| Author | Message | ||
     mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 438 Registered: 5-2001 |
I thought it might be "fun" to recap some of the "highlights" of the Village Trustees Meetings every 2 weeks: I'll start with a positive comment this week: Kudos to Dr. Rosen & Trustee Joyce for voting "No" to the following: Resolution Accepting the Donation for the Construction of Dugouts for Diamond M3 from Seton Hall University. I got the impression that Dr. Rosen was trying to make the argument that once again Seton Hall is looking for something for THEIR benefit without contributing financially to the Village. I agree. As has been stated here & elsewhere, Seton Hall needs to start putting up their fair share to the Village which supports them in many ways. Unfortunately, the resolution still passed, but good job Dr. Rosen & Trustee Joyce for taking a stand and not simply "rubber-stamping" the request. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 698 Registered: 4-2002 |
mayhewdrive: Actually, we all agreed last month to wait one month before voting on this issue. The field where they are willing to pay for the improvments happens to be used more often by our kids than SHU students. As many have heard me at meetings and seen me write on here, I have been a very vocal critic of SHU's refusal to contribute to the town financially. This did not seem like a smart place to make the point and this was going to benefit the village. The reason we could not wait longer was that if they don't build the dugouts now, then it would be too late for the spring season (ground gets too hard in the winter). SHU does need to start putting up their fair share, but let's make the point when the only negative will be for SHU themselves and not the children who play on that field. Trustee Rosen himself said last month one month's wait would not hurt and we went along with his suggestion. It was clear that this resolution was not giving the village the leverage that he was hoping to acheive. The agreement between SHU and SOPAC is no closer to be completed than it was one month ago as far as I can tell. So while you might see it as a rubber stamp, I saw it as a way to impover a baseball field at no cost to the village. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 439 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, I actually don't want to get into a debate on the specific issue and wasn't trying to "criticize" those who did vote for this. I was just trying to recognize Dr. Rosen's stance as a positive one. If I wanted to be "negative", I could have easily focused on Steglitz's rude comments towards Dr. Rosen, or Matthews refusal to talk about virtually anything in public...but I'll leave those for another time. I just thought it would be interesting to have a thread where people could play "Monday Morning Quarterback" about various subjects that were discussed. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 699 Registered: 4-2002 |
mayhewdrive: Ok, I just wanted those who did not see the meeting or who were curious to understand that while Dr. Rosen's stance was correct, I felt this was the wrong resolution to make the point. I think Steglitz and Rosen enjoy arguing with each other. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 441 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think Steglitz enjoys arguing with EVERYONE. In another thread, someone criticized Washashore for being so negative. I guess that person never watched Steglitz in action. | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 124 Registered: 12-2002 |
mayhewdrive, I've seen him and I agree with Mark, just got tired of reading all the negative vibes from washashore, which I expereince more than seeing Steglitz. May be a great person, but please already with dumping on everything. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 457 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tonight, I just caught some of the "public comments" on TV. All the comments I saw were people very upset about the "animal shelter" by the recycling center. Can someone please help me understand both sides of this issue...I just don't "get it"? Why does the Village WANT an animal shelter? What are the neighbors so upset about....the animal shelter itself or the elimination of the trees bordering the park? I do not mean to sound cynical....I am just honestly trying to understand what the fuss is about? Just like people initially thought the quarry was a NIMBY issue, I HOPE I was able to pursuade some people that it affected everyone in the Village. Can someone similarly explain this issue to me? (no sarcasm implied) | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 71 Registered: 6-2001 |
The Walton, Thordon, Audley, Lenox area is truly one of South Orange's great neighborhoods. The park anchors the neighborhood. Everybody knows everybody else mainly because of the interaction that takes place at Farrell Field. The encroachment of the shelter upon the park is a threat to the park and therefore a threat to the neighborhood. Yes, South Orange and Maplewood need a shelter. The old shelter was cruel and the current methodology using a network of veterinarians and volunteers is unsustainable. But the indiscriminant taking down of trees bordering the park necessitated by the site location being gradually moved up the hill in inexcusable. I get the sense that the neighborhood feels that if there is no consideration shown during the building of the shelter, consideration during the running of the place is doubtful. And now the blame game and the injunctions begin. The Planning Board is blamed for approving the project. The BOT says they were unaware of the encroachment while the lawyer for the shelter says the neighbors should have been aware of what was going on. The BOT now say they cannot discuss the issue anymore due to a lawsuit started by the neighbors. The neighbors point out they are not suing the town but rather seeking a restraining order to stop the project while alternatives are still possible. It is a shame that the Village officials did not reach out to the community before the chainsaws started cutting. As far as notification goes there is the letter of the law yes, but there should also be the spirit of community. Maybe a compromise could have been brokered before the court had to become involved. True, someone on the BOT would have to have known what was going on but that’s another problem. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2003 |
DAN SHELFFO FOR BOT !! Can anyone remember when a BOT (other than Patrick Joyce) ever said anything so clearly, identified all of the various interests so accurately, and offered such rational, considered suggestions for quick resolution, as Dan Shelffo did in his post above? Let's hear it loud and clear: DAN SHELFFO FOR BOT !! (Vermontgolfer: how's that for being positive!) | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 149 Registered: 12-2002 |
washashore, just great, just great! Is he running on your ticket? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 310 Registered: 8-2002 |
Just how long ago was the shelter approved? From the other posts -- years ago perhaps? If it's really such "ancient history" then I'm not surprised at the lack of clarity. In any case, were neighbors contacted by the builder when construction was about to begin? Probably no ordinance requiring so, but it would have been a courtesy. Lastly -- particularly since the shelter is a kind of charitable organization -- I'd hope that the BOT could broker a reasonably quick understanding -- and spend minimal resources (from NJ animal coalition, the village, and the neighbors). Pete | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 720 Registered: 4-2002 |
Pete: It does go way back. The shelter was agreed upon and a joint agreement was worked out with Maplewood back in 1998. At some point after that the N Jersey Animal Coalition (JAC) agreed to take over the project and prepared plans to present to the planning board. Those were approved in 2001. The original location and the one that was approved changed so that it would be out of the flood zone but also closer to the playground and ballfield. It took another two years for the JAC to get everything else in order (including money) and that is where it is today. A meeting had been set up between the residents, the JAC and the village but the residents felt that they need to take a further step and started litigation to halt the construction of the shelter. The only real notice that construction was about to begin was a sign that went up. The notices about the project were sent out when the plans were being presented to the planning board. The trees coming down right by the fence (new trees will be planted as well as other plantings) was the catalyst that made the residents realize the exact location and raised awareness of the project that had been fairly well advertised back in 2001. I also hope the residents and the JAC can come to some kind of agreement that will allow the project to go forward. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 500 Registered: 5-2001 |
Even if people don't make it to tonight's meeting in person, let's use this thread to provide a "post mortem" tomorrow on what was done during the meeting tonight. Maybe we can start a new drinking game during BOT meetings, like we used to do in College during certain TV shows (i.e. "Hi Bob"). If everyone took a drink everytime Matthews said "we can't talk about that in public" or everytime Steglitz rudely interrupts someone, think how much fun we could have.  | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2002 |
mayhewdrive, do you know if the meeting is on cable tonight? Can't make meeting, have other conflicts. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 760 Registered: 4-2002 |
As long as one of the Volunteers shows up it will be televised. I think they are still looking for more volunteers. | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2003 |
Meeting will be televised tonight. | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 181 Registered: 12-2002 |
Mark & Allen, Thanks! | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 503 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, let's see...if I really was playing the drinking game described above, I think I'd be passed out now from all of the Steglitisms. I also counted at least 2 "we can't discuss that in publics" from Matthews. As for the meeting itself - big topic seemed to be both the baseball dugouts & the Shop Rite contamination. I tuned in late, but it SOUNDED like Dave Ross' picture of the baseball field really had an impact & there was some second-guessing of the Carte Blanche for Seton Hall to build dugouts in the park. As for Shop Rite, sounds like we are no closer to "Coming Soon" than we were 3 years ago. The Village still doesn't own the last of three properties needed for the project & likely won't until early next year. Now that a grant is first being applied for now to clean up the site, who knows when that money would even arrive. Special "Recognition" to Matthews for his rude & disrespectful attitude towards Trustee Joyce. Shame on you, Ed! Kudos to Mark for requesting an actual timeline for the Supermarket project, since nobody no longer has any idea when/if this thing will ever materialize. And since it's quite obvious she's out there lurking (although not willing to post online), a special shame on "Trammell Crow" Theroux for her overly dramatic praise of Don "I abstain" Shatz. That's nice that he is willing to sit through all the Planning Board meetings & all the Trustee meetings. It would be a whole lot more meaningful, if he had actually taken a position, though. Until next time, kids.... | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 97 Registered: 4-2003 |
mayhewdrive: I commend you for bringing a new level of interest to the Monday Night Fights. Please keep up the good work! | ||
| kevin Citizen Username: Kevin Post Number: 113 Registered: 2-2002 |
Mayhew, question. I did not watch last night, but you posted in reference to ShopRite: "The Village still doesn't own the last of three properties needed for the project & likely won't until early next year." What is the third property that is needed for this project? |
