| Author |
Message |
    
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | 
|
The developer has an agreement with a supermarket operator who has several stores including the "West Side Market" in Manhattan.
I do not know the names of the back-ups and at this point will not be asking. After (if) they get approval then their will be a formal announcement of the supermarket operator. If it turns out the original operator wants to back out then they will let us know their next choice.
Two of the developers live in S. Orange and I assure you they want what a nice supermarket too and one that we can all use. |
Shelley Stile
Citizen
Username: Sstile
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:05 pm: |
|
To Soda-
I have no idea who you are referring to as jrf and am even more uncertain why you would mention SOAR in the same breath? |
Soda
Citizen
Username: Soda
Post Number: 953
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Read the archive through 12/19. |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 8:47 am: |
|
I saw in the Record that 2700 sq ft of the proposed Beifus development is already rented - any speculation to whom or is it hype?
Is there any hurdles for town approval on the Beifus development or is a done deal from the town perspective? I get a little nervous when I read the Record on the development's design and appearance(although I suppose anything is better than the way it looks now). Per the article its not going to look like Town Hall of the fire dept, but it will look 70 or 80 years old. Unfortunately I was not at any of the meetings where the design was presented - are people ok with it? Will 5 stories be a towering structure or will it really blend in because of the slope of the hill at that point?
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 168
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:03 am: |
|
The Beifus development does have all their approvals from the town and the county. They are in the process of getting their permits and then they can start the construction phase.
There is a picture of it on the village web page (www.southorange.org) under the redevelopment tab.
There were no objections to the design at the meetings.
I do not blame you for not completely trusting the News-Record, but I think the story was fairly accurate this time. Of course it would have helped had they published a picture too. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 153
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Mark,
Once again, I'd like to comment on the impressive additions to the Village website. The animations are pretty cool.
I also noticed that the Meeting Agendas are being kept current, which is great.
However, meeting minutes from late 2002 still have not shown up. Do you have any idea when they will be posted? (haven't they already been approved?)
Also, I see on this week's agenda minutes from previous closed sessions will be "released", which I know you do periodically. Will those minutes ever be posted online? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 5:23 pm: |
|
I will find out when we are going to start posting the minutes. I know there are still a few other things that we are working on first.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 173
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Mark,
Can you comment on what the plan is for the EXISTING merchants on Vose Avenue if/when the Supermarket/condos are approved? Will they be given new locations during demolition? Will they be given priority in the new retail space at the same rent they are paying now?
I personally spoke to one of the merchants who told me the Village has told him nothing & he is very concerned he will be forced out of town after many years.
I don't know if this has been discussed, yet, during the Planning Board hearings.
Thanks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Every one of the merchants was notified. Every one of the storeowners has been offered help with finding a new space. If they want one of the new spaces, they will have to negotiate a new lease at whatever rent the building owner feels he can get. I think only one of the current storeowners expressed such an interest.
However, if a merchant feels that he is not being treated fairly, send me an email with their name and I will personally make sure (s)he is contacted again with all of his options.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 196
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Mark,
Can you confirm if there is a Planning Board Meeting tonight to continue the discussion on the proposed Grocery Store & Condos? The Village website does not seem to be updated. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 209
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:41 pm: |
|
There is a planning board meeting (listed on the website under meetings and then weekly schedules) tonight and I was told the Grocery store/condos would be on the agenda.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 210
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:42 pm: |
|
There is a planning board meeting (listed on the website under meetings and then weekly schedules) tonight and I was told the Grocery store/condos would be on the agenda.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Thanks for the confirmation.
The listing on the South Orange website says 7:30AM and was listed there even before the Monday meeting was cancelled due to the snow. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 212
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 9:39 am: |
|
Well, my apolgies to anyone who went last night. Evidently the grocery store/condo hearing was postponed till May 5th.
I was not told till I arrived at village hall last night. The planning board did meet regarding other issues.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 198
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 9:45 am: |
|
Mark,
Yes...they did. From what I heard, the Quarry issue may not be "done", yet. I heard something to the effect that Janine Bauer made a motion for the Village to purchase some or all of the Quarry.
Is that true? What do you think about that, Mark? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 213
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 11:01 am: |
|
I was unable to be at the meeting last night, so I will have to ask Ms. Bauer. I would love to see the village purchase someo of the quarry. I do not think it is possible financially to purchase the whole property.
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 11:08 am: |
|
Dave had to take the search engine offline recently, so I can't navigate the archives as effectively. Was a "price" (or a range?) for purchasing the entire property ever established? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Brian: A real price was never determined. The speculated sale price for the quarry was between 5 million and 6 million dollars. Then you would need to pay for all expenses that have been incurred so far by the developers and I have no idea how much that is. And of course you would have to give them some kind of financial incentive to walk away from a deal where I assume they are expecting to make several million dollars. Assuming all that can be taken care of, then the village would have to pay to make some improvements to the property to allow access, water management, etc.
Since the total package could easily approach $10,000,000 (and probably more), that was the reason why I say that probably only a partial purchase could be done by the village.
Of course, this is all very speculative and it would be wonderful if someone stepped forward with this kind of money, it is not likely.
A concern with using open space money would be that the property would then become open to everyone, not just residents of S. Orange. That would generate expenses for the village along with maintenance expenses which must be factored into the equation.
I am not saying the scenario is impossible, but it would be very expensive and at this point still a longshot.
Of course, maybe the BOE can buy the property since they have most of our property tax dollars. j/k Brian. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 199
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Mark,
Don't forget that the appraisal on the property a couple years ago was UNDER 3 million dollars.
The other important point is that we should not get hung up on "improvements".
Did any one of us buy our houses being able to completely furnish, decorate and maintain it on the day we bought it? I know when we bought our house, we wondered how/if we could ever do improvements, but over time that seemed to work itself out.
The Village has an Open Space Trust Fund which gets about $100,000 per year. The Village has already received $1.25 million in Open Space money from the state which is renewable. I bet if each one of us dug deep under our sofa cushions we could come up with quite a bit of spare change. 
Time to think creatively. |
openspacer
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 40
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Last night there was a South Orange Planning Board meeting. On the agenda was the memorialization of the quarry decision. This is where they review and adopt the minutes of that meeting and basically make it official. Essentially it was to be the last nail in the coffin for burying the thirty-acre quarry. But then something strange happened.
A motion was made by Janine Bauer (and, it was courageously seconded by the SHU representative Law Professor Marc Proirior) that basically would ask the Village look in to the feasibility of purchasing an option on the quarry property. The option would allow the Village to pay some money to the developer in order to delay the start of construction. During the delay, the Village would explore putting together the funding necessary to preserve the quarry and use it for a park. Ms. Bauer even used the B word. Ballfields! And, according to Ms. Bauer, under the Municipal Land Use Law (which governs how Planning Boards act) acquisition of the quarry by the Village is legal.
The Planning Board postponed the vote on the motion in order to seek input from the developer and objector’s attorneys on the legal aspects of the board doing this and to ask the Village Board of Trustees if they would consider pursuing the option and giving preservation one final look. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for early May.
Ms. Bauer, who was the only Planning Board member to vote against the development of the quarry, pointed out that once the quarry is developed, it is developed forever. She also said that the Open Space Report, which is a requirement for the Village to get state funding, says that the Village is seriously lacking in the amount of open space required (we have 80 acres, we need 142) to support the Village’s growing population. She also pointed out that the Village has gotten 1.25 Million in Open Space funding and when a town gets funding from Green Acres for a worthwhile project they tend to get more and more.
The planning board must still vote and pass the motion but if they do it could get interesting, especially if the Trustees have to discuss the issue in an open meeting. Then if it comes to a vote and the three Trustees running for re-election vote for it (with Joyce and Calabrese not being allowed to vote) it passes. We can then start to put together a creative funding package to acquire the land. That package would include state money (Green Acres), county money (the county Open Space Trust Fund into which the average $219,000 assessed S.O. home pays $21.90 per year), Village money (the Municipal Open Space Trust Fund into which the average $219,000 S.O. assessed home pays an additional $21.90 per raising 100K/year since inception) and private donations. When discussing the funding, Ms. Bauer quoted the late great Senator Everett Dirksen who said, “a million hear and a million there and pretty soon you are talking real money”.
I think the Planning Board has been unfairly criticized for their vote on allowing the quarry to be developed. In my view the Board of Trustees, by entering into a contract with the developer, tied the hands of the Planning Board. This new twist would, if the Planning Board passes the motion, put the issue back into the Trustees’ collective laps, where it belongs. I hope that the Planning Board follows through and the Trustees get the chance to tell the voters where they stand on recreation, which to me is a major quality of life issue.
My worry is that a letter will go out from our Village Administrator and or Village Attorney either today or early next week telling the Trustees not to consider this recreational opportunity at all, and they won’t. That will seal the fate of the Planning Board’s motion driving in that last nail.
Dan Shelffo
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 1:35 pm: |
|
M.Rosner: You have repeatedly said that school taxes constitute over 50% of our total taxes and we have no control over them. I certainly agree with this to a large extent - yet, this year, the South Orange members of the Board of School Estimate acted in an outrageous manner by telling the BOE that whatever it wanted to put in a special question would be approved by the three South Orange members,resulting in $1.2 million. It should be noted that the BOE vote was 4 to 3, with the 3 dissenting BOE members saying that this was an irresponsible way to approve a school budget. What is you opinion? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 215
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Well, first let me state for those who do not know, I am not on the board of school estimate. Furthermore, at no point was my opinion asked by the three members that do vote for S. Orange. I do not know if what you say is completely accurate but let's say it is.
However, I did find that most residents were in favor of the increase because they did not want any cuts in the schools. I do not know the exact percentage increase of what the "extra" 1.2 million dollars means in property taxes, but I thought it mean around another 1% increase. While noone wants to see these kinds of increases our schools are pretty important and I would hope that the budget the BOE presents to the board of school estimate is one that they are in favor of.
You raise questions in my mind though - like why did the three BOE members vote against the special question? Are they in favor of cutting back programs? Are they questioning Mr. Horoshak's budget process?
In my four years on the board, never has anyone from the school board come to me with questions or comments about their budget. They do have a very large budget and considering that most of our property taxes go to the schools, one would think we would have a much more open budget process with plenty of input from the residents as well as the elected officials. |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 2:44 pm: |
|
I too found the extra $1.2 million to be problematic. Of course everybody places a high value on our school system, but its not only the marginal increase of 1%, its the very high base that this increase is on. I find it really problematic that there are increases each year. Working heavily in corporate America, and even looking at other state/city govt budgets, I don't understand, the seemingly accepted increase in our expenses (school and otherwise) each year. All over, one sees freezes and the like to control costs, yet I don't see that here. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
M.Rosner: When you say "most residents," that is precisely the problem. How do you know it was most residents - was there a vote of the residents? The answer is it was decided by 3 individuals, after being bombarded with calls from parents . The Board of Education has played this very well, knowing that if it starts with the cap, and puts programs in a special question,it can depend on parents to lobby the town members of the Board of School Estimate for their inclusion in a special question. This results from not using zero base budgeting-i.e.,starting from scratch. I can't speak for Mr. O'Leary(he's eating his ice cream), but I think his objection was you just can't add things without going back and looking at the entire budget. My impression is that the South Orange members of the Board of School Estimate just take what is presented to them without really asking how it was arrived at. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 3:23 pm: |
|
It should be noted that the $1.2million is added on to the base for computing the "cap" in future years and therefore is compounded. Once again, I question whether our South Orange officials understand this. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 216
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 3:44 pm: |
|
ok, when I say most residents, I refer to the ones who take the time to write or call me. I would not object to the school budget being voted on by the residents in the two towns.
I think the members of the board of school undersstand how it works. I agreed with Brian ( I do not like his choice of ice cream though) about the school budget process and that it would make more sense to relook at the whole budget.
Again, I am not on the school board of estimate, but I do know that I get a lot of complaints about the high property taxes in S. Orange and approx. 55% goes to the schools.
Of course, the system that relys on property taxes in a state with close to 600 municipalities is insane to begin with but that is on another thread.
My question is how come so few people vote in the BOE elections. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 4:19 pm: |
|
M.Rosner: Thank you for your response. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to the many questions thrown to you on this board. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Mark, thanks for saving me the search through the archives. I guess at some level the decision to spend $10 million acquiring land or building a facility is a value judgement that people can weigh in on.
On the BOE budget questions, I can speak for me (briefly), but it probably deserves its own thread (this is a supermarket thread still).
The BOE vote on the separate proposal (the $1.2 million) was 5 to 3; I was one of the three. The additional tax impact of the separate proposal was about 1.9% (an increase from 5.3% at max net permissable to 7.2% with the separate proposal added in).
My votes on the budget were not a function of spending. I was and remain concerned that were were looking largely at the margin (this was particularly the case on March 17) and that we had not made a clear enough case why what we were choosing to fund was the best mix to meet our educational goals.
I think I have to differ with Mark on the level of public input. There were budget discussions at public meetings on January 27, February 3, 6 (with members of the BSE), 10 and 24, plus March 3 and March 17th. There was public comment at all meetings other than February 6; several hundred people attended the March 17th meeting at CHS, and over three dozen people spoke.
My concerns as expressed came with the quality of the recommendations made and the preparation before the public recommendation. That doesn't mean the public hearings could not be made to work better. To that end, I would be interested in hearing more about how the municipal governments invite public feedback on their budgets.
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 5:42 pm: |
|
I believe that it goes beyond school taxes. Why is there year after year (including this year) an increase in the municiapal tax? Remember, until last year, even the county was able to keep a lid on taxes for many consecutive years. Are we (as a municipality) living within our means in difficult economic times? It appears not. When I read that part of the increase was due partially to unexpected interest expense , I was truely surprised. How can interest expense not be projected accurately. We have certain debt on our balance sheet and in a very favorable interest environment, this should be the last thing that is a surprise in preparing a budget.
I now live here a year and a half and often sit quietly in trustee and planning board meetings, to try to educate myself. I am getting the strong feeling though, that we do not always make the difficult decisions - ones that might not be popular, but ones that are important. For example, while I totally agree that relying so heavily on property taxes is a crazy way of generating funds, the reality is what it is. We can not continue to blame the system, but learn to live with it, for better or worse.
Again, I make the analogy to corporate finance. If the revenue $s are not there, a prudent financial executive, will report back that a reexamination of the budget is necessary. I get insulted when I read that the "average" increase is "x" dollars per SO resident. This, I believe on some level is an attempt to try to minimize in the taxpayers mind the increase. The increases are real and in a very tax weary municipality are increases over substantial bases.
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1224
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 5:50 pm: |
|
This is also off topic, but (to Mark's point about property taxes) I think the overreliance on property taxes is in part a function of having nearly 600 municipalities in such a small state.
Local spending decisions do influence the state's willingness to pick up additional funding responsibility. When a Board of Education can add over half a million dollars in spending in the span 15 minutes, it's harder to argue that the state "owes" it relief.
It's a local decision that you can favor (or not), but I'm not sure the argument that the state should bail us out of these kinds of decisions holds up so well. That's why I favored a more coherent argument for spending the entire budget, rather than smaller set of arguments against cutting certain items. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 5:53 pm: |
|
nwyave... Maybe you could start a thread on your thoughts... they are worth exploring in greater detail. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 7:46 pm: |
|
nwyave: I agree that maybe you can start a new thread on this subject. I continue to be amazed that the mindset of residents seems to be taxes are high, but there is nothing we can do about them. Your discussion of the municpal budget is a case in point. Several years ago, the Trustees (some of whom are running for re-election this year)agreed that municipal taxes would be raised 1.5% per year, so as to even things out. Guess what- that agreement didn't even last for the then current year. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 3:24 pm: |
|
I'll come back to the topic when it has its own thread |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page