Should we buy the reservation

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Elizabeth Citizen Username: Elizabeth Post Number: 164 Registered: 7-2002 Posted on Friday, May 2, 2003 - 7:19 am:        I was surprised that no one responded to this in the debate "recap" section . . . At the debate, Mr. Calabrese said that he's interested in a plan that would enable SO to buy a part of the reservation, thereby giving us more open space. Mr. Rosner, could you explain this idea? Why would we want to take responsibility for open space that's already sitting there, being taken care of by the county?   mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 326 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Friday, May 2, 2003 - 9:37 am:        We first discussed this in a planning and zoning meeting about six months ago. We were discussing open space and I was asking some questions. It turns out the Essex County Reservation which is owned by the county but the land officially falls into several towns. Well, all the towns except S. Orange that is. So, I wanted to know why we don't have a section that we can call our own and if we did, could we put a soccer field there? My thinking is that if we could put a field there that we controlled the permit process for would be a big help. I also figured that even though we would have to buy the land from the county, it could be done at a very low cost even using open space money that is available from the county. The reality is the county has not been taking care of the land although it is their responsibilty. If we could have a soccer field in the reservation, then it would help to divert traffic from the downtown and it could also free up the baseball fields to be used as originally intended. I don't think anyone including Bill C thinks this is a complete answer but I do think it is an option we should explore. It might turn out there are too many legal obstacles or that it does not provide the benefit that we are hoping we can gain from such a purchase. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A   Elizabeth Citizen Username: Elizabeth Post Number: 167 Registered: 7-2002 Posted on Friday, May 2, 2003 - 10:54 am:        Thanks Mark!   Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1325 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2003 - 9:19 am:        I'm having trouble getting my arms around the idea of using open space money to buy land that is already open space. Maybe it is allowed, but it doesn't seem to fit the understanding I had when I worked on the Open Space Advisory Committee for the village. On the other hand, part of the concern with the open space deficit is recreation; in that sense, maybe this idea works. But another part of the concern with inadequate open space is balance - the ratio of open space relative to the number and density of residents. It seems to me that taking land from the reservation to create recreation space addresses the former but not the latter. That leads me to put it lower on the list. www.opensouthorange.com Vote Line B on May 13th   Elizabeth Citizen Username: Elizabeth Post Number: 174 Registered: 7-2002 Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2003 - 10:57 am:        Thanks Brian!   mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 245 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Saturday, May 3, 2003 - 2:26 pm:        My opinion is that this is an election ploy by Mr. Calabrese to distract attention from the colossal screw-ups and missed opportunities for Open Space with both the Quarry and Gaslight Commons. With the quarry, Mr. Calabrese said 4 years ago that there was nothing that could be done & that 198 units was a "done deal". As we have seen, an alternative for 69 duplexes has appeared and been approved by the Planning Board appointed by Mr. Calabrese. 4 years ago, CPSO gave a presentation to several Trustees on how the quarry could have been acquired with NO IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS, but it was ignored. Now, Mr. Calabrese has agreed to PAY $1.2 million to have the quarry developed with NO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. With Gaslight Commons, the developer received preliminary and final site approval in a SINGLE MEETING of the Planning Board appointed by Mr. Calabrese. However, the developer made ZERO contribution to rehabilitate the Waterlands Park and playground that borders the property. If Mr. Calabrese had any leadership or any vision, he would have encouraged the developer to give something back to the community by improving that Open Space, which would have ultimately benefitted the developer and perhaps avoided the huge vacancy rate that property now has.   Sarah Hayden Citizen Username: Sarah_hayden Post Number: 6 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:13 am:        I think purchasing part of the reservation for use as a soccer field is an awful idea. The reservation is the ONLY place my family can go with our dog in a natural setting in the area. Bringing in all that traffic, all those people, all the inevitable trash/garbage, etc. would completely disrupt a serene natural area. I even think the picnic areas should be eliminated, as they are the source of most of the garbage that never seems to be picked up in the res. My husband and I were so tired of lugging out 5-6 bags (no exaggeration) of garbage per trip that we've started entering the reservation at the furthest point from South Orange - at least it's cleaner there as there's not as much car access.