| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 755 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: Why do any trees have to be cut down for a dugout by a baseball field? This field has a fence and a backstop too. I can't believe you are now trying to turn this into an issue about trees. I can understand if you do not want to see the dugouts or SHU playing at that field because you live right there. I am sure you would prefer if SHU played elsewhere altogether. The dugouts are something that SHU wants but so did the Recreation Department because it was going to be for the village too. I am not on the recreation committee, but I was told they reviewed the dugout plans and they recommended we go ahead with the dugouts because our little league teams use that field too and they liked the idea of having dugouts. I think it is exciting for the children to get to play in a field that is used by a college team. I would be foolish to discuss in public what I would like to see us negotiate. We would have more leverage if we negotiated for something when they are requesting something that only benefits SHU. However, I did go along with the one month that Trustee Rosen asked the village to wait. There was never a timeline suggested for how much longer we should wait nor was it ever suggested how the dugouts would be used as a negotiating tool. Note that Patrick in his post above does not say how this would help us to negotiate better. In fact, nobody has said how delaying the dugouts would help negotiations. We have been working with SHU in regards to students who live off-campus. Those meetings which date back over one year now were very positive and showed some real results. It is better for everyone if we can work with SHU to help improve the village. Sometimes it is better to work with someone to acheive a positive result. In fact, it was Trustee Rosen who put together those meetings which were very effective. We should hold more meetings with SHU as a tool rather than postpone a vote without saying what we want to accomplish. While it bothers me that they do not have to pay taxes, that is their legal right and all the negotiations in the world won't change that fact. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 348 Registered: 3-2003 |
On another thread, Trustees Rosen and Rosner have requested that nwyave continue on the CBAC and I urge him to do so. Howard Levison: Thanks for participating online and thanks for your serving as a member of the CBAC. If I have you placed correctly, you were the person who said the "A" for "advisory" in CBAC was missing? A question for any of the BOT or CBAC members: How much is our total debt, what is our debt service, and how close are we to our cap? | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5656 Registered: 4-1998  |
Mark, We'll do a Before and After on this one. Last time I checked dugouts had to be built into the ground with cement.  | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5657 Registered: 4-1998 |
And I don't see why this shouldn't be a negotiating point with the non-taxpaying SHU. Frankly I''m tired of watching taxes skyrocket while parks are paved over and trees cut down. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5658 Registered: 4-1998 |
And I'll continuously post photos whenever graffiti appears on the dugouts. Whose responsibility will it be to clean the dugouts and their walls? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 757 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: I 'll take it you prefer not to have the dugouts built. I said trees did not have to be taken down, but your photo shows a tree inside the fence, so I will ask the question. I miss how putting in a dugout will cause taxes to skyrocket. SHU is responsible for paying for the dugouts. It can be a negotiating point. Just need someone to tell me what the dugouts were being used to negotiate especially when the rec department stated they were in favor of the dugouts. That sort of hurt any negotiating position. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5660 Registered: 4-1998 |
I don't mind the dugout at all, but we need to use everything in our arsenal with SHU. It seems they ask and we deliver. Without question or delay. My main concern is with their upkeep (grafitti and policing them at night) and the uprooting of old trees. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5661 Registered: 4-1998 |
Wait... I might mind. Just got this in my mail slot:
10 FEET TALL? 40 FEET LONG? That's not a "dugout" by any stretch. That's a building! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 758 Registered: 4-2002 |
First off, both Rosen and Joyce both stated they were in favor of the dugouts but wanted to delay the approval as discussed above. Second, I think anyone who wants to discuss the dugout should come to the meeting tonight and voice their opinion. The structures are about 40 feet long, but I do not know the height (I have the plans at home). Third, I think Dave's point about the upkeep is extremely important and we need to know the answer to who is going to be responsible (SHU or the Village). I think that is a real concern as is the possibility of the dugout being used when there are no games or events at the field. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5664 Registered: 4-1998 |
Thanks, Mark. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 99 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: Quoted from your 11/10 1:27 PM post: "Third, I think Dave's point about the upkeep is extremely important and we need to know the answer to who is going to be responsible (SHU or the Village). I think that is a real concern as is the possibility of the dugout being used when there are no games or events at the field." One would have thought that these questions are the basic and first ones any deliberating body assigned the trust of the community to make decisiions on thier behalf would ask. It truly baffles me how a vote could have been taken in support without the answers to at least these questions being known. And as for the Rec Dept speaking out of turn that they wanted the dugouts which, you believe, compromised the ability of the Village to negotiate with SU, I find it amazing that anyone on the Village payroll would speak out of turn, since whenever I ask a question of any of them, I'm told I should ask John Gross for the answer. As for my positive suggestion to counter any perceived negativity: DAVE ROSS FOR BOT! | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 504 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kudos to Mark for asking the question at the meeting last night of "who is responsible". Although the look on Mark's face was priceless when Gross said that the Village would be responsible, and it appeared like Mark was thinking...uh, oh, I'm going to hear "I told you so" on MOL tomorrow.  | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 764 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: So much for a poker face. As far as I am concerned, SHU will have to chip in to cover the cost of maintenance or I will ask that we ban them from using the field. And I think we should do that with or without dugouts. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 765 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: The plans for the dugouts do not show any trees coming down. I was surprised only one person from the public spoke about the dugouts. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 505 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, The dugouts weren't on the published agenda, so I'd guess most people didn't know about it. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 766 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: At every meeting there is a chance for anyone to speak on any topic. I received several emails and phone calls (more than a dozen) about the dugouts. I responded to all of them and told everyone of them to come to the meeting. Several people responded that they were coming. The letter posted above was also sent to many residents. I thought it was on the agenda under recreation. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 506 Registered: 5-2001 |
It wasn't on the agenda that was posted online: http://www.southorange.org/agenda.asp?page=agendasm.htm | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 767 Registered: 4-2002 |
It was on the conference agenda portion of the meeting. I have to find out why that was not posted (or even if we ever do post that portion). | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5669 Registered: 4-1998 |
I've become accustomed to not being informed about things that happen within 100 feet of my house until they've already been decided. Apparently, so have my neighbors. One or two trees will definitely have to come down unless the dugouts are to be right on the foul lines. They will attract graffiti and drag down home values throughout the neighborhood. If SHU asks, they receive. If residents, ask, (first they are not informed); second, they are ignored. Whose trust does the Trustees' represent? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 768 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: I am not sure that is really fair. This was on the agenda more than once and discussed in public at least twice (not including last night). I will agree that we need to communicate better and maybe in this case, even if it was not legally required, a notice should have been sent to any homeowner who lived in the immediate vicinity. For the most part, SHU does not ask for much. What they do is use village services without paying for them. I don't think I can ever fairly be accused of ignoring residents. I asked last night if any trees were to come down. I was told no. If you think it is not possible, please call Andy Brady or John Gross to review the plans. There were no trees indicated on the plans given to me. |
