| Author | Message | ||
     Pan |
It's amazing how bickering, local politics, and myopic views can make people lose perspective and set aside the big picture! Slinc, Mayhewdrive, Soda, Villagenative: you are arguing the issues of increased taxes, overcrowded schools, traffic, infrastructure, NIMBYS and nasty local politics, and developers' profits. All these issues can be lumped under one: overdevelopment! If you consider that the Quarry is the only large piece of open space left under the jurisdiction of South Orange Village, and if you consider that the Villagers have voted to tax themselves for the purpose of preserving open space, wouldn't you say that the principal issue here is that of open space preservation, and that all others are incidental? And open space preservation for us Newjerseyites must be a social responsibility since we live in one of the most densely populated states in the country. Overdevelopment has shown its ugly side in so many other communities in our state; should we become accomplices to the destruction of our natural resources? Should we not be concerned about the catastrophic effects of all this water that will flood down Tillou to the Meadowland park, and through Harding Drive and South Orange Avenue to the river downtown? That same water that today is kept within the Quarry, through its retention capabilities. Overdevelopment and preservation of nature are the issues here. Let's argue about them! Edmay, from your questions I must deduce that you are a relatively newcomer. If that is so, you are welcome to our beautiful Village. If you are not a newcomer, but just have kept out of the Village's going-ons, you are also welcome to our public debate. Your questions are reasonable and there are answers to them better than the ones you got here. I suggest to you to go to the Planning Board's meeting on November 20 and ask to speak to one of the members of the Coalition to Preserve South Orange. You will recognize them easily: they are the ones who speak alot to the attorney of the "objector". Seek them, introduce yourself and shoot your questions. I am sure they will gladly answer the ones they can. You deserve to know what goes on in your community, and you should make it your task to find out. | ||
| Mayhewdrive |
Reminder: The next presentation before the planning board to discuss the high density development of 198 rental units in Kernan's Quarry is this TUESDAY (November 20th) at 7:30pm. The meeting will be held in the BAIRD Center (not the SOMS this time) Hope to see you all there! | ||
| Ffof |
Mayhewdrive- I know the News-Record is not a good source, but last week the article on the quarry made it sound like the development was a done deal maybe with some tweaks. Is this right or is there still a chance of getting rid of their plan altogether? | ||
| Openspacer |
Pan, you are right. Open space, they ain't making any more of it. Unfortunately, local politics most often dictates what gets built on that open space and bickering is often a large part of local politics. When the Coalition first got involved in this fight Christopher Hartwyck, then a Trustee and now the development attorney for the Village, told us that it was a done deal and that nobody would even notice that the development was there. They planned to break ground in a few weeks. Now, three years later, it is still not a done deal and public support for preservation is growing. I think large number of people in attendance at Planning Board meetings will go along way towards the Village getting the quarry issue resolved in such a way as to benefit the entire Village. At last nights Planning Board meeting, I noticed people from all over town, including Russell Barrow who ran for Village Trustee in 2001. I think and hope that Mr. Barrow puts together an entire ticket for 2003. Past statements from the Village United tickets that only they protect all neighborhoods are beginning to ring hollow. It would be great for even more people to attend the Planning Board meetings (as well as the Trustee meetings for that matter) to get a good sense of how the Village is being run. I would also like to have people at least see the property that is being discussed. I have shown the property to a lot of people and they always come away impressed with the possibilities that the site suggests. Most everybody always says wow, that's in S.O., I never knew. I do not advocate trespassing as the site can be easily viewed from behind the South Mountain Annex on Glenview. You can also do a virtual tour through the Coalition website http://members.aol.com/preserveso or directly at http://www.shelffo.com/quarry.htm I wonder what a town like Madison, Summit or Monclair would do with 30 acres of open space in their towns. As for the News-Record, stay tuned over the next couple of issues. Dan Shelffo Campaign Manager, Progress and Preservation VP, Coalition to Preserve South Orange | ||
| Alidah |
As to your question about what other towns would do with open space, in Chatham where I grew up there was a huge quarry like space that has since been turned into some kind of playing field (baseball?). About 20 years ago there was an even larger parcel of open space in Chatham near Summit that was turned into two large (hundreds of units) condo villages that satisfied the town's requirement for low and medium income housing opportunities. This land is very close to the Passaic River, and was a very scenic area. A small park still remains on the river itself. I can't think of any other large parcels of space that remain in the town, other than the Great Swamp, which the town literally wraps around. The Great Swamp is federally protected. But at one point about 40 or 50 years ago there was serious talk about locating a major airport there instead of enlarging Newark Airport. There was a very vocal and moneyed opposition and voila, the Great Swamp as a national wildlife area was born. | ||
| Mayhewdrive |
As a reminder: The next presentation of the proposed development of 198 high density rentals in Kernan's Quarry is: Monday December 3rd at 7:30pm in the Baird Center For an article on what happened last time, check out the News-Record online at http://www.mysouthorange.com Hope to see you all there. | ||
| Greenetree |
Not to sound stupid, but where exactly is the Quarry? Also, what kind of plans does the developer have for paying for the increased demand on the school system? Do they have to pay for increased fire, water mains, etc? | ||
| Spw784 |
Greenetree, It has been posted before, but the quarry is located at the top of Tillou Road (SO Ave to Wyoming Ave, North, a few blocks , make a left). You can also get a great view from the back of South Mtn Annex (aka Newstead School) on Glenview Road. As for the effect on the schools, I certainly hope they will be contributing to expand the schools. Even if just half the units had one elementary age child each, South Mountain School cannot absorb 100 more students. | ||
| Slinc |
One more thing that I don't understand is, if I remember correctly there are no trespassing signs posted at the quarry. Are all of you people trespassing on private property? The last time I was there , (10 years ago when I was in high school and trespassing was not a concern) the quarry was just a giant hole in the ground. I did not see a response to the comment from Galileo stating that they were not helped in their quest to stop the developments on 3rd street. Why don't you people visit the South Mountain Reservation some time. It is really nice in there. Granted it is not located in South Orange, but it does border the town. It is also perfectly legal to go for a walk in the res. unlike the quarry. | ||
| Mayhewdrive |
It's that time again.....tonight ( Monday, January 7th at 7:30pm) at the Baird Center for the next Planning Board meeting to hear about the proposed development of 198 rental units in the quarry. Please come out & let this developer know we don't want their slum in our town. | ||
| Mayhewdrive |
It's that time again.....tonight ( Monday, February 4th at 7:30pm) at the Baird Center for the next Planning Board meeting to hear about the proposed development of 198 rental units in the quarry. Please come out & let this developer know we don't want their slum in our town. | ||
| Beach |
Excuse the ignorance, but would a developer really be responsible for expanding the school system he's developing in? I've never heard of such a thing. | ||
| Jgberkeley |
I have known it to be a requirement several times. As recent as 5 years ago, I lived in an area near Princeton, just off NJT exit 7A. Tons of new development of townhouse communities complete with strip malls was taking place. The township required the development plans to include property with school buildings to be built as part of the permits to build the area up. The developers had to chip in and provide the schools and other infrastructure, and secure the promise by Bond, before the construction started. If you want to vist, go to Robbinsville, Washington Township, Exit 7A, NJT. | ||
| Librarylady |
Anyone know what happened at the meeting last night? Heard about a new plan to build 40 homes in the 750K to 1,000,000 dollar range instead of rentals? Would appreciate some more info! NCJ | ||
| Mayhewdrive |
LibraryLady, John Gross, Village Administrator gave a presentation stating that a "Memo of Understanding" was under development with Trammell Crow for them to build 69 for sale houses in the quarry, supposedly priced at $800,000 to $1 million dollars. Obviously this raises more questions than it answers: How do they intend to sell million dollars homes on 1/4 acre lots? Won't this still present the same stormwater runoff & blasting blasting problems as the previous proposal? Trammell Crow has never developed a "for sale" unit...why would they start now? How many school children would such a development REALLY attract? At the meeting, no questions were taken & no discussion was held, although I suspect there will be subsequent meetings for public input. Anyone else watch the meeting on TV or in person & have any thoughts? | ||
| Villagenative |
That begs the question: whatever happened to the Mt. Laurel requirements this development was supposed to address? I just don't think sixty-nine $1,000,000 homes are going to do it. But that's just me. | ||
| Villagenative |
Dave, I said sixty-nine! | ||
| Villagenative |
So they're going to pay Orange for the Mt. Laurel requirements. I'm shocked. Who would've ever imagined??? I loved Steglitz's comment that "this town was built on single-family homes". Guess he wasn't thinking along those lines when he voted for the Church Street redevelopment plan, building 230+ apartments thus far. Maybe he believes only certain areas of this town will be affected by the traffic this will create; his concern about "traffic in that area of town" (referring to the quarry site) is very touchi | ||
| Joso |
It seems to me that if a developer is willing to take the risk of developing 69 million dollar homes in this town, that is a good thing. I would expect that the taxes from the homes would more than make up for the any additions to the school district. Certainly some if not many of the students will go to private schools (net $ gain) and those who do not, given the socio-economic realities of school acheivement, will be (net test score gain). Certainly 69 units is better than 230. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 80 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, it's back to school season & also time to go back to the Planning Board. TONIGHT at 7:30pm in Village Hall, the latest scheme to develop the quarry will be presented. First, it was apartments, then million-dollar houses, now townhouses. Seems the only thing our elected officials can think to do with 30 ACRES is build MORE housing units. Originally we were told that the only thing that could be done with the property was build 198 units, because of the stringent terms of the settlement agreement from 1992. However, it appears that we are now told that the Village just must pay $480,000 to Orange & $100,00 for South Orange "rehabilitation" for the COAH obligation and the rest of the settlement agreement is essentially "moot". If that is the case, why not use the 30 acre property for a park, a soccer field, a ball field, a basketball court, a bike path, a walking path, a garden, a tennis court, a school, a library, a pool, etc etc etc? Why won't our Village officials understand the very simple concept that additional housing does NOT simply bring tax revenue without additional tax EXPENSE which almost always exceeds the revenue? Please come to the Planning Board meeting tonight at 7:30 to make your opinion & presence known. |
