| Author | Message | ||
     Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 44 Registered: 9-2003 |
3 outta 3 is bad, Eric. Gotta start being more careful. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 744 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: ok, apology accepted and we can continue to disagree and discuss various issues. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 474 Registered: 5-2001 |
Don't forget that Steglitz & Theorux "promised" during their last campaign to preserve 20 acres of the quarry. That's something they will have to face if they try to run for re-election in 2005. | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2003 |
Was a public auction required for the Village to lease land to the JAC? Was one held and did anyone but the JAC submit a bid? | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2003 |
No auction is required. | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2003 |
Was an ordinance authorizing the lease provided for as required (NJSA 40A;12-14(c))? | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 30 Registered: 4-2003 |
aplastic: I'll get the information for you and post it next week when everyone is back from Atlantic City. | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 34 Registered: 4-2003 |
aplastic: The lease was authorized by resolution pursuant to 40A:12-21(e). | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2003 |
Was the land leased or sold to the JAC? I am of the understanding it was leased. 40A:12-21 appears to be specific to sales only. | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2003 |
p.s.- thank you for the response | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2003 |
aplastic: It was leased. Village Counsel says that what's good for sales is good for leases (lesser case). | ||
| aplastic Citizen Username: Aplastic Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2003 |
I defer to counsel. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 423 Registered: 6-2001  |
Bad move, aplastic. Counsel is not the brightest penny in the roll. Take a look at the Shop Rite site debacle and get back to us on that deference. | ||
| deepthroat Citizen Username: Deepthroat Post Number: 11 Registered: 5-2003 |
I wouldn't allow counsel to represent me for a parking ticket. I'll keep digging, just for you! | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 158 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't think Matthews is that dumb. I think he and the trustees were aware of the possibility of contamination and took a risk that turned out badly due to poor foresight. The risk was that the new developer would somehow accept the contamination (if any) in their transaction with the town. Contamination is a common possibility on any site, even including residential sites. However, the village government as a whole was very eager to get a project done on the Shoprite site and wanted to move Wakefern off the property. When the villaged condemned the property, it stopped bargaining with the seller. It had to take the the property as it was(is). Wakefern may well have been relieved to get rid of a property that it would otherwise have had to abate, reducing its net value. The risk that any government takes in acquiring a property, is that is often loses its value because it is viewed as (1) damaged and potentially burdened by costs, (2) vulnerable to political manipulations of its sale, and (3) ultimately available at auction prices. Could it be possible that the town was wittingly or unwittingly doing Wakefern a favor? | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Remediation" now takes on a new meaning with the animal shelter issue, especially since the Village may end up remediating over 5,000 sq. feet of concrete from Farrell Field Park. Judge Levy set a a date of December 5th for the injunction hearing, but the JAC appears ready to pour concrete prior to that date. If they do, then the Village taxpayers will most likely bear the expense of remediating the concrete. The Farrell Field Park Association sent a letter to Ed Matthews and the BOT a week ago that urged them to sit down with all parties and come to an agreement that will end the lawsuits, save the Village mounting legal fees and prevent the eventual costs of cleaning up the site after it is shown that the animal shelter is clearly being built within the Park's boundaries. Mr. Matthews has yet to respond to the letter. As far as site remediation goes, he can't say he wasn't warned this time. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 108 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Bell: At the Nov 17 BOT meeting, you showed a plan drawing to the BOT that you said clearly indicated the park was "3.2 acres (purchased with Green Acres funding)not 2.2 acres". I think it was Village President Bill Calabrese who then asked you from where did you get that drawing, and your reply was "from the S.O. Village Engineer's files." If I restated the facts correctly above, do you have any idea why the Village Engineer, and/or the Village Administrator, and/or the Village Attorney overlooked this plan drawing in the process of identifying and recommending to the Planning Board this site for the animal shelter? Residents of South Orange: Could this possibly be yet another case of mismanagement? Since this plan drawing was in the Village Engineer's files, and since the Village Attorney and Village Administrator must review all transfers of Village-owned land, whatever "legal fees" the residents of S.O. might otherwise be obligated to pay in this mess, should clearly come directly from the salaries/insurance of the Engineer, Attorney, and Administrator. How else can we begin to hold this Cabal accountable for their actions? Even Village President Bill Calabrese was surprised to learn that the information that could have avoided this problem at Farrell Field was readily available in the specific place it should have been: the Village Engineer's office. JAC is being portrayed as the "bad guy" in all of this, pouring concrete onto Village parkland. Yet, this issue of identifying a proper location for a joint animal shelter has been around for well over 16 years. This was not a hurry up decide thing. The Village had plenty of time to research the issues associated with Farrell Field before recommending it to the Planning Board. And most, if not all, of the construction money for the shelter was raised by JAC volunteers, not taxpayers' pockets. 1) When will the Village BOT sit down with all parties, as Richard Bell, requests, to resolve this issue? 2) Mr. Rosner/Mr. Rosen/Mr. Joyce (addressed to the three BOT who post here): Will the costs for all litigation/legal advice/legal services emanating from this issue come directly from Mr. Matthews himself, or will the Village taxpayers once again have to foot the bill for his malfeasance (incompetence?) | ||
| 4mysons Citizen Username: 4mysons Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2003 |
"The Maplewood Township Committee On Tuesday will create a list of potential sites for a new police department and turn it over to a group of community stakeholders who will help guide the ultimate decision." How come The Village of South Orange didn't take this approach with the animal shelter? The Village signed a lease with the JAC back in December of 1999, residents were not notified until April of 2001. A meeting was held in May 2001 by the Planning Board. At this meeting the the public really wasn't allowed a voice in this matter. The public was told that the lease had been executed, a member of the public asdked "that no matter what anyone says this is going through?" The attorney for the JAC stated "the lease is signed." How should the public interpret this? Farrell Field holds the last piece of wooded land and it is being destroyed. This area attracts so many people who enjoy hiking, bird watching, cross country skiing in addition to the regular park activities. What other area exists like this right in town. Farrell Field is a true community park enjoyed by many communities. It is obvious that our Village President, our Town Administrator, the BOT, and the Planning Board have let the people whom they serve down. Our Village Administration should work together with the peolpe they serve like the Maplewood Township Committee is doing. It is not to late to do the right thing. | ||
| Richard Bell Citizen Username: Rbell Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2003 |
In response to Washashore's question, I'm not sure how the plan drawing was overlooked, since it was clearly labeled in a file called "Survey of Waterlands at Walton Avenue for Park Purposes". I'm also not sure how Village officials overlooked all of the other documents in their files (e.g., 1972 Recreation Master Plan, League of Women Voter's 1969 History Book, 1979 Master Plan Background Analysis, 1982 Recreation and Open Space Inventory for Village Square Park Application, 2002 Recreation Master Plan and even their current website listing) that all clearly list Farrell Field Park as at least 3.5 acres. I think they just neglected to do what 4mysons has noted - they did not open up the process to Village residents like Maplewood did, so that these mistakes could have been pointed out to them a long time ago. They made a mistake, but it's still not too late to correct it. |
