Kings "looks forward" to Post Office Redevelopment Project
ramzzoinksus said:
Its not called "The Alternative Press" any more.
Well, it was at the time, and that's the name I used to look up to see if a story was filed at the time.
Oh, and Mr. Harvey, on behalf of Engage, invited people to that meeting with a post on MOL, indicating that the post office redevelopment would be a topic.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/99874-Reminder-Engage-Maplewood-Crowd-Gathering-Monday-9-16-7-15-PM
Well in relation to the Kings development. I don't see any great victory. I see the punchline to a joke.
I see the pathetic fact that neither the builder nor the Township seemed to be aware of the problem.
I see as pathetic the way a town official reacted to the Kings representative when confronted about the
problem. I think the whole scene did not reflect well on anyone involved in the building of the Kings Folly structure.
Yes I knew and wrote several times that a solution would be found.
Has anyone checked to see whether the builder has remembered to include bathrooms in this thing.?
author said:
Well in relation to the Kings development. I don't see any great victory. I see the punchline to a joke.
I see the pathetic fact that neither the builder nor the Township seemed to be aware of the problem.
I see as pathetic the way a town official reacted to the Kings representative when confronted about the
problem. I think the whole scene did not reflect well on anyone involved in the building of the Kings Folly structure.
Yes I knew and wrote several times that a solution would be found.
Has anyone checked to see whether the builder has remembered to include bathrooms in this thing.?
In other words, there is nothing the T.C. can do to gain your approval short of complete capitulation.
I don't think most people see it as a "great victory" either, rather something that can be crossed off the list in terms of barriers/problems, and to move on from.
Ice .......thank you for what I will assume is a complement. It is common knowledge that our Kings is the single most profitable Kings per square ft of floor space of any in the State. Besides they don't want to make me angry.
TJohn .............Not in other words...........in reality.
Every project of this size--and even smaller--requires adjustments. Is the new argument that the gestation phase isn't perfect?
The adjustment was born of the state of ignorance. Not to have know that there was a problem at this late date in the planning showed some one did not do their homework.
And the dog ate my homework does not work by the time one gets to be an adult.
Why can't you just consider this a victory?
author said:
The adjustment was born of the state of ignorance. Not to have know that there was a problem at this late date in the planning showed some one did not do their homework.
And the dog ate my homework does not work by the time one gets to be an adult.
ArchBroad said:
Why can't you just consider this a victory?
author said:
The adjustment was born of the state of ignorance. Not to have know that there was a problem at this late date in the planning showed some one did not do their homework.
And the dog ate my homework does not work by the time one gets to be an adult.
Because it didn't stop the project.
author said:
The adjustment was born of the state of ignorance. Not to have know that there was a problem at this late date in the planning showed some one did not do their homework.
I disagree. The only store in town that needs deliveries by tracker trailer and needs to drive over the town's or someone else's property to make these deliveries isn't proactive about discussing their delivery needs with the town, knowing that the building (they were going to be involved with) that could affect this is being developed?
Good thing VK gave Kings the negotiating leverage to insist on making the town safe for their big rigs!
Because it is not a victory of any kind. It is a solution to a problem which should never had existed.
It is indicative of sloppiness that could be scary. It is indicative of a builder who tried to slip extra footage on the height of the proposed building and got caught and forced to drop the height a full floor.
It is indicative of a builder who initially said he could not reduce the height of the building for "fiscal reasons" and then was forced to when he got caught with is hands in the cookie jar.
Its indicative of a builder who constructed The Avenue in South Orange and even after all contracts were signed tried to squeeze extra monies out of the Town.
It is indicative of a builder who was called a "bad neighbor " by the large grocery store next to The Avenue
It is indicative of things to come if this guy gets the go ahead and construction starts
author said:
Because it is not a victory of any kind. It is a solution to a problem which should never had existed.
It is indicative of sloppiness that could be scary. It is indicative of a builder who tried to slip extra footage on the height of the proposed building and got caught and forced to drop the height a full floor.
It is indicative of a builder who initially said he could not reduce the height of the building for "fiscal reasons" and then was forced to when he got caught with is hands in the cookie jar.
Its indicative of a builder who constructed The Avenue in South Orange and even after all contracts were signed tried to squeeze extra monies out of the Town.
It is indicative of a builder who was called a "bad neighbor " by the large grocery store next to The Avenue
It is indicative of things to come if this guy gets the go ahead and construction starts
Babble, babble, babble...Don't you ever get tired of saying the same 4 things over and over and over and over, even when they're not part of the subject? Why don't you join Fred on his MOL vacation, and give us all a break.
author said:
Because it is not a victory of any kind. It is a solution to a problem which should never had existed.
Damn straight. Those trucks are way too big for Maplewood Avenue, so much so that we have to move buildings around to get them to fit.
Deniss.........You might get tired of hearing the same items over and over. That does not make them any less the truth. And a very strong truth tells us that he who ignores the lessons of history is bound to repeat them over and over.
Have a nice nap.
ridski said:
author said:Damn straight. Those trucks are way too big for Maplewood Avenue, so much so that we have to move buildings around to get them to fit.
Because it is not a victory of any kind. It is a solution to a problem which should never had existed.
It is almost funny when you come down to it. But I guess things have to be done to accommodate an anchor anything.
When we first moved in we were looking for an architect and someone recommended Inda-- we ended up not needing one but I assume, Inda, you do residential work. I mean this in the best way possible, but I would suggest you pull back a bit on how you are publicly dealing with this post office thing. You're not giving the impression that you are willing to work WITH people and compromise where necessary, especially if someone is looking to change to make substantial changes to what may be an older home. If I were looking for an architect and googled you, I would probably not hire you based on your discussions here.
Again--I'm just making a well-meaning suggestion as an outsider who honestly does not give a rat's a$$ about this post office thing anymore.
Author, you seem awfully cranky today. While I disagree with nearly everything you post on this subject, you usually do so with a tinge of humor.
Yes it was about the Post Office and it was about communication etc. read it again..there is no talk of opposition to demolition. That was not EM's role or goal.
Also @Sarahzm - the article that there were more than 25 people there, which is fairly accurate -our count was 35-40, as folks came and went.
nohero said:
sarahzm said:I was at the meeting at Morrow.
IndaSechzer said:Well, I spent about 15 minutes at the meeting and that was my experience. I arrived perhaps 5 minutes after the start time, spoke to a number of people and left quietly after the meeting got underway. I felt duped and I think the actions of Engage have shown that my initial opinion was correct. I am active at that church and went to another meeting there - so I peeked in as the meeting was going full force. Perhaps there were other Engage meetings at the same location, but at the one I saw, there were fewer than 15 people there. I'd say perhaps 10 .
sarahzm said:Sarah, you are not correct and you are misrepresenting. Please do not promulgate misinformation.
When Engage was first being organized they claimed to be about fostering transparency in the process, and those claims lured me to an organizational meeting they held in a meeting room offered by Morrow Church. There were perhaps 8 to 10 people there and in less than 15 minutes I realized I had made a mistake. It was not about an open process. It was only about opposing development of the PO site, and it seemed to me that there were people there who had real emnity towards some sitting on the TC.
Even if I had sympathized with their cause I found their approach and the attitudes of some members disturbing and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.
The meeting you refer at Morrow Church was not about opposition. Though there were a few who attended that meeting who were about opposition, the mission of EM was and still remains transparency and communication - engagement of the government with the people. Oh and that meeting was attended by about 40 people. it was out of that meeting, that a long list of questions regarding the RFP was created and sent to the TC.
That meeting was prior to the realization by many that here was no substantial reason to demolish the existing building. Prior to that most of us, me included, assumed the TC had a good reason, like a structural deficiency or some such important issue. Re-examination of the Rehabilitation Study showed no substantive reason.
OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.
If your claim of 50 in attendance at this preliminary organizational meeting is correct, it's interesting that Engage was able to muster less than 2 dozen to attend the even more important TC meetings
So was someone from The Alternative Press.
https://www.tapinto.net/articles/engage-maplewood-gathering-brings-post-office-con
It was about the Post Office, as I recall, and as reported at the time.
author said:
The adjustment was born of the state of ignorance. Not to have know that there was a problem at this late date in the planning showed some one did not do their homework.
And the dog ate my homework does not work by the time one gets to be an adult.
Isn't this the process? The developer makes a proposal for review and questioning by the relevant government authorities. Interested citizens and businesses express their feelings and problems with the proposals. Then, the developers revise their proposal to address these problems. What's the point of an extensive review process if we demand the developers show up with a "pat hand?"
Perhaps you never thought this was a major obstacle but in late May and the first couple days of June, the discussion was dominated by turn radius calculations and the threat of Kings bailing out of town. Thanks to everyone, including your organization(s), a resolution satisfactory to the major stakeholder was reached, and without undue expense or litigation.
joan_crystal said:
Nice! Thanks Annette for sharing this information.
ctrzaska said:
But... but... I thought this most profitable store was closing over the simple issue of the size of a truck! Who knew it would be that easy? Well, besides Vic, who apparently meant it when he said he'd take care of it. Not that it took a great deal of brains or faith to determine he would, of course.
Annette deserves thanks for more than sharing the information. My sources tell me that the way Vic took care of it was by delegating to Annette.
ice said:
"Yes it was, if continued to be ignored by the TC adn PODRS"..... OK, but there was ZERO possibility that it would be ignored by the TC, and the Mayor himself indicated that, so hence losing Kings was never a real possibility. Again, Inda, I'm sure you know that and I'm certain that you are just attempting to rationalize Mr Olin's fear-mongering statements.
Not rationalizing anything...I am telling you what I saw and heard from both the mayor at the April MVA meeting as well as at the May 6 meeting and what we were told by the Corporate rep at Kings.
When you say ZERO possibility, can you substantiate that? From the point when Kings confirmed that they weren't moving across the street, do you have documentation of ANYONE addressing this issue?
We received a site plan dated April that shows the ingress lane to Ricalton shifted 20+ feet with no accommodation to Kings. So by April, JMF's site plan showed nothing changed and if OnNo60! hadn't spoken out about this by OPRA request, emails, and MOL plus speaking out at the APril MVA meeting, the issue would have been glossed over and ignored. A few citizens also reached out to Kings corporate and subsequent to that they came to the May MVA meeting - you know the rest.
But it is water under the bridge- hopefully we will see some resolution in the new plans...so let's move forward and see what happens.
Mr. Olin's statements are not my statements. And I do not see Mr. Olin's statements as fear-mongering anyhow.
afa said:
When we first moved in we were looking for an architect and someone recommended Inda-- we ended up not needing one but I assume, Inda, you do residential work. I mean this in the best way possible, but I would suggest you pull back a bit on how you are publicly dealing with this post office thing. You're not giving the impression that you are willing to work WITH people and compromise where necessary, especially if someone is looking to change to make substantial changes to what may be an older home. If I were looking for an architect and googled you, I would probably not hire you based on your discussions here.
Again--I'm just making a well-meaning suggestion as an outsider who honestly does not give a rat's a$$ about this post office thing anymore.
I do not know who you are (tho I have an idea) and if you are going to criticize me, it would be appropriate to reveal your identity. If you don't give a rat's ass, why do you go out of your way to make libelous statements about me. Really you have a lot of nerve.
You make a statement that I am unwilling to compromise, but you did not ask me if am willing - you merely jumped to a conclusion.
Your statements are not "well meaning" at all. And you have no idea regarding the bulk of my practice of architecture. If you were so well meaning, you would seek me out privately to air your "well-meaning" concerns about my career. Instead you have made these nasty comments in a public forum.
Why don't we meet for coffee sometime and discuss the PO project and more and see if I am willing to compromise....instead of pontificating on MOL. Let me know when you can meet.
LOST said:
joan_crystal said:
Nice! Thanks Annette for sharing this information.ctrzaska said:Annette deserves thanks for more than sharing the information. My sources tell me that the way Vic took care of it was by delegating to Annette.
But... but... I thought this most profitable store was closing over the simple issue of the size of a truck! Who knew it would be that easy? Well, besides Vic, who apparently meant it when he said he'd take care of it. Not that it took a great deal of brains or faith to determine he would, of course.
Haven't reached out to her (yet), but her ability to arrange a quick and mutually agreeable solution wouldn't surprise me either.
There is nothing in afa's post that could even remotely be construed as libelous. Just fyi.
Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that IndaSechzer doesn't or isn't willing to compromise in other situations and projects. However, in this particular discussion and in this particular forum she has been adamantly advocating a process - adaptive reuse of the current building - which pretty much is the polar opposite of what is being proposed. I have no reason to believe she isn't an advocate of compromise in general, but in this particular project and in the MOL space, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
It seems very likely that if everyone threw up their hands and said "lets do adaptive reuse" she would vehemently oppose what ever adaptive reuse is chosen or even do a 180 and call for the building to be demolished.
so it was 25 people.