POST OFFICE SITE DRAMA (summary)

Along with Suede depictions of Elvis , possession of that whatever it is is punishable by  being forever banned from the

Maplewood Theater

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

But in this case, I have done a lot of research, and thought a lot about this, and I would be very, very surprised  if a significant number of people against the development weren't misinformed to some degree. 

I can appreciate that, and I'll continue to keep it in mind. I have to concede, though, that I remain wary of no-win arguments. Examples include: If opponents do somehow win support at the polls, it's because voters were misled or turnout was low. Or: A lawyer doesn't know as much about architecture as experts do, unless those experts are named IndaSechzer, Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey.

Neither Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey (both of which reprinted materials last year sent by Ms. Sechzer) have issued any pronouncements about the proposed building.  If someone suggested otherwise to you, you were misinformed.

nohero said:

Neither Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey (both of which reprinted materials last year sent by Ms. Sechzer) have issued any pronouncements about the proposed building.  If someone suggested otherwise to you, you were misinformed.

For a reminder:

 http://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/104677-DoCoMoMo-highlights-Maplewood

It's a political campaign. There will be exaggeration, hyperbole and spin.

LOST said:

It's a political campaign. There will be exaggeration, hyperbole and spin.

 before there was someone running for office, there was exaggeration, hyperbole and spin.  by people who claim their efforts are not political.

I knew I'd be misinterpreted. The campaign against the TC plans is a political campaign. Not political in the sense of candidates and elections but the campaign around an issue is a political campaign

however one describes it, you would have hoped that people who are friends and neighbors would try to argue more honestly than some people have.

The Louvre?  Really??

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I'm pretty sure I haven't called the opposition uninformed. But I do think ohno60 has taken advantage of some folks' lack of awareness to push a narrative that exaggerates the size of the  building and minimizes the due diligence of the TC. 

This was the comment that brought my thought to mind: "Would they object to the project if they knew it's the result of years of planning, study, revision, public input, etc.?" Not "the opposition," per se, and not you, per se, but the implication, which pops up now and again in these discussions, that residents on the sidelines who post lawn signs or otherwise have objections don't really know what they're objecting to. I prefer giving them the benefit of the doubt that they do.

 I've been posting on this board for a long time, and I don't toss gratuitous insults.  And like you I tend to believe that people try to be informed about the issues.  But in this case, I have done a lot of research, and thought a lot about this, and I would be very, very surprised  if a significant number of people against the development weren't misinformed to some degree.  I've talked to the ohno60 people, I've read their petitions, webstite, FB page, and some of the emails they send to their followers.  I've talked to people and overheard people still saying they don't want a "five story building" on the site.  I've read Lembrich's op-ed in which he calls the development "large scale," which it objectively isn't. 

I think most of the people with signs, and supporting Lembrich know what's going up on the site.  And it seems for many people 20 apartments is a deal breaker.  But I would be very, very surprised if there aren't hundreds of people who really believe a four or five story tower with "large scale retail" is being fast-tracked by a TC with too close ties to the developer.  If the ohno people didn't want others to get that impression, why would they use those kind of words?

Within that second-to-last sentence and that last question lies the rub... for quite some time now.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

[...] I have to concede, though, that I remain wary of no-win arguments. Examples include: If opponents do somehow win support at the polls, it's because voters were misled or turnout was low. Or: A lawyer doesn't know as much about architecture as experts do, unless those experts are named IndaSechzer, Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey.

Neither Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey (both of which reprinted materials last year sent by Ms. Sechzer) have issued any pronouncements about the proposed building.  If someone suggested otherwise to you, you were misinformed.

If someone thought I suggested otherwise, I was misunderstood. For the record, I was only noting that Mr. Lembrich appeared to be no less willing to defer to one set of design experts on the Post House than other lawyers and amateur critics were to a different set of design experts on the post office building. (Fine by me: I understand everyone has his or her reasons. The peccadillo is that something like ArchBroad's No. 3 response to the Lembrich op-ed can lead to a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type of dead end.)

ml1 said:

If the ohno60 people didn't want people to think many Township residents are misinformed, they should have been more scrupulous about providing only good information. They threw so much dust that no one can reasonably know how well-informed all the sign bearers are. I hate that regardless of outcome, an important Township issue is going to unavoidably be determined at least in part by bad and misleading information. 

That's a high standard for any public issue or campaign. And, just in my callow opinion, a low one for dust's ability to blind the electorate in this township.

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

[...] I have to concede, though, that I remain wary of no-win arguments. Examples include: If opponents do somehow win support at the polls, it's because voters were misled or turnout was low. Or: A lawyer doesn't know as much about architecture as experts do, unless those experts are named IndaSechzer, Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey.

Neither Docomomo or Preservation New Jersey (both of which reprinted materials last year sent by Ms. Sechzer) have issued any pronouncements about the proposed building.  If someone suggested otherwise to you, you were misinformed.

If someone thought I suggested otherwise, I was misunderstood. For the record, I was only noting that Mr. Lembrich appeared to be no less willing to defer to one set of design experts on the Post House than other lawyers and amateur critics were to a different set of design experts on the post office building. (Fine by me: I understand everyone has his or her reasons. The peccadillo is that something like ArchBroad's No. 3 response to the Lembrich op-ed can lead to a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type of dead end.)

 In retrospect, I should not have written that first sentence of #3, however, my point is that the aesthetics are subjective, regardless of who makes the opinion-based statement about them. And while we can all disagree about those aeshetics, I think it is difficult to hold any water to the opposition when, even if they have a flock of design professionals in their midst, there was an equal array of design professionals in favor of the design. Those subjective opinions, in my opinion, cancel each other out and the debate should then be about other aspects of the proposal. And the basis of the other aspects in Mr. Lembrich's OpEd, are also extremely questionable.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

If the ohno60 people didn't want people to think many Township residents are misinformed, they should have been more scrupulous about providing only good information. They threw so much dust that no one can reasonably know how well-informed all the sign bearers are. I hate that regardless of outcome, an important Township issue is going to unavoidably be determined at least in part by bad and misleading information. 

That's a high standard for any public issue or campaign. And, just in my callow opinion, a low one for dust's ability to blind the electorate in this township.

 I don't think arguing honestly is an impossibly high standard for a local issue in which all of us involved are residents of the township.  

and I don't think it's a low bar for people being misinformed, considering the very high volume of communication from the opponents.  They are in the village every weekend, they send emails, they have a blog, a FB page, petitions, etc.  As I wrote earlier, it would be hugely surprising if they haven't convinced a lot of people of "facts" that are incorrect or exaggerated.