| Author | Message | ||
     Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 153 Registered: 5-2004 |
Steel - I've tried to resist, but I must reply to your lofty attempt at eloquence. As to value and taxes, I think many of you are not aware of, or if so do not deserve the financial bargain that is available here. You are correct - we do not deserve this "financial bargain". Many of us have the maturity and discipline not to buy something that we can't afford simply because it is on sale. If you were to go to auction you could not obtain a Tony Smith piece created in INCHES for the price of the monumental work ... Me, I'd prefer it in inches. (And in your living room...) I think others would too, if they were given the choice. Instead some of you insist that you would not even consider it unless it is utterly free Uh, yeah - because it is supposed to be a GIFT, right? Choosing to pay at least some small measure for such a work So you DO get it!  Yes, the key is "choosing". An opportunity the taxpayers should be offered!!! But there is a collective value in a town saying 'great things have come from this place just possibly because it is a great place to be'. I think we could afford a plaque that says just that. I say get the sculpture while you can and THEN deal with the more pedantic matters, -not the other way around. What's pedantic in your view? * Basic financial responsibility? * That many of us feel South Orange has quite enough on its plate at the moment, and needs to finish some things before we start decorating? * The shameless wasting of previously spent tax dollars on the ugly gazebo and fountain? (Based on my homeowner experience, the plumbing cost alone must have been amazing.) * Government involvement of the entire community in this contemplated extravagance? Everybody has a friggin' fountain Classy finish.  Steel, you actually pay taxes in South Orange, right?  | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2674 Registered: 5-2001  |
PDG, GREAT post!!! Can you send me your letter to the BOT via PL, too? I already sent my own letter and am hoping that multiple letters will actually make a difference. (I know...Silly me, thinking that politicians elected by the people should actually carry out the will of the people) | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 155 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD - thanks. (It was fun) Letter text is on the way to you! And thanks for sending your own letter!!! Be sure to tell your S.O. neighbors and friends before it's too late (because I've received private messages that say it may well be too late, which really ticks me off!  ) | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7127 Registered: 4-1997  |
The loyal opposition responds :-) http://www.southorangevillage.com/tony_smith | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 156 Registered: 5-2004  |
Typical - Sheena - I'm hoping your petition can compete (come on girl, you gotta know some brilliant computer geek at SHU that can equal or better our clearly biased "moderator"!) | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 157 Registered: 5-2004 |
Here's a quote from a recent news article I found on Google: "It's a recent idea to a lot of people that you can't put a sculpture out of doors and expect it to stay in good condition," Boulton said. "Outdoor sculptures need regular maintenance, no matter what material they're made of. It's silly to think you could build a house and not do anything to maintain it. Why do people think you can do it with sculpture?" The collection's undisputed headache is Tony Smith's big, black Spitball.} The sculpture has two pieces, but they aren't welded together. Rainwater gets trapped in the seams, eventually corroding the artwork. About five years ago, the sculpture was lifted out of the garden by crane, placed atop a flatbed truck, and driven to an expert in New York. He stripped off the old paint, repaired the metal, and repainted it -- all at a cost guaranteed to give a museum administrator a migraine. "It was more than our entire budget for outdoor sculptures for that year," Boulton said. "We had to do special fundraising to pay for it." Full Article - http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifestyle/bal-to.artbath03aug03,1,3524347.s tory?coll=bal-artslife-today | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 377 Registered: 4-2005  |
Awwww mannnnn..... Alright, I'll get this bad boy done by tonight. I don't want Dave to have a headstart tomorrow... Geeeee Whizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............ Let the games begin Sir Moderator  | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 378 Registered: 4-2005 |
Alright... lots of coffe and smoke breaks later, it is finished. I'm only posting the draft as of right now so I can get some feedback for any changes from you guys and I also need to check on some of the "facts" and some other terminology in the document. After all changes are made, I will post the official online petition and provide hard copies for everyone who would like them. Please feel to make any suggestions - I'm always open to them  | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 379 Registered: 4-2005 |
PETITION DRAFT RESOLUTION SHORT TITLE: A RESOLUTION OUTLINING A PETTITION OF SUPPORT REQUESTING THAT THE SOUTH ORANGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESCIND AND AMEND RESOLUTION #77-05 “RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF A TONY SMITH SCULPTURE”. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2002, the South Orange Board of Trustees (hereinafter referred to as the “BOT”) requested that the Village Grants person, of Housing & Community Development Services, Inc., Ms. Carol Hertweck-Lowry consider funding for the installation of a Tony Smith sculpture, and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2003, the South Orange BOT conducted the 2003 Community Development Block Grant (hereinafter referred to as “CDBG”) Program Presentation and Public Hearing, and WHEREAS, at the aforementioned meeting, Ms. Carol Hertweck-Lowry noted that Essex County concurred that because the sculpture would be located in a redevelopment zone, the BOT could request CDBG funding and noted that the BOT could ask for additional monies because of the County’s need to expend a greater amount in the next year [2003] in order not to be penalized by the Federal Government for having “too much money” on hand, and WHEREAS, at the aforementioned meeting, Judy Wukitsch, President of the Lennie Pierro Memorial Arts Foundation requested that the BOT request $250,000 in its application for an Essex County Block Grant in Fiscal Year 2003 in order to cover the costs for installation of a Tony Smith sculpture downtown, and WHEREAS, Jane Smith, artist Tony Smith’s widow, would be making a gift to the Village of South Orange by donating the rights of Smith’s sculptures estimated at about $500,000, and WHEREAS, the present BOT in attendance of the November 25, 2003 meeting comprised of Trustee Allan Rosen, Trustee Mark Rosner, Trustee Stephen Steglitz and Trustee Mary Threoux, voted unanimously to request CDBG funds as follows: “Installation, transporting, sighting, insuring $250,000, and conserving a permanent outdoor Tony Smith sculpture in the redevelopment zone in South Orange” (Resolution #283-02 “Resolution Authorizing the Village President to Submit Applications for Essex County Community Development Block Grant Funding for Program Year 2003”), and WHEREAS, at the March 10, 2003 Conference Agenda meeting, Village Administrator John Gross noted that only the “rights” to the sculpture had been donated to the Village of South Orange and supplemental costs would include: $80,000 to build the sculpture and over $200,000 for maintenance over time. Mr. Gross also noted that exact costs were unclear because he was unaware of the costs of shipping and/or installation, and WHEREAS, the present BOT at a March 15, 2005 Special Meeting comprised of Trustee Allan Rosen, Trustee Mark Rosner, Trustee Stephen Steglitz and Trustee Arthur Taylor, voted unanimous in favor of Resolution #77-05 “Resolution of Accepting the Gift of a Tony Smith Sculpture”, and WHEREAS, the term “gift” defined by Webster’s Dictionary states “something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation” led the citizens of South Orange to believe that there were no additional costs for the taxpayers to incur with respect to this “gift”, and WHEREAS, because of this vague and misguiding language used in the agenda, no South Orange citizens spoke in opposition, nor were they given proper notice of the cost analysis of this project or up to date accounting for monies raised, and WHEREAS, upon passage of Resolution #77-05, the BOT was yet to received adequate funding from the CDBG to cover the costs of the Tony Smith Sculpture, and WHEREAS, upon passage of Resolution #77-05, the BOT had not secured adequate funding by the Lennie Pierro Memorial Arts Foundation which began its fundraising efforts on November 16, 2002, and WHEREAS, the present BOT at the July 25, 2005 Regular Meeting comprised of Trustee Allan Rosen, Trustee Mark Rosner, Trustee Taylor, Trustee Jennings and Trustee Moore-Abrams, voted unanimously to “…Engage the Professional Services of SESI Consulting Engineers to Perform Engineering and Landscape Architecture Services for the Design of Site Improvements for the Tony Smith Sculpture”, and WHEREAS, to date, there have been no public hearings or notices on the costs that will be incurred by South Orange residents with the installation and maintenance of the Tony Smith Sculpture which has been termed a “gift”, and WHEREAS, the citizens of South Orange wish to be heard in the following areas which are two-fold 1) budget 2) location, and WHEREAS, as elected representatives, the BOT has an obligation to take into consideration the needs and wishes of residents and furthermore, serve the best interest of the community at the given time; therefore, SECTION 1. BE IT RESOLVED, that the undersigned South Orange citizens request that the South Orange Board of Trustees rescind Resolution #77-05 and all resolutions in conjunction with Resolution #77-05. SECTION 2. PROCEDURE: The undersigned South Orange citizens request the following actions be taken: 1. “Rescind” Resolution #77-05 2. “Table Indefinitely” a new resolution to accept the Tony Smith sculpture until parameters of funding and location have been set and satisfy the needs of South Orange citizens. 3. “Refer to Committee” [Recreation and Cultural Affairs] 4. Postpone the work SESI Consulting Engineers’ until the guidelines outlined by parameters are met 5. Hold a public meeting on the Tony Smith Sculpture with all accounting available. SECTION 3. FUNDING PARAMETER RECOMMENDATIONS: The undersigned South Orange citizens request that the BOT work in conjunction with any current fundraising efforts to accommodate a Tony Smith Sculpture in South Orange. However, the BOT needs to examine what would be equitable to all those involved. Because we recognize that a Tony Smith sculpture will enhance South Orange as well as identify a truly talented and memorable resident, we recommend the following: 1. 75% of all costs incurred by the Village for the Tony Smith sculpture be provided for by grants and/or fundraising efforts. 2. 25% of all costs incurred by the Village for the Tony Smith sculpture be provided for by taxpaying citizens. 3. Any “fair” and “equitable” proposal of cost breakdown provided by the BOT Furthermore, no action regarding the Tony Smith sculpture should be taken until the full amount for all costs associated with the sculpture are available to appropriate to said project. SECTION 4. LOCATION: The undersigned South Orange citizens request that the BOT reexamine the proposed location of Tony Smith Sculpture which currently stands as Sloan Street. Because of the large dimensions 20 ft. x 25 ft, the statue will not blend with the historical beauty found on Sloan Street nor would it be fair to remove the gazebo and fountain that we all enjoy. We recommend the following locations: 1. Any park in South Orange/wide open space 2. South Orange Performing Arts Center (“SOPAC”) 3. Baird Center SECTION 5. TIMELINE: This petition shall be sent to the South Orange Board of Trustees as soon as made public. The author of said resolution will present the signatures at an official BOT meeting in September of 2005 and shall notify all signatories of the meeting. SECTION 6. DOCUMENTATION: The undersigned South Orange citizens request that the Village Clerk make this document, in its entirety, available in the official minutes of the BOT meeting in which this document is presented for public record. SECTION 6. THE UNDERSIGNED: The undersigned South Orange citizens have read this document in its entirety and support all recommendations. Signatories of this document are providing their name and contact information for the purpose of support and only support. Their names or contact information shall not be distributed to anyone other than the South Orange BOT as well as the Village President. ------------------------------------------------- Copy and Paste isn't being very nice to me - this is actually formated with a lot of numbers and indentations and better spacing... it's all clumped together on this board but you guys will get the point... Debate Away - I'm going to sleep now because I need to be up in ehhh 3 hours, lol. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2675 Registered: 5-2001 |
Change one line to be "0% of all costs incurred by the Village for the Tony Smith sculpture be provided for by taxpaying citizens." and I will gladly sign. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 158 Registered: 5-2004 |
Sheena, I strongly agree with MHD. You know darn well that they will be unable to project a precise budget (ever heard of a construction project being underbudget?) including forever future maintenance of this thing. The township will be stuck paying for the ongoing costs to keep it from rusting into a pile of metal. That expense is quite enough from my future taxes, thank you. Also, from your petition, I got the impression that the $250,000 funds received via "grant" were from a NJ State source - TAX DOLLARS! Am I wrong? I hope so, but the implication is that portion was "free" to the taxpayers which isn't true if the source is state tax dollars. Previously, I thought the "grant" was from some sort of arts foundation, which is how most sculptures like this one are funded! Those who will actually ENJOY having the sculpture in town should foot the bill for it. (Hey Dave, do you have an example where local property tax dollars were used as a source of funds for a small village to build a sculpture such as this?) | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 159 Registered: 5-2004 |
And thank you Sheena! Dave's link is full of expert programming razzle-dazzle, but your petition seems much more professional and effective. (And it states the known facts without leaving out material information, like the current proposed sculpture location that Dave forgot to mention in his "background" section.) | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 160 Registered: 5-2004 |
After doing a quick Google, it seems that CDBG funds are from a federal source. Apparently the "ideal" site for the sculpture was selected because it was the only place the sculpture would physically FIT and still be included in the "redevelopment" zone and thus qualify for this use of CDBG funds! Nice. The only way we can trick the federal government into handing over $250,000 toward this "redevelopment" project is to cram it into our downtown's redevelopment area. Now that's art. The following is a brief description found from a Googled article: For the past 30 years, HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has awarded over $100 billion to state and local governments to target their own community development priorities. CDBG is one of HUD's oldest and most popular programs. The rehabilitation of affordable housing has traditionally been the largest single use of the grants although CDBG is also an important catalyst for job growth and business opportunities. CDBG funds are distributed by formula around the country based on a community's population, income levels, poverty rates and the age of its housing stock. | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 153 Registered: 6-2005 |
Sheena- I agree with MHD and PDG. Taxpayers incurring the 25% gives the BOT an open checkbook. If they want to pay for this, then they must state what in the current budget they will not fund to cover the costs. Then citizens can make an informed choice. We've got to stop escalating taxes. And as far as tearing out the gazebo and fountain, well, that's just a total waste of money. Again, they need to say what they will take money away from in order to do this. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7131 Registered: 4-1997 |
Yes, change "petition" to "Contract for South Orange" and use "Zero Tolerance for public art" in there somewhere.  | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 161 Registered: 5-2004 |
It’s a deal, Dave.  As long as you title your petition, or whatever it is, "Misuse of a Quarter of a Million Dollars of CDBG Grant Money to Construct Uninhabitable Large Hunk of Metal We Will Call Public Art so that The Ignorant Piples (ala George Hamilton) May then be Labled Base Ignoramus by The Esthetically Enlightened Who Enjoy Freely Spending The Money of The Piples, for Objecting to Being Further Reamed by Yet Another in a Growing Mountain of Small Additional Local Tax Increases, to Finance the Many Thousands of Dollars Required to Fund this Endeavor that their Federal Tax Dollars are Not Covering." I think Steel would appreciate the run-on !  | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 162 Registered: 5-2004 |
ABOUT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a federal program that began operation in 1975. It is formally known as “Title I” of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. CDBG is run by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Primary Objective Congress’ primary objective for CDBG has always been, and still is to improve communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. The law defines “low and moderate income” individuals and families as those with incomes below 80% of the median income for the entire metropolitan area (the Metropolitan Statistical Area). The law allows the meaning of the term to be adjusted for the size of the household; “lower income” is less for a two-person household and greater for a seven-person household. The term “low income” means individuals and households with incomes below 50% of the median income for the entire metropolitan area. The term “moderate income” means those with incomes above 50% but below 80%. Funding Every year, each city with more than 50,000 people, and each county over 200,000 in population, get CDBG funds automatically. These cities and counties are called “entitlement jurisdictions.” They are “entitled” to CDBG by virtue of their size. Entitlement jurisdictions get 70% of the money and states get the other 30%. Each state gets CDBG to pass along to its smaller towns and rural counties, which compete with one another for the funds. Every state has its own procedures for operating the “Small Cities” CDBG program. The amount of CDBG funding each of these jurisdictions gets is set by one of two formulas. A jurisdiction gets funding from the formula that gives it the most CDBG. Formula A has three “factors” related to the jurisdiction: population, number of people with incomes below the poverty level, and housing overcrowding (meaning that there is more than one person per room in a housing unit). For the states, the formulas only look at the population, etc., for the parts of the state which are not in entitlement cities or counties. The law applies mathematical “weights” to these three factors, reflecting Congress’ belief that some factors are more important than others. In Formula A, the poverty factor is multiplied by a weight of 2; population and housing overcrowding only have weights of 1. Formula B also has three factors: the number of people with incomes below the poverty level, the age of housing, and population. For entitlement jurisdictions, the formula looks at the degree to which the jurisdiction’s population has not grown as fast as the population of the other communities. The law puts different weights on Formula B’s factors too - “age of housing” is multiplied by 2.5, “poverty” is multiplied by 1.5, and population “growth lag” is only multiplied by 1.0. Consolidated Plan In order to get CDBG funding, the law requires the Town to prepare and maintain a formal document declaring how CDBG will be used. A proposed version of this document (a Consolidated Plan) must be presented to the Town Citizens so that affected residents have a chance to study the document and to give the Town their comments.} The Consolidated Plan includes both a long-term Strategic Plan and a short-term annual Action Plan. The Consolidated Plan requires the Town to identify all of its housing and community development needs, and then come up with a long-term strategy for meeting those needs. A key part of the strategy is setting priorities. The Consolidated Plan must identify what programs and resources will be used over the course of the long-term strategy. Then each year, the Town must spell out in detail which activities it will carry out and how much money (including CDBG) will be spent on them, in order to work toward reaching its program goals. At the end of each Program Year, the Town must submit to HUD an Annual Performance Report which gives a detailed description of the activities funded with CDBG money during that program year. Each activity must be identified, as well as how much money was budgeted for it; how much was actually spent; the specific location of the activity; how much was accomplished (such as the number of houses rehabbed or the number of jobs created); and how many people or households benefited - by race and by income category. Citizen Participation From the beginning of the CDBG program in 1974, }Congress has intended that the public be involved in the planning and decision-making around the use of federal dollars returned to localities and states for housing and community development activities The law requires the Town to have and follow a formal and detailed Citizen Participation Plan before it can get CDBG funding. The Town’s Citizen Participation Plan describes the policies and procedures for Citizen participation when we, as a community, are deciding how the funds we receive from HUD will be spent, within the limits set by the federal government. The Town encourages the Citizens to participate in the Community Development Block Grant process and to make their views known. Resource: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 743 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Pdg, Resistance to my lofty charms is futile. Good stuff, you have expressed your views well and I do appreciate the run-on. Sometimes when considering the way I write, I think I should have been a lawyer but I can't stand wearing a tie for longer than it takes to get through a funeral. -Such as the death of public art as an expression of civic pride. (unless of course it is completely free and pretty). -You'll please excuse me now, I need to run-on along. -Regards, -(rusty) Steel | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 186 Registered: 2-2005 |
Why not a referrendum (spelling?)? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2676 Registered: 5-2001 |
To counter Dave's "opposition", here is my own quick & crude online "petition": http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25ckb/ Sheena - I have poached the details of your petition...please let me know if you would like me to remove it. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 744 Registered: 2-2002 |
Ok I've run-on back, (I couldn't resist). I confess that it is always easy to tell other people how to spend their money, but here's the thing; Towns everywhere find it fitting as a point of pride to erect a statue of one of their own who has acheived some great reknown. Your town has the chance to erect a "statue" which not only does so, but also is in-and-of-itself part-and-parcel to your homeboy Tony Smith's world fame and influence. How special and unique is that? Is that really not worth, individually perhaps the cost of one meal at Arugula? (ok now I'm hungry). I know that you are all fed-up with the cost of things but this really is different, despite the fact that some of you would never be convinced under any circumstances, to pay for a "big hunk" of art -no matter how flush the town was or how charming the sculpture. If Smith wasn't from South Orange I would feel entirely different about this. I personally disagree frequently with others who feel that a populace should de-facto pony-up monies for the arts, but he is YOUR boy. His works are in almost every major museum collection world-wide. If that means so little, perhaps you could consider, (as Dave provided a picture of), -gee he made the cover of Time magazine! Many of you have become impatient and rightly fed-up with how many of the projects in South Orange have gone, (or NOT gone), -most of them are much more complicated and thus more difficult to pointedly rally against but you should not wrongly make this Tony Smith opportunity your whipping boy for all the other tax costs and lump it in with civic project failures that have occured. It really deserves to be considered in a different light. In that regard I am happy to see included, (albeit somewhat buried) in Sheena's petition: "we recognize that a Tony Smith sculpture will enhance South Orange as well as identify a truly talented and memorable resident". -which is entirely the point and worthwhile value. | ||
| Daniel I. Goldberg Citizen Username: Dig Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2004 |
Sheena: How do we get sign, and get this to the Board? Is an electronic petition possible? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2677 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dan, http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25ckb/ | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 154 Registered: 6-2005 |
Steel- This ground swell of opposition is not so much against the sculpture itself as it is against a process indicative of how things are done in this village. Here is a "donated" sculpture, (which undoubtedly reaps tax benefits for the giver), but which requires that the village expend substantial funds for placement and maintenance, and which the BOT's thinks should be in a spot which houses a recently built gazebo and fountain, which will need to be reinstalled somewhere else at substantial expenditure, such that consultants have to be engaged to figure out how to do it, etc. etc. etc. THAT'S why there is opposition! | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1420 Registered: 5-2004  |
There are also a number of online petition sites (google "online petition" or "electronic petition") where you can set this up so that people can "sign" them online. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2170 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jayjay: Just for the record, the location was discussed by several of the artists in town (many of whom have had their work at the Baird Center) and they felt the gazebo location was the best spot. There was a presentation made at a village meeting with a scale model showing the statue at the location. It was over a year ago and if I remember right, by the time they came up it was pretty late at night. Nobody objected to the location at that time. A couple of us asked about other potential locations including the NJ Transit lot. I don't disagree that there could have been more discussion regarding the statue as to whether we should have accepted the "gift". My objection to the statue has been about the cost because originally the BOT was given a lower net cost (after grants and private fund-raising ) than what I think it is going to cost today. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 163 Registered: 5-2004 |
MRosner - were the choices available for consideration of the sculpture's location restricted to be within whatever the boundaries of S.O.'s "redevelopment" zone? And if so, is that because of a CDBG grant? Is the $250K grant that has been mentioned a CDBG grant, as outlined in my post above? And if so, is the manufacture and installation of a piece of artwork really qualified as a proper use of such a grant? And, if so, are the documents that apparently are required by law to be made readily available to the citizens available to us, including a prioritization of appropriate targeted projects? And what about the preparation of the report required to be prepared at the end of each Program Year ..."the Town must submit to HUD an Annual Performance Report which gives a detailed description of the activities funded with CDBG money during that program year. Each activity must be identified, as well as how much money was budgeted for it; how much was actually spent; the specific location of the activity; how much was accomplished (such as the number of houses rehabbed or the number of jobs created); and how many people or households benefited - by race and by income category. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2171 Registered: 4-2002 |
PDG: I don't remember the restriction being there probably because we had not discussed using the CDBG money. I will have to find out the answer to your other questions. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 745 Registered: 2-2002 |
Many cities and municipalities find it worthwhile to pay for placement, maintenance AND the value of the piece to some relatively unknown artist who has nothing to do with the community. South Orange has here the very unique chance to obtain a major work where the very large value of the piece is completely donated, the artist is world-renowned and is also FROM South Orange. With that rare opportunity some of you choose to complain that; "Hey, but it's not COMPLETELY free, -look up [gift] in the dictionary etc etc". -How right could any claim of civic pride be if none of you had contributed anything? -Would you stand there eating your Dunkin Donut and say; "Yup that was made by Tony Smith, a towering icon of 20th century sculpture and he's from right here is my own South Orange and I didn't have a damn thing to do with it." -Congratulations. Tony Smith's widow is GIVING you a major work from a local son and you're ready to refuse it apparently because: A. She doesn't also singlehandedly take out of her own pocket the entire cost of installation and maintenance. B. It would replace a fountain. C. Sick of the way the BOT does things I suspect that the real reasons are: A. Don't care about that art stuff much anyway B. Especially don't like that big ugly piece, what's it supposed to be? C. I don't get it D. When's the Shop Rite gonna turn into something? E. What's up with Beifus? F. Sick of the way the BOT does things | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7133 Registered: 4-1997 |
See everyone at the grand opening ceremony! http://www.southorangevillage.com/tony_smith | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2172 Registered: 4-2002 |
PDG: The reports for grants, etc are all available to the public via an OPRA request. By some viewpoints (and I guess the ones that matter) the statue narrowly meets the eligibilty criteria. If you really want, you could have this discussion with a grants person or someone from Essex County which approves the grants. The funds were available and it is a use them or lose them scenario and the county likes to see the money stay in the county. Steel: Very well put. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2678 Registered: 5-2001 |
Steel, I challenge you to find another municipality spending money on "art" where the AVERAGE tax bill for homeowners is over $13,000 per year. http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25ckb/ | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 155 Registered: 6-2005 |
Steel- I don't know how deep your pockets are, but I feel the taxes in this town are squeezing us to death. And I think it is inappropriate to question the artistic sensibilities of people who are questioning the PROCESS!!!! So some artists who exhibited at Baird say it should be at the train station. Well, so what? Are they going to fork up the money to move the gazebo? It makes no sense, when there are plenty of other spots in one of the parks. Maybe we should tear up the new basketball courts by Baird and put it there. Or how about tearing up a tennis court, a new dugout by the baseball field, or the obelisk by SOPAC. Do you get the point? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2173 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jayjay: The artists have been raising money (I think it is $30,000 so far ) - so if they raise the full amount, does that mean you are in favor? | ||
| jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 156 Registered: 6-2005 |
Mr. Rosner- Its hard to know since I do not know what the full amount will be for: 1. installation of the sculpture 2. maintenance of the sculpture 3. de-installation of the gazebo and fountain 4. re-installation of the gazebo and fountain elsewhere 5. consultant fees for site design of sculpture and fountain My guess is that it will be far more than what these artisits can raise. But if we can get a total and if they can raise ALL of the money, then be my guest. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 207 Registered: 5-2001 |
MHD, I PL'd you. Please respond or act per my request in the PL. Jim | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 746 Registered: 2-2002 |
jayjay, I think I entirely understand your, (and other's) point. You have chosen to live in a beautiful town that has a high and growing tax burden. Unfortunately choosing to forego this unique opportunity will do next-to-nothing, (nothing really) to alleviate that problem which looms much larger and is far more complicated. It would be further unfortunate to abandon something so special in what I believe is largely a reaction to the totality of that tax frustration. It's quite clear that you, (and I suspect others), do not care at all one way or the other for the piece apart from the money involved since you are apparently willing to enjoy, (endure?) it's presence as a statement of achievement as long as others pay for it in it's entirety even though it would stand as a representative of the town as a whole. Some opportunities to either do or have something special should be embraced even in the face of, or sometimes precisely because, -it's just a little bit crazy. (if in this case, honoring a local icon in praise of where you live is crazy). -That's just a personal philosophy but it has saved me from mendacity and other tragedies on occasion. This ain't no rich guy talkin', -I confess that I have quite shallow pockets but realize that trashing this project will make no taxpayer's pockets jingle, though it might empty an easy possibility to make South Orange just a little more special in an exemplary manner. Peace. PS: Thanks M.R. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 164 Registered: 5-2004 |
Well put JayJay. But, to be accurate we'd also have to know the original costs associated with the manufacture and installation of the gazebo and fountain, including any previous consultant or design fees associated with that original project. Since that all is now disposable, it's cost should be added to the sculpture cost if it is to be installed in the same place. Steel - I've said it before, and even I am getting tired of saying it over and over, so please pay attention.  The taxpayers should be fully informed of the entire project, including the location options and full disclosure of financial obligation by taxpayers and any public grants that have been applied for in the name of the taxpayers. THEN, we should be permitted an opportunity to approve the project. THEN, if a majority of taxpayers interested enough to participate in the process vote YES, let's build it, fund it and proudly build it across from the firehouse - Yay. However, unlike the "loyal opposition", I am simply pushing for the details to be well-published so as many S.O. residents as possible are given the information and the opportunity to make an informed choice. Is that really so unreasonable? This really should happen before the sculpture is built, because then our local government can rightly claim that anyone who was shocked and appalled by the sculpture after it is already in place was given the information and opportunity to participate in the process. We need to be informed. We need to be given a choice. Then we will have earned the right to civic pride and will actually feel ownership of our town! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7134 Registered: 4-1997 |
Your intention is not to discuss the project or offer input. Your intention is simply to stop the process and turn away a $250,000 grant. This has not only been discussed at BOT meetings, but on MOL as well. Not paying attention is not an excuse to reverse a process that has not only been open and has involved many people, but continues to be open in terms of placing the sculpture (see Trustee Rosen's comments). Even Sheena's reasonable resolution regarding financing aspects was shot down because you aren't at all interested in compromise. It's an all or nothing scenario for the extreme anti-everything crowd. Problem is: South Orange isn't home to a lot of naysayers. Mostly it's people who are proud to live here and want to promote the artistic and cultural nature of our town because it's a big selling point that helps maintain and grow our home values. (Get it? There is a big financial incentive here.) | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 2265 Registered: 11-2001  |
Do you know I am now poster 240 on this thread. My feeling on this has been expressed earlier. I would concur that the Village President and BoT give public notice to the total cost and allow for further public envolvement as to placement of the sculpture. Perhaps a temporary site which costs less can be used until ongoing fundraising can find a permanent location. |
