| Author | Message | ||
     joso Citizen Username: Joso Post Number: 50 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm curious why no one has brought up the issue of the proposed hotel at Third Street and Valley. Designed well, it could be a great thing for South Orange, and a great addition to an otherwise bleak downtown architectural scene. (Walikng to the train the other day I was struck how umremitingly ugly this entire area of Valley Street is). I fear this hotel could develop into a cheezy looking "Motel Six" best suited to Route 22. Does the Village have any teeth is encouraging a decent looking design? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 121 Registered: 4-2002 |
This is not the first time a developer has come to S. Orange with a hotel. With this case, it is still just an idea and they have not met with the trustees (or the planning board). Usually, we have some residents with experience (architects, planners, etc) review the plans and meet with the developer and the village to discuss various possibilities. I assure you I will not be in favor of a Motel 6 (or similar) and I will let others decide on what is a "decent looking design". Already, I have heard many people who are opposed to this project without seeing or listening to what will actually be presented to the village (Based on past experience, I am willing to bet that the News-Record does not have all the facts correct and they certainly did not ask the village about the project). And as we all know, the time-line from a presentation to actually starting a project takes at least a year. | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2001 |
That article in the News-Record was a puff piece. The previous week the Village gets slammed in an article about citizen activists for making no progress with the downtown and then this article magically appears in the next issue of the NR. Look at the by line, Tom Canavan, Editor in Chief. That guy is the Hartwyck-Steglitz-Theroux go to guy. Any bets on who leaked the story? But it still takes the NR to make a headline out of no news. I guess Yablonsky (merely the editor) compromised by having the editorial about open space appear in the same issue. He should have had the guts to mention the Q word though as it is the only logical space to save that is worth at least 2.5 million. I only buy the paper for the legal notices. For more fun check out the BOT propaganda piece called the Gaslight that just arrived. The BOT further touts all the goings on downtown. Must be an election coming up. To be fair the opposition (who ever they are in a non-partisian town) should get to publish a rebuttle which is also paid for by the taxpayers. Instead of the Villager of the Month they could have the Questioning Voice of Reason. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 66 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wingate Inns has a website that can be reached on yahoo. However, the Inns look like they are nicer than area around the intersection of 3rd and Valley with Beifus, Essex Police Towing, and apartments for Seton Hall students. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 110 Registered: 5-2001 |
Scollins, Also in the latest Gaslight, Village Administrator Gross asks for the public's input on whether or not there should be a constitutional convention on taxes. Since when does Mr. Gross care what the public has to say. The public has spoken loudly and clearly about the Quarry in numerous forums (Open Space Trust Fund, election of Patrick Joyce, attendance at Planning Board Meetings, input on Open Space Master Plan), yet Mr. Gross continues to do everything possible to avoid DOING what the people have REPEATEDLY requested - activly pursue preservation. You would think the Trustees should be able to better direct the actions of this Village employee to more accurately reflect the will of the majority of taxpayers. | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 818 Registered: 5-2001  |
Mayhewdrive makes an extrapilatory (?) jump very common to single-issue advocates: that any & all positive public actions even remotely related to his pet cause are justifications for proclaiming broad mandates supporting his point of view. This is a relatively naive and harmless gaffe when offered in a forum where his opponents are actually present to rebut and correct such overstatements. However, when such non-logic is used to stridently level personal attacks at players not present to defend their points of view, one must wonder if another agenda is at work. Is it Mayhewdrive's intent here to use a single NIMBY issue to bring down any and all of those in South Orange public service whom he sees as impediments to the vindication of his narrow view?Let us hope not; not only are such personal accusations, made without substantive backup, usually ineffective in advancing the viewpoint of the accuser, but they may also lessen his credibility in the arena of a less-impassioned public. Mayhewdrive is evidently either too young to remember Joe McCarthy, or too tunnel-visioned to learn from his example. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 223 Registered: 6-2001  |
Isn't it Mr. Gross's choice to ignore the South Orange Specific section of MOL? He has as much right to post here as anyone, and Mahewdrive's posit doesn't deserve attack by a citizen who backs the systematic overdevelopment of South Orange. I find it interesting that one of the "downtown development" projects allows the W. South Orange Avenue structures between Church Street and the Exxon station to remain; what if the apartments are rented to undesirables? Back to the drawing board? It does answer my question regarding Jardineau and Geller - I didn't think the Village would force them out. | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2001 |
Soda, What does extrapilatory mean and who is the group that has been denied a presence in this forum? And was Joe MCcarthy Edgar Bergan's dummy or was he the Senator from Wisconsin? I think I am mixing them up because I can't figure out which is more relevant to whatever your point was. Mayhew, Mr. Gross is not paid the three salaries that he is paid to listen to the people. He is paid to listen to the Board of Trustees (BOT). It is the BOT’s job to listen to the people. The BOT decided to save money by creating the super administrator position which combined the jobs of Administrator, Treasurer and CFO. He also has ten or so redevelopment projects that he oversees. I think it unreasonable to ask him read and tally the results of a survey as well. Thank goodness that he now has a new $60,000 assistant for that type of grunt work but so much for the savings. The purpose of the survey is not to get feedback anyway. The purpose is to make people think that the blame for our tax situation falls solely on the shoulders of the state. Don't blame the BOT just because more residential housing means more students (at $10,000 per) and the BOE portion makes up half your tax bill. Don’t blame the BOT for the escalating number of people on the Village payroll. I think that survey borders on push polling. And thanks to the NR for a good editorial in this week’s issue titled “Too high a price” regarding over development in S.O. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 111 Registered: 5-2001 |
Scollins, 3 salaries are paid to a single person? How is that possible? Hmmm....in my professional life, I'm often asked to do things outside of my "core job". Perhaps I'll simply ask my boss for an additional salary next time. | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 822 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bets: I wasn't attacking Mayhewdrive's posit. I was critiqueing his argument, wondering aloud re: what an unbiased reader's evaluation might be of his ultimate intent, and suggesting that he take a less hysterical approach. I don't disapprove of his cause. Scollins: Please excuse my effort at creative spelling... "Extrapolate: To infer (unknown data) from known data." The attempt by Mayhewdrive falls somewhat short of success. BTW, despite the spooky resemblance between my MOL icon and Charlie McCarthy, I was in fact referring to "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy as the subject of my historical parallel. Sorry If I confused you. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 112 Registered: 5-2001 |
Soda, You're right...I do have an agenda: To speak out and express my frustration against the travesties that many of our Trustees & appointed officials commit with regard to overdevelopment, disregard for the public and lack of progress with our embarassing downtown. Forgive me for actually caring about the town I live in. Perhaps you forget the great quote from Bruce Springsteen: "Blind faith in your leaders will get you killed". While perhaps a hair overdramatic in this case, the thought remains the same - in a democracy, the people should continuously watch what their government is doing & speak out when wrong is being done or the perecpetion of wrong is being done and not automatically accept everything as in your best interests. Unfortunately, in South Orange, you don't have to look too far. This is a public forum where people are encouraged to speak about issues. While Mr. Rosner graciously takes the time to post here, no other member of the South Orange Board of Trustees bothers to read or post here about what is going on in the town (unless you are on the BOT...Soda?). They are certainly welcome to join in the conversation themselves. P.S. I think your MOL icon actually looks either like Alfred E. Newman or Tillie from Asbury Park | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 2320 Registered: 5-2001 |
As a Maplewoodian where the Town hasn't been able to increase the tax base in years, I have to admit I am somewhat envious of the Village's ability to attract new rateables. However, is there enough demand to make a hotel economically viable? | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 225 Registered: 6-2001 |
Bob, Please, save your envy for something deserving. Virtually all of the residential developments are not taxable (PILOT, with the payoffs disappearing inexplicably) and many downtown businesses empty. It's pathetic and embarrassing that many of the "proposed" projects include thousands of square feet of 'new!' retail space when the existing vacant storefronts are a daily reminder of the visionary failure of our leadership. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 122 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bets: There is a difference between being non-taxable (i.e. Seton Hall) and a PILOT agreement in which the town gest at least it's share of the tax bill (and the taxes increase each year) When the Pilot agreement ends, they are taxes as any other building would be. One development was given such an agreement (Gaslight Commons). I still think that it was a good deal for S. Orange as do most people who understand how it works. Many people on this board have complained that the village does not do enough to attract new stores. Most businesses prefer new modern retail space to trying to make do in an older building. We can't have it both ways. If we want new businesses we have to have attractive space (I won't name any of the current landlords on here, but we all know that some of those vacant stores desperately need renovations to the building). And when some of the current businesses see the new space and new businesses, I am sure they will think about renovating their own stores. I would be willing to bet that the landlords of the new buildings will do whatever they can to help attract a new business instead of sitting around and waiting for someone else to find them a tenant. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 68 Registered: 5-2001 |
The PILOT for Gaslight Commons nets nothing to the school district. The exclusion of the Gaslight Commons from the School tax base is not going to win the rest of us a reprieve from the rising cost of education. The minute one schoolage child moves into the Gaslight Commons, that complex fails to pay its way for that student in the school system. So the South Orange tax payer will pick up some percentage of the cost associated for that student. What is a good deal for developer and the Village is not really a benefit the taxpayer anyway as we will pay for the schools either way. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 123 Registered: 4-2002 |
My point was that the developer does pay taxes. As I said on another thread over a month ago, I would understand why Maplewood residents would object (they pay almost 60% of the school bill), but I would argue that this is a benefit to S. Orange residents. We can debate the issue forever, but Bets said that Gaslight Commons paid no taxes which was incorrect (they pay over $500,000 a year). I wanted it understood that they pay a significant amount. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 69 Registered: 5-2001 |
It would be a benefit to a South Orange resident who pays only Village Taxes. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 124 Registered: 4-2002 |
I will give a complete explanation of the PILOT in question in the next week or so. I want to make sure I have the complete information, but clearly, there is some misunderstanding on how a PILOT works the reasons they are done. I will do it in a seperate thread. | ||
| Jerry Ryan Citizen Username: Gerardryan Post Number: 1021 Registered: 5-2001 |
Not to intrude on an SO topic here, but someone did mention Maplewood, so  . I could be wrong about this, but I *believe* that the assessed value of a PILOTed piece of property is included in the calculation of the total assessed valuation of a town. The individual property is exempt from tax, and may be making a payment in lieu of tax to the town, but its assessment contributes to the assessed valuation of the town, and thus to the town's share of taxes in a multi-jurisdiction situation like the schools and the county. In other words, if a development increases the assessed valuation of the town by $20M, then the town is "worth" $20M more in *all* tax calculations. | ||
| lseltzer Citizen Username: Lseltzer Post Number: 1231 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jerry: So, in other words, the neighbors are paying for the PILOTed property's taxes, right? |
