Why endorse a candidate who frivolously SUED our town?

Thank you, Tom Carlson, for introducing rationality into the discussion of the so-called "frivilousness" of the VK lawsuit.  A process is frivolous if it achieves no benefit and has no hope of achieving that benefit. That has to be measured against the goal of the process.  The primary goal of the VK litigation was to get the TC to recognize the applicability of its own demolition ordinance for the Village, which requires the owner to demonstrate "financial hardship" before there can be a demolition.  The TC had ignored this ordinance (and had once before - resulting in a demolition).  VK thought the law should be respected, and commenced the litigation.  The court suit was instantly withdrawn when the town agreed to make the showing that the ordinance required.  No money was spent by the town on court proceedings.  The approximately $15,000 which the town did pay related to the showing of hardship which it made before the Maplewood Village Alliance.

Will the anti-demolition ordinance ever be ignored again?  I don't think so.  The entire town now knows that it exists.  One of the problems with building a 50+ foot building in the Village has always been the "slippery slope."  Now I think the slope is less slippery.

Thus, by any rational measure, the lawsuit was not frivolous.  Was it worth it?  Well, for the benefit achieved, it cost the average taxpayer about $1.00 - much less than you will pay for your first latte in the Starbucks which Joe Forgione will be bringing to the new building.  Was it worth it to VK?  Our litigation costs were $16,000+, most of which was paid by me personally.  Did I and other VK investors get our money's worth? If Forgione's structure is the last 50 foot building we see in the Village, then yes, I think it was worth it.

Of course, another major goal of the litigation was to actually stop the demolition because the town could not prove hardship.  This goal was not achieved.  It would have required a major expenditure of money in the writing of legal briefs and the presentation of witness testimony before the Planning Board, and, if we won there, on appeal to court by Forgione.  Steve Kalafer, Forgione's mega-millionaire partner, made it clear to me personally that he would "bury" me in expenses if we continued the effort.  In the face of that threat, the willingness of other investors to finance the effort took a major hit.  And, quite frankly, so did my willingness.

Another measure of success is the fact that the membership and leadership of the TC is turning over. Greg Lembrich and Nancy Adams are now there.  Frank McGehee will be next.  Of course, preservation of the Village is not the central issue for any of them, but I think Maplewoodians will be happy to see that this goal has now achieved added strength.  Opposition to the Post Office development has always been a shared sentiment of the vast majority of Maplewoodians, MOL denizens to the contrary notwithstanding.  VK can be proud of having served this sentiment - and of continuing to do so.

A Vic and Fred deal on McGehee?  Yeah sure.  It is not uncommon for two persons to independently appreciate the worth of a third individual.  I am proud of the fact that I brought Frank into the political process last year (when he first sought the endorsement of the MDC), and will continue to be a major supporter of his.  As I have said in other places, in my opinion Frank will become one of the finest TC members Maplewood has ever had.

Thank you Mr. Profeta for a reasonable synopsis, but it appears to me that based on your own words, the lawsuit was about process not substance.  Was your group proposing that the hardship could not be demonstrated?  It looks like $31,000 (your $16k and the town's $15k) only bought some friction on the proverbial slope.  I can't agree that this is a good investment.  

Your argument that this only cost each taxpayer $1.00 is beneath you.  I could give any number of wild purchases we might make that would cost the same, but I'm sure you get the point. 

And lastly, why would this episode prevent another 50 foot building from going up in the township?  Have you seen what is happening at PSEG?

fredprofeta said:

The primary goal of the VK litigation was to get the TC to recognize the applicability of its own demolition ordinance for the Village, which requires the owner to demonstrate "financial hardship" before there can be a demolition.  The TC had ignored this ordinance (and had once before - resulting in a demolition).  VK thought the law should be respected, and commenced the litigation.  The court suit was instantly withdrawn when the town agreed to make the showing that the ordinance required.  

 If Forgione's structure is the last 50 foot building we see in the Village, then yes, I think it was worth it.

You make some good points Red.  Let me start with the ones which, in my opinion, are not so good, because they provide a good background for the others.

The "process vs. substance" issue is largely semantic.  We engaged in a process (by commencing and then withdrawing a lawsuit) which did not achieve the substantive goal of preventing the erection of a 50+ foot building.  So that substantive goal (a real one) was lost.  But by making the town recognize the required process, and engaging in it, we achieved a substantive goal of making sure that the process will not be ignored again.

You say that adding "friction" to the slippery slope (that is a brilliant metaphor Red) was not worth my investment in the legal fees.  Well, that's for me to judge. It's not for you to say. I think that efforts to save the charm of the Village are worth $16,000, and so do the others who chipped in. 

Your legitimate focus is on the $15,000 which the town expended.  Here, I submit, it's a matter of deciding whether or not the charm of the Village is worth that to the taxpayers, and whether recognition of the demolition ordinance process will provide a real impediment to any destructive trend.  You know how I vote on the "charm" piece.  But, as to the latter piece of the analysis, you make the very good observation that requiring owners to show hardship before demolition is approved may not stop the next 50 foot building.  After all, it didn't stop the one that is going up.  

Here is my response - the town made a bogus showing of hardship before the Maplewood Village Alliance (which was so bad the attorney who made it should have been embarrassed to charge $15,000).  But VK did not have the money to challenge it on appeal - and so Forgione's building will go up.  But after that occurs, my educated guess is that the public will be so offended by the result that the new TC, with new membership responsive to the public, will not permit another bogus showing to succeed.  The township itself would fully finance opposition to any owner attempting to make a hardship showing.

Finally, to add more than "friction" to the slippery slope, the legal protections for structures in the Village need to be strengthened.  It is the job of VK to propose the proper measures.  If VK does not do this, you should be the first to point out the failure. 

Thank you, Red, for engaging in this discussion.

fredprofeta said:


Another measure of success is the fact that the membership and leadership of the TC is turning over

Wow.  So, you are confirming that one of the goals of the lawsuit was to turn over the TC?  That one of the reasons the Village Keepers sued the township was to oust Jerry Ryan?

I've always suspected this to be true, but I have to say I'm surprised to hear you admit it in public.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005195-the-mixed-use-monoliths

This link is to an article which expresses very well the issues with current development.  It is not a trend and problem only for Maplewood - it is ubiquitous and needs to be changed.  

I suggest  thorough reading of this article.  Sometimes it is easier to see things when they are at a distance...

"What unites all of these developments is their earnest puffery."

Two good words today "bogus" (thanks Fred) and "puffery" - both very expressive of the situation.  

Our TC would never allow such a monstrosity to be built in Maplewood Village

ice said:

fredprofeta said:


Another measure of success is the fact that the membership and leadership of the TC is turning over

Wow.  So, you are confirming that one of the goals of the lawsuit was to turn over the TC?  That one of the reasons the Village Keepers sued the township was to oust Jerry Ryan?

I've always suspected this to be true, but I have to say I'm surprised to hear you admit it in public.

Ice, this would be an apocryphal and nonsensical interpretation based on chronology alone.  Much has been made on MOL about the fact that VK filed the lawsuit before last year's primary election, but did not serve or otherwise publicize it until afterward.  Thus, by the time anyone else knew about the lawsuit, Lembrich and Adams had already won the primary.  So ousting Jerry Ryan could not have been the goal of the VK lawsuit.  In fact, VK has taken considerable criticism for NOT making the lawsuit public before the election (folks think it might have hurt Lembrich in the primary, even though Lembrich has basically sworn on his life that he wasn't aware of it beforehand).  I believe what Fred is saying is that it was one of the goals of VK to turn over the TC, but don't see how he could suggest that the lawsuit played a role in forwarding that particular goal.  The timeline doesn't add up.

fredprofeta said:

Thank you, Tom Carlson, for introducing rationality into the discussion of the so-called "frivilousness" of the VK lawsuit.  

 That has to be measured against the goal of the process.  The primary goal of the VK litigation was to get the TC to recognize the applicability of its own demolition ordinance for the Village

Of course, another major goal of the litigation was to actually stop the demolition because the town could not prove hardship.  This goal was not achieved.  

Another measure of success is the fact that the membership and leadership of the TC is turning over. Greg Lembrich and Nancy Adams are now there.  Frank McGehee will be next.  

Tom Devon -

I'm just looking at what Fred wrote, excerpts above.  The context of his entire post was about the lawsuit.  

But perhaps what you say is correct, and the last statement is just about one of the overall goals of the VK's and not particularly of the lawsuit.  (And it must have been a goal, since without a goal you cannot have a 'measure of success'.)  Even so, it underscores that the fact that the whole Village Keeper process was very much political, and not as much about the building site as many people were led to believe. That is certainly the larger point, and you seem to agree with it (when you wrote, "I believe what Fred is saying is that it was one of the goals of VK to turn over the TC.")

With current Democratic TC nominee Frank McGehee on the VK board at the time this all went on, and with this now-admitted VK political goal in mind, it will make it rather distasteful to vote for him IMO.  The whole thing just smells a bit.  I don't recall any VK fundraising materials mentioning the goal of unseating TC members.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they claimed not to be espousing political goals under their tax reporting status.

(And that is not to say Mr. McGehee isn't a qualified candidate who may be a good TC member, I just think the circumstances of Fred "bringing Mr. McGehee into the political process a year ago" through the divisive, litigious and, IMO, dishonest VK organization is unfortunate.)

While appreciating McGehee's service over the last 3 years in town, I have to wonder why the Village Green article announcing his MDC selection doesn't even mention the Village Keepers. I imagine the VG got their info from some sort of a bio provided by the candidate or the MDC.

From the V.G:

" He serves on the Maplewood Memorial Library Foundation Board, the Tuscan School PTA Executive Board, and as a Trustee for South Orange Maplewood Community Coalition on Race."

Go Frank, and thanks for all this important work, but why are you not playing up your very relevant and recent/current VK service?

ice said:

Tom Devon -

I'm just looking at what Fred wrote, excerpts above.  The context of his entire post was about the lawsuit.  

But perhaps what you say is correct, and the last statement is just about one of the overall goals of the VK's and not particularly of the lawsuit.  (And it must have been a goal, since without a goal you cannot have a 'measure of success'.)  Even so, it underscores that the fact that the whole Village Keeper process was very much political, and not as much about the building site as many people were led to believe. That is certainly the larger point, and you seem to agree with it (when you wrote, "I believe what Fred is saying is that it was one of the goals of VK to turn over the TC.")

With current Democratic TC nominee Frank McGehee on the VK board at the time this all went on, and with this now-admitted VK political goal in mind, it will make it rather distasteful to vote for him IMO.  The whole thing just smells a bit.  I don't recall any VK fundraising materials mentioning the goal of unseating TC members.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they claimed not to be espousing political goals under their tax reporting status.

(And that is not to say Mr. McGehee isn't a qualified candidate who may be a good TC member, I just think the circumstances of Fred "bringing Mr. McGehee into the political process a year ago" through the divisive, litigious and, IMO, dishonest VK organization is unfortunate.)

Ice, in rereading what Fred wrote, I can understand your point.  Fred may well be judging the success of the VK lawsuit more broadly to include the full range of actions by VK/OhNo60/Engage.  The activism of the groups certainly played a role (for better or worse) in the TC turnover last year.  If Fred thinks that the VK lawsuit itself played a role in the election, I'd be curious to know how he would explain that.  As I mentioned earlier, the public did not learn of the lawsuit until after the primary was over.  And the lawsuit certainly had no material impact on the general election, which Adams and Lembrich won by thousands of votes over a sacrificial lamb Republican candidate.  If anything, the fallout in the community surrounding the VK lawsuit may have cost Lembrich votes, as he finished approx. 200 votes behind Adams in the general election after receiving more votes than her in the primary, and there were well over 100 write-in votes for Jerry Ryan in November.      

ice said:

With current Democratic TC nominee Frank McGehee on the VK board at the time this all went on, and with this now-admitted VK political goal in mind, it will make it rather distasteful to vote for him IMO.  The whole thing just smells a bit.  I don't recall any VK fundraising materials mentioning the goal of unseating TC members.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they claimed not to be espousing political goals under their tax reporting status.

(And that is not to say Mr. McGehee isn't a qualified candidate who may be a good TC member, I just think the circumstances of Fred "bringing Mr. McGehee into the political process a year ago" through the divisive, litigious and, IMO, dishonest VK organization is unfortunate.)

Ice, I don't mean to speak for Fred, but I don't think that Fred was referencing the VK lawsuit when he said he "brought Frank McGehee into the political process" last year.  It seems more likely that he means that he encouraged McGehee to seek the MDC endorsement for last year's TC race, but I could be wrong.  Maybe Fred will clarify what he meant.  Regardless, I understand that you feel it is "distasteful" to vote for McGehee due to his VK affiliation.  As I've said before, it seems the MDC (and Mayor DeLuca) are taking a broader view and moving on, but as a voter you get to decide for yourself what the issues that determine your vote should be.  My question, as I've asked others here on MOL, is what is the alternative to McGehee?  If a segment of the community is dissatisfied with him as a candidate, will someone else step up and contest the primary? 

ice said:

While appreciating McGehee's service over the last 3 years in town, I have to wonder why the Village Green article announcing his MDC selection doesn't even mention the Village Keepers. I imagine the VG got their info from some sort of a bio provided by the candidate or the MDC.

From the V.G:

" He serves on the Maplewood Memorial Library Foundation Board, the Tuscan School PTA Executive Board, and as a Trustee for South Orange Maplewood Community Coalition on Race."

Go Frank, and thanks for all this important work, but why are you not playing up your very relevant and recent/current VK service?

Ice, putting aside that VK involvement would be much more controversial to voters than being on the PTA or library board, being on the VK board probably required a lot less time and effort than the other roles too.  Either way, the VG article seems more like a press release than a full bio or political analysis.  I would expect that the local press will publish more about McGehee (and the other candidates, if any) as the election draws closer.  Certainly, one would think, any McGehee opponent will bring up the VK angle and try to gather support on that basis.

It is true that the primary was over before the lawsuit was served.  That was done with some sensitivity to the election process. 

Without talmudic interpretation of Fred's comments, one might easily conclude that if one, individually, or as a group has strong opposition to the crappy, tasteless, puffy, over-scaled developer projects going on (Station House, Post House, PSEG come to mind), wouldn't one want to change the local government to stop this trend?  It is just basic sense.

I support voting out Vic DeLuca & Co ASAP. I support major changes to the Planning Board (where Jerry Ryan still sits).  Too much entrenched and insidious politics for me.  Time for fresh faces and fresh air.  I support Frank McGeHee for TC.  Bring on more who moved here because of Maplewood's charm - that's why it is called  "Small Wonder".

No, this is a small wonder.

OliveBee said:

It is true that the primary was over before the lawsuit was served.  That was done with some sensitivity to the election process. 


Without talmudic interpretation of Fred's comments, one might easily conclude that if one, individually, or as a group has strong opposition to the crappy, tasteless, puffy, over-scaled developer projects going on (Station House, Post House, PSEG come to mind), wouldn't one want to change the local government to stop this trend?  It is just basic sense.

I support voting out Vic DeLuca & Co ASAP. I support major changes to the Planning Board (where Jerry Ryan still sits).  Too much entrenched and insidious politics for me.  Time for fresh faces and fresh air.  I support Frank McGeHee for TC.  Bring on more who moved here because of Maplewood's charm - that's why it is called  "Small Wonder".

Hush now, the adults are talking.  Finish your mac and cheese before it gets cold. 

Law suit was served, not mac n cheese...

I will ignore denigrating comments.  I think Fred is right on target.

OliveBee said:

It is true that the primary was over before the lawsuit was served.  That was done with some sensitivity to the election process.

Umm, that was done to not screw up Greg's chances of winning the Primary.

I've lived in Maplewood for over 20 years, and I never once heard of the village being called our "Small Wonder" until I saw it last year on the ohno60 FB page.  Personally, I find the term "Small Wonder" unbearably precious. 

but to each his own, I guess.  

I'm still wondering how that little girl lit up the light-bulb.

author said:

I'm still wondering how that little girl lit up the light-bulb.

she was a frankenchild

"Small Wonder" is the logo of the Maplewood Village Alliance

I've sparred with Fred over the lawsuit and Vk's approach on public boards and in private, and I think each of us knows where the other stands and have respectfully agreed to disagree.  While I'd strongly not prefer not to rehash my old arguments here (and I'm sure he feels the same) I will say this in response to some earlier comments from him and others: 

-  I'm quite confident the suit was not known to Lembrich until afterward.  Fred's not an idiot.  While unquestionably the direct and indirect beneficiary of VK support, that support did not come from the existence of the suit.  

-  I'm also quite confident Fred isn't lying when he says the substantive reason for the suit was to stop the development (or, in my mind, at least stall it or significantly change it).  That was always clear.  That a TC turnover was an additional goal of VK was and is clear, but wholly unrelated.

OliveBee said:

"Small Wonder" is the logo of the Maplewood Village Alliance

I never noticed that until now.  It hasn't really caught on as something people actually say out loud though, has it?  Haven't yet heard anyone say "Let's go down and see a movie in our Small Wonder!"  or "Let's go over to the Small Wonder and see if we can get a table at Arturo's!"

ml1 said:

OliveBee said:

"Small Wonder" is the logo of the Maplewood Village Alliance

I never noticed that until now.  It hasn't really caught on as something people actually say out loud though, has it?  Haven't yet heard anyone say "Let's go down and see a movie in our Small Wonder!"  or "Let's go over to the Small Wonder and see if we can get a table at Arturo's!"

 "> 

Yes you are right but all of the MVA's adverts and street banners have this logo - it is a Maple leaf with those words across...

OliveBee said:

ml1 said:

OliveBee said:

"Small Wonder" is the logo of the Maplewood Village Alliance

I never noticed that until now.  It hasn't really caught on as something people actually say out loud though, has it?  Haven't yet heard anyone say "Let's go down and see a movie in our Small Wonder!"  or "Let's go over to the Small Wonder and see if we can get a table at Arturo's!"

 "> 

Yes you are right but all of the MVA's adverts and street banners have this logo - it is a Maple leaf with those words across...

The new logo will read "Small wonder plus 1"

author said:

OliveBee said:

ml1 said:

OliveBee said:

"Small Wonder" is the logo of the Maplewood Village Alliance

I never noticed that until now.  It hasn't really caught on as something people actually say out loud though, has it?  Haven't yet heard anyone say "Let's go down and see a movie in our Small Wonder!"  or "Let's go over to the Small Wonder and see if we can get a table at Arturo's!"

 "> 

Yes you are right but all of the MVA's adverts and street banners have this logo - it is a Maple leaf with those words across...

The new logo will read "Small wonder plus 1"

"Small Wonder becomes Transit Village"

Ahem.

There's a distinct lack of the phrase "Small Wonder" on the Springfield Avenue Partnership logo. Are you sure it refers to Maplewood as a whole and not just the Village? I only see it in reference to the Village, and then only in promotional materials by the MVA, who don't seem to be too great in getting the word out.

I mean how did I miss this last year?

http://maplewoodvillagenj.com/village-alliance-news/button_bonanza

Many years ago NBC spent millions in developing their familiar logo.  As it turned out a small

station in the boonies spent about $29.00 and developed the same logo.  In court the small station won

its case and NBC was forced to make restitution which consisted of a small amount of monies and some

used equipment

Johnny Carson had a field day.

author said:

Many years ago NBC spent millions in developing their familiar logo.  As it turned out a small

station in the boonies spent about $29.00 and developed the same logo.  In court the small station won

its case and NBC was forced to make restitution which consisted of a small amount of monies and some

used equipment

Johnny Carson had a field day.

CSB.