Community Forum Regarding 298 Walton Avenue (formerly the JAC building)

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 17 at 7:30pm at the Baird Community Center (5 Mead Street). Please pass along.

Thanks,

Sheena

Thanks for setting this up, Sheena. We'll be there.

Can you let us know what the legal status of the building is? That is, who owns it, are there any restrictions on use, etc.

Thanks.

I wish the meeting were held in the actual building, it would help everyone to envision the possibilities as so many people in our towns have never been inside this space. It would be very nostalgic for the many people who carried a new friend home from there and heartwarming for the old volunteers who loved so many of the temporary residents.

Steve,

I'm not an expert on this topic yet - but I'm learning. From my current understanding, we own the land and building but Maplewood has an interest in the building because they helped pay for it (I believe around $150k). South Orange provided the land and a financial contribution as well (I believe somewhere in the $50k-$75k range). There are no restrictions on its use so all the things folks have been suggesting are all in play.

Sheena said:
Steve,
I'm not an expert on this topic yet - but I'm learning. From my current understanding, we own the land and building but Maplewood has an interest in the building because they helped pay for it (I believe around $150k). South Orange provided the land and a financial contribution as well (I believe somewhere in the $50k-$75k range). There are no restrictions on its use so all the things folks have been suggesting are all in play.

@Sheena,

Is it true that $750,000 came from charitable donations specifically for a shelter?

Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

And again, we need to be respectful of donations given and spent, but not make important decisions based on what economists call "sunk costs".

People who gave money to a failed organization don't have rights in perpetuity to dictate what happens after its demise. The tale of JAC was a sad one, but we have to make forward-looking decision, not backward-looking ones.

We need an animal control strategy, but we need to make one based on where we are now, not on history and could-have-beens.

FilmCarp said:
Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

It was a number that I heard discussed many times, and it was phrased as a question. It does not cost anywhere near that number to run a shelter.

Morganna said:

FilmCarp said:
Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

It was a number that I heard discussed many times, and it was phrased as a question. It does not cost anywhere near that number to run a shelter.

That's meaningless without a specific time frame.

Morganna said:

FilmCarp said:
Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

It was a number that I heard discussed many times, and it was phrased as a question. It does not cost anywhere near that number to run a shelter.

That's meaningless without a specific time frame.

Thanks, Sheena. I have no doubt that you'll get to the bottom of this

Received today from the JAC and Ruth Perrlmutter

o All Our Friends Concerned about the Fate of Our Animals:

South Orange has called a public meeting as to the fate of the former JAC shelter building.

It will be held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 7:30 pm at the Baird Center in South Orange.

Being aware of the glaring absence of a humane animal facility, almost a million dollars was raised by people in our community who made it clear by their donations to JAC the importance of building a no-kill animal shelter in our towns.

Please make every effort to attend this important meeting and let your voices be heard that you want a no-kill animal shelter back in our towns!

P.S. Although we no longer are operating out of our shelter, JAC continues its no-kill mission of rescue, care and adoption of animals in need. Please check our website and Facebook page, Jersey Animal Coalition Fans.

FilmCarp said:
Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

It's hard for me to understand why the Rescue Squad building is costing 1.1 million dollars.

Dear Ruth,

It's a shame you burned that million dollars. But it's not our problem.

kthnry said:

FilmCarp said:
Morganna, are you including operating expenses in that number? If you are, you should ask the folks who ran the place into the ground last time. Because there is no way that that is a million dollar building.

It's hard for me to understand why the Rescue Squad building is costing 1.1 million dollars.

Good point.

Interesting that if South Orange spent 50,000 and Maplewood 150,000, land aside, Maplewood owns 3/4 of the building, so IF the building were still worth 1,000,000 (depreciation vs. current market value) Maplewood has a huge stake in that particular piece of real estate. (Charitable donations apparently considered a loss or bad investment.)

I thought south orange provided the land, and that that made it a 50/50 deal.

That's my understanding.

ctrzaska said:
That's my understanding.

OK so does that give Maplewood a fair 50% vote?

Vote on what? I'll defer to Sheena and others on matters of govt process, but I'm assuming a) SO can't just do as it wishes with the site (I can't recall what the initial agreements spelled out, if anything) and b) it's not a combined vote as there's no structure for it. Maplewood has already deferred to SO. SO will work something out after its process is concluded, and I'd expect some mutual agreement between the two towns on a way forward with or without each other on the site and/or re: AC. Then it'll go through the formal steps (resolutions, etc). I'm obviously oversimplifying, but there will be a process.

Bump. This is tonight. If you cannot make the meeting, feel free to shoot me an email at scollum@southorange.org and I will share your feedback with my colleagues on the BOT.

Thanks,

Sheena

Good meeting tonight, thanks for organizing it.

tom said:
Good meeting tonight, thanks for organizing it.

What happened? Anything interesting, particularly with regard to the animal shelter?

ctrzaska said:
Vote on what? I'll defer to Sheena and others on matters of govt process, but I'm assuming a) SO can't just do as it wishes with the site (I can't recall what the initial agreements spelled out, if anything)

So who can do anything, ctrzaska, regarding a property which is owned by municipal government if not duly elected officials?

The question was whether Maplewood got a 50% vote as a result of their stake. MY question was a vote on what? What "50% vote"? It's not as if the combined BOT/TC all get together in a room and raise their hands on an issue.

It's a process, even with the shared ownership, that's still at one level quite distinct between the two municipalities. SO will arrive at a decision as to what to do with the place, having discussed it with the public beforehand (as now), then ostensibly take it to Maplewood. Whether they vote on a resolution before or after that step I do not know. Presumably they are talking with representatives of Maplewood (Joe M., Bob Roe, etc). I do not believe they can be assured of Maplewood's buy-in prior to any vote, or even discuss it with a majority of the TC, though as I said I'll defer to the likes of Sheena or anyone more knowledgable. Mapkewood would of course have their own resolution and vote. Thus, my explanation that there's a process. Nowhere in that explanation did I state or imply that duly elected officials are not central to that process.

ctrzaska said:
...SO can't just do as it wishes with the site (I can't recall what the initial agreements spelled out, if anything) ...

What was decided, if anything? What is the next step or is the process still at step one

Duplicate post

Interesting that that's what you got out of all that. So SO can do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want to. Maplewood will simply wait for a check. OK, then.

Copihue said:

ctrzaska said:
...SO can't just do as it wishes with the site (I can't recall what the initial agreements spelled out, if anything) ...