| Author | Message | ||
     Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4474 Registered: 5-2001 |
I haven't read the full plan, just the summary in the News Record. Based upon that information, it would seem that the proposed redevelopment plan is ambitious at best and if implemented improperly could do serious damage to both the quality of life in our town and the viability of our remaining small businesses. Anyone remember how disasterous the opening of Home Depot in Union was to several Maplewood businesses which went out of business entirely or reorganized on a much smaller scale shortly after Home Depot opened? The opening of big box major chains on Springfield Avenue could have a similar effect on existing businesses in town if we are not careful. There also seems to be a push to use eminent domain in a number of areas in town to assemble large lots by forcing out existing businesses that don't want to sell (Remember how the owners of the businesses in Nelson's reacted when that site was considered for an expansion of the police station?) If the News Record reported the situation correctly, one of the proposals would be to assemble the Nelson's property along with the present Police Department site and the adjacent office building to attract a major developer. This is not the only such proposal in the plan. I would urge our Township Committee and other official bodies which review this plan to consider it very carefully before adopting any part of it. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 182 Registered: 11-2003  |
Here's a link to the Maplewood Economic Development Action Plan. The document is a series of recommendations put together by the economic development professionals hired by the township. The TC has the perogative to implement those recommendations, modify them or reject them outright. For what it is, I personally think that it provides a pretty good starting point for the TC as they consider how to approach development thoughout the township. FF | ||
| extuscan Citizen Username: Extuscan Post Number: 389 Registered: 6-2001 |
The police station should be a law office, or an architects studio, or something not retail. Why on earth is Nelson's constantly being targeted for "something else". First it was NJ Transit wanting to turn it into a parking garage, and now its this? They are the nicest people too... About... errr... 20 years ago we went to have the Impala wagon fixed and my brother was fascinated by these airplane pictures Nelson's had all over the waiting room. They were apparently pictures taken by a relative of the owner, so the owner had a full set which he gave to my brother! We had them framed and they hang in our garage today... We really should stand up for the rights on individual property owners. ESPECIALLY NICE PEOPLE like the owners of Nelsons. BTW... Springfield Ave was NEVER, EVER, EVER a high brow shopping area. It was always what it is now. Its not a cute little village, it is what it is because we need paint stores, body shops, and apparently, nail salons. Central planning of redevelopment is silly... if you want to see redevelopment that meets the economic needs of the area, loosen the zoning restrictions and let developers do what developers do. John | ||
| Lydia Citizen Username: Lydial Post Number: 796 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sac - I support exploring big stores, just the right ones. There are many little businesses that could move along. While I like the NetNomads/Wooden Toys/Bead shop strip, I think there are many (other) small businesses on S'field Avenue that haven't evolved with the changing times and clientele and should consider calling it a day. There are some great businesses (DePietros) that would benefit from being surrounded with other walk-friendly shops. I'm sure there's a balance that can be acheived on Springfield avenue - a little new, a little old and a few surprises. I'm glad we're seeing some new ideas and conversations are developing. Change is almost always uncomfortable, but talking about it and being a part of the process is what makes a real community. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3158 Registered: 5-2001  |
THere needs to be a movie theatre to keep the restaurants hoppin. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 597 Registered: 7-2004 |
Springfield Ave. seems prime for some select chain outlets. That Vic DeLuca would oppose that idea is very surprising. It is certainly possible to maintain what is a wonderful collection of small, locally owned businesses, mixed in with some well-chosen, well-courted national retailers. For example, a Children's Place would probably thrive, as would a Foot Locker, or other clothing/shoe outlets. Could anyone really deny the need for a supermarket in that area? Lydia has the right idea in that a good, balanced mix would work toward invigorating the area while maintaining the small business feel. It's distressing to read the president of the Springfield Avenue Partnership speak ill of what could be, if done right, positive change. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 194 Registered: 9-2003 |
I find it surprising DeLuca would run on a campaign of holding down commercial rents. To me, holding down rents means holding down property values. If commercial property values rise so will their tax payments. If not, who pays the difference? Homeowners, of course. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7022 Registered: 5-2001 |
I hope Vic isn't falling into the trap of being against everything the current TC is for. He should remember that when he was Mayor he had the gumption to tackle Springfield Avenue, which is kind of the third rail of Maplewood politics. As a community we agreed to spend up to $10,000,000 on infrastructure improvements and to a great degree this was sold to us rank and filers as a way to increase rateables. Or maybe Vic is a little like Dr. Frankenstien. He has created a monster that he didn't intend to create?  | ||
| Celia Kent Citizen Username: Cel Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2004 |
I think Vic is already a mile down that trap. His petty hatred for Profeta has blinded him to seeing the big picture and supporting projects that would be advantageous to our community. The die was cast when he didn't even have the courtesy to show up for the new Township Committee's swearing in ceremony last January. Vic is the epitome of a sore loser. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 4776 Registered: 1-2003  |
fruitcake, keeping rents to a level that a variety of useful businesses can afford is useful for the town. We were just discussing that in another thread. I'm willing to pay high taxes in order to have useful local businesses. I'm also willing to pay higher prices for the goods and services, within reason, of course. But if businesses can't afford the rent, it does no one any good. extuscan, incentives work, and they can be mutually beneficial for many people. They can be better than a laissez faire policy. Developers sometimes sit on buildings without renting or renovating them because they are waiting for the market value to increase. That benefits only developers, and it's a shame. | ||
| vicdeluca Citizen Username: Vicdeluca Post Number: 205 Registered: 5-2001 |
I was disappointed about the way the reporter used my comments in relation to the Springfield Avenue Redevelopment Zone. I support moving forward on that site. In fact I was the one who proposed that site to the other members of the Township Committee because of the deeper lot depths that could accommodate larger scale development. I voted for the site and agree with the vision of that site being a mix of uses that includes chain and independently owned retail shops, housing and offices. I think with the police station, the church and other new development on the north side of the Avenue, the redevelopment zone has tremendous potential to make a difference in an area of the Avenue that has not seen much developer interest over the years. The comment in the newspaper article was only part of a larger conversation I had with the reporter. I told her that I thought the report was weak with regard to how redevelopment, at the scale proposed, would impact the quality of life in the town. In addition to increasing ratables, improving the quality of life has to be an equal goal of our redevelopment efforts. The report talks about making life more convenient for shoppers but it does not address real concerns related to increased traffic in residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to redevelopment zone 1 and 2 or the potential impact, both positive and negative, on Avenue businesses. In their verbal presentation on December 6th, the consultants at least two times used the phrase “do no harm to Maplewood Village.” I agree with them but also want us to include the concept “of doing no harm” to other parts of Maplewood too. The fact is that Maplewood historically has been a place that values independently owned shops rather than chain stores and if we are to forward in that direction, we need to have community buy-in. I think the report could have raised traffic and local business impacts as items at least to consider or it could have pointed out how other municipalities have dealt with them. One of the above posters is correct that we need to seek a balance as we move forward with the Avenue’s redevelopment. That balance will only come from critically looking at all aspects of what we are trying to accomplish. The 12/16 editorial in the NewsRecord speaks directly to this point. Another concern I have with the report is its reliance on the state redevelopment law, i.e., the public taking of small private lots to assemble for a larger development. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case from New London, Ct. that deals with municipal rights to take private property. I think the report should have raised other options available to the Township (for example, land banking by the town) in case the results of the court case are not positive. In addition, there was a post that says the report does not include a recommendation to take residential properties. That is not true. There are properties along Burnett Avenue that are proposed for taking. This is the second redevelopment zone now under consideration. The proposal on this site is to build more than 200 units of housing and on-site neighborhood retail. The report also talks about a supermarket at the corner of Burnett and Rutgers. These two proposals need much more discussion about the impact on our neighborhoods and schools. I suggest that folks read the entire report and look at other critical reports about Maplewood's development – 1999 Maplewood Economic Development Report, 2002 Mayors’ Institute Report by the Regional Plan Association and the 2002 Master Plan. We need to engage the total community in the process and broaden the debate. The report, rather than being the end of the conversation, should be used as the starting point. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3160 Registered: 5-2001 |
proposed for taking residential properties? Perhaps you mean buying. | ||
| Glenn Citizen Username: El_duderino Post Number: 507 Registered: 2-2004  |
I think the proposal makes a lot of sense, and it emphasizes the importance of attracting national chain outlets to various points in the town, especially along Springfield Ave., where smaller chains could co-exist with the independently owned stores along the designated Pedestrian Retail Business Zone and larger chains down toward Burnett can function as anchors. The idea that the Pedestrian Zone on Springfield would be helped by getting rid of "signs of disorder" (i.e. broken windows, boarded up building and graffiti) and that the car dealerships and vacant gas station are eyesores and impede pedestrian traffic made a lot of sense. As did adding buildings, and improving facades, that would add to the overall charm of the avenue. While I've never been a huge fan of cookie-cutter chain outlets, this report seemed to feel the addition of them, both large and small, would add convenience to residents' lives and would help stem the tide of increasing taxes. If that is the case, I would support attracting retail chain outlets to co-exist with the independently owned businesses, and I think some chains would compliment local business and be a boon to our town. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 4715 Registered: 4-1998  |
Taking and buying. These are peoples homes. There's more than a cash value associated with them. | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4477 Registered: 5-2001 |
Vic: Are you referring just to the residences which are located in the commercial zone under consideration for redevelopment or to other residential properties as well? | ||
| canismajor Citizen Username: Canismajor Post Number: 299 Registered: 7-2001 |
Wherever there's an eminent domain taking, there's usually massive litigation involved. The legal costs to the town could make the $ it spent in the Les Saisons case look like chump change. Coupled with the negative publicity and further eastside v. westside rancor that will undoubtedly accompany any condemnation and taking of property, it could be a real quagmire. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3163 Registered: 5-2001 |
oh boo hoo. THen why are we discussing redevelopment? Did you know, Dave, as an example, that some people's homes were bought to build MMS? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 4724 Registered: 4-1998 |
At least the school has a measureable benefit for citizens. Chain stores offer uncertain outcomes, if you can even convince them to locate this close to Rt. 22. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4147 Registered: 10-2001 |
How much did Maplewood pay to have some "expert" tell us we should recruit big chain businesses to SA? NO DUH! This is unreal. Here we are what 4 years later and it's the same thing. No police station, no serious development and Vic Deluca in the middle of it all. Look, for those who have done everything they can to make SA what it is now, I tip my cap. However, I do believe it's over. Serious businesses won't park a few blocks from Irvington. They certainly won't do it without the protection of a top quality police facility in the immediate area. Johnny Rockets? what the? Fred, I can only hope you haven't paid these experts yet. If you have, It looks like we've been taken to the cleaners. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3165 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave - I was in Westfield today. Can't get any closer to route 22. THere was a GAP, Mimi Maternity, Smith and Hawken, other mall stores and also barber shops, candy stores, used clothing etc. And the place was bustling. Oh yea, and a movie theatre. Gotta have a movie theatre |
