| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1051 Registered: 4-2002 |
Allan Rosen phrased it correctly above. There will be an easement granted so the public will be able to walk around the ten acres. Not sure what you would like to be clarified. There are no plans to put sidewalks on Mayhew at this point. A few residents who lived there did not want sidewalks. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 903 Registered: 5-2001  |
Mark...I'm sure you meant "Tillou" above. There already are sidewalks on Mayhew.  | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1054 Registered: 4-2002 |
I did mean Tillou. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 489 Registered: 8-2002 |
...a sidewalk tangent. After moving here and realizing how many streets in SO and Maplewood don't have sidewalks -- I wonder why -- given that most kids are required to walk to school? (And the absurdity that there aren't sidewalks on BOTH sides of a steet as busy as Wyoming, or on Ridgefield and Parker where there are 1000's of kids walking to school) I also think its nonsense that the towns don't maintain sidewalks -- which could be a reason homeowners oppose having them put in or adding them? ..sorry for the tangent. BUT if there is public access to the quarry -- shouldn't there be sidewalks on the adjacent streets?!? Pete | ||
| just me fromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 152 Registered: 7-2003 |
mark- since when can residents dictate whether or not they want sidewalks in front of their houses? if that's the case, can the town please arragne to dig up the sidewalks on my street and plant grass there instead? I'm sure my neighbors would be in agreement. that way we won't have to shovel the snow! | ||
| e roberts Citizen Username: Wnwd00 Post Number: 11 Registered: 3-2004 |
i think sidewalks should be put in for the good of town and the public, what a few residents on a few streets have to say should not dictact whether or not a project for the good of the community is done. i wonder if we would be having this discussion if it was about the east side of town? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1057 Registered: 4-2002 |
Just me: Nobody is really dictating. There are a lot of streets without sidewalks in the village. The only time sidewalks have been added has been when there is a public safety issue or the residents on a street wanted them. Pete: How many people actually start walking to the quarry is an unknown. Most towns in most states require the homeowners to maintain their sidewalks. I don't think it is required for kids to walk to school. In fact it would seem that most children are driven to school by a parent or carpool. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 909 Registered: 5-2001 |
At the intersection of Tillou & Wyoming, crosswalks are painted on the road, which implies that pedestrians are intended to walk there. (whether it be kids going to the Middle School or anyone going to the Duck Pond) However, there are no sidewalks on Tillou above Wyoming. So, in order for people to get to the crosswalk, they must walk in the street. Sure sounds like a public safety issue to me. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 491 Registered: 8-2002 |
sidewalk comment... after graduate school I lived in West Windsor, Princton, Hillsborough. ALL of those towns -- when the sidewalks, curbs, etc. were completed, concrete samples tested, they were turned over and maintained by the town -- NOT the homeowner. it seems absurd to me that a public accomodation has to be maintained by the homeowner... HOWEVER-- my main point is lack of sidewalks. it actually seems worse in Maplewood. Anyone understand the rationale of walking a kid in a stroller on the pavement on Wyoming Ave, when there are sidewalks on at least one side? Pete | ||
| newtoallthis Citizen Username: Newtoallthis Post Number: 97 Registered: 2-2003 |
It is a safety issue. Seems bizarre sidewalks aren't considered necessary on Tillou between Wyoming and Mayhew. That stretch of street leads not only to the painted crosswalk, but also to the crossing guard, so children obviously have to walk that way among the dump trucks. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 916 Registered: 5-2001 |
New, You are absolutely correct. I find it offensive that Mark says there are no sidewalks because "A few residents who lived there did not want sidewalks." Shouldn't public safety override the concerns of a "few residents"? Where was the concern of the "few residents" near Farrell Field who didn't want the Animal Shelter? What about the "few residents" who didn't want the dugouts in the park? What about the MAJORITY of residents who didn't want the development in the quarry at all? Instead of PAYING the developer at least $1.2 million for this project, the Village should have MANDATED that the developer fund & construct sidewalks on Tillou which will be necessary for the safety of the new students to get to school. With the MILLIONS in profit this developer is going to make on this project, it continues to amaze me the Village negotiated so poorly. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1062 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: Since only one resident (one that did not live on Tillou or within one block) ever raised the issue of sidewalks on Tillou it did not seem to be a concern. The public safety committee discussed the issue last Fall. What you should do is check out the comments from that meeting and see what I stated. When I answer a question in public, I pass on what the village did and why not always a reflection of a personal opinion. The committee did not see the need. The residents who live there are the ones most likely to use those sidewalks. That is why they would be asked. No parent of a student has ever expressed a concern about not having sidewalks there. As for the dugouts, there was a majority that wanted them - not even a close vote (based on emails). The dugouts are in a park that belong to the whole village not one neighborhood. The shelter was discussed at the planning board and it is being built on village owned property. It is a joint project with Maplewood. Again, this project had significant support from residents from all over S. Orange and Maplewood including some who live right across the street from Farrell field. And finally the quarry development was the result of a court victory by the propertyowner, a fact that you seem to skip. The courts should have mandated that they contribute. You feel the need to continue discussing the quarry, you should start another thread on it. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 919 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, You amaze me with your answers sometimes. Above you first stated there would be no sidewalks because "a few residents didn't want them". Now you seem to say that the Public Safety Committee deemed it wasn't a safety issue. What is YOUR opinion? You often state that your posts here do not necessarily reflect the official Village position. Don't YOU think that having no sidewalks on a street that leads to a cross walk & a crossing guard is a safety issue? You seem to skip the fact that the "court victory" never stated the property MUST be developed...it only outlined HOW it should be developed IF it ever were developed. Once the Village sweetened the deal for the developer by paying them at least $1.2 million, it was then a "done deal". That financial payment was not mandated by the courts, neither were the sidewalks. The Village managed to come up with the payment, they could have also stipulated sidewalks were a requirement. P.S. This thread IS about the quarry, so there is no need to start a new one. | ||
| just me fromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 167 Registered: 7-2003 |
mhd- are you saying south orange PAID the developer in the quarry 12 million dollars? i hope i misread that. and you're right, mark did say 'several' residents didn't want the sidewalks. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 921 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just me, Just to be clear...the figure above is $1.2 million (you may have overlooked the decimal place). But...YES, the Village PAID at least $1.2 million to get this development in the quarry. As explained previously in another thread, the original "court settlement" in 1992 (Paragraph 4 in http://www.preserveso.com/consent.htm) stipulated that the DEVELOPER would have to pay the Village's COAH (Council on Affordable Housing) Obligation which would equal at least $580,000. The "Memorandum of Agreement" (http://www.preserveso.com/moa.htm) reached in 2002 when the number of units was reduced to 69 (from 198), stated explicitly in Paragrpah 7 that the VILLAGE would now accept that financial responsibility. In the same document, in Paragraph 9, The Village also agreed to pay $600,000 towards water system improvements necessary to develop the site. It has also been stated previously that the developer paid "only" $6.1 million for the entire property & is now trying to sell the 69 units for around $900,000 each. Not a bad profit, huh? Glad our taxes were able to help subsidize it, too. | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 45 Registered: 2-2004 |
MHD FOR VILLAGE TRUSTEE (if he could stomach it)!! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1063 Registered: 4-2002 |
Justme: MHD is giving half a story. They also agreed to build 62 units for sale instead of a 192 rentals. They also agreed to leave over ten acres permanently undeveloped. MHD: My opinion is and was that we should have sidewalks anywhere people walk. The question asked was why don't we have sidewalks or if we had plans to put in sidewalks and I gave an answer. The poster did not ask my opinion. This thread is about blasting in the quarry, not the actual quarry deal or history. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 922 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, The 10 acres that will be "undeveloped" are WETLANDS and CANNOT be developed according to the NJ DEP and will now be utilized as a detention basin for this development. If the Wetlands were not there, I am quite cetain those 10 acres would be paved by now. The fact remains that the Village PAID $1.2 million for this development to occur. Had the Village not paid that amount, would we still be faced with 192 units from Trammell Crow? Maybe. However, if the Planning Board applied the law to that plan, it could have EASILY been defeated since it varied significantly from what the courts determined could be built there. The developer is going to make MILLIONS of dollars of profit on this project & the Village spent $1.2 million of our money to help subsidize it. Edited to add: ....which resulted in all the blasting that started this thread in the first place.... | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 46 Registered: 2-2004 |
It is outrageous that taxpayer dollars subsidize a developer's destructive project. Will the Village grant homeowners money to help improve our homes, afterall it would likely improve the value of our homes which would ultimately benefit the town? Which situation is more absurd? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1065 Registered: 4-2002 |
Just for the record, the special attorney the village had hired disagrees with MHD's opinions above. So did other legal advisors including the village attorney. There was blasting in the quarry well before this developer was there and had only stopped because the propertyowner decided he wanted to sell to a developer instead of continuing to operate the quarry. |
