Facts Matter
ArchBroad said:
Did they close on the sale yet?
Village Green says it closed.
http://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/maplewood-closes-sale-post-office-site-jmf-properties/
khkiley said:
paulsurovell said:Agreed, they approved a proposed redevelopment plan that itself proposes, but does not require demolition.
khkiley said:Or you could say they approved the proposal.
paulsurovell said:Yes, they approved a redevelopment plan that only proposes demolition, but does not require it.
khkiley said:The Plan's proposal on demolition was approved and adopted by the Township Committee.
ArchBroad said:It's clear the redevelopment plan offers demolition up for discussion, but it is not required.
I see no ambiguity in this statement.
Kurt
Kurt
Kurt
A proposal including demolition has been ratified. It is no longer a proposal. It is now required by a legal action of the TC.
ctrzaska said:
ETA: Though in deference to DaveSchmidt's query I may have my answer if we're talking now about other structures in the Village. To that end, I believe that one of the points Fred (can't say it was on behalf of VK as I don't know) had once made was that this ambiguity (real or perceived, full disclosure--I'm in the latter category) should be clarified and eliminated in a future ordinance. I have no issue with that on the surface, and expect that to be one of the things Greg takes up next year. Whether such an ordinance should specifically apply to the Village is a fair question, as is whether the SAP, for example, would be harmed by its constraints if not.
Jerry Ryan's quote cast that provision of the SID in a light that made me question how it would ever be invoked elsewhere in the district. I felt a sudden urge to invoke CONFUSED's avatar: If a buyer wanted to demolish and rebuild, he couldn't because his ability to demolish and rebuild would disprove financial hardship. Jimmurphy's explanation regarding tax dodges helped, but if that clause is what's standing between a current private owner and an empty lot, the ordinary permit protections are not what I assumed them to be.
Anyhoo, as the man says, just an extracurricular query while things were winding down.
OhNo's calls for 1,000 emails and for a "veritable mob" to show up at the TC last night resulted in one person (Dave Heumer) speaking in opposition to the PILOT transfer.
After months of distortions and scare-mongering, Maplewoodians realized at the end that the charm of their village is not threatened by an unpretentious three-story building with 5 businesses and 20 apartments, with enhanced connections to Memorial Park and between the parking lots, and space for public assemblies on Maplewood Avenue.
Thanks to the TC, the Planning Board and the Village Alliance for their good work and perseverance, and thanks to the developer for refusing to allow a campaign of misrepresentations, personal attacks, threats of lawsuits and delaying tactics achieve their goal of forcing him to back out of the deal.
Ttruth, integrity and rational thinking have prevailed in Maplewood.
DaveSchmidt said:
ctrzaska said:Jerry Ryan's quote cast that provision of the SID in a light that made me question how it would ever be invoked elsewhere in the district. I felt a sudden urge to invoke CONFUSED's avatar: If a buyer wanted to demolish and rebuild, he couldn't because his ability to demolish and rebuild would disprove financial hardship. Jimmurphy's explanation regarding tax dodges helped, but if that clause is what's standing between a current private owner and an empty lot, the ordinary permit protections are not what I assumed them to be.
ETA: Though in deference to DaveSchmidt's query I may have my answer if we're talking now about other structures in the Village. To that end, I believe that one of the points Fred (can't say it was on behalf of VK as I don't know) had once made was that this ambiguity (real or perceived, full disclosure--I'm in the latter category) should be clarified and eliminated in a future ordinance. I have no issue with that on the surface, and expect that to be one of the things Greg takes up next year. Whether such an ordinance should specifically apply to the Village is a fair question, as is whether the SAP, for example, would be harmed by its constraints if not.
Anyhoo, as the man says, just an extracurricular query while things were winding down.
That's precisely the intent. It's a preservation ordinance. A person cannot buy a property in the village with the intent of doing a tear down. Exceptions would be if a person bought a building that had been damaged to the extent that repairs would be more costly than rebuilding
paulsurovell said:
OhNo's calls for 1,000 emails and for a "veritable mob" to show up at the TC last night resulted in one person (Dave Heumer) speaking in opposition to the PILOT transfer.
After months of distortions and scare-mongering, Maplewoodians realized at the end that the charm of their village is not threatened by an unpretentious three-story building with 5 businesses and 20 apartments, with enhanced connections to Memorial Park and between the parking lots, and space for public assemblies on Maplewood Avenue.
Thanks to the TC, the Planning Board and the Village Alliance for their good work and perseverance, and thanks to the developer for refusing to allow a campaign of misrepresentations, personal attacks, threats of lawsuits and delaying tactics achieve their goal of forcing him to back out of the deal.
Truth, integrity and rational thinking have prevailed in Maplewood.
This. Thank you, Paul, for your dedication at keeping the actual facts in the public view despite all of the distortions, lies and accusations of corruption floating around.
I have a suggestion...Now that the drama is over, how about we all bury the hatchet (not in each other) and try to reach some common ground of how to...
1) Maintain vigilance that the building will be built to the specs agreed.
2) Suggest other improvements to the village that could be characterized as positive and non-confrontational. I'll even start the ball rolling...Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village. Let's format a petition , circulate it, and present it to the TC...TOGETHER !
3) Monitor, and comment positively on, other development issues in town, such as the PSE&G project, the apartments by Dehart, the former Daibes project, etc. Leave the political agendas behind and try for positive contributions.
4) Stop the character assassination mentality that has been the norm for the past year or two. I'm as guilty as the next, but it's time to knock it off.
I'm ready...How about you?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village.
Why? Are they really that much of a problem?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I have a suggestion...Now that the drama is over, how about we all bury the hatchet (not in each other) and try to reach some common ground of how to...
1) Maintain vigilance that the building will be built to the specs agreed.
2) Suggest other improvements to the village that could be characterized as positive and non-confrontational. I'll even start the ball rolling...Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village. Let's format a petition , circulate it, and present it to the TC...TOGETHER !
3) Monitor, and comment positively on, other development issues in town, such as the PSE&G project, the apartments by Dehart, the former Daibes project, etc. Leave the political agendas behind and try for positive contributions.
4) Stop the character assassination mentality that has been the norm for the past year or two. I'm as guilty as the next, but it's time to knock it off.
I'm ready...How about you?
Peace
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village.
Why? Are they really that much of a problem?
I believe so. The streets of the village are NOT wide enough to handle that traffic properly, as we saw with all the hoo-hah over the Kings "accomodations". I have heard a number of folks say this as well, and it seems to be me to be a natural outgrowth of the whole debate.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village.
Why? Are they really that much of a problem?
I believe so. The streets of the village are NOT wide enough to handle that traffic properly, as we saw with all the hoo-hah over the Kings "accomodations". I have heard a number of folks say this as well, and it seems to be me to be a natural outgrowth of the whole debate.
True, but unless the traffic is high, I don't think there would be a lot of benefit from banning large trucks while the inconvenience to stores would be high.
I appreciate the desire to ban large trucks.
However as a starting point I would suggest studying ways to manage the delivery needs (Including trash hauling) of the village businesses with a goal of increasing pedestrian safety and minimizing disruption to customers and residents.
I believe it is better to approach a problem with a defined goal rather than a prescribed solution.
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village.
Why? Are they really that much of a problem?
I believe so. The streets of the village are NOT wide enough to handle that traffic properly, as we saw with all the hoo-hah over the Kings "accomodations". I have heard a number of folks say this as well, and it seems to be me to be a natural outgrowth of the whole debate.
True, but unless the traffic is high, I don't think there would be a lot of benefit from banning large trucks while the inconvenience to stores would be high.
Maybe I'm just lucky, or my memory is failing, but I can't recall one instance in my 38+ years in Maplewood when I was inconvenienced or endangered by a large truck, apart from a couple of times around 6:00 am when I had to wait a bit for a truck to maneuver into King's alley.
Nor have I.
Now off to ponder Dennis' use of the term "hoo-hah" in response to a debate over appropriate width.
paulsurovell said:
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
tjohn said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village.
Why? Are they really that much of a problem?
I believe so. The streets of the village are NOT wide enough to handle that traffic properly, as we saw with all the hoo-hah over the Kings "accomodations". I have heard a number of folks say this as well, and it seems to be me to be a natural outgrowth of the whole debate.
True, but unless the traffic is high, I don't think there would be a lot of benefit from banning large trucks while the inconvenience to stores would be high.
Maybe I'm just lucky, or my memory is failing, but I can't recall one instance in my 38+ years in Maplewood when I was inconvenienced or endangered by a large truck, apart from a couple of times around 6:00 am when I had to wait a bit for a truck to maneuver into King's alley.
Indeed.
That's why the vehemence over the ohno and VK's insistence in the potentially "fatal" hazard posed by the trucks was ridiculous. But I to think the 18-wheelers are a nuisance. The drive over the sidewalks and cause damage, they block traffic, etc. I'd be ok with hours limiting their presence to before 9am for example. They'd be able to park on the street at those hours, and not need to back up across the avenue.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I have a suggestion...Now that the drama is over, how about we all bury the hatchet (not in each other) and try to reach some common ground of how to...
1) Maintain vigilance that the building will be built to the specs agreed.
2) Suggest other improvements to the village that could be characterized as positive and non-confrontational. I'll even start the ball rolling...Throughout the Post House process, it became far clearer to me that we need to limit, if not outright ban, large trucks from the village. Let's format a petition , circulate it, and present it to the TC...TOGETHER !
3) Monitor, and comment positively on, other development issues in town, such as the PSE&G project, the apartments by Dehart, the former Daibes project, etc. Leave the political agendas behind and try for positive contributions.
4) Stop the character assassination mentality that has been the norm for the past year or two. I'm as guilty as the next, but it's time to knock it off.
I'm ready...How about you?
Agree.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
ctrzaska said:Jerry Ryan's quote cast that provision of the SID in a light that made me question how it would ever be invoked elsewhere in the district. I felt a sudden urge to invoke CONFUSED's avatar: If a buyer wanted to demolish and rebuild, he couldn't because his ability to demolish and rebuild would disprove financial hardship. Jimmurphy's explanation regarding tax dodges helped, but if that clause is what's standing between a current private owner and an empty lot, the ordinary permit protections are not what I assumed them to be.
ETA: Though in deference to DaveSchmidt's query I may have my answer if we're talking now about other structures in the Village. To that end, I believe that one of the points Fred (can't say it was on behalf of VK as I don't know) had once made was that this ambiguity (real or perceived, full disclosure--I'm in the latter category) should be clarified and eliminated in a future ordinance. I have no issue with that on the surface, and expect that to be one of the things Greg takes up next year. Whether such an ordinance should specifically apply to the Village is a fair question, as is whether the SAP, for example, would be harmed by its constraints if not.
Anyhoo, as the man says, just an extracurricular query while things were winding down.
That's precisely the intent. It's a preservation ordinance. A person cannot buy a property in the village with the intent of doing a tear down. Exceptions would be if a person bought a building that had been damaged to the extent that repairs would be more costly than rebuilding
You know, I am sorry if I have muddied the waters here. If the true intent is that this is to be a preservation ordinance, then I am clearly wrong. Proof of financial hardship in a case where preservation is the intent makes little sense, but I guess I could be persuaded otherwise.
I drew on both common sense and experience in South Orange where we have seen owners of South Orange Avenue properties demolish buildings only to have their property taxes reduced.
Preservation ordinances are typically written more directly. This still makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'd love to hear the intent of the original drafters, directly from them.
Clearly a redraft is in order, regardless.
EricH said:
paulsurovell said:
OhNo's calls for 1,000 emails and for a "veritable mob" to show up at the TC last night resulted in one person (Dave Heumer) speaking in opposition to the PILOT transfer.
After months of distortions and scare-mongering, Maplewoodians realized at the end that the charm of their village is not threatened by an unpretentious three-story building with 5 businesses and 20 apartments, with enhanced connections to Memorial Park and between the parking lots, and space for public assemblies on Maplewood Avenue.
Thanks to the TC, the Planning Board and the Village Alliance for their good work and perseverance, and thanks to the developer for refusing to allow a campaign of misrepresentations, personal attacks, threats of lawsuits and delaying tactics achieve their goal of forcing him to back out of the deal.
Truth, integrity and rational thinking have prevailed in Maplewood.
This. Thank you, Paul, for your dedication at keeping the actual facts in the public view despite all of the distortions, lies and accusations of corruption floating around.
Erich,
Thanks, but whatever I've been able to contribute has been part of a collective effort with these people and others who choose to be anonymous.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Kurt- For whatever it's worth I would have supported a move back to the tracks as well, though I did/do find the idea of a one-way circular traffic flow somewhat compelling
As to the reuse bit, I'm sure a simple phone call to any member of the TC to clarify whether a proposal for adaptive reuse would be at least as well received as any other would naturally have been in order for anyone serious about submitting one. We're talking a free call for a potentially massive expenditure.