| Author | Message | ||
     Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 173 Registered: 5-2004  |
Stuart, sounds like you would appreciate more information from our government about the specifics of this project! Me too! Also, it sounds like you are a taxpayer who would like to have input on the final outcome! Me too! Please join me, not in any petition drive, but in writing a letter stating those justified wants to our local government, as I did. Write to: Village President Willam Calabrese South Orange Town Hall 101 South Orange Avenue South Orange, NJ 07079 and ask that he please copy all the BOT members. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 210 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, It's not $30, it's more like $90. Per the 2000 census, there are 5,566 occupied housing units in South Orange. Since the grant money has been used on another project, that leave the taxpayers putting up the $500,000 - works out to about $90 per household. But this isn't about the $90, or the sculpture itself for many of us - it's about priorities. I'd much rather that money be spent on the DRMC, and I'm sure most of the "opponents" feel the same way. Jim | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7145 Registered: 4-1997  |
$440,000* estimate - $250,000 grant - $30,000 funds raised = $160,000 160,000 / 5000+ households = $32 * Late-breaking news: Now it's $500,000  | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 2273 Registered: 11-2001  |
MRosner states "I just want to correct something that I misstated earlier about the CBDG funds. Technically, the village had earmarked $250,000 for another project. The other project was eligible for the CBDG funds. The village did a swap where we are using the $250,000 for the statue and the other project gets the grant money since it was definitely eligible for CBDG funds. The county was happy to accomodate because CBDG funds are on a use it or lose it basis and they preferred to see the money stay in Essex County." It appears to me the CBDG money was to offset a budgeted expenditure. They have now decided to take the budgeted expenditure and use it for purposes of the sculpture. I think we need to prioritize....and infering from Mark's comments, the total cost of expenditure is to be borne by the taxpayer. Otherwise, we would have reaped a tax benefit of $250k. Now, we can say that the benefit translates into $44 dollars (250/5.6) per household and the total cost of $440k is equivalent to $78 dollars (440/5.6) per household. The swing between the two is $122 dollars per household and rising (offset in part with uncertain fundraising).  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7146 Registered: 4-1997 |
I don't think a grant can be used to pay down debt. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 114 Registered: 2-2003 |
Can that $250,000 grant be applied to *any* downtown projects? If the $250,000 grant is not conditional on its use toward the sculpture, then it really shouldn't be netted against the total cost since its existence does not change the marginal cost of acquiring the sculpture. In other words, if that $250,000 is "ours" with or without the sculpture, then the marginal cost to the Village and its taxpayers is 500,000 - 30,000 = 470,000 / 5566 = $84.44 per household. If the $250,000 can only be used toward the sculpture and is "use it or lose it", then the marginal cost to the Village and its taxpayers is 220,000 / 5,566 = $39.53. This is a very important point in this discussion, one that I would like clarified by someone in a position to know, and that must be understood by both sides of this debate. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7147 Registered: 4-1997 |
Also, can we re-visit "use it or lose it" terminology? (Stuart, the projected cost is $440,000 out of which $200,000 is for upkeep over time ie, not all at once) | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 211 Registered: 5-2001 |
The grant has been used for something else. It doesn't factor here. And 440k is with no contingency for the inevitable overruns. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7149 Registered: 4-1997 |
What has the grant been used for? | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 212 Registered: 5-2001 |
Per Mark Rosner: "The village did a swap where we are using the $250,000 for the statue and the other project gets the grant money since it was definitely eligible for CBDG funds". I don't know what that project was. Mark? | ||
| SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 78 Registered: 7-2004 |
Someone, Pizzaz maybe, mentioned the Village Hall as a potential alternative use for this grant money. I wholeheartedly endorse that use. $250K is probably a drop in the bucket for what it will take to restore the Village Hall, but it is a start - maybe there is a discrete item like HVAC that could be done quickly so the funds aren't lost for lack of timely use. The Village Hall is an iconic building (see this website) and it is also a representation of the state of function or disfunction of our local government. Prospective homeowners (some of us) look at such things. I overcame my concerns about its disrepair (and I didn't even know the public hearing space lacked air conditioning) and bought here anyway, but I now think that was a good indicator of the village government's management and priorities. On balance, I think I got a good deal on my house and I like the town, but that doesn't mean I don't envy the attractive, well maintained village hall next door in MWood - a town that I like equally well and seems to do a better job maintaining its public spaces. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 115 Registered: 2-2003 |
Whether the cost is over time or upfront, assuming you have adjusted appropriately for the time value of money, the NPV is what matters here. I realize the $200,000 is an estimate, but for the moment let's treat it as a hard number. Whether you tell me the upkeep is $40 per household, or you tell me it's $3 per year forever, the present value of future taxes is $40 higher. (And thus the market value that the next property buyer may be willing to pay is theoretically $40 lower.) The "over time" thing doesn't matter one way or the other. If we have reasonable cost certainty that the toal cost of the sculpture is $90 ($50 acquisition + $40 NPV upkeep), and that's an if that we need an answer to, then if my family gets $90 of enjoyment out of it, or if people think South Orange is a better place to live because of it and are willing to pay in excess of $90 more for the same house, then all well and good. Mind you, and to state the excruciatingly obvious, $90 of enjoyment/market appreciation is a bigger hurdle than $30. Is the number $90 as opposed to something bigger? (That is, are we really in the $440,000 to $500,000 range?) Are we sure? Does that number go up or down if a non-gazebo location is chosen? | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 90 Registered: 5-2005  |
I'd take the sculpture if I were you guys. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2181 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jim: I had it in my post - the grant was used for SOPAC. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 213 Registered: 5-2001 |
The grant money is being used for another project-it's gone. We, through the trustess, are deciding whether or not to spend approximately $500k (less any donations) on a sculpture. Seems like funding the DRMC could have a greater impact on South Orange than a sculpture. I like to be able to pay for my entree before ordering dessert... | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 214 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks Mark. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2182 Registered: 4-2002 |
Based on this thread, it seems like the sculpture will be a great place to meet to debate. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7151 Registered: 4-1997 |
The draw will be… magnetic. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 215 Registered: 5-2001 |
Maybe we could leave the fountain and collect the coins for maintenance costs... | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1250 Registered: 3-2003 |
Smoke and mirrors. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 672 Registered: 12-2003 |
I'm just catching the tail end of this debate, but it seems to me that the issue is not publicly-funded art vs. no publicly-funded art. The issue is also not whether Tony Smith is any good...I think everyone understands that art is subjective. The crux of the matter is, if your house needs a new furnace, do you go out and buy wallpaper? This is not a knock on wallpaper, but an honest question. The fact that there apparently aren't enough desirable locations in this town for both a sculpture and a gazebo speaks volumes about whether art should be a top priority at this point. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 116 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mrosner writes, "Based on this thread, it seems like the sculpture will be a great place to meet to debate." In the movie The Brave Little Toaster, Lampy says, "The fact is there's not enough facts." I'm afraid we are not even in position to debate this properly. We are still factfinding. When I said let's do it but let's do it right, I mean we need to understand what are the true costs. We need to understand what are our legal constraints. We need to understand what comprises the universe of options for where to put this thing. These facts are coming to the surface--and I am glad to see that--but I feel we are still defining the issue. Only after the issues are defined, and I don't feel like we are trying to evauate a moving target, can I feel sure that we are engaging in an educated debate. | ||
| Rod Citizen Username: Skimrod Post Number: 102 Registered: 4-2004 |
Jim... Don't get me started | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7153 Registered: 4-1997 |
Here's a sculpture we should get for the Beifus property.  | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 174 Registered: 5-2004 |
Did any of you check out the banner in the South Orange Specific section of threads? Click it and read the "Background" in Dave's petition drive. Sample text below - (Dave, I wish I knew how to do a cool "quote" like you do in your posts. It looks so much nicer than what I did below.) "The question, then, is do we invest in something unique for and from South Orange, or turn away a gift from a native son? No one likes government waste, but when an opportunity is wasted, it is much worse than a one time $30 increase in property taxes. It is a decrease in optimism." (end of quote) The red highlight was added by me, but perhaps Dave is privy to some solid facts that he could share with us. If he is confident enough in that number to publish and present it as a known fact in the brief "Background" he is offering S.O. residents, then all the costs associated with SO hosting the sculpture will be met with a one-time surcharge of $30. Do I understand this right, Dave? (Please be patient because I'm trying my best.) That would be really good news!  | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 385 Registered: 8-2001 |
Coming Soon to Beifus Site:  | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 329 Registered: 10-2004  |
In all honesty I would like to sign Daves petition but since I am not in favor of putting it where the little useless fountain is I do not want to add my name. Now if the trustees decided that the Tau could be put in a place that would enhance the statue and have the statue enhance the place that would be fine. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2688 Registered: 5-2001  |
Those of you tired of Government PORK and excessive spending of our tax dollars, make your thoughts known: http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25ckb/ (Hey...maybe we should buy a banner ad on MOL to spread the word) | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7155 Registered: 4-1997 |
Hoops, the petition isn't about placement. That's open to debate. | ||
| red_alert Citizen Username: Red_alert Post Number: 162 Registered: 3-2005 |
Do you mean the debate after the consultants report back to the BOT on placement and then pass a resolution - guess where. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7157 Registered: 4-1997 |
No, I mean that's not part of the petition. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 932 Registered: 3-2002 |
Dave, I too think that your petition is too broad an endorsement of the status quo to sign, although I'm in favor of the art, if and when the right site and level of fundraising are in place. I think that, as far as the BOT is concerned, the placement is not open to debate (given the site prep contract), and level of funding committed to is very much open to debate. Tell me if I'm wrong on that! I'm inclined to think that this sculpture belongs in South Orange, but that the BOT is getting it wrong, and needs to slow down and consider fixing the plan. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 175 Registered: 5-2004 |
Hoops and Susan 1014, I encourage you to send a letter with your concerns about the sculpture to: Village President William Calabrese South Orange Village Town Hall 101 South Orange Avenue South Orange, NJ 07079 And ask him to please circulate a copy to the BOT. And thank you for participating in the debate! The more we know, the better for all of us. | ||
| stefano Citizen Username: Stefano Post Number: 442 Registered: 2-2002  |
Dearest Please build this sculpture as fast as possible so we can end the interminable griping over lost pocket change and can begin planning ways to climb on top of Tau with an ice cream cone in one hand. Thankey. dr stefano, IS, PH.D, APAP Dept. of Advanced Semiotics University of Bologna | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1252 Registered: 3-2003 |
The sculpture will make a good focal point from the air when the Channel 7 traffic chopper is following a chase going round and round the Sloan St. traffic circle. | ||
| Swearengen Citizen Username: Swearengen Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2005  |
I just spent a good hour reading about Tony Smith. He's the real deal. South Orange should be host to some of his work and the price is high, but not too high. A welcome addition to South Orange. Congratulations, to all who helped make it happen and thank you to Ms. Smith for thinking of South Orange. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2690 Registered: 5-2001 |
If you & the Village are so interested in "honoring a local son", how about: -Renaming a Street in his honor -Renaming a Park in his honor -Putting up a sign at the Train Station: "South Orange - home of Seton Hall and former home of Tony Smith" -Rename the Baird Center to the "Tony Smith Center" etc etc All of these ideas won't cost the taxpayers $250,000 and it will accomplish the same end result of honoring the "towering icon" named Tony Smith. (who, by the way, I am willing to bet is a complete unknown to 95% of the population) | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 933 Registered: 3-2002 |
Yeah MHD, heaven forbid we honor a local artist by actually exhibiting his work. Grrr | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 176 Registered: 5-2004 |
Susan1014 - I believe MHD has sent his/her letter to Calabrese already. If you two disagree, perhaps you should also send a letter. (And if you already have - great! ) It is my view that our local government should be made aware of the intense interest this topic has within the community - perhaps then they will respond and reflect the wishes of the majority! | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1253 Registered: 3-2003 |
Sheena - I think the second whereas clause in your draft petition should read November 25, 2002, and not 2003. |
