| Author |
Message |
    
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 5, 2003 - 6:14 pm: | 
|
Lizziecat: Cameron Field (the park on the pool side of Mead Street) has the "free" requirement, one of the reasons we have universal free use of the pool. Meadowland Parkon the other side of the street has no such protection. All our tennis courts except the ones at Farrell Field were improved with the use of Green Acres Funds, which means they must be equally accessible to both residents and nonresidents, although we may impose slightly discriminatory charges or fees if such are imposed on residents. I'm not prejudging the bubble question. The RFP was put out to gather information so that a more informed judgment could be made. |
tototoo
Citizen
Username: Tototoo
Post Number: 140
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 5, 2003 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Huh? Can we just call it the Park? Mr. Rosen seems to have confirmed that the tennis courts by Baird did use Green Acre funds and that the courts in Farrell Field didn't. Guess if they'll have a Bubble, it will be on the courts next to the pool. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 5, 2003 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Mr Rosner:
1. "Deal" or "Developer's Agreement". Same thing, as they both have to be approved by S.O.
My, but you do love to avoid dealing with substance when you can play cutsey with the lingo.
2. There were TWO issues I raised in #2, the first being getting the Supermarket up and running. You may recall that there is a Village Referendum to implement the Town slogan of "South Orange: Home of the 'Coming Soon' sign". I can't think of anything that has been "Coming Soon" for as long as the Supermarket has. Funny how you chose to comment only on the scale and design of the add-on residential component, which wasn't even part of the "Coming Soon" that so many of us have been waiting for, and for which we have hopelessly turned repeatedly to our elected leadership for some action.
3. "The development in the quarry will increase the ratables" you say. At what price to the quality of life in the Village?
4. Doublea has carefully explained the PILOT impact on our taxes in MOL better than I can, and he has done so on more than one occasion. You may have been right for 2002 and 2003. He's right for the remaining 28 years of the abatement.
5. The bonding for SOPAC has already been completed. The financial prospectus for SOPAC, which was done in 1998, TWO full years AFTER the completion of NJPAC, a world-class concert hall and live theater 25 minutes away, didn't even mention NJPAC or what its impact would be on the feasibility of SOPAC making it in such close proximity.
When will the Village contract to have a REAL Financial Prospectus done of the viability of SOPAC, that will include the impact of NJPAC 25 minutes away on its viability? With recommendations as to what type of programming would create a niche market to make SOPAC a viable entity (yes, I know it will require subsidy)?
And when will the Village share with the residents the outcome of negotiations with Seton Hall, and how the issues of separation of Church and State will be enforced, and how SOPAC will be managed so that there is no co-mingling of public and sectarian religious funding?
"If you want information about SOPAC, you need to request it from John Gross" you say. If I do that, it will cut into John's time in negotiating a pro-South Orange Developer's Agreement with Beifus; it will cut into his time in negotiating a pro-South Orange Agreement with the developer of the Supermarket/apartment complex; it will cut into his time in writing open space grants; it will cut into his time in working out the very complex set of arrangements with Seton Hall regarding the co-mingling of public and sectarian religious funds and in determining who gets to use the space, for what purposes, and when. Ah, but, you say, he is a man of many skills. Too bad the list of items above are as much a testimony to his poor performance as it is to that of the BOT.
And please, Mr. Rosner, give me the courtesy of responding to the substance of my comments. |
noracoombs
Citizen
Username: Noracoombs
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 5, 2003 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Don't forget about cutting into John Gross's time in enforcing wild raccoon catching. (See the thread on Animal Control.)
This just shows clearer than ever that Mr. Gross has FAR too much on his plate to ever give this Village what it needs: a professional, full-time eye on redevelopment. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 376
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 6, 2003 - 12:04 am: |
|
I also want to raise a question regarding "The development in the quarry will increase the ratables". (surprise, surprise) We know currently that the property generates around $80,000 in revenue as an undeveloped property.
At what point does that revenue begin to increase for the Village? When the property was sold for $x million dollars? When each duplex is sold & people begin to pay property taxes? When the property is "fully developed"? At the next revaluation?
My point is that it very well could take 5 years for these units to sell (if at all), so when will this genuinely impact our Village budget? Certainly we know it will impact the Expense side of the ledger no later than when the first person moves in. When does the revenue side get impacted? |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 6, 2003 - 12:53 am: |
|
Seems that there are a bunch of people opposed to the bubble. Maybe you trustees should get out and talk to more of us. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 590
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 11:46 am: |
|
Lizziecat: I have made no judgement about the bubble or whether it should be allowed. I have asked a couple of dozen people so far and most have been in favor but that does not mean it is a good project for the village. Anyone can email the village, myself, or come to the meeting to express an opinion.
As for myself, until I have all the details and hear all the questions, I will keep an open mind about it. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 591
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Washashore: I will agree the most important issues for the BOT are getting a developer's agreement done for the Beifus site and for the Shop-Rite site. That does not mean we need to ingnore other issues or that we should not or cannot discuss other issues.
You implied in your post (#62) that we needed to get a better deal from Beifus. I pointed out we do NOT have a deal yet. He has an approval from the planning board and now needs a developers agreement. We can't work on a "better deal" until there is a basis for which to negotiate. Nothing cute about it. It is disappointing that Mr. Beifus continues to move at a snail's pace with no sense of urgency. One would think that with as he continues to pay property taxes and now for an empty lot, that he would want to get the project started. Clearly that is a wrong assumption and the BOT should consider what other legal options that are our disposal.
I am more disappointed than anyone that the shop-rite developers have not moved quicker. I don't know what the delay is since they refuse to say. I have suggested we consider looking for a new developer and one that is ready to move quickly and without apartments. Since two of the team of the current developers are from S. Orange there was a hope that they would have moved quickly and with more integrity.
My point of contention with you is your implications that all the BOT members have less than the best interests of the village at heart, that all/some of us might have alterior motives and that for some reason we enjoy seeing a developer put up a coming soon sign and then doing nothing. I try to represent the village and resent your continued nasty tones and attitude. I requested in public last spring that the coming soon sign be taken down from the supermarket (before the election). I still think it should come down at this point and not be put up until the developer is moving forward with the plans.
The property owner of the quarry won the right in court to build in the quarry many years ago. I was never shown nor was I ever given an an alternative that would not have had a major impact (increase) in property taxes. I saw the reduced number of units as a compromise. While it might not be perfect, 69 high end homes is better than 198 low end rentals. And you asked about increasing ratables. Not me. The quarry will increase the ratables. I do not know the impact on the quality of life in the long run. I am sure you can come up with a question/comment for every response to every answer. It is very cute to ask about increasing ratables and picking a point in the timeline to your advantage. I answered in one way which ratables are being increased. I asked you to pick a different point in the timeline.
As for Doublea, I think he is wrong. I have told him so and he agrees we can disagree. I personally think he does not fully understand the finances of a PILOT. Maybe, just maybe, you do not understand how the LCOR PILOT works and would like to meet with me to discuss. If you convince me that I am wrong, I will state so publically and on MOL.
Clearly there is a concern about the relationship between SHU and the village. It would be a deal-breaker if SHU wanted input or control over what productions the village could put on stage. There are many points in the contract that need to be worked out.
John Gross has many tools at his disposal to help him with his job. If you put a request in for information, it does not mean he is going to get the information together himself. One of the employees will take on the responsibility. Mr. Gross is responsible to make sure it gets done. Just like a CEO of a corporation when they get a request or a phone call, someone else in the organization handles it even when the request is made of the CEO.
As for you last comment, I think you should reread all of your posts going back to your first one. They are often nasty and you rarely show any respect for any of the BOT. You have gone under the assumption that if someone works for the village (volunteer or paid) then they must be inherently bad. Some of us work hard to try to make the village better. You might not like our decisions and you might disagree with some/all of them. You could state that without the innunendos. You could even try discussing with any one of us in person about a topic. Others have done so including some on the board and I think that often the person learns that there are often many good reasons for why something has transpired the way it has. Of course, you have to be willing to listen at some point. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 379
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Mark,
You said ". I was never shown nor was I ever given an an alternative that would not have had a major impact (increase) in property taxes.
NONSENSE!
In December 1999, CPSO gave a presentation to Steglitz & Theorux (and gave hardcopies to be shared with the remaining trustees) with a very clear plan on how the Quarry could have been purchased using a readily available 2% 30 year loan from the State, S.O. Open Space Funds and Essex County Open Space Funds WITH NO INCREASE IN TAXES. This same information was sent to you personally via email earlier THIS YEAR.
Nothing was done to act upon this information.
What's done is done & we all must now live with this. However, for once, I wish someone in Village Hall would have the courage to finally admit there was simply NO DESIRE to preserve the quarry and that nothing that did not produce "ratables" would ever have been considered. It's time the words that are written/spoken corresponded with the actions that were taken.
As Dan's note in another thread suggested, you now have the opportunity to actually take action to ensure that you minimize the negative impact this project will have on all of us by protecting the residents from things such as traffic & blasting. Let's hope that something is done at the meeting Monday night.
P.S. I find it VERY interesting that you now say "69 high end homes is better than 198 low end rentals". All along we ere told these would be "luxury rentals":
Calabrese said the proposed development would be a $100 million project at would create a gated community of 198 “upscale” rental units that could eventually be sold as condominiums. He said that the development would likely have a private security force. The rental units could be priced at as high as $2,500 per month, he said, and would be targeted toward families without small children.
- News Record Dec 23, 1998 |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 276
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Asbury Park - 10 year tax abatement
South Orange - 30 year tax abatement |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 214
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 7, 2003 - 10:58 pm: |
|
While a bubble *sounds* ugly -- right now its all conjecture.
With some drawings and a financial plan in hand -- then we'll be able to make informed decisions.
Pete |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3378
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 8:21 am: |
|
I took a look at the tennis courts by the Baird Center over the weekend. First there are light towers and fences that would probably cause an issue in erecting a bubble. Also, to allow enough out of bounds room some parking might be lost as well.
I make no claims to be a bubble expert, but between soccer in Montclair and tennis at Wall Street (now removed) I have seen my share of these structures.  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 593
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 10:59 am: |
|
Mayhewdrive: I was never given any information from Mr. Steglitz or Ms. Theroux or from that meeting.
I did get an email earlier this year (during the election) and that was the first time I was ever given any kind of numbers on how the CPSO thought the quarry could be acquired. However, it did not give a complete picture. If you want to rehash the proposal and the shortfall, I will meet with you to discuss (and I did give an explanation to a member of the CPSO of what I needed). I did call the state as you had suggested and did have two conversations with the person you had suggested and one with an attorney she had suggested I call. There were some legal concerns and it was not clear that those hurdles could be overcome without a major price to the village.
I never stated that the 198 units were luxury. Maybe the location, but not the units themselves. Just because one trustee (or the village president) states something that does not mean that we all agree.
Washashore asked about increasing ratables. I pointed out that the quarry development would increase the ratables. I never said the quarry should be developed to increase the ratables. It would seem that washashore was in favor of development to increase ratables.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 380
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Mark,
Whatever. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what was/wasn't done.
So, speaking of ratables, can you address the questions posed in my note above from Saturday, September 6, 2003 - 12:04 am?
Thanks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 596
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Sorry, we ignore all posts after midnight. j/k
I will bring it up. If tonight's meetings runs on too late, I will get the answer during the week. |
joso
Citizen
Username: Joso
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Isn't anyone concerned about what an incredible eyesore this would be adjacent to the Baird Center and the surrounding parkland? I would hope that the Montrose Park Historic Association could rally opposition to this at this site. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 114
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 4:51 pm: |
|
When did the banner at the top of the prev. page change? I just noticed it. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5106
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 5:13 pm: |
|
It's likely that the bubble will completely obscure the Baird Center from the angle of the duck pond (and completely dwarf it from other angles), destroying a lot of charm the village's one truly open space has. Kudos to the firm that can convince a public entity to underwrite most of its operating costs. Genius.
|
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 140
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Ski area analogy does not work, those are federal lands under federal laws. |
NCJanow
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 917
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Which tennis courts are under consideration? By the Baird? Or behind the pool opposite the middle school. Maybe by Farrell Field? Would somebody please clarify this for me? Thanks
NCJ aka LibraryLady
|
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 8, 2003 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Dave Ross, when all else fails, there's always reason and rationality. You are my hero.
Have I mentioned that I want to vote for you for the BOT??? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 598
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:11 am: |
|
Dave: Congratulations on getting the board back up. Thanks for putting the picture of the bubble up. Helps to give perspective.
DGM: There are some ski slopes that are on state owned land. The point is that private corporations are already using public space that was funded by tax dollars and open space funds. In some ski resorts the states and municipalities have allowed hotels and timeshares to be built at the base giving a few people preferential access to state parks. I am not saying it is right. My point is that putting a bubble up on public land is not setting a precedent of allowing privatization of public space.
My inclination is that we should not allow it but as I have stated, I will listen to the proposal and to whatever arguments that are presented before making a decision. And the fact that they are noisy and ugly will certainly be an important consideration. It will be discussed this coming Monday at the continuation meeting (starts at 7:30p.m. ).
Nancy: The current proposal is to put the courts by the Baird Center. I think the pool courts would be a better choice if we are going to go ahead with a bubble.
|
NCJanow
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:27 am: |
|
Thanks for the info Mark. This had been brought up once before,several years ago, for the pool courts. I have to say that, while I don't understand how exactly the town would benefit from having private business charge for the use of public land, if this is to occur the property behind the pool is a much better choice. It would be less of an eyesore, easier for the school to use (hopefully they would be offered access) and less intrusive on the landscape.
BTW Mayhewdrive, this is being typed on my own time, I am on my break
NCJ aka LibraryLady
|
patjoyce
Citizen
Username: Patjoyce
Post Number: 26
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:32 pm: |
|
At Monday's meeting Miriam Sumner proposed the idea that the bubble be placed over the courts near the pool (which was the original proposed site). She also suggested that the money made from the endeavor could be used to renovate the pool locker rooms. This way the tennis players get a proper staging area in the winter, and the town gets the advantage of having renovated lockers which can be used year round. I think it makes sense. I am away next week and will miss the continuation meeting. I agree with Mark's position in that I am in favor of the bubble at the pool area, but will listen to the complete proposal and further public input.
Patrick |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 218
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Have any estimates of revenue to the community been presented?
Sure, there is the "soft benefit" of year round tennis in the neighborhood (which might presumably offset the look of bubble) -- but ultimately -- if this means say $10,000 annually to the town then I'd rather the BOT hold off discussion on this topic and do WHATEVER it can to get ShopRite, Beifus, and SOPAC going.
OTOH -- if it means $250,000/ year to the town the disucssion becomes more meaningful.
Of course, IMO, that's once we agree that this is legal to do and won't impact quality of life for the immediate neighbors and the town.
Pete |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 383
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Pete,
ShopRite, Beifus, and SOPAC are "Coming Soon".
Didn't you see the sign?  |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 219
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:09 pm: |
|
MHD --
and the definition of *soon* is?...
Pete |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 384
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:18 pm: |
|
According to John Gross from Monday's Trustees Meeting: "We're working on it".
Doesn't that make it crystal clear?  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 616
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Just as a follow-up, there was no final decision made about the bubble. At this point, it is unlikely to happen this winter.
There will be more discussions at a future meeting about the details. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page