| Author | Message | ||
     Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 1548 Registered: 7-2003 |
Other side of the street. Main Street Helps Commuter Comics Find a New Home. The popular comic store, formerly on Sloan Street, has moved to its new location at 50 West South Orange Avenue next to Bunnies | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 763 Registered: 5-2004  |
Thanks. Interstingly, both Keyhole and google maps put it on the other side of the street. So much for google technology ;-) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1797 Registered: 4-2002 |
Also Pete's barbershop - where I happen to get my few remaining hairs cut every now and then. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 1995 Registered: 5-2001  |
So, now that all candidates are announced, how about a discussion of all alleged conflicts of interest? We already know that Eric owns a building downtown (which he has fully disclosed) and John is owner (part-owner?) of Bunny's (which is also fully disclosed). What about Terri-Ann and her employment with the County? (not to mention the fact that she switched running mates before the campaign even started)? What about Stacey Jennings? (doesn't she or her husband work for the school district?) | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 46 Registered: 7-2004 |
Will downtown property owners, if elected, have to recuse themselves from all matters pertaining to properties within 200', including SOPAC, Beifus, Sayid's hole, the Rahway River Corridor, and NJ Transit projects? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1813 Registered: 4-2002 |
Two Sense: I think there is a real possibility that any downtown property owner should recuse themselves from any property issuse you raised as well as voting on the DMC or on redevelopment issues. I am not saying they should not be elected, but only that the public be aware of any potential conflicts. I just ask that there be full disclosure. | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1686 Registered: 11-2001  |
I believe Eric's web site addresses the question very well. Since we are commercial property neighbors, I hold his statements concerning conflicts of interest as well. http://www.ericdevarisfortrustee.com/conflictsofinterest.php John Pogany, "Time for a Change" - Vote May 10th | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 170 Registered: 2-2003  |
Two Sense and mrosner, You will find the link to my statement on conflict of interest in my website, in the About Eric DeVaris link, first paragraph. The DCA advisory opinion I received does not mention anything about recusing myself from DMC or redevelopment issues. Eric | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 468 Registered: 3-2002 |
Eric and John, Many thanks (and praise) for the clarification on what issues would require either of you to recuse yourselves. (John, would you also have to recuse yourself from any issues regarding the Gourmet market?) I do not quite share Eric's confidence that Beifus and SOPAC will no longer need BOT attention, and don't want to discount the need to discuss NJTransit parking and station issues. Given my belief that the properties within 200 feet of you continue to be major issues in the next couple of years, and my further belief that new blood is needed in the discussion of these issues, it becomes difficult to vote for both of you. I think that we need at least two new voices in these debates. Does anyone have any thoughts (or other perspectives) to help me think through this one? | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1687 Registered: 11-2001 |
Susan1014: I can help you through this one. Your Village President has publicly stated on many occasions that his brother will get a significant job at SOPAC. What is your take on that, particularly since your Village President will most definitely be endorsing candidates? I am certain that persons, such as myself, with decades of business experience, accounting experience and architectural experience will make outstanding Trustees who will bring the languishing unfinished projects to fruition, because we have motivation and know-how. If you want the job done, you will vote for me. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 205 Registered: 4-2003 |
Susan 1014: To help you in your thinking, as you requested: Mr. Rosner says that "any downtown property owner should recuse themselves from any property issue...or on redevelopment issues" suggests Mr Rosner forgets his history at best, or has a double standard at worst. Please note that BOT President Billy Calabrese owns property in the downtown, well within 200' of the Shop Rite Site and of the Beifus Site. That fact didn't stop him from screwing up the entire downtown redevelopment efforts for years with his votes, continued support for the incompetent Gross and malfeasant town attorney Ed Matthews. President Calabrese also owns a home overlooking the Quarry. He did not recuse himself from any discussions or votes on issues relative to the quarry for several years - only doing so after Patrick Joyce was elected to the BOT and was prevented from participating on discussions or votes relative to the Quarry because he was part of a group of residents challenging the town's decisions on the quarry. Yet, Patrick lives on the same street as, and only a few houses away from, President Calabrese. Ed Matthews was also the town attorney when President Calabrese was voting on quarry issues without so much as a blink from Matthews that he, Calabrese, should recuse himself from such involvement. Both Mathews and Gross retain their positions, after years of demonstrated incompetence and lack of due dilligence (not to mention conflict of interest) because of President Calabrese's support. And let us not forget that anyone who is eligible to run for the BOT lives in South Orange. Every issue essentially is of concern and interest to every resident of every neighborhood. To have required Patrick Joyce to recuse himself from Quarry issues and votes (after allowing Calabrese to vote on same for years) is as ludicrous as to have Eric and/or John recuse themselves from votes on redevelopment. While Eric DeVaris and John Pogany are downtown property owners, their MOL posts and past actions suggest intelligent, open, community-minded ideas would be their stock-in-trade. Voting for John Pogany and for Eric DeVaris (and for Howard Levison) should be part of everyone's agenda who wants real positive change in the town. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1814 Registered: 4-2002 |
Wash: I don't forget the history. First off, the village president does not vote unless there is a tie. Second, there were times when he did recuse himself both with the quarry (pre-dating Patrick Joyce) and on issues with the downtown. Finally, I am not saying it should be up to me or to any BOT member, but when there is a question it should go to the DCA for an unbiased opinion. There is a difference between being a concerned resident and having the potential for economic gain from owning a piece of property in the downtown. Clearly, if the BOT votes on increasing parking by SOPAC, that will have a positive impact on the property values near SOPAC. As I said previously (and you seem to forget or ignore) I have no problem with Eric or John (or any of the candidates) getting elected to the BOT. I just think there should be full disclosure on any potential conflict so there are no suprises when it comes time to vote on any issue that has a potential conflict. Bill Calabrese disclosed to everyone that he was a property and business owner in the downtown when he ran (each time). He was elected by the majority of residents so clearly most people do not have a problem with a property owner being elected. Don't you think candidates should disclose potential conflicts? | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 208 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: Yes, potential conflicts should be disclosed. Funny how you never advocated that Mary Theroux and John Gross disclose theirs. I specifically remember your response at the Candidates Forum held at the SO Middle School before the last election when you expressed outrage that such conflict could be suggested much less be discussed at the forum. Or that on the quarry and redevelopoment issues that Calabrese did vote on, why he didn't recuse himself from even those (he had no self-identified conflicts on some votes, but conflicts on others? Full disclosure suggests we should have known more about which ones he chose or was allowed to vote on and which not.) And, as I tried to suggest, we all gain economically - from the property values of our homes if from nothing else, from a properly run and administered village. Patrick Joyce was elected to the BOT. By your own definition above, he should have been allowed to vote on quarry issues because "he was elected by the majority of residents so clearly most people do not have a problem with a property owner being elected." (your reference about Calabrese). There have been so many actual and potential conflicts of interest in this town (the engineering firm who got traffic engineering jobs contributing to Calabrese's campaign; the Mary/John thing; Calabrese and the Quarry; Calabrese and the vote on how John's salary will be partitioned; Calabrese and the Pilots; Calabrese and the firing, after spending over $700,000 for a SOPAC design from an architectural firm with experience in theater design and awarding a design/build contract to a firm with links to a South Orange resident etc) that I find it shocking that you choose now to articulate your concern for potential conflicts, and have been very quiet over the last 6 years when your public voice could have helped turn around some of these blatant abuses of the public trust. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2003 Registered: 5-2001 |
Washahore for BOT!  | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1815 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: As usual, you try and twist things to fit what you want. First off, Mary Theroux was not running last election. When she ran I do not think she was dating John Gross, but if she ran again, I would expect her to disclose that fact. It was clear the question was referring to Mary's relationship and had nothing to do with any of the candidates in the last election. My position remains the same as it has every time I have run. There should be full disclosure by all candidates regarding any potential conflict. Bill Calabrese has been re-elected more than once despite what you consider conflicts. The public had full knowledge of his past (and not saying I agree with what you consider a conflict). My reference to Mr. Joyce meant that it was clear that the public did not have an issue with voting for someone who might have a conflict. They felt it was best. I did not say that meant that he should be able to vote on an issue when he had a conflict. I do not remember Mr. Calabrese ever voting on an issue regarding the quarry. It would seem that you do not see a need for full disclosure, but a need to criticize me. Also as I have stated to you previously, you often give a half story to support your position. Just for the record why don't you let others know if you have a business relationship with any of the candidates or if you are actively working on any candidates campaign. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 172 Registered: 2-2003 |
Susan1014, Our Village has a long history of abused conflicts of interest. I pledge that, when elected, I will reverse the pattern. I will maintain the same highest ethical standards I have maintained throughout my life, and I will make sure that the Board of Trustees adheres to the same standards. I fully intend to recuse myself from discussing and voting on any project that falls within 200 feet from my commercial property. Before I decided to run for the Board of Trustees I wanted to ensure that I will be an effective trustee. I didn’t want my ownership of commercial property to be an impediment in the performance of my duties. That is why last November I requested an advisory opinion from the NJ/DCA. I was relieved to learn that my limitation to public discourse was not extending beyond 200 feet from my property. I was relieved because I saw that I will be free to exercise my duties in all the other issues affecting our Village. I will be free to: + draw, with the help of the community (public, government, businesses, civic organizations, Village employees, academe) a master plan that will guide us in the years to come toward a prosperous Village; +keep a close eye on our finances (bond issues, tax abatements, management of our resources and infrastructure) with the aim of holding our taxes down; + guide our Village through downtown redevelopment by expediting the creation of the Downtown Redevelopment Corporation and the hiring of its Executive Director; + work with developers, planners, the S.O. Planning Board, and the community, in the development of Irvington Avenue and Valley Street; + keep a balance between our open/recreation space and developed space, through the use of the State funds, and the County, and South Orange Open Space Trust Funds; + create an open dialogue between government and the community: open government; + establish a partnership with the largest business in town: Seton Hall University; + promote the arts. So you see, Susan, there are many issues on which I will be free to act as a trustee, as important as the ones I will be limited to act on (Beifus, parking deck, SOPAC), only many more. I know that my limited conflict of interest will not stop me from being a good trustee. That is why I am running. So, please Susan, vote for me. Thank you, Eric On May 10 vote for Eric DeVaris - Line D (as in DeVaris) www.EricDeVarisForTrustee.com | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2004 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, You are playing semantics. You know very well that Calabrese only VOTES when there is a tie. So, while he may not have VOTED on many (or any) issues regarding the quarry, he was absolutely present and involved in all discussions regarding the quarry. (until Patrick was elected). I have posted a link previously to Meeting Minutes from 1999 where Calabrese was very much present and I invite you to review them again. Speaking of Meeting Minutes, why have the Closed Session minutes from those days, especially with regard to the Quarry, never been released? The issue is now "closed" so the Closed Session meeting minutes should be released now, right? | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 209 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: I must take issue with your once again attempt to obfuscate and confuse. My comment from my last post to you about "Funny how you never advocated that Mary Theroux and John Gross disclose theirs. I specifically remember your response at the Candidates Forum held at the SO Middle School before the last election when you expressed outrage that such conflict could be suggested much less be discussed at the forum" was met with your response of "Washashore: As usual, you try and twist things to fit what you want. First off, Mary Theroux was not running last election. When she ran I do not think she was dating John Gross, but if she ran again, I would expect her to disclose that fact. It was clear the question was referring to Mary's relationship and had nothing to do with any of the candidates in the last election." Mr. Rosner, your response boggles my mind, and requires further comment from me. Yes, Mary Theroux was NOT running last time. The way in which the conflict issue arose at the Candidates' Forum two years ago when YOU were running for re-election, was to try to get a sense from those running what their own level of moral integrity was in knowingly allowing this conflict of interest between a trustee and her employee - the Village Administrator - to continue. At that Forum, where YOU were running for re-election, you chose to be "outraged that such conflict could be suggested much less be discussed at the forum" rather than to allow a real "full disclosure" discussion of why incumbent trustees running for re-election had allowed such conflict of interest to exist. The question at the Forum was an attempt to help voters understand, from the answers of both the incumbent and non-incumbent candidates running, which Candidates would be the better moral integrity standard bearers, would stand up against the prevailing conflict of interest politics at Town Hall. Your unwillingnes to discuss this issue then, and your attempt to obfuscate it today, clearly tells the voters where YOU stand on potential or actual issues of conflict of interest. You, Mr. Rosner, are very far indeed from the moral integrity standard bearer on this issue that you seek to become by your recent posts. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 471 Registered: 3-2002 |
Eric, Thank You. Fixing conflict of interest issues is clearly one of our many issues, and I'm glad to see you taking it so seriously. I do expect to vote for you in spite of your need to recuse yourself in certain key debates, but I have serious concerns about the quorum that will come together when SOPAC or Beifus come up again as issues, which I'm sure they will. Mark, Thank You, as always, for being brave enough to discuss town issues in this sometimes uncivil forum. Washashore and MHD, can we please save arguing about Mark until it is time for him to run for reelection? John, I'm open to your candidacy, but above you discuss two issues. First, Calabrese pushing his brother for a SOPAC job (very perturbing). Second, the need to use all of your experience "to bring languishing unfinished projects to fruition" (very important). How will you be able to help with these issues given your business location? Eric discussed all of the other issues where he can be involved, but you seem to be implying that you will be able to help on SOPAC and Beifus. I'm honestly confused, and trying to figure out who gets the third slot on my ballot, so please take this as an honest question, which is how it is meant. (Watching public access, waiting for the town meeting to come out of recess, since I couldn't attend...It is actually interesting to watch Calabrese, Thereoux and Steiglitz(?) in their chairs behind the rail, in private conversation, while other trustees go out and talk to the constituents...) | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 210 Registered: 4-2003 |
susan1014: My March 27th post at 11:44 PM was addressed to you and your request for help to sort through which candidates were vote-worthy. Part of understanding who is worthy now requires sifting through the morass of information on how things got this way. Mr. Rosner has been on the Board for enough years to know how things got this way, and to have voted, or abstained, or not voted a fair number of times on key issues to have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And since he is not now running, as you say, why does he feel so threatened by my post addressed to you that he had to misrepresent and obfuscate the issues I tried to raise? I am sorry that you were unable to glean any insight from my posts, but saw them instead as "attacks" on Mr. Rosner who is "not running". Rather trhan seeing Mr. Rosner's comments to and about me as a desperate attempt on his part to help elect like-minded candidates that will, if elected, perpetuate the status quo. To do so, Mr. Rosner must try to discredit those, such as myself, who remember the past, want to share it with others, so more people can make informed decisions at the polls. Unfortunately susan, you will not be able to discern who amongst the field of 8 are worthy of your vote in 2005 if you do not try to understand past decsiions, key players, and their modus operandi. Including, how incumbents remaining on the baord have a vested interest to perpetuate the status quo, to get like-minded candidates elected, and to try to discredit those, such as myself, who remember the past, want to share it with others, so more people can make informed decisions at the polls. "Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it." |
