| Author | Message | ||
     David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 39 Registered: 4-2003 |
If the proposal under consideration is truly one that would have the bubble owned and operated by an outside vendor (for profit) with South Orange recieving a fee or percentage of the revenue, perhaps the town should also consider building such a bubble on its own and then collecting ALL OF THE REVENUE. Of course, I find it amusing that Orange Lawn was forced to shelf the plan to build a bubble because a dozen neighbors said it would be unsightly, and now the town is thinking of putting one up in a spot that is viewed by hundreds of residents every day. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 583 Registered: 4-2002 |
David: I think Orange Lawn backed off because those neighbors were also members. The Orange Lawn bubble was going to be a lot closer to a very few. By the way, I stated when I heard that Orange Lawn wanted to put up a bubble, that it was fine with me, if it was fine with the neighbors. The village started looking at a bubble last summer. Both the village and Orange Lawn have discussed a bubble in the past so it is not new to either. The village requested an RFP because of the timing and if was going to be approved they needed to start the process. I guess Eric would call it being pro-active. The board still has to discuss the proposal and the options available. It might just turn out that it does not happen this year. For the most part, I don't really see anything wrong with having a bubble so people can play tennis in the winter. They are not that ugly (I am sure some people even like the way they look) and if it can be done in a cost effective manner, then I think we should give it a shot. If it does not work out, we will not have to continue (I think if we commit to a bubble we have to do so for at least three years). | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 41 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mark, I have no problem with the town having a bubble. It would preferable at the courts by the pool, though. My main concerns are with the private for-profit entity that would be operating on town property. Are we going this route to avoid the downside risk if it fails? Your comment "if it can be done in a cost effective manner, then I think we should give it a shot. If it does not work out, we will not have to continue (I think if we commit to a bubble we have to do so for at least three years)" seems to indicate that the Board is not considering building our own (town-owned) bubble. Is that right? | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2001 |
Perhaps the business plan for SOPAC could be modified so that if it does not work out we will not be stuck with that bill either. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 584 Registered: 4-2002 |
David: I really don't have all the details of how it would work. There will be a discussion on Monday night and I will be able to ask whatever questions I want. I will ask some of the questions that have been raised on MOL. The bubble works better at the baird center for several reasons besides being closer to Dave Ross. Rest rooms, place for the staff, etc. I really think there are more positives to having a bubble (despite Dave's thoughs on their appearance) than negatives. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5095 Registered: 5-2001  |
Any way you look at it, it's the town giving over the rights of public property access to a private firm. It diminishes open space (where open = public access). It's just wrong. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 66 Registered: 12-2001 |
South Orange continues to amaze me. How do these absoutely stupid ideas turn into reality? 1. Too many rentals downtown with more to come 2. Development of the quarry 3. SOPAC 4. Tax breaks for everyone but the homeowners And now, giving public lands to a private group. Bubble or no bubble, it's stupid with the rest of the list I itemized above. Please BOT - get a clue. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 585 Registered: 4-2002 |
singlemalt: Taxbreaks for everyone? Giving a "break" to one developer hardly constitutes everyone and as shown at the PILOT meeting, it actually lowered the total tax bill for residents of S. Orange. Quarry: The property owner won the right to develop his property through the courts. The village negotiated to lessen the number of units. The fact remains, that it was the courts of NJ and the Mt. Laurel decision that are the main reasons the quarry is being developed. At no time, was I shown or given a viable solution that would have allowed the village to purchase the quarry. Mr. Beifus has decided the only economically viable solution for his property is mixed use of retail and rental apartments. He was given approval from the planning board. More than one trustee (including myself) has stated that we would not give him an abatement unless he put something on the table for the village or reduced the size of the building. I have stated that I would prefer he built retail and office space. Are you suggesting that a property owner does not have a right to decide what he thinks will work best? The only way we can dictate what he builds is by offering an abatement or purchasing the property (and most developers want to build apartments - i.e. see Montclair's plans for the Hahne's building) There are no other rentals besides the ones that Beifus has planned (that I know about). And the bubble (if the BOT goes ahead) will only be up during the winter when the courts are not used anyway. The public courts will STILL be public courts most of the year. The land will still belong to the village. There has been significant number of residnets who want a bubble in S. Orange so they can play tennis year round. This is a way that allows that to happen without a cost to those who do not play tennis and could generate income for the village. Anyone who has been to a ski resort will understand that ski trails are often built on public land and leased to private developers. It is an arrangement that has allowed many people to ski and generated income for those states and municipalities. How come some people only see the negatives of a situation that has many positives. | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 46 Registered: 8-2001 |
You knew about this bubble thing before we all did. You seem to have hit upon South Orange Specific as your own personal thread. When something like this comes up why don't you take the initative and ask people how they feel about it here on MOL? It's a perfect forum for that type of communication. When someone else starts the thread you get all defensive and it may look to some like you are hiding something. I mention connections to the BOT and you feel the need to put it in quotes as if I was implying something sinister. We all have connections. I think this type of bunker mentality brings out the negative feelings people have towards government. I wish one of you guys would stop being a politician, stop making excuses for the rest of the BOT, stop attacking, and start being a leader. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5097 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, The BOT is talking about letting a handful of vocal proponents give safe passage to a private firm to diminish public space! It's absurd at best. The other recreational leases you describe do not REMOVE public spaces already developed AND PAID FOR WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS from public access. If $.01 went into those tennis courts from Green Acres funds there's no legal way to do this. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5098 Registered: 5-2001 |
Let's not be unfair to Mark. He's at least here listening. And like he said, it's not even decided yet by the BOT. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 586 Registered: 4-2002 |
scollins: Sorry for sounding defensive, but used to seeing you make attacks on the BOT and often without basis. I would think you are implying something by using the word connections. You should mention which trustee(s) the person knows or what exactly you mean by a connection. I could understand if you used the word acquaintance or friend but to me connection means something else, but maybe I have watched too many episodes of the Sopranos. I have asked many how they feel about a bubble. So far everyone has been in favor. But ok, I am asking for people on MOL to tell me how they feel about having a bubble assuming there is no cost to taxpayers to put it up (there will be a cost to use it), and that it is legal. Also, feel free to post any questions you think need to be answered Monday night and I will make sure I get them. Dave: Actually, many ski resorts take public land paid for with public dollars and one needs a lift ticket to use those trails. There are also golf courses in NJ which are public courses run by the private sector. Public land being used by a limited number of people as a way to create revenue for both the public and private sector. I am not saying this is ok, nor do I want to turn over public land to the private sector. In this case, I think there is a significant demand for a bubble so people can play tennis year round. The tennis courts are currently not used in the winter. This is an opportunity to create revenue from public land when it is not normally used. Of course, if the bubble will casue an inconvenience or it turns out that not enough people from S. Orange want to use it, then we won't continue it (assuming we go ahead with it). I will reiterate as of now, I still have not seen the final proposal or asked a lot of the questions that need to be asked. I will wait to make a decision about it on Monday night after we have more information. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5100 Registered: 5-2001 |
My guess is that no one is going to care much about my argument because it's based on maintaining the Public Trust rather than slicing up public land for out-of-town corporations. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 587 Registered: 4-2002 |
Actually, I think people will care. I would not want to participate in anything that was not legal or if there are some real objections to having a bubble. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 25 Registered: 5-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: "Everyone" is not in favor of the bubble. I am not in favor of the bubble. It is my understanding that the park land was deeded to the village with the stipulation that it be free for the use of all residents. A profit-making enterprise would violate the terms under which the village holds the park land. What happens then? | ||
| Flt Citizen Username: Flt Post Number: 86 Registered: 3-2003 |
Slippery slope to get on for a town. Sets a bad precident IMHO. (speaking as an avid tennis player, I often play in the winter on outdoor courts and appreciate their free availablity.) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 588 Registered: 4-2002 |
Lizziecat: I did not say everyone was in favor, only those I had talked with. If it not legal to do then it won't be done. I will ask the village attorney to explain. Flt: The proposed bubble will cover four courts leaving plenty to use outdoors (although I thought the nets were taken down in the winter). Last winter with all the snow, it was kind of hard to play outdoors. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 62 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: I am deeply opposed to the bubble. Public lands for public access. THe BOT's time should be spent on: 1. getting a better deal from Beifus, 2. getting a supermarket on the Shop Rite site, that doesn't come with a mega apartment complex of hideous design, 3.figuring out how to increase the ratables in this town, which have declined by $57 million since 1993, 4. figuring out how to offset the loss in school tax revenue because of the Gaslight PILOT, 5. developing a better story line for how the residents of South Orange paid for SOPAC, but it became a PRIVATE not-for profit organization where the residents who paid for it are not allowed to be privy to its dealings or decisions; where the Town's full-time, tax-payer paid Administrator is also the Exec Director of this PRIVATE not-for-profit entity, yet the BOT created such a structure that they can claim that he (fully taxpayer funded) / they (elected by the taxpayers) / Ed Matthews (fully taxpayer funded) cannot share information about SOPAC publicly with the very people who funded it/them. When you have accomplished all of the above, maybe then it might be appropriate for you and the BOT to discuss resident preferences for or against a "bubble." | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 589 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: Thanks for your input. 1. I did not know we had a deal with Beifus. What is the deal? I was under the impression we are currently negotiating a developer's agreement, but clearly you have other information. 2. I will pass on your comments to the architect to let him know that you do not approve and see if he can shrink the building while making it more attractive. The planning board approved those plans. I have already stated I thought the building should be at least one floor lower, but if you want more ratables, a bigger building would help. 3. The development in the quarry will increase the ratables. By the way, what is the change in ratables since 1998? 4. The school tax revenue did NOT change because of the PILOT. It remained the same. 5. SOPAC is not paid for yet. It has not been built yet. I have stated and agree that the SOPAC board needs to find and hire it's own full time executive director. Ed Matthews is not the attorney for SOPAC. If you want information about SOPAC you need to request it from John Gross. I will discuss the bubble Monday night. It is on the agenda. Feel free to come and formally ask for it to be tabled until you are satisfied the other issues are resolved and I will put forth a motion to table the item. By the way, the public will be able to access the courts under the bubble - for a fee. This is hardly groundbreaking. There are fees for lots of public parks. Many towns/cities charge to use tennis courts that are not covered or lighted. All public golf courses have fees. But I am unclear about one thing. Are you opposed to the bubble or just opposed to what the BOT does (or doesn't do)? | ||
| tototoo Citizen Username: Tototoo Post Number: 139 Registered: 1-2002 |
I am opposed to the bubble. Further, I agree w/all of Dave Ross' posts in this area. "Cameron Field" which is comprised of the whole area, Floods Hill, the Duck Pond, the Community Center, the pool, are literally the ONLY open space left in the beautiful Village. I spend a lot of time walking in that area and part of the beauty is the OPENNESS of it all. When I walk down Mead Street towards the Community Center, the view is inspiring! Same thing walking south along Ridgewood Road as you approach Flood's Hill. AWESOME. Please don't mess with this last bastion of loveliness in South Orange! |
