| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 726 Registered: 4-2002 |
Wash: There is a difference between getting it right vs. doing something you disagree with. While I might disagree with a PB member or the whole board, I don't have a problem with the process. I take it your complaint with the current chair is not how long he has been serving but with the way he chairs or makes decisions. Maybe we should set limits on how long someone can serve but that is a different issue. You are probably right that it is irrelevant whether their was support for the shelter. However, my point was not one person said anything to the BOT about the location or not wanting the shelter and in particular, Mr. DeVaris who has attended many meetings but did not comment until he saw some of the current public opinions and saw a chance to make a political statement. The project is not finished yet, so I don't know if they got it right or not. If when it is all finished and operational for a year then we will have a better idea. We expect the landscaping to be replenished and hopefully it will look better than it did in just a few years. I know some of the trees were old. Some of the new trees will become old. We expect that there will not be any operational problems with the shelter. There are some genuine concerns and the JAC has been addressing them and we expect them to run a quality shelter without causing any problems to residents. However to make a blanket statement that the project is a failure at this point is not fair or correct. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5520 Registered: 4-1998  |
Glad to see someone got the joke | ||
| snshirsch Citizen Username: Snshirsch Post Number: 109 Registered: 1-2003 |
I just received today's News Record and quote, "according to Charles Tamayo, the shelter is being built in the middle of the park." "I was driving home the other day and I looked over and saw half of our park had been taken away." I have lived nearby for my entire life and besides the loss of trees, I don't understand. The fence that separated the park from the hill/trees below hasn't been moved, has it? I would certainly have preferred that the shelter be built further down the hill, I'm not sure how they ended up cutting the trees right up to the fence of the park but the statements being made by both sides seem counterproductive and simply wrong. The trees are gone, a major loss, but this land was unused and certainly not a valuable piece (or any) of this park. Can't the two sides simply determine how much additional money would be required to move the shelter further onto the DPW property and/or move to install new landscaping against the parks boundaries? It seems a real shame that an orgainization that has provided so much for so many years is being denied what they have worked so hard for now that its work is finally beginning to pay off. | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 152 Registered: 12-2002 |
I made it my business to drive by as well today to see what the uproar was about and while I'll agree, there's a lot less trees, the entire park/Farrel Field is still intact. I think some logic and realistic conversation needs to take place so that this project can move forward. Dave, most times it's hard to see the jokes hear for all the kvetching (sp?) going on! | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 42 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark, Thank you for your responses. You will notice that my post of last night was neither a criticism nor a support of the Animal Shelter. I was only deploring the loss of so many trees, and the inability of the BOT to prevent such loss. Let’s face it Mark, politicking or not, this BOT has a total disrespect for open space and the environment, as demonstrated by the Quarry disaster, the consideration of a humongous plastic bubble near the Baird Center, the one-year-long feet-dragging before applying for Green Acres grants two years ago, and now the Farrell Fields. And before you give me one of your "not me" speeches, that you were not part of the decision-making process on some of these issues, or that you did not agree with some of them, remember that you are still a part of that decision-making body. I haven’t heard you object vehemently on any of them; I haven’t heard you be a vocal proponent of open space preservation. How about it Mark? Wouldn’t you like to join the public outcry for open space? Always a pleasure to chat with you. Eric | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 153 Registered: 12-2002 |
Eric, I fully understand and can appreciate your concerns, however as others have posted here, we do not live in the far reaches of our state. We sit only about, 18 miles, as the crow flies, to the busiest city in the world. We are blessed with the expansive South Mountain Reservation in our backyard and while it may be disappointing to you and others about the Quarry, I respectively must disagree. First, at least as I understand it, the Quarry was not public, but rather private property. Why there may have been some mis-managment on how the final details were arrived at, it frankly could have been far worse than it will be. As for the Farrel Field site, as I posted in an earlier message, I drove by there today and while, I agree, there are far less trees behind the fence then previously, the park and field are still intact. Interestingly, I found the comment by the JAC attorney to be very interesting today in the News Record. He said something along the lines like, "we are all neighbors in this together, it's the animal lovers versus the tree huggers", his words, not mine, but frankly from the sound of it, he's right on. I'm frankly neither, though I love the town that I've lived in for the past 20 years and in fact, moved within SO only a short 2 1/2 years ago when I could have moved elsewhere. I'm waiting for the Quarry site to be completed so that additional tax revenue can be generated from what was an abandoned property for almost as long as I can remember. I know you too, have a deep feeling for SO, but sometimes we need to move forward and stop looking in the past. Just so you know, I'm as unhappy as many of the other residents in town about the slow progress on many of the unfinished projects, but I'm willing to work and be positive about finding a way to get to the end, rather than just throw stones at the BOT and their representatives. As they say in the Nextel commercial's, DONE! | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 395 Registered: 6-2001  |
But to this end, it is the responsibility of the BOT and their representatives to move these projects along, and they've proven to be woefully inadequate. Eric's and others' frustrations should be taken in this context. When is enough enough? Why not elect some new trustees who aren't satisfied with the status quo? | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 463 Registered: 5-2001 |
VG, If you're looking forward to the quarry development for the "additional tax revenue", you need to also think seriously about the additional tax COSTS. At best, it will be a wash, but with the additional schoolchildren and the other municipal services that will be required, you shouldn't start counting on it having any net positive impact on your tax bill. If you really think this will stabilize or actually decrease your tax bill, you are fooling only yourself. Again, this was a huge lost opportunity on what could have been something beneficial to the town (a school, a library, a park, etc etc etc. Instead, it cost us at least $1.2 million up front for no net benefit down the road. | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 155 Registered: 12-2002 |
bets, your correct, it is the BOT responsibility to make sure it happens and I for one plan to make sure they get it done. As for election of new trustees, didn't we just have that election last year, guess most residents seemed to think the status quo was OK, you apparently did not. Then please do your utmost to get people you think can do a better job elected next year. mhd, I don't think it's going to lower my taxes, hopefully only help stabilize them, with some additional prudent budget cuts. Bottom line, 69 new residences have to generate more tax revenue than an empty quarry. I'm a bit fuzzy on the $1.2M, even though you were kind enough to provide me with some specifics. I'd like to tell you that I'm smart enough to get to the bottom of it, but realistically, I'm not. As I've said previously and will continue to say, I only want to see our town grow bigger, stronger and more financially viable, because I like it here and don't want to leave. Yeah, it's been a long day and maybe I've vented to much. To those I've offended, I apoligize. | ||
| alison Citizen Username: Alison Post Number: 64 Registered: 6-2002 |
Unlike the JAC attorney who suggested that the issue surrounding Farrell field is the animal rights people versus the tree huggers, THIS IS AN ISSUE ABOUT HAVING DECENT TOWN PLANNING. These towns are old, gracious, tree-lined communities. There is no reason why new building can't take that into account. Decent planning and governance would assure that the integrity of neighborhoods and streets aren't destroyed in the process of bringing new opportunities and new buildings to town. There is no reason why x number of feet of border/perimeter can't be required when building. There is no reason why trees couldn't have been left within x number of feet of the perimeter of Farrell Field so that the sense of being tree-lined could been kept. SOrange powers that be were told that "you will never know the shelter is there," and "that it will be landscaped." The first statement is simply not true, the second does nothing to bring back the 60-70 foot trees. Somebody is to blame for having done a poor job of oversight. Adequate planning and governnance would have assured that the whatever happens in the Beifus lot doesn't destroy the privacy and tree-encircled privacy of the town pool. It would have assured that when you look up at the Quarry from Wyoming you wouldn't see massive trees from one vantage point and a bald hilltop looking like a place where stripmining took place from another.(Part of the town's agreement with the developers could have included ensuring that the Quarry development maintain the integrity of the community. Well-run towns make such demands all the time.) This is not about either building/new revenues or trees. It is about doing a decent job of overseeing growth so that by the time you are done you haven't destroyed the visual and architectural integrity of what you set out to improve in the first place. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 43 Registered: 2-2003 |
Vermontgolfer, with your quote: "We sit only about, 18 miles, as the crow flies, to the busiest city in the world" you try to justify cutting down trees to build. But this neighbor of ours you are referring to, the densely populated heart of the busiest city in the world, Manhattan, has 8% of its land area preserved as parks and recreation space. South Orange has only 4.5% of its land preserved as open and recreation space. Yes "we are blessed with the expansive South Mountain Reservation in our backyard", as you say, but I don't hear Manhattanites argue "we are blessed with plenty of open space in the expanse of three rivers and a harbor in our backyard, so let's build over our parks". To the contrary they have several civic organizations/watchdogs for the preservation of their open space and outdoor recreation inventory. Even with the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 8.4 acres per 1,000 people, South Orange is short of 64 acres of open and recreation space. I am talking here about responsible planning of open and recreation space of our town, and the lack thereof. Eric | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 728 Registered: 4-2002 |
Snhirsch: The fence was not moved. The park area remains the same. There were questions raised about the actual size of the park and about having an animal shelter so close to the park. Alison: I agree this is not about tree huggers vs animal rights. One can be in favor of keepig trees while caring about animals. As for the rest, I think that you might be stretching. First most of the trees cut down were not 60 - 70 feet high and some of them were no where close to 60 - 70 years old. I stated at the meeting I did not understand why the trees by the fence came down. An explanation was given, but frankly I do not know enough about construction to know to make that judgement. They promise to plant new tress and they have offered to let the residents in the area have a say in the new landscaping. The shelter was discussed and planned for over many years. The JAC is disappointed that the discussions and questions were being raised at this time. The residents were notified and there were articles in the local papers about the shelter. I am not sure whom you want to blame or what for. When the shelter is completed and the landscaping is done, it should not affect or change the lives of anyone who lives in that area. As with the shelter, it is unfair to make a judgement or a statement about the quarry and whether the integrity of the neighborhood is maintained. It is still under construction. When it is completed, and new trees are planted, that would be an appropiate time to make some kind of statement. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 729 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: Just to make sure you hear it, I would love to see more open space. I don't see how building an animal shelter on land that was not being used changes that or even has anything to do with it. This is not a massive structure, but a small building that will help deal with stray dogs and cats that might have been wandering loose in our open space. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 44 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark, Just to make sure you hear it this time, I have nothing against the Animal Shelter. What I protest about is cutting down trees to build an Animal Shelter, just like I protested about, among other reasons, cutting down trees to build the Quarry. In urban planning, there is something called balance: balancing open space and recreation space with built residential and commercial space. The lack of sufficient open and recreation space in South Orange is a result of poor planning, perpetuated by the current administration. I am surprised to read you say “I don't see how building an animal shelter on land that was not being used changes that or even has anything to do with it”. But, Mark, that is exactly the concept of open space: land that is not being used by humans; land left for nature to develop as she sees fit; land left for the trees to grow, for wildlife to survive, for the filtration of the waters, for the purification of the air. I would hardly call such land “not being used” as you say. Yes, lands such as the one next to Farrell Field and the Quarry have to do a lot with "open space". Eric | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 733 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: It is clear you have not seen the plans for the animal shelter and I would guess you did not look at the site either. And as I said before, for someone who has been active and attended so many meetings, how come you did not utter one single word about the location of the shelter previously. Clearly you are starting your next campaign. I have yet to hear a word from you about plans for increasing open space other than the quarry should not have been developed. One/third of the quarry won't be developed. That adds about 11 acres. And remember the quarry was never open space, it was private property that was used for commercial purposes. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 466 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, You know quite well that those 10 acres in the quarry will be nothing more than a detention basin that cannot be developed anyway because of the presence of wetlands. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 735 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: According to Eric, that does not matter. Check his post above about what is open space and what is not. Also, I think only five of the eleven acres is considered wetlands. He points out that we have to balance recreation, open space, residential and commercial space. Note that he points out: "that is exactly the concept of open space: land that is not being used by humans; land left for nature to develop as she sees fit; land left for the trees to grow, for wildlife to survive, for the filtration of the waters, for the purification of the air. " I was merely pointing out to Eric that following his definition, there is now another 11 acres of open space. I think that acreage meets his definition. } | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 45 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark, I am writing the following not because I am “politicking”,as you call it, and not because I want to bring back the Quarry issue, because it is dead. I am writing as a frustrated citizen who want to highlight the total mismanagement of this administration, and hopefully have you do something about it. Mrosner wrote: "I have yet to hear a word from you about plans for increasing open space." We cannot increase open space, Mark, unless we start tearing down buildings, which I do not suggest; but we can preserve it by not overbuilding, which I do suggest. My plan to preserve open and recreation space was to preserve as much as we could from the Quarry. This administration reduced it to the absolute minimum of the wetlands area only, despite public protests, and despite the epic 4-year legal fight of the citizens. Don’t ask me for my plans when you just chopped off my hands with the axe of your Memorandum of Understanding that your employees signed with the developer on your behalf, without any public input (and probably without your input either, but that does not exonerate you). Mrosner wrote: "One/third of the quarry won't be developed. That adds about 11 acres. And remember the quarry was never open space, it was private property that was used for commercial purposes." I look at it the other way: two/thirds of the Quarry is being developed. That sacrifices about 32 acres. Abandoned (not used) acreage that over the last quarter century had developed into a wildlife refuge, densely forested, with wetlands, acting as a natural detention basin. Land that this administration let slip through its fingers, when we had 64 acres shortage in open and recreation space; land for which this administration did not exert the slightest effort to take advantage of Green Acres grants available for preserve it. Carol Lowy, the Village’s official professional fund raiser consultant, wrote in 1999 in a letter to the Village Administrator John Gross: “The project application for acquiring open space land -the quarry - in South Orange will probably score well since the community is built up and is located in an urban county… Projects of this type score well on the rating system developed for the program.” That application was sent a year after this letter, only because Mr. Gross had “misplaced”, as he said, the paperwork. I know that the Quarry preservation is a dead issue now and I should not bring it up; I am only lamenting the forever loss of precious land wasted through this Administration’s rampant mismanagement. So, please don’t ask me now about my “plans for increasing open space”. You should be asking this question to those who had the power to answer it, during all these years that you are on the BOT. Eric P.S. Why are you getting nervous about my “politicking” as you call it? You are well ensconced for the next four years; plenty of time to do something about preserving open space and increasing recreation space. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 741 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: It is very hard to have a discussion with you when you knowingly post misinformation. First, the quarry is 30 acres. If 11 acres are now open space, that leaves 19 acres. Second, the letter Ms. Lowy wrote was in Nov. 1999. The BOT approved the application on 2/14/2000 and it was submitted on 3/02/2000. That is three months, not one year. I did ask the questions to at least two BOT members who were on the board in the late 80's. Both said the idea of purchasing the quarry never came up. In fact, when the first discussions about developing the quarry were raised in the 60's it was never raised. Not by the residents, not by the BOT, not by the planning board and not by any political candidates until the year 1999 well after the court decision. So, I am not trying to blame anyone or look back at what or what was not done. The one consistent comment I heard from many was that they did not believe it could ever be developed because the construction costs were so high that they could never get enough per unit to justify the construction. Mismanagement or a change in public perceptions and attitudes about open space and suburban sprawl. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 46 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark, You are right, I gave out some misinformation, not willingly, but misinformation nevertheless. Your dates are correct: I checked my records and found that the application was indeed sent out three months after the BOT voted to submit it, not one year as I said. The Quarry acreage was a typo: I meant to type "approximately 22 acres" instead of 32. I must also clarify that my statement “Mr. Gross had “misplaced”, as he said, the paperwork” was hearsay, I was told he said that, I did not hear him say so. My apologies to you, to Mr. Gross, and to the readers of this thread. Thank you for the correction. I stand behind every other statement I made in my previous post. Eric |
