| Author | Message | ||
     J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 830 Registered: 3-2003 |
"However they closed the store on their own and were looking to lease it to Bravo or C-Town..." Mark, would it have been impossible for the Village to have legislated against this? "It is called Pathmark and currently it is better kept than the Shop-Rite was for all the years I have lived here..." Yes, and the music is excellent. However, it looks like a prison and the customer service is about on par with an urban social security office. Maybe slightly better. "We live more densely, so we have to be careful about shooting each other." -Tom Reingold the Prissy Pants | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 832 Registered: 4-2002 |
J Crohn: No legislation could prevent them from subletting the store to a supermarket since it was already a supermarket. Bets was complaining about the lack of a supermarket. I pointed out that there is one and it is nicer than the Shop-Rite ever was. I do not like the way it looks either, but if someone was satisfied with the old Shop-rite they should be more than satisfied with the PathMark. The real point is that they closed the store on their own. Considering how much money they poured into the Livingston and W. Orange locations, it is clear to me that they just did not care (about S. Orange Residents). This was one of their smaller stores and they felt it did not justify investing money in the store or the town. I still won't shop in a supermarket owned by them because of their lack of respect for S. Orange. I would think the residents would be angry at storeowners like them. From the moment the store closed, I have been hearing how the BOT forced these bums out. I only wish I could take full credit for closing them down, but they deserve kudos for deflecting the blame to the BOT instead of just admitting this store did not work for them. When we found a developer, instead of being welcomed to the planning board meetings and applauded for looking to invest 25 million dollars, they were subjected to abuse and criticism. The delays in the project have been caused not by the contamination, but by the cold feet of developers who do not want to do battle with a few residents who have decided they would rather fight anything rather than try to understand what the developers are trying to accomplish and why apartments are needed to make the project work. By the way, I will no longer post any response to washashore because he continues to post misinformation while making attacks. He has refused to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue either in private or public or on here. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 436 Registered: 6-2001  |
I will not ever go back to Pathmark after a friend's mother was shot during a carjacking in broad daylight in their parking lot. Sorry. I also find it hard to believe that Shop Rite was so eager to walk away from their first store. Perhaps you weren't privvy to all of the back and forth between the Sumas family and the village administration. And thanks for blaming citizens for the lack of a supermarket - that's a new tactic and I applaud whoever thought it up. Please explain what $1.5 million in anticipated clean up will be spent on, if not to correct a contaminated site. We can't handle the truth, because if you handed us the truth, we'd hand you over to the authorities. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 833 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bets: I fully understand the history of Wakefern and I saw correspondence that went back to the 80's. They held a grudge against the residents who led the fight to stop the third street store. I heard it first hand from one of brothers. Perhaps you find it easy to forget how the Sumas brothers let their store rot and decay over the years while continually promising that they would one day clean up and modernize their first store. What they wanted was a 30,000 plus sq. foot super store and what they did not want was the 12,000 sq. foot store. Over the years, there were many different trustees and administrators. One thing was clear to me and that was that they had no interest in their "first store". Their decisions were purely driven by money which is ok since they have a running a business, but to think that you could believe that they were "forced out" is absurd. I would have loved if they had actually shown one shred of evidence that their intentions for the S. Orange store were honorable. The proof was that they did not fix up the store; instead they closed it up the second they heard that maybe the BOT would condemn the property. Not even a whimper was heard as they just locked the doors and said good-night to S. Orange. I knew you would see it as blaming the citizens, but it is clear to me that this developer was not expecting any criticism, although most of it came from just a few. One resident who was there even asked the developer why he did not just get up and walk out. Yes, it only takes a few people to drive away a developer or a store. I have yet to hear a firm number on what it will cost to clean up the contamination. The only thing that was clear was that the developer is expected to lay out any hard dollars needed for the clean up. The cost of the contamination has nothing to do with the length of time in getting the project done. I remember the carjacking and obviously that was a terrible thing. However, because you won't shop there does not change the fact that there is a supermarket in S. Orange and it is available for people to shop at. And without a doubt it is nicer than the dump that the people at Wakefern tried to pass off to the residents as a suitable supermarket. Perhaps they can explain why they lost the right to use the Shop-Rite name in S. Orange ? (For those who did not know, they were forced to stop using the Shop-Rite name several years before they closed becasue the store failed to meet the company standards. They wanted the stored modernized and cleaned up, as did the village). | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 381 Registered: 3-2003 |
That's the best one yet - to blame citizens. The developers already got their approval from the Planning Board. Mark, on this one I'm really disappointed that even you have stooped this low. I can't believe that you really believe this. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 834 Registered: 4-2002 |
doublea: As we have seen in other instances, an approval from the planning board does not mean that people will do what they can to stop a project. Go back to the title of this thread. The shelter had an approval from the planning board and yet there are some who are doing what they can (and yes, it is their right to do just that) to stop the project. The Shelter is delayed because of a handful of residents (who are exercising their rights). A planning board approval is just one step in the process. I will stand by the fact that there are a FEW residents who have continued to criticize the project and would rather see the project fail and who will say anything even when they know it is false. I will not stand by and listen why some seem to think the only reason the project might be delayed is because of contaminated soil. It is just not true. It has become a convenient excuse for them if they decide to back out. | ||
| deepthroat Citizen Username: Deepthroat Post Number: 13 Registered: 5-2003 |
Just to set the record straight: Village Market (Sumas family) and Wakefern Food (aka Shop Rite) are 2 different companies working under the same name. Sumas was the original owner; he sold off most of his stores and the rights to the name to Wakefern. All of the really nice Shop Rite supermarkets are owned by Wakefern. You should really apologize to the Wakefern corporation, or at least stop bad-mouthing them! As for patting yourself on the back for finding an unknowing developer (who probably got cold feet because of clean-up costs) -- perhaps you should take yourself to task for allowing the village counsel to put us in this mess. Where is the accountability? I'll keep digging, just for you! | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 121 Registered: 4-2003 |
From Mr. Rosner's 12/16 3:17 PM post: "By the way, I will no longer post any response to washashore because he continues to post misinformation while making attacks. He has refused to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue either in private or public or on here." From deepthroat's 12/16 6:13 PM post: "Just to set the record straight: Village Market (Sumas family) and Wakefern Food (aka Shop Rite) are 2 different companies working under the same name. Sumas was the original owner; he sold off most of his stores and the rights to the name to Wakefern. All of the really nice Shop Rite supermarkets are owned by Wakefern. You (Mr. Rosner) should really apologize to the Wakefern corporation, or at least stop bad-mouthing them!" Mr. Rosner, I have never knowingly misrepresented the truth. Given deepthroat's statements above (as well, of course, as the countless other commenters who have taken you to task for the same thing), that is not a statement that you can honestly make. I have no need to privately post with you; my issues are those of OPEN GOVERNMENT and INCLUSION. Your unwillingness to continue to dialogue with me on MOL because of my refusal to privately dialogue with you suggests you are far less interrested in open, inclusionary, participatory government than you are in having a few select individuals in the know, making all the decisions. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 831 Registered: 3-2003 |
" No legislation could prevent them from subletting the store to a supermarket since it was already a supermarket." So it would have been legal under Village ordinance for ShopRite (or whatever it was by then officially called) to have sublet a contaminated site? Why? And why should Village ordinance not be changed to prohibit such subleases? "We live more densely, so we have to be careful about shooting each other." -Tom Reingold the Prissy Pants | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 504 Registered: 9-2002  |
Washashore wrote:
First, no one else took Mr. Rosner to task "for the same thing." There was a single post between the one you quote and yours that was not from Mr. Rosner himself. Secondly, you're assuming something other than an honest mistake (assuming it is a mistake). Given history, I'd be more inclined to believe the veracity of Mr. Rosner's posts than yours. That's not to say Mark is infallible. But I'm more willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt as far as intentions than you. You also wrote:
Actually, I believe Mark stated that he wouldn't continue a dialog with you because you lie. To quote him: The crux of his comment was that you post misinformation, not that you won't email with him outside of MOL. Just one more example of your taking significant liberties with the truth. And again we've gone from a discussion of the Animal Shelter to personal attacks on the BOT. Does every thread in the SO Specific section here need to deteriorate into BOT-bashing? This thread started with decent conversation about the animal shelter. Now we're talking about the supermarket, yet again. Maybe we should just have a BOT-bashing thread, or a supermarket thread. That way those who want information about other things can find it. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 382 Registered: 3-2003 |
woodstock: I agree with everything you say above. I had stopped posting because it seemed everything was turning into a BOT bashing. I did feel I had to post my reaction to Mark's comment that it is now citizens who are responsible for the lack of progress on market. I think Mark has explained that the developer's can now use this as an excuse to get out of the deal, if they're looking for a way out. Nevertheless, as I said above, this board can serve as a way for residents to know what's going on and have a chance to make constructive comments. They can even express their disappointment that things aren't happening faster. But to turn everthing into a BOT bashing just halts any discussion. We know that the BOT, Village Counsel and Village Administrator read this board. There have been occassions when discussioins on this board have been taken into account when the BOT discusses a matter. But turning everything into a political agenda is not helpful. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 832 Registered: 3-2003 |
I agree with Woodstock and AA. However, the bashing has been known to go both ways, and I'm equally unimpressed with Hariseldon's and Mary Gotz-Rother's contributions to the descent into speculative accusation. I believe there are sound reasons to criticize the BOT. However, no good is served by demonizing those who serve on it, and so doing draws us away from more substantive discussion. "We live more densely, so we have to be careful about shooting each other." -Tom Reingold the Prissy Pants | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 505 Registered: 9-2002 |
I hope no one took my comments to mean that one should not complain about elected officials at all. I believe constructive criticism (and to a much lesser extent, hysterical shrieking) can be an important part of the democratic process. I just hate it when nothing can be discussed without it degenerating to a BOT-bashing party. There's a theory on the Internet (Usenet, mostly) called Godwin's Law put forth by Mike Godwin many years ago. It says "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Similarly, I put forth the following Woodstock's Proposition here on MOL. "As a South Orange discussion on Maplewood Online grows, the probablility of the BOT being blamed for whatever negative is being discussed approaches 1." I guess this could be generalized to "As a discussion on Maplewood Online grows, the probablility of the current or previous governing body being blamed for whatever negative is being discussed approaches 1." This way, it can include discussions the Soapbox as well. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 441 Registered: 6-2001 |
May I propose theory #2? "A governing body (defined as a president and a board of trustees and/or any indivdual thereof) makes a decision and determines to stick to it no matter what the consequence." That is where we are today. We live at the whim of ideas, ideas that may be great in theory, but are dismal in reality. And if that's where "woodstock" wants to be (and if woodstock can afford it), then that's just bully for who (him? her? it??). Sorry for the negativity. I had a glorious lunch at Danielle's in downtown Chatham yesterday, and viewed a vibrant and living village atmosphere. I sincerely wish I could brag about my hometown similarly. But I guess, as Mark said, we're to blame for the ever pathetic "coming soon" signs. 'Cause we can't blame anyone else, right? * ** *** **** We can't handle the truth, because if you handed us the truth, we'd hand you over to the authorities! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 835 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bets: Congratulations on continuing to twist words around. In response to many people on here who keep stating that the "delay" in getting a supermarket was solely because of some contamination. There are many factors including a FEW residents who have actively done what they can to try and prevent this project. You want a full list of the problems that come up when putting together a project, I can introduce you to some project managers who have done developments in the area and then maybe you might be able to make an opinion based on knowledge. The village is responsible for only one "coming soon" sign. All others (both of them) were put up by the property owners or the developer. Since you are so concerned about me blaming someone for something, one would think you would not be so quick to blame the BOT for a sign put up by a storeowner or landlord. OR maybe you are suggesting that the village pass an ordinance banning coming soon signs. By the way, while you were in chatham, did you notice the coming soon sign on the right while driving west on Main street. It has been there for several months. The fact that you work near there is why you ate there, not because they have a vibrant downtown. If you worked in S. Orange, I bet you would eat in S. Orange. And your first point could not be further from the truth. The BOT does not always stick to a decision. For instance, the Shop-Rite developer completely redesigned his project twice to try and satisfy a few residents and the planning board despite the fact some of those changes were NOT what the BOT wanted. We did not stop them nor did we tell the public they could not have input. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 506 Registered: 9-2002 |
Bets, I understand you're not happy about the way things are going herein South Orange. I don't blame you. I wish the supermarket was open already. I wish that Beifus would get off his butt and build something already. I wish SOPAC were up and running. Heck, I wish traffc didn't suck during rush hour on South Orange Avenue. Mark never said you (we) were to blame for all the coming soon signs around town. He, out of what I believe was frustration, said "...developers who do not want to do battle with a few residents who have decided they would rather fight anything rather than try to understand what the developers are trying to accomplish and why apartments are needed to make the project work." I can't comment on the specifics of the supermarket project, but he's right. Would you want to do business in a town where it appears that you're not welcome? Yes, to some extent the BOT is responsible, in the sense that the buck has to stop somewhere. And I doubt the developers or Beifus read these boards. What I would like to see is suggestions for what the BOT could do now. We're already in the situation we're in. Beyond saying things like "Replace the BOT" or "Fire the Administrator and Attorney," what specific things would you (collective, not just bets) like to see the BOT do at this point? BTW, I'm a He. I've posted my name and (I believe) address in the past. I moved here four years ago (almost to the day). As far as what I can afford, I've been complaining that I pay a disproportional share of the taxes here since I moved in. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 122 Registered: 4-2003 |
Woodstock: I understand your frustration about how things on MOL never seem to progress to substance. I do not willingly continue to dialogue here about what I/you raised above, but my need to clarify overcomes me once again. To wit, you state: } You go on to say "Actually, I believe Mark stated that he wouldn't continue a dialog with you because you lie. To quote him: "I will no longer post any response to washashore because he continues to post misinformation while making attacks. He has refused to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue either in private or public or on here." Mr. Rosner has yet to prove one piece of "misinformation" that I have posted, and he certainly didn't offer any in his ultimatum, above. "Meaningful dialogue" is in the eye of the beholder. I have receivwed a lot of positive feedback, from people who know who I am, that my posts are on target. Perhaps the mantra of "Throw The Bums Out" is repeated too often, but I find the errors that we face repeated all too often as well. For example, I recently obtained a copy of the lease agreement between South Orange, MAPLEWOOD, and JAC for the Animal Shelter. Although I am not a lawyer, I am smart enough to know that it is probably in error to assume that MAPLEWOOD should be given equal right to control decisions affecting the land in South Orange, determine when maintenance to the "access roads" located in South Orange that lead to the Shelter need to be maintained, etc, yet that is what the document states. If the "access roads" become a shambles, for example, that will reflect poorly on South Orange, and South Orange may want to improve them. to do so would require cost-sharing from Maplewood, who might well decide that the condition of the "access roads" is just fine, so that no payment is needed. A better lawyer would have written a better lease, better protectign South Orange interests. And this is only ONE of many such erors I found in the document. Remember, please, that I am a supporter of JAC. If we are to end all of these constant, costly, neighborhood-divisive errors, I truly see no other way to do so than to get rid of the current lot of BOT who will NOT fire Matthews or Gross, the mismanagement/incompetence/malfeasance from whom is egregious. doublea, I'm sorry to learn that you too find my posts unhelpful. I, on the other hand, often thought we were on the same page... | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 248 Registered: 12-2002 |
woodstock, I couldn't agree with you more. I am one, who has just about given up posting on most of the threads here because frankly, they all dissolve into a &%$#@*^ contest and that loses it's appeal real quickly. I've lived in SO for over 20 years, and while I'd like to see all the things everyone is moaning about, things are far better today, in spite of all the shortcomings, and there are some for sure, than they were 20 years ago. This town was headed to places I don't think any of us would have been happy about. I wish I had some constructive ideas to share to help make some of these issues improve but I don't, maybe 2004 will bring a bushel of new thoughts to all of us. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 617 Registered: 5-2001 |
VG, I have no idea what South Orange was like 20 years ago, but I would think that even Newark has improved over the past 20 years. However, most people would agree that we should set the bar higher & not settle for such mediocrity. I have lived here for 5 years & while things have not dramatically decreased, there has been virtually no progress on the downtown either(other than the NJT parking lot). Sure, things don't happen overnight, but over 5 years you would expect some progress. 5 years ago, it looked like progress was coming...the sidewalks were being replaced, the streets were being reconfigured & there was talk of an Arts Center, a new supermarket & a vibrant downtown. Other than new sidewalks, our downtown is a real embarassment. I don't blame the BOT for everything (believe it or not), but they do need to take "responsibility", if they want to also take "credit". You'll recall that during the last election, they claimed credit for "Candlewyck" (Beifus), "New Market Square" (supermarket) and SOPAC under the claim that "we get it done". Here we are 7 months later & we are in EXACTLY the same position we were then. As for constructive suggestions, here are a few: 1) MANAGE EXPECTATIONS - From my post on another thread http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=179030#POST1790 30 it is rather frustrating to hear the constant refrain of "Coming Soon". Sure, SOME projects slip, but it is remarkable that EVERY MAJOR PROJECT HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO DATE. Clear and open communication of the obstacles & issues would go along way to helping people understand the challeneges & have REALISTIC expectations. 2) INVESTIGATE & ELIMINATE CONFLICTS - the ongoing "intimate relationship" between Theroux & Gross is embarassing for the whole Village. My understanding is that the only person who has said it is not a conflict is Matthews. This is sort of like having the fox guard the hen house. An INDEPENDENT investigation of this should be done (by the Ethics Board?) to protect the citizens of this town. 3) MAKE STEADY PROGRESS - Stop trying to do EVERYTHING at once, but rather pick one or two things and GET THEM DONE. Perhaps all of the major projects are failures because people are spread to thin & are unable to effectively manage. 4) BE WILLING TO ADMIT MISTAKES - nobody is perfect. When things don't go the way you planned, admit it & move on. Stop trying to blame the residents, the developers, the weather, 9/11 or whatever for everything. Accept responsibility, admit it & move on. My 2 cents for now.... | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 1137 Registered: 5-2001  |
Here's yer change.  Two cents ain't worth what it was twenty years ago, either. --Soda |
