South Orange BOT election

mayhewdrive said:
 The only precedent in recent years is when Torpey ran solo for VP, versus a full slate (Janine Bauer for VP, plus Rosner, Levison and Davis Ford running unopposed as Trustees) in 2011
Since there were no additional Trustee candidates, Torpey was not aligned with anyone, but once he was elected as VP, Rosner, Levison and Davis Ford quickly moved to support him.
This year, my opinion is that Sheena would be best served by remaining "independent" and focus on differentiating herself from Deborah, who is her only competitor and letting the Trustee candidates duke it out among themselves.

Agree on strategy for Sheena to differentiate from DDF, but still worry about effect of two independent slates versus the unified effort from SO Forward, which may give them a better chance at trustee seats that can thwart some of the progress we've seen in SO recently. Hopefully one of the other two slates can rise above the other in their messaging.

I noticed earlier someone mentioned that South Orange forward has a campaign headquarters. The address is the little strip mall where Domino's and the cycle exercise class are. There must have been an empty storefront because it's it now has their Banner in the front.

MasterP said:
Agree on strategy for Sheena to differentiate from DDF, but still worry about effect of two independent slates versus the unified effort from SO Forward, which may give them a better chance at trustee seats that can thwart some of the progress we've seen in SO recently. Hopefully one of the other two slates can rise above the other in their messaging.

Right.  Although, frankly ALL of the Trustee candidates so far have been very light on specifics on what they will actually do.  Here is the website for one of the opposing slates:

 https://www.browndavismooreforbot.com/

I think that the other opposing slate and Sheena are both planning to have their websites out in the next few days.  It's still very early, so I have an open mind and will wait to hear what they all say, but I also have high expectations and want to hear specifics from all of the candidates besides "I'm running because I love South Orange"

I received a mailer from one slate.  Brown Davis and Moore.  While it wasn't specific, they all seem intelligent, experienced, and engaged.  I hope to see that from other slates as well, because most of what they have to decide week to week will have very little to do with what they campaign for.  I want thoughtful people more than any specific agenda.

mrincredible said:
I noticed earlier someone mentioned that South Orange forward has a campaign headquarters. The address is the little strip mall where Domino's and the cycle exercise class are. There must have been an empty storefront because it's it now has their Banner in the front.

That was part of the now closed Spa Lady, Cycle-RX (?). It wrapped around Sophie's Nails. That's a tough spot for a business, but maybe a good spot for campaign headquarters.

FilmCarp said:
I received a mailer from one slate.  Brown Davis and Moore.  While it wasn't specific, they all seem intelligent, experienced, and engaged.  I hope to see that from other slates as well, because most of what they have to decide week to week will have very little to do with what they campaign for.  I want thoughtful people more than any specific agenda.

 A printed mailer or an email??

mayhewdrive said:
 The only precedent in recent years is when Torpey ran solo for VP, versus a full slate (Janine Bauer for VP, plus Rosner, Levison and Davis Ford running unopposed as Trustees) in 2011
Since there were no additional Trustee candidates, Torpey was not aligned with anyone, but once he was elected as VP, Rosner, Levison and Davis Ford quickly moved to support him.
This year, my opinion is that Sheena would be best served by remaining "independent" and focus on differentiating herself from Deborah, who is her only competitor and letting the Trustee candidates duke it out among themselves.

 As I recall, the Trustee candidates running unopposed didn’t do all that much campaigning, leaving Janine in the same situation as if she wasn’t running with a slate of Trustee candidates.

As I recall, Janine didn't do too much campaigning, either, leaving South Orange in the situation with a narcissistic juvenile as Village President.  #stillpayingtheprice

mayhewdrive said:
 A printed mailer or an email??

 Printed mailer.

FilmCarp said:

mayhewdrive said:
 A printed mailer or an email??

 Printed mailer.

Interesting. I wonder how widely it was sent. Mailers aren’t cheap and they typically come later in the election cycle. 

mayhewdrive said:
Interesting. I wonder how widely it was sent. Mailers aren’t cheap and they typically come later in the election cycle. 

 I received it as well. Did it go out Village wide?

Can you take a picture and post?

I did sign a petition for one of them to get on the ballot, so that may have been why I received it.  I'll look for it.

Deborah's niece and nephew were at my house two weeks ago tomorrow campaigning for her. They had printed literature. While I am sure I did not recycle it, I cannot find it (maybe I did?). Sooo much paper coming in every day.

I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.

Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

Runner_Guy said:
I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.
Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

 Good question.  Although, Michael Parlapiano, who is the Campaign Manager for Brown, Davis and Moore posted the following on NextDoor last month.  Yesterday, I asked him if this represents the views of his team and he is yet to respond.

Why the BOT Should Reject the Proposed Dorm on Valley Street

First - Changing the zoning laws for a single property while still requiring everyone else to abide by those laws is the definition of unfair - especially when those changes will create a monetary windfall for that one property owner and developer while harming the neighbors. There are other property owners on Valley Street right now who are being told they need to abide by existing zoning laws if they want to build - look at the case of 184 Valley Street that is in front of the Planning Board. When the town rushes to rezone one site for a multi-million dollar developer but holds a regular property owner to the existing law, that is unfair. If the BOT is eager to allow 4 and 5 story high density buildings on Valley Street they should propose rezoning the entire street so the same set of rules apply to everyone. Our government should not bow down to developers while requiring the rest of us to abide by the law. Second - the proposed dorm is not only much bigger than allowed by our zoning laws, it is a use that is not permitted on Valley Street or anywhere else in town except on the SHU campus. The uses of property that our zoning laws permit in each zone - more than just the size of the buildings - determine the character of an area. Imagine if your neighbor was allowed to open an auto repair business in their garage - that is what the use restrictions in our zoning laws prevent - and for good reason. We all should be concerned if the BOT sets the precedent that they are ready to override the use restrictions in our zoning laws on an ad hoc basis for a single property and developer. When the BOT approved the 4th & Valley project they set a terrible precedent - saying that oversized buildings that are completely inconsistent with our zoning laws are OK (at least for multi-million dollar developers). The developers of the dorm project relied on that precedent, claiming that the proposed dorm was consistent with the zoning of Valley Street because it was consistent with what was approved at 4th & Valley. Now the BOT is poised to set the precedent that even the use restrictions in our zoning laws don’t apply to developers - and we can be sure that the next developer will use that precedent too. All of this could be avoided if our BOT would refuse to rezone individual properties for big developers and instead focus their time and the time of our professional staff where it belongs - on finishing the Master Plan, creating a comprehensive vision for Valley Street consistent with that plan, updating our zoning laws to reflect that vision, and then applying those zoning laws fairly to both big developers and everyone else. If any member of the BOT is going to vote in favor of this dorm they need to explain why spot rezoning of individual properties should come before a plan, why developers can get their properties rezoned but everybody else has to abide by current zoning laws and the variance process, and why residents should put time into the new Master Plan and new zoning laws if our zoning laws don’t apply to big developers.

that is interesting, especially because really none of that has happened with the all star site.  What the town has said is that they would be okay with the site being developed as a private dorm.  The project has progressed no further.  No plans have been presented, no variances have yet been asked for.  The only certainty is that the residential lot that is landlocked at the back of the commercial lot would be rezoned to conform with the front lot.  There are a lot of issues with their financial projections.

 The 184 project has different issues, and is asking for setback variances on three sides.  They want to put a 6' fence one and a half feet from the neighbors house, down the entire long side of the property.  That project is in front of the board again on Monday.

Runner_Guy said:
I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.
Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

In terms of VP, maybe check DDF’s voting record.  That one ought to be easy.  As for the BOT seats, I’ll bet the debates and donations will show true colors. 

ctrzaska said:

Runner_Guy said:
I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.
Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

In terms of VP, maybe check DDF’s voting record.  That one ought to be easy.  As for the BOT seats, I’ll bet the debates and donations will show true colors. 

In checking the voting records, be sure to look at the size of the PILOTs approved, which were extremely generous to the developers. The Gateway, which has a prime location, was given an extremely generous PILOT. It's questionable whether a PILOT should have even been given.  Third/Valley was awarded a PILOT of 10% of annual gross proceeds, which is the most generous PILOT amount allowed by state statute. 

Sheena was not on the BOT when these PILOTs were awarded. DDF was. 

Sheena is not willing to give developers these generous PILOTs in future projects. 

This came in my mail slot today.  It does not say anything about the CVs or qualifications of these candidates, and then goes on to say that they don't really have a platform but will be developing one over the next few weeks as they talk to Villagers and begin to understand the issues.  Sad to say this is very disappointing as I was hoping to hear some candidates differentiate themselves with a strong understanding of the issues and taking positions one way or the other.  

Rob_Sandow said:
This came in my mail slot today.  It does not say anything about the CVs or qualifications of these candidates, and then goes on to say that they don't really have a platform but will be developing one over the next few weeks as they talk to Villagers and begin to understand the issues.  Sad to say this is very disappointing as I was hoping to hear some candidates differentiate themselves with a strong understanding of the issues and taking positions one way or the other.  

 NotSure we really have time for on the job training, so to speak. Need to run on a platform, not

Invent one as you go along

librarylady said:
 NotSure we really have time for on the job training, so to speak. Need to run on a platform, not
Invent one as you go along

 I have been trying to attend more village meetings over the last few years, of various types.  Almost no one attends.  I'm not sure that any of the 9 candidates, other than Mr. Zuckerman, have actually been involved with town government in any way. 

FilmCarp said:

librarylady said:
 NotSure we really have time for on the job training, so to speak. Need to run on a platform, not
Invent one as you go along

 I have been trying to attend more village meetings over the last few years, of various types.  Almost no one attends.  I'm not sure that any of the 9 candidates, other than Mr. Zuckerman, have actually been involved with town government in any way. 

I sent a message to the Brown, Davis, Moore campaign via their website a few days ago asking about their position on Valley St, since their Campaign Manager has been so vocal against it.  I have yet to receive a response, which is disappointing.

As for the Trustee candidates, a brief review of their bios does show SOME Village involvement for many of them:

Wonski -past member of SOVCA Board

Borden - past President of Rotary

Grossi - none

Zuckerman- past Director of SOVCA

Coallier - Board member of SOPAC

Jones - Board Member of SOPAC

Brown - none

Davis - none

Moore - SOMA Two Towns for All Ages

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:

Runner_Guy said:
I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.
Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

In terms of VP, maybe check DDF’s voting record.  That one ought to be easy.  As for the BOT seats, I’ll bet the debates and donations will show true colors. 

In checking the voting records, be sure to look at the size of the PILOTs approved, which were extremely generous to the developers. The Gateway, which has a prime location, was given an extremely generous PILOT. It's questionable whether a PILOT should have even been given.  Third/Valley was awarded a PILOT of 10% of annual gross proceeds, which is the most generous PILOT amount allowed by state statute. 
Sheena was not on the BOT when these PILOTs were awarded. DDF was. 
Sheena is not willing to give developers these generous PILOTs in future projects. 

From Sheena's website: 

• Evaluated and rejected more than a dozen redevelopment projects that were disadvantageous to the community in terms of planning, design, equity, or financial terms that didn’t benefit taxpayers.

https://sheenacollum.com/accomplishments/

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:

Runner_Guy said:
I still haven't been able to really find out where the candidates are on downtown development.
Which candidates are the ones who tend to see the upsides of development (ie, the YIMBYist candidates) and which candidates are the ones who tend to see the downsides of development (ie, the NIMBYist candidates)?

In terms of VP, maybe check DDF’s voting record.  That one ought to be easy.  As for the BOT seats, I’ll bet the debates and donations will show true colors. 

In checking the voting records, be sure to look at the size of the PILOTs approved, which were extremely generous to the developers. The Gateway, which has a prime location, was given an extremely generous PILOT. It's questionable whether a PILOT should have even been given.  Third/Valley was awarded a PILOT of 10% of annual gross proceeds, which is the most generous PILOT amount allowed by state statute. 
Sheena was not on the BOT when these PILOTs were awarded. DDF was. 
Sheena is not willing to give developers these generous PILOTs in future projects. 

Thank you for this information. I was not aware that the Third+Valley PILOT was the most generous allowed by law, however, didn't Third+Valley provide parking for SO?  

I'm not against all PILOTs.  For me, it depends on the conditions of the site, the quality of the architecture, non-financial contributions to the SO community, and/or upfront payments for some public improvement.

This is in not a criticism of SO's sitting elected officials, but I think having a 3% tax rate in SO, having parking minima, and then having state/local mandates for affordable housing, that developments in even some prime sites don't pencil-out without a PILOT.  Hence, SO has a lot of underused and even vacant properties.  

A developer has an incentive to lie about what pencils-out to try to wring out the best deal possible for himself, but I don't think every developer is lying either.  

As someone whose chief local concern is downtown redevelopment, I await hearing detailed ideas from all the candidates.

Runner_Guy said:
Thank you for this information. I was not aware that the Third+Valley PILOT was the most generous allowed by law, however, didn't Third+Valley provide parking for SO?  

I'm not against all PILOTs.  For me, it depends on the conditions of the site, the quality of the architecture, non-financial contributions to the SO community, and/or upfront payments for some public improvement.
This is in not a criticism of SO's sitting elected officials, but I think having a 3% tax rate in SO, having parking minima, and then having state/local mandates for affordable housing, that developments in even some prime sites don't pencil-out without a PILOT.  Hence, SO has a lot of underused and even vacant properties.  
A developer has an incentive to lie about what pencils-out to try to wring out the best deal possible for himself, but I don't think every developer is lying either.  
As someone whose chief local concern is downtown redevelopment, I await hearing detailed ideas from all the candidates.

 We now have websites from 3 of the 4 groups running for BOT:

https://www.southorangeforward.com/ (Davis Ford, Wonski, Borden, Grossi)

https://www.browndavismooreforbot.com/ (Brown, Davis, Moore)

https://sheenacollum.com/ (Collum)

TBD (Zuckerman, Coallier, Jones)

mayhewdrive said:

Runner_Guy said:
Thank you for this information. I was not aware that the Third+Valley PILOT was the most generous allowed by law, however, didn't Third+Valley provide parking for SO?  

I'm not against all PILOTs.  For me, it depends on the conditions of the site, the quality of the architecture, non-financial contributions to the SO community, and/or upfront payments for some public improvement.
This is in not a criticism of SO's sitting elected officials, but I think having a 3% tax rate in SO, having parking minima, and then having state/local mandates for affordable housing, that developments in even some prime sites don't pencil-out without a PILOT.  Hence, SO has a lot of underused and even vacant properties.  
A developer has an incentive to lie about what pencils-out to try to wring out the best deal possible for himself, but I don't think every developer is lying either.  
As someone whose chief local concern is downtown redevelopment, I await hearing detailed ideas from all the candidates.

 We now have websites from 3 of the 4 groups running for BOT:
https://www.southorangeforward.com/ (Davis Ford, Wonski, Borden, Grossi)

https://www.browndavismooreforbot.com/ (Brown, Davis, Moore)
https://sheenacollum.com/ (Collum)
TBD (Zuckerman, Coallier, Jones)

Thanks for this info. 

South Orange Forward doesn't come off as NIMBYist on their website. They talk of new development being a way to expand the tax base.  They even praise the 3rd + Valley project (which I don't like architecturally, but I think is fine in terms of scale).  

I know his ticket doesn't have a website yet, I did not think that Bob Zuckerman was NIMBYist either.

Runner_Guy said:
Thank you for this information. I was not aware that the Third+Valley PILOT was the most generous allowed by law, however, didn't Third+Valley provide parking for SO?  

I'm not against all PILOTs.  For me, it depends on the conditions of the site, the quality of the architecture, non-financial contributions to the SO community, and/or upfront payments for some public improvement.
This is in not a criticism of SO's sitting elected officials, but I think having a 3% tax rate in SO, having parking minima, and then having state/local mandates for affordable housing, that developments in even some prime sites don't pencil-out without a PILOT.  Hence, SO has a lot of underused and even vacant properties.  
A developer has an incentive to lie about what pencils-out to try to wring out the best deal possible for himself, but I don't think every developer is lying either.  
As someone whose chief local concern is downtown redevelopment, I await hearing detailed ideas from all the candidates.
 

3rd and Valley didn't provide parking for SO.  They built parking that we paid for.  We paid the construction costs up front in a give-back on the purchase price of the properties, and we pay a rental fee monthly that includes all maintenance, utilities, and whatever % of the PILOT that applies to the SO part of the garage.  That monthly fee approaches 5 figures, and is paid by the Parking Authority, in case you were wondering why parking and jitney fees have gone up so much in the past couple of years.  

I can't believe that SOForward lists the Village's "revamped website" as an accomplishment. Who would want to be associated with that turd?

For what it's worth Sheena also lists the new website as an achievement.

You can find it among her many other awesome achievements.