| Author |
Message |
    
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:41 pm: | 
|
Mark,
To be absolutely clear, the last thing I am saying or attempting to say or alluding to at all is "we should share revenue with Maplewood." You know my focus on the tax rate, so that would be extremely contradictory. Perhaps there is something that I don't understand that needs clarification - so let me explain how I understand things and if it is not correct, you can let me know.
My understanding is that an overall School budget is arrived at. Say its 1 million dollars to make up a number. That number is then allocated on a top level basis to SO and MW - sau 430k SO and 570K to MW. The 430K would then be allocated by SO to its residents. Is that process not correct? If it is not, please correct. If it is correct, then all I am saying is that the 430k allocation to SO would be exactly the same - i.e. we would not be funding MW at all. What would then happen is that the Village would contribute "x" dollars from its pilot to that 430k - lets in our example say 100k. That would mean that 330k would be allocated to the residents for education. In total the #s would stay the same its just how the pilot dollars benefit gets allocated - exclusively to SO residents - i.e. village tax only or village and education.
Another way of saying it and maybe more to the point, its as if the village budget added a line to its budget that said School Subsidy and used a portion of those pilot $s there before passing on the towns (as a whole school tax to its citizens).
I fear that you are taking my word "fair" and extrapolating it to things that I am not saying and certainly agree with you. Being that my taxes are well over 20k a year, I am very cognizant of the tax burden that we carry and its inequities and the limitations of what we can do with this regard. I am not debating the pros/cons of the pilot - what I am saying is that it potentially raise the questions of accountability and excess spending that I mentioned in my previous posts.
Thanks |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 78
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Mark,
To be absolutely clear, the last thing I am saying or attempting to say or alluding to at all is "we should share revenue with Maplewood." You know my focus on the tax rate, so that would be extremely contradictory. Perhaps there is something that I don't understand that needs clarification - so let me explain how I understand things and if it is not correct, you can let me know.
My understanding is that an overall School budget is arrived at. Say its 1 million dollars to make up a number. That number is then allocated on a top level basis to SO and MW - sau 430k SO and 570K to MW. The 430K would then be allocated by SO to its residents. Is that process not correct? If it is not, please correct. If it is correct, then all I am saying is that the 430k allocation to SO would be exactly the same - i.e. we would not be funding MW at all. What would then happen is that the Village would contribute "x" dollars from its pilot to that 430k - lets in our example say 100k - prior to the allocation of the education $s to residents. That would mean that 330k would be allocated to the residents for education. In total the #s would stay the same its just how the pilot dollars benefit gets allocated - exclusively to SO residents - i.e. village tax only or village and education.
Another way of saying it and maybe more to the point, its as if the village budget added a line to its budget that said School Subsidy and used a portion of those pilot $s there before passing on the towns (as a whole school tax to its citizens).
I fear that you are taking my word "fair" and extrapolating it to things that I am not saying and certainly agree with you. Being that my taxes are well over 20k a year, I am very cognizant of the tax burden that we carry and its inequities and the limitations of what we can do with this regard. I am not debating the pros/cons of the pilot - what I am saying is that it potentially raise the questions of accountability and excess spending that I mentioned in my previous posts.
Thanks |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 465
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 1:41 pm: |
|
In your example the bottom line is exactly the same. The PILOT is only helping S. Orange residents. If we followed your example and put 100k into the school portion then 100k less would go into the municipal portion. All we would be doing is creating more work for the tax collector.
Part of the problem with your logic is that we get the revenue from the PILOT every year. And they must increase the payment by the same percentage everyone else has to. This is revenue just like any other to the village.
We would have to raise the municipal rate to make up for the "subsidy" to the schools. How does your suggestion change or help the situation?
I think I am missing what you are trying to accomplish.
And yes, I was being "unfair" by extrapolating what you were trying to convey about being fair. My point is that it is impossible to try to apply fairness or logic when it comes to the property tax system.
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Mark,
I said in my posts that it does not change the bottom line on paper to taxpayers, but as indicated it accompishes the following two important points:
- be fairer in terms of allocating the tax base to the town vs the school
- increase accountability and prevent the Pilot from making one taxing jurisdiction appear overly efficient vs the other or more importantly prevent any jurisdiction to increase spending and have the pilot mask such increase.
The second point is the crucial one. Let me explain to try to drive home my point.
If the Gaslight project normally (i.e if not all the money was going to the village) would generate 250k in village tax revenues and and now is generating 500k in revenues, it enables the town to increase spending to the 500k and show a 4.5% increase in taxes. It is allowing increased spending to match the increased revenues. If the 500k was only 250k, I feel strongly that the BOT would find ways to reduce spending to meet that 250k pool - thus reducing spending and the village taxes. As a result of having larger dollars to play with it, is giving the village more opportunity to spend rather than cut costs. I am not saying that anybody is frivolous with the taxpayer $s, but I am saying it definitely reduces some pressure to cut back. If some of those $s were going to the school (where the situation seems truly severe and out of control) and w/o benefiting MW as proposed in previous post, then the tax payer would save by the village staying w/i the lower revenues available and the extra $s would provide some relief on the school side of things. Any clearer?
It really is an issue of resource allocation and holding each jurisdiction accountable. If the village receives significant additional revenues - say 500k per year and still has a 4.5% tax increase, that does not appear to be a reflection of great fiscal contraint - all we are doing is spending more as we receive more, rather than using it to try to reduce taxes.
Thanks |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 466
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Now I see where you are making a mistake. You state that "if some of the $$ were going to the schools"..... and finish up that "the extra $$ would provide some relief on the school side of things."
The schools would still be getting the exact same amount of money as stated in an earlier post. The only way the school could get extra money is if we gave them some of the PILOT money and left the school tax rate the same (and that would help Maplewood residents, not S. Orange residents).
The only way the schools can get relief is if the state decides to give them additional aid which is unlikely given their} current budget crisis.
The long term budget called for a far greater increase than 4.5%. I think you have agreed to be on the CBAC and after the budget review, I think you will be able to make a better judgement on whether there are places to save and make constructive criticism regarding the budget.
Remember that the salary increases each year are over $500,000 (mostly police and fire) and this year we were hit with an enormous health insurance increase. Basically a 4.5% increase kept things on a status quo so we did not have to cut services.
I would further question why you think the schools would be any more prudent (not that I agree with you) than the village when getting extra money. IF you look back over the last ten years, you can see that the village has certainly done a better job with their budget than the BOE has been able to do (significant increases and cuts in the quality).
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 236
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Mark,
I believe nwyave is picking up on my (and doublea's) argument concerning tax and efficiency pressures and taking the solution in a slightly different direction.
My initial proposal was that money from PILOTs in excess of whatever the ordinary commercial property tax would have brought in be given to the schools. Subsequently I suggested that the town give the district some portion of PILOT money in the form of targeted "grants" which, for it to obtain, the district would need to reduce costs or make its budget transparent, or whatever the Village thought would improve its spending habits.
Nwyave has proposed another approach. He will please correct me if I've misunderstood, but I think he is proposing that any revenues from PILOTs that the Village receives in excess of the amount it would have received if the property were taxed in the usual way should be line-itemed as an "education" rebate to property owners in SO.
In other words, the Village would get to keep all of what it would ordinarily have gotten if a PILOTed property were taxed instead of PILOTed, and it would give back to the taxpayers all of the PILOT "bonus". This would help offset any portion of our taxes you wanted to look at, while at the same time imposing as much fiscal restraint on the Village as it would have had to contend with had the PILOTed redevelopment been taxed in the ordinary way. And the rebate would go to SO residents alone, not Maplewoodians.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 237
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 6:10 pm: |
|
"Maplewood, the BOE and S. Orange should sit down and have a real discussion about the budget and the problems going forward."
Any snowball's chance of that happening? What would need to occur first, to make it happen?
"There are many reasons why it is not just a matter of figuring out how to give them more money to retain teachers."
In exchange for something we want--don't forget that part.
"There are questions about the size of the administrative staff,..."
Yeah. I think SOMEA and the PTAs probably have a master list somewhere, of preferred administrative layoffs.
"...the amount spent on "problem students", the contnuing inablilty to get rid of students who do not live in our district and a host of other issues."
Offer to pay for an extra private investigator. I understand the district can only afford one.
"I think before we figure out how to find more money to spend, we need a comprehensive review of the budget to see if there are places to save or streamline (just like the 2% administrative cuts you mentioned)."
As you know, I'm all for that. But if the prospect of getting more money or funding special items without having to raise school-portion taxes encourages the district to sit down and talk, then maybe we should use that incentive.
I don't know how else things are going to change. |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 80
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 9:14 pm: |
|
JCrohn - your interpetation is correct.
Mark - My concern is accountability and spending to the dollars available. I did go to my first meeting of the CBAC but it was essentially preliminary in nature. I am concerned that the village will spend upto the additional $s it receives and not use any additional revenues from a pilot or any other source to lower discretionary spending.
My concern is the above and intuitively I tie it to the level of debt service over the last 5 years - both in terms of absolute $s and % of budget. The debt service as previously posted is as follows:
Debt Service (principal & interest)
1999 - 1,587,230
2000 - 1,503,441
2001 - 1,563,219
2002 - 1,891,378
2003 - 2,140,669 proposed
Something doesn't seem right and again I question whether it is by choice or are we not living beyond our means. Why is this increasing so much and will this continue to be a concern in future years?
With regard to health insurance - I was at the meeting 4 months ago or so when this was raised - what is the status of getting a new plan to reduce such costs. I was told at a recent meeting that I couldn't be told the status as the BOT need to be apprised of status in private. I realize this is a horrible project as I have been involved in changing health plans, but I was told that it was being looked at. Any ideas of status as we approach July.
Bottom line - increased debt, increase health insurance costs = increased taxes. Both debt and health insurance are things that we have choices with - i.e. incur debt or not which of course has ramifications; change health plans, etc. It may be at the end of the day that residents will take what is proposed because they like what is being financed by the debt and realize the importance of health insurance, however, I am not convinced that we all know enough information.
Why has the debt costs increased (when interest rates are at their lowest levels)? Is it because of SOPAC? This seems to be something that we should know off the top of our head - I believe it is about 9% of the operating budget. Then to top it off, I read that their was a surprise at the increase in the current year. Shouldn't we be on top of that so there are no surprises.
I think that it is a very basic and reasonable question (and one that I would think is readily availabe) - what is the projected debt service for next few years? These #s have got to be available.
It all comes to managing expectations (better people know what to expect now - realistically) and resource allocation. Both of these often require difficult choices. One of those choices came up recently with the school budget. I know I will be in a minority here, but I don't think the 2 trustees should have voted for the extra allocation of dollars - I kind of remember $1.5 million or so. If to your post we really think that the BOE has not been as good as it should have been with regard to the school budget over the years, this was an opportunity to force some revisiting until there was a concensus - that would have enabled us to live within our constraints.
I love this town as I am sure we all do. We can not expect the state to come up with more $ nor keep referring back to that - it is what it is. There will be a point where people will not be able to afford to live here. We will find residents who can not afford to pay the property tax. The town and the BOE will have to make difficult decisions - better now than when its too late. This post is not to be critical. I know from work psn's that I often have, that it is easy to criticize and say don't spend here or there. What is much more difficult is to find the places to cut as ultimately somebody will not be happy with the cut. I think the BOT has that responsibility to make those difficult decisions. Debt service should not be increasing the way it has been and 4.5% tax increases are simply not sustainable.
Thanks
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 468
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 10:10 am: |
|
The debt service was by choice and a lot of it dates back to when the bot (before I was on it) to pave the street, sidewalk and landscape improvements. These improvements have helped attract businesses (Sloan Street), developers (Gaslight Commons, Church Street), and hopefully the trend will continue. This year was the "peak" for the debt service and the goal is to shrink it going forward.
Jcrohn: What would be the difference between lowering the municipal portion of the tax rate vs a rebate? I think it is more cost efficient to just lower the tax rate rather than print several thousand checks.
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 81
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 10:27 am: |
|
Mark,
Thanks. So can I start making some extrapolations? If the debt service will start shrinking and the 2004 will be the first year that the Gaslight revenues will kick in its entirey, is it safe to say that the 2004 muni tax increase will be substantially lower than the projected 4.5% that we are expected to incur this year?
Also being that we are almost in July and the employee health insurance was one of the reasons that we were told that the increase was so high, do you know what the status is of reducing such costs?
Thanks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 469
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
I sure hope we can have a lower increase next year.
So far the village has not been able to find a carrier with lower rates for the health insurance. Our claims experience was not good for the last period it was available which is the main reason why we probably won't be able to obtain any savings with another carrier.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 240
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
"What would be the difference between lowering the municipal portion of the tax rate vs a rebate? I think it is more cost efficient to just lower the tax rate rather than print several thousand checks."
As Nwyave has said, there is a difference in accountability that could lead to a bottom-line difference. And I don't believe he or I have said anything about writing checks; the give-back can simply be an itemized reduction in our property tax bill: "South Orange education rebate". (If rebate is an incorrect term, call it a reimbursement or a refund or whatever.)
It's an intriguing idea. Think of what it might do for the town in terms of attracting home buyers, if they knew that every time a new development obtained a PILOT agreement, they'd be seeing a piece of whatever part of it exceeded the normal municipal portion of the tax the developer would otherwise have paid. That might lead to the town welcoming PILOTs instead of viewing them cautiously, and that might encourage downtown development here relative to elsewhere; the more PILOTs, the more tax-offsetting refunds. The more PILOTed development, the more money for Village services. The more attractive our tax structure relative to Maplewood, the better value our homes are.
Maybe there's a serious downside somewhere?
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 470
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 11:23 am: |
|
Jcrohn: ok, I understand. I thought you were suggesting rebate checks. I will ask some questions to Mr. Matthews for his thoughts and maybe we can discuss this idea at the meeting on 7/31.
Either way, is it ever going to stop raining? |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 12:15 pm: |
|
"What would be the difference between lowering the municipal portion of the tax rate vs a rebate? I think it is more cost efficient to just lower the tax rate rather than print several thousand checks."
As Nwyave has said, there is a difference in accountability that could lead to a bottom-line difference. And I don't believe he or I have said anything about writing checks; the give-back can simply be an itemized reduction in our property tax bill: "South Orange education rebate". (If rebate is an incorrect term, call it a reimbursement or a refund or whatever.)
It's an intriguing idea. Think of what it might do for the town in terms of attracting home buyers, if they knew that every time a new development obtained a PILOT agreement, they'd be seeing a piece of whatever part of it exceeded the normal municipal portion of the tax the developer would otherwise have paid. That might lead to the town welcoming PILOTs instead of viewing them cautiously, and that might encourage downtown development here relative to elsewhere; the more PILOTs, the more tax-offsetting refunds. The more PILOTed development, the more money for Village services. The more attractive our tax structure relative to Maplewood, the better value our homes are.
Maybe there's a serious downside somewhere?
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Ooooh, sory for the double post.
No, it isn't ever going to stop raining. The Lord God Almighty has determined that the only way to rid New Jersey of its tax problems is to drown us.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 197
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Rain rain on my face.
It hasn't stopped raining for days.
My world is a flood.
Slowly I become one with the mud.
--Jars of Clay Flood
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?
|
Soda
Citizen
Username: Soda
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 4:54 pm: |
|
FYI: The Lord God Almighty couldn't care less about your measly tax problems. He told me so last week during a 3-way video conference with Alan Greenspan (That Alan -- what a nutty guy... And his wife, Andrea, makes such a potroast!)
...And so far as your little meteorological concerns go, I'd say that "fixing global warming" has moved up several notches above "drying things out" on The Big Guy's To-Do List.
Get some perspective, guys.
--The Oracle of MOL
BTW: I'd expect a 1/4 or 1/2 percent drop in the Prime next time around, but I'm not your source on that... |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Oh boy! Was anyone else lucky enough to be watching the Trustees' meeting tonight when the Beifus site was being discussed? Hope so, because it was pretty interesting. If anyone else saw it maybe they or one of the trustees can discuss what was said. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 207
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Here you go; a short-hand version of what transpired:
Allan Rosen: Asked Ed Matthews if anything was new with the Beifus developer's agreement. Matthews said no, but they needed one before they begin construction if Beifus wanted some things, such as tax relief. Matthews said he had given Beifus a sample agreement that Beifus could use.
Bill Calabrese said he had talked to Beifus last Friday and Beifus said he knew S.O. was interested in getting the agreement.
Allan Rosen said Beifus has had since last November when the Planning Board approved the site plan.
Considerable discussion whether a developer's agreement was even necessary and Ed Matthews said yes because the Planning Board's approval was conditioned upon a developer's
agreement between Beifus and the Village. Besides the tax abatement that might be asked for by Beifus, the Village wanted to ask for buffer landscaping which in large part resulted from the Trustees passing an ordinance which reduced the size of the buffer (cute; I think Patrick Joyce was the only trustee who voted against the resolution at the time; now we'll probably have to give up something like a tax abatement to get what we didn't have to give up in the first place. Who's minding the store?)
Mary Theroux expressed her extreme displeasure at the length of time it has taken Beifus to do anything, and referred to the fact that the demolition just happened to occur three days before the election.
Steve Steglitz asked if we could condemn the property if Beifus dosen't act soon because as far as Steglitz is concerned, he's never seen anything on the part of Beifus that indicates he gives a s... about South Orange. He's got a lot of money, doesn't live in the town and could just afford to sit there all these years without doing anything. Steglitz feels he needs some prodding to get things moving, such as setting a date for Beifus to have a developer's agreemnet to S.O. for review, otherwise if he wants a tax abatement every day he's late costs him something (nice thought Steve but we don't owe him a tax abatement to begin with).
Arthur Taylor, who also is on the Planning Board, was Beifus' biggest apologist. Arthur felt confident that Beifus had acted expeditiously and in good faith and he was sure Beifus would continue to do so. AFLAC.
Folks, you hadda be there.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3162
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:41 am: |
|
I usually try to stay out of the SO threads since I don’t live there. However, I have been following this thread for quite a while and can no longer resist a few comments.
1. Piloting some properties can make sense if the result is for the public good and would not have been built without the tax abatement/pilot. The thrust here seems to be that Gas Light Commons would have been a much smaller development if no abatement were granted. Does SO really need or want a 200-unit apartment complex? Wouldn’t a smaller development have made more sense? Downtown SO has become a continuous traffic jam, adding 300 (1.5 per unit) cars to the mix doesn’t make a lot of sense imho. Or is this pure greed on the part of the Village Board?
2. Piloting the old ShopRite sight would seem to make some sense since just about everyone agrees that a new supermarket/gourmet shop is a good amenity to have. However, does SO need even more apartments at the Beifus site? How many apartments can SO absorb before the character of the town is changed?
3. At least part of the Pilot explosion seems to be based on the fact that Maplewood picks up most of the school tax increase. Do the two towns really want to get into a Pilot war (I match your $25,000,000 and raise you $10,000,000  )? Maplewood has Springfield Avenue to play with on this score and a lot of under performing commercial/industrial properties in Hilton.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 475
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 10:26 am: |
|
Doublea: Pretty good summary, but here are a couple of things to add. First, I abstained on the ordinance (it was not a resolution) that Patrick voted against(in that case an abstention was the same as voting against it).
I specifically asked last night whether Beifus needs a developers agreement or can he just start building and John Gross stated that he will need to negotiate one first. This is important because we can control certain details with a developer's agreement (material used, landscaping/fence by the pool, etc.).
I have already stated in public that we should not give Beifus a PILOT agreement unless there is some substantial reason that comes up (so far, I have not heard the argument why he deserves one).
I think Art wanted verification from Mr. Gross and Mr. Matthews that the village had made it clear that we wanted Beifus to move quicker before discussing condemnation, etc.
BobK: The developer wanted more apartments and a PILOT helped to insure that he could do a smaller development. The cost per apartment is reduced when you increase the size of the building. The hope is that since the apartments are so close to the trains and the downtown that it would not add to the traffic (those people would walk to the trains, and to the restaurants, etc.). If it was "pure greed" we would have let him add on another floor and asked for more. There is no question that I would have been happier with a building that 150 apartments instead of 200 but the numbers did not work at that level.
The shop-rite proposal calls for condos for sale, not rental apartments and I think they would appeal to a different market (empty nesters?). I won't disagree about Beifus and the need for those apartments since I have already said that I would have preferred offices on top of the retail space. Mr. Biefus feels that the economics make more sense for apartments.
I remember in the early 90's when the village was like a ghost town and there was no traffic. Cars and trucks would zoom through at high speeds with no reason to slow down, let alone stop. Now, there might be some traffic (hey, it is still for only a few blocks and it still takes only a few minutes to get through the village). Most of the traffic problems are caused by cars stopping to pick up or drop off people or waiting for someone to pull out of a parking space. Maplewood has similar traffic problems in the village and probably wishes they had those kind of traffic concerns on Springfield Ave. Milburn Ave. and Morris Ave are nightmares during rush hour and Sat. afternoons. Traffic is a sign of success. We do need to manage it better (more officers telling drivers to keep moving) and we are working on that.
The two towns should not want to get into a PILOT war. The reason for giving a PILOT at Gaslight Commons was to prevent having another abandoned auto dealership and that would not have helped either town. I only wish Maplewood would "play" with Springfield ave and bring in some development even if that means they need to use a PILOT. As long as they do it for the right reasons, I would not have any objections. The problems are created if either town used a PILOT just to hurt the other town.
Of course, some of the problem would be solved if the two towns merged some services in helping to consolidate expenses. |
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
|
bobk said...
"How many apartments can SO absorb before the character of the town is changed"
BRAVO!!! Talk about hitting a nail on the head. What are we becoming? Too late, it seems as though the damage is done and will only get worse.
|
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 71
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 10:55 am: |
|
mrosner said...
"Most of the traffic problems are caused by cars stopping to pick up or drop off people or waiting for somone to pull out of a parking space"
You have got to be kidding. Most of the hideous traffic is caused by nothing more than the amount of cars trying to travel through the village. The traffic that exists in SO is nothing more than a failure to plan and properly time the traffic lights and the removal of 2 lanes of traffic. When traffic backs up to the top of SO Avenue travelling into the Village from Wyoming Avenue they are not heading to Blockbuster. When was the last time the Village had a traffic analysis done? I'd be interested in knowing the true statistics for the traffic through town, how many cars are using SO Avenue, how many are stopping in town, how many are cruising right on through? Well maybe cruising is the wrong word.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 476
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:35 am: |
|
A comprehensive traffic study is about to be done. We have requested bids and the BOT is committed to having a full analysis done (parking and traffic issues). I would hope that they can start in the fall (pointless to do it in the summer when school is out).
I still maintain that a significant amout of the traffic has to do with cars parking or stopping on Sloan street and the traffic then backing onto S. Orange Ave. Every day, I see some car waiting for a space on Sloan Street instead of driving to one of the lots becaue everyone wants a space right in front of a store. The parking problem is magnified by employees who park on Sloan Street and meter feed because they do not want to walk a couple of blocks or purchase a permit. During the weekday evenings there are numerous cars waiting for commuters. If those people simply pulled down away from the main entrance or waited in one of the parking lots, it would allow the other cars to move.
On Saturdays when the NJ transit lot is free and more than half empty, people would still rather park on Sloan street and pump quarters into the meters (even though meter feeding is illegal).
The county's lack of cooperation in synchronizing the lights ( and increasing the amount of time at Trenchard place) also contributes to the problem.
There is no question that a lot of cars travel through the village. I bet a lot of cars have found alternate routes (springfield ave?) because of the traffic.
The number of people using S. Orange train station has tripled in the past ten years which was far more than NJ transit or any of the so called transportation experts predicted (There are now double the number of commuters using S. Orange than what was predicted by NJ Transit). The jitneys are one step towards helping relieve congestion. We are also asking/requesting that NJ transit offer midtown service from Mountain station during rush hours to help relieve congestion in the downtown.
I would further maintain I prefer the traffic congestion to the speeding cars and trucks that flew down the avenue before the changes. |
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 72
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:45 am: |
|
Why would any car pull into the NJT lot to pick up when it would take them such an excruciatingly long time to exit at an 8 second green light.
Why are employees allowed to meter feed? Even with the meters the parking authority should be marking tires and limiting the parking to one or two hours and then they should have to move or get a ticket.
I have rarely seen traffic backed up to SO Avenue for someone waiting for a spot in front of the Sloan street stores. Sometimes, but rarely. Sometimes in the morning when people are visiting Starbucks or DD, but rarely in the evenings. And the train pickups are most often done opposite the fire station, granted a bad spot, but it does not affect traffic on SO Avenue.
Midtown Direct from Mountain Station? Where would people park?
If the congestion does not add anything to the Village then it is no more than an eyesore and a frustration to the legitimate users of the village.
|
David Lackey
Citizen
Username: Davidlackey
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:46 am: |
|
Mark, when you work on the pending Beifus developers agreement, please try to gain more for the town than "material used, landscaping/fence by the pool, etc." Here is a prime commercial site, with approved plans that many people dislike. Beifus' refusal to sell or develop the property for eight years has angered most residents. To now seek tax breaks to move forward with a plan few people like does not sit well. If he asks for tax breaks, we should ask for a combination of a smaller building (three or four floors instead of five) and more shopper parking (to ease our obvious shortage). No deal? Then come up with a new plan or build with no tax breaks.
Why the long wait? "Allan Rosen said Beifus has had since last November when the Planning Board approved the site plan." Exactly! Makes the election-week demolition all the more suspect.
|
snshirsch
Citizen
Username: Snshirsch
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 12:00 pm: |
|
I hate to agree with that election week demolition, but it seems so true. Same goes for the fence around the SOPAC site, it seems they are no closer to putting a shovel into the soil than ...fill in your own analogy...
When will the Beifus issued be discussed? Will there be time for public comments? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 477
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 2:22 pm: |
|
I know it looked like a coincidence to see the Beifus building come down the day before election. If it was going to be part of an election strategy it would have been knocked down several months before the election. Most people did not see that it was knocked down till after the election. However, I also doubt that anyone voted one way or the other based on the demolition date of the building. Mr. Beifus had his approval in November and his permits approved by March. I would have liked it to have come down the same day that the literature from Open S. Orange with the picture of Beifus on it was sent out.
David: I agree with you that we should only use a PILOT to gain much more than just materials and landscaping. My point was really that those are issues that must be put in the agreement before we even discuss anything else.
My concern last night was that he could just start building without an agreement based on planning board approval and I had wanted to make it clear that was not true. I am not even thinking about approving a PILOT for him at this point.
I can't say when it will be discussed but that was part of the conversation last night. If he wants to discuss it in July and there needs to be a chance to discuss, negotiate and have public discussion. We need the agreement before the meeting so we can review it. The board does not usually meet in August so my guess is that we are looking at having a discussion in September. By the time it is voted on it will be close to one year since his approval from the planning board. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosner: That you do not think a PILOT should be given is no assurrance that a PILOT won't be given if all the other Trustees (excluding, I assume, Mr. Joyce) vote for one.
It seems not only prudent, but downright civic-minded, for the BOT to make sure that the residents of S.O. KNOW what the trade-offs are that Beifus is seeking, that the Village is seeking, and at what cost. NO PILOT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO BEIFUS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE RESIDENTS OF S.O. UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS GRANTING ONE WILL BE TO OUR TAXES (SCHOOL AS WELL AS MUNICIPAL) AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
Can you PLEASE assure us of the last sentence above??? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 478
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 4:28 pm: |
|
I understand very well that I have only one vote regarding any issue.
I can only guarantee that I will discuss anything in public that I am legally allowed to discuss and will do my best to make sure that any resident who expresses an interest in anything that takes place with Beifus (or any other developer) is given whatever facts and information that are available. My guess is there will be closed sessions when negotiating the developers agreement although it cannot be voted upon in closed session.
To some extent the residents have to make an effort to either attend trustee meetings and ask questions or watch on TV (based on doublea's earlier post, the sound quality is now ok) and contact your favorite trustee to get an answer.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 4:43 pm: |
|
The audio is excellent - my compliments to the chef. To their credit, the trustees wanted to discuss the Beifus situation in the public session, although Mr.Matthews suggested that they should go into closed session about three times. It might have caused a little discomfort on the part of the trustees, but I think it's better that it's out there, rather than having us speculate on what's happening. It's prety clear that there is a lot of dissatifaction with Beifus' progress to date. Maybe we can move beyond any politics and do the right thing for the Village. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 204
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 11:20 pm: |
|
quote:NO PILOT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO BEIFUS, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE RESIDENTS OF S.O. UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS GRANTING ONE WILL BE TO OUR TAXES (SCHOOL AS WELL AS MUNICIPAL) AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
There's no way Mr. Rosner can make this assurance, and I'd be very concerned if he did. He's one vote, and he's made his position clear. If you have concerns, contact the other Trustess. Push them to look less favorably on PILOTs. It appears that a date has been set for a public meeting about PILOTs and their impact on the town. Great. But no one member of the BOT can make assurances of what will or won't be done, anymore than a Congressman can accurately claim a bill will or won't get passed based on his/her constituents' desires. I assume you don't believe your Congressman if he tells you he will absolutely lower your taxes (rather than fight to lower them).
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?
|
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 123
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 10:11 am: |
|
Given the recent posts on this thread, it appears that Beifus may be posturing itself for an arm twisting attempt on the Village, i.e. "see what a sore I can open on my site if the BOT does not give me what I want, maybe even an abatement" Lets hope none of the Village leadership has had any indicative conversations with Beifus that may have given Beifus an impression that it could get some special benefits from the Village. The site looked like a crack house for six years until April 12 when it got even uglier. The Village needs to be tough but fair given what we have lived with since Beifus closed. This is one of those qualitative factors that should turn into a quantative factor in the developer agreement. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page