart -- I think a lot of this is semantics -- if Tau was not a gift from the Smith estate, then there would be an even larger cost to the village. That said, I'll take an installed, in my eyes attractive gazebo, over this ugly hunk of metal (especially in that locale). Even worse than the cost and financial misstatements about Tau -- is that this nonsense takes the attention away from the ongoing developments and the future developments needed in this town. But that may, at least partially, be the thinking. If Gross and Matthews spent, say 3 weeks each, in total, working on Tau - - that they could have spent on getting the new market easements done, etc -- we'de be ahead of the game and closer to PILOT revenue. /p | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 453 Registered: 2-2006 |
Frederick Schmid is correct that the increasing debt load of SO Village and rising property taxes definitely could be ameliorated, even slightly, by supporting the Governor's budget and shifting NJ's property tax burden a small degree to sales taxes. People who are concerned about these issues in SO should support the Governor's budget. And it is good that there are threads on MOL to discuss this. However, he is wrong to claim knowledge he does not have: that MOLers only complain and "don't take action". He obviously has no idea what else they do or don't do. And this posturing hurts the credibility of his efforts to persuade people to take his claims on this thread about the Governor's budget seriously. Sorry, Fred. You make a valid point look like a diversion from the topic of this thread. But even if he were intentionally trying to divert the topic of this thread (lets cut him a little slack while recognizing it), his point about the Governor's budget is still valid and relevant to SO's growing indebtedness. I do hope people ACTIVELY support the Governor's budget. Like SO, New Jersey cannot spend its way out of the deep, deep hole it has so vigorously dug for itself. The sooner it stops digging, the less pain later. Corzine is trying to stop what seems like addictive, certainly irresponsible, behavior. And his background makes him very well suited to do it correctly, given how very difficult it is. We should all support his budget effort in concrete, pro-active ways. (And that's all I will say about this on this thread.) | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 251 Registered: 3-2004 |
Actually elizabeth maybe one of the trustees would like to provide the answers here: Mark? Eric? Alan? Terry? I know Art? Bill? Stacy? Anybody??? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4377 Registered: 5-2001  |
talk, I'm certainly no Trustee, but I believe the answers are as follows: Are their written agreements in place with these organizations or is this a handshake deal? no written agreements are in place, according to Calabrese on Feb 27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg7fok8sAwo Why are you spending local money (take down gazebo, site prep, consultants fees, etc) on a piece of artwork when the State is in such a situation at the next level - serious enough to shut down? Why are we not serious enough about our local funds? according to Calabrese: "Village President then asserted that the sculpture is not costing the taxpayers any more money than it would have cost 3 years ago. He noted that the Arts Center is being built through a bond which the Village is guaranteeing but will ultimately be repaid by the Arts Center Board. He explained that money was taken from the Arts Center budget to purchase the sculpture and was replaced by a grant that went to pay for the Arts Center. He asserted that this is “all the same money” and “no new money was created.” He stated that money was simply moved from one pocket to another pocket." http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2006/06-21-06sm.pdf Why is the $250,000 not used to pay down debt on SOPAC? see above Why would we put something in place that will provide a giant black board for spray paint? no comment for fear of the Tauettes further accusing me of encouraging vandalism How many of you are up for re-election???? Calabrese, Rosen, Rosner & Taylor are up for re-election in May 2007 I encourage you to ask the questions yourself in person to watch the story change yet, again. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 660 Registered: 1-2006 |
The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao is not The Tau. | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 253 Registered: 3-2004 |
I really did want a Trustee to answer. My questions are sincere. How does this Village manage it's deals? Tao is just another small example. Trustees - will Tao go up while all the vacant lots sit around. I am sure the Villagers will be very happy about that (now I am being sarcastic). I find it very, very hard to believe that they would want this thing on their list of accomplishments as the lots, dirt, and undone construction sites and fences sit around. Tao ? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4382 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is Tau, not Tao | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 254 Registered: 3-2004 |
My mistake, but that seems to give it even less meaning? Tao has so much more meaning. So what we are talking about it taking down the gazebo for a greek letter? What does that mean? It doesn't look like anything and it has no deep meaning? There are so many more appealing pieces of art especially be Tony Smith - why this? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4383 Registered: 5-2001 |
Talk, That's the easiest and most ironic question. According to the Star Ledger on March 15, 2006: "Arnedt said they settled on "Tau" because it suited their budget and fit the space they had in mind. http://www.notaxesfortau.com/sl3.15.06.pdf | ||
| red_alert Citizen Username: Red_alert Post Number: 310 Registered: 3-2005 |
Interesting article in the ledger about the 9/11 memorial rejected by Jersey City and adopted by Bayonne. The difference here is there was little or no financial implication to the residents unlike South Orange. Appreciating the beauty in a gift designed to heal Bayonne welcomes a Russian artist's 9/11 memorial others scorned Friday, July 07, 2006 BY RUDY LARINI Star-Ledger Staff http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-3/1152253033116570.xml&coll=1 | ||
| Mike Matterly Citizen Username: Ittakesavillage Post Number: 64 Registered: 4-2005 |
MHD - Nice meeting you the other night (I think it was you). We should get together soon to discuss strategy and how we can finally get some trustees (in place) who would be more interested in what is best (or right) for the community, rather than what THEY want. Can't please all the people all the time, but what goes on in our village appears a bit absurd! MM. | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 255 Registered: 3-2004 |
MHD, I was being sarcastic I think "TAO" has much more meaning than "TAU". I don't understand the point of TAU and I certainly don't like taking down the gazebo, wasting time on something done. Trutees, Gross, Matthews - so many areas they could be putting their focus. Would the residents of South Orange really see this as a good thing when everything they are touching does not move forward? What a joke (bad Joke on the residents of South Orange) is this actually gets completed? ;( | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4388 Registered: 5-2001 |
From remarks made at the BOT last night: The contract for fabrication states that the sculpture will be held at the factory without charge. The so-called “gift-letter” states that the sculpture doesn’t have to be installed until September 2007. So, here is a real simple solution to this issue: First, identify a location that is not already “finished” (like the Gazebo is) that the Sculpture can be placed in such as Grove Park or Meadowlands Park which will likely cost much less money for installation. Then, since the Sculpture committee claims to have already raised $100,000 for the project, use that money to pay for the executed contract for the sculpture fabrication. Then, utilize the storage offered by the fabricator until the balance of ALL funds is raised 100% privately. Considering how successful the recent Orange Lawn fundraiser has been described, I imagine that full fundraising will not be too difficult. Since the sculpture Committee has already pledged to raise $160,000, and they already have raised enough money to pay for the fabrication, now just simply choose a location that only requires $60,000 worth of landscaping. If they want more elaborate landscaping, they can raise more money. Once all funds are raised privately, the sculpture can be installed in that location. This way, the Sculpture Committee gets to honor a local artist, the town still gets the sculpture and all the claimed prestige it will bring, and the town residents can have $250,000 to be spent on countless other items, or heaven forbid even some tax relief. There is absolutely no reason we should be held hostage by the Smith Estate’s arbitrarily mandated location and timeline, while the Trustees allow the developers of ShopRite, Beifus and Sayid to ignore all schedules for their projects leaving our Village in disarray for years, as a result. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3537 Registered: 5-2004  |
We are held hostage by the Smith Estate's arbitrarily mandated location and timelline because we agreed to it in a legal contract. Whether that was a good stipulation to make or not, I would guess the Smiths could theoretically force the town to either install it on Sloane St, or not install it at all. | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 510 Registered: 4-2002 |
How can they force SO to install it anywhere? Can't SO just refuse it, get sued by the estate and pay the damages? In the long run, that might be the cheapest way to get out of this mess. As long as the thing isn't already built and sitting somewhere, I don't see that the estate has suffered too much financially. Kind of like I decide to buy a house,sign a contract, put down a deposit and forfeit my deposit if I decide not to go ahead with the purchase. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10072 Registered: 4-1997  |
It may be that the deep necessity of art is the examination of self-deception. —Robert Motherwell | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4393 Registered: 5-2001 |
Rastro, Valid points however a couple things are worth noting: 1) The Contract was signed when the Board of Trustees was under the impression the money was coming from a Grant. 2) The Smiths are now deceased and perhaps their estate would be willing to re-visit the agreement. Why not at least ASK? 3) Legal contracts don't seem to matter for Beifus or Shop Rite. Beifus had a "drop-dead date" of May 9, 2005 for construction to begin. If we had competent Village Counsel that was interested in defending the Village's interests instead of constantly cowering in fear from every other parties' threats, that "gift letter" probably would never have been signed. What is so critical about THAT location (where the Gazebo is)? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3541 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD, Also some valid points... however the BOT's inability to comprehend their own financing methods is of no concern to the other party in the contract. To us, absolutely, but not to the Smiths. I do agree we should at least ASK about using a different location. There is no harm in seeing if they are flexible. As for comparing this to Beifus or Shoprite, the difference is that we don't seem to care about enforcing contracts. Whereas others with competent counsel usually do. And don't you remember? That location is critical because it will be the gateway to SOPAC! How can we be an arts town if our biggest piece of art is a whole block away from our Arts Center??? Geez. I thoughy ou knew better.  | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 675 Registered: 1-2006 |
It is the gateway to the parking lot. SOPAC just happens to be buried back there. Can't wait for the vehicular and pedestrian traffic to overwhelm us. By the way, with last night's newly disclosed, additional three million bond for the sarcophagus, how much will we have spent to bury ourselves in SOPAC debt by the time all bonds are paid off? jd | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 465 Registered: 2-2006 |
As Janet Skrobe, whom I believe may be an architect, recognized last night, the additional 3+ million is for SOPAC change orders. I think this means they are redoing things they should have done correctly the first time. A small mistake, at 3 mil. Ms. Skrobe must work at a place that doesn't burn through money like the SO BOT. She said she would be fired if she had 3+ million in change orders on a 10 million or so project. Since there are no contracts with SOPAC obligating it to pay off 14+ million in bonds the town borrowed for it, there may be several more millions in change orders later. No controls are in place. The town is borrowing money while taxpayers guarantee it with no effective oversight on SOPAC spending. Makes you wonder who is getting the additional millions in change orders. SO, the bottomless well. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4408 Registered: 5-2001 |
Once again, a STELLAR blog from Tracey Randinelli: http://www.nj.com/weblogs/southorange/ and a great analysis by Dan Shelffo in his latest blog: http://www.nj.com/weblogs/offtheshelf/ | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 990 Registered: 5-2004  |
You're right about Tracey and Dan - wow! If the News-Record had writers like them I'd actually resubscribe! Proper spelling, enjoyable, informative and well-written columns complete with background information, details and instruction regarding where to learn more... Imagine if all residents of S.Orange were able to regularly read them! (Not sure why, but I was given a freebie for "Resident" at my address last week. Maybe their circulation numbers are starting to drop significantly?) | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 257 Registered: 3-2004 |
I wish the Newrecord actually did reporting, investigative reporting. They should be digging into all the issues to present facts to the residents and then they might actually maintain a high ciculation. It appears they take the safe path protecting themselves along the way. Newrecord, if you are reading, give us the facts, help the village. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4456 Registered: 5-2001 |
Latest "news": I have received correspondence from Village Hall stating that the town attorney has determined that the petitions are not legally binding, regardless of how many are collected! In addition, I have been informed that the on-line petition is not "valid"! So, it appears that if you do not want at least $250,000 of YOUR tax dollars spent for a sculpture, the only way to make a difference is to show up in person tonight & SPEAK UP TONIGHT! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3625 Registered: 5-2004 |
Did he give a reason for why they are not legally binding? I assume he meant in the sense that if you get above the requisite number of signatures then the BOT does not actually have to put it up as a referendum? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3626 Registered: 5-2004 |
And either way, we have various members of the board stating on the record (and easily replayed) that if a certain number of signatures are obtained, they will put it up. Unfortunately, I think the most vulnerable person wrt that is Eric, whom I agree with on many other issues. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4459 Registered: 5-2001 |
According to his opinion, in NJ law there is no "requisite number of signatures". Citizens cannot create a referendum by petition at all, with a few exceptions (such as the Open Space Trust Fund, ironically enough). | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3628 Registered: 5-2004 |
"The will of the people be damned" | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 1057 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD, I think it is time for another round of emails to all the signers of the petitions letting them know that despite the best efforts of many, most notably you, it appears the BOT is unwilling to recognize the strong opposition to the spending of our tax dollars on this project and the wasting of tax dollars already spent on the same location! Please quote the words of the village attorney - also paid for with our tax dollars!  We need Standing Room Only tonight! I will be there. My spouse will be there. (Yes, we will actually dig into our babysitter budget for this!) Anyone else? | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 1058 Registered: 5-2004 |
The email should include the phone number and email address for the attorney, if you have it. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1860 Registered: 3-2003 |
If anyone knows anybody from News 12 or the Star-Ledger, give them a call. They really should be there this evening, particularly when bids for the library roof and HVAC are rejected, while approving an additioanl $3.6 million for SOPAC. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2867 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: The library work will be done. The bids came in too high so we have to discuss. I think the plan is to go out to bid again. | ||
| vermontgolfer Supporter Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 485 Registered: 12-2002 |
I for one am very sorry I am out of town and can't make the meeting tonight. This latest 'news' is just another sorry lame excuse that our attorney and BOT continue to throw in our face. I stand by my fellow citizens,who I know will speak with one voice tonight, not only on this issue but on all others that continue to drag on in SO. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5731 Registered: 1-2004  |
Rasto- Didn't Taylor also say something about bring signatures? | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5732 Registered: 1-2004 |
MHD "According to his opinion..." And he thinks we care what his 'opinion' is because? He could be mistaken!!! Ed, I know you and others close to you read MOL. I defended you many times last year! Even got a lot of flack for it. Once I viewed the BOT meeting for myself my opinion on what was happening changed. Please do the right thing. Put this on the ballet! | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4461 Registered: 5-2001 |
For those who missed the Meeting, 2 representatives from the Sculpture Committee presented a long monologue about the Sculpture project, but ultimately presented the following proposal: Tau will NOT be located on Sloan Street! Tau WILL be installed in Meadowlands Park (near the intersection of Mead & Ridgewood, I think) Taxpayers are on the hook for $170,000 Total cost of the project was not presented. However, the BOT did not solict any public opinion. Please let me (and them) know what you think about this alternative. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 1336 Registered: 5-2003 |
Well, the anti-tauists at have won a small victory. At least we won't have the thing on Sloan Street, and we won't have to pay for razing the gazebo. I was quite put off by the arrogance of Judy Wukisch and her buddy Charlotte. They seem to feel that they alone have the artistic sensibility to know what's best for this town and the taxpayers who live here. And, oh, they were so offended and humiliated at having to negotiate with the Tony Smith estate for an alternative site! Just because some people in this town are so horrible and unappreciative. Why those awful people even had the nerve to "harrass" people on the train with a petition!! Hello! This is still a democracy, and the people have the right to petition! I think that Mark Rosner is the voice of reason on the BOT. He was the only one who acknowledged that this whole tau thing was handled badly from the beginning. Now let's see how much we really have to pay for Tau. | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2355 Registered: 5-2005  |
I would like to see the figures too Lizziecat. Cheryl Arnedt(sp) mentioned that the town has already paid out $170,000. I would like to know what that is for. I think I remember hearing that $101,400 was for the cost of the sculpture and transportation. Not sure what the rest is for. Also it would be nice to know what costs are associated going forward. I heard that the TSP has raised some $110K+ with fundraisers etc. The word SOME was almost spat out. Some? I think I heard that the petitions had "some" 1700 signatures...? Mark Rosner did have it right, and i'm glad that a Trustee saw and voiced what had gone wrong with the process. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4462 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lizzie - Yes, it was amazing how they chose to REPEATEDLY say they heard they concerns of "SOME" residents. SOP - I believe they get their numbers from the following 2 documents, which comes to roughly $170,000: Landscape Design - http://www.notaxesfortau.com/SculptureDesignContract.pdf Fabrication - http://www.notaxesfortau.com/SculptureFabricationContract.pdf So, they questions now are - what are THEY planning to pay for with the $100,000 THEY claim to have raised? What is the TOTAL cost of this alternative plan? |
