Dehart Senior Center.

I propose LARGE one way signs on the driveway exit at the senior center. Then add one way signage at the entrance. 

There is at present, one sign that you see if you are coming from Union. However, in order to see it, you have to take off your driving glasses and put on reading glasses. Then put on your driving glasses back on, to continue to the other driveway. 

Yesterday, as I was exiting the senior center, A TOWN TRUCK was entering from the exit driveway.

Bifocals or progressive lenses would be one solution to the multiple eye glass problem.  If you really think this tiny lot needs one way signage, the town engineer would be the person to contact for this problem.  Another possibility would be to support the proposal to have a sidewalk connecting the DeHart Community Center with the Senior Center.  This would extend the drop off/parking options for persons with limited mobility.  Maplewood is holding an election starting May 15, 2019 for resident suggested capital projects costing $50,000 or less.  Each Maplewood voter can vote for up to two projects.  The sidewalk in front of the senior center is one of about 20 suggestions on the ballot.

joan_crystal said:
Maplewood is holding an election starting May 15, 2019 for resident suggested capital projects costing $50,000 or less.  Each Maplewood voter can vote for up to two projects.  The sidewalk in front of the senior center is one of about 20 suggestions on the ballot.

That sounds like a contender to me.  It's on my list.

joan_crystal said:
Bifocals or progressive lenses would be one solution to the multiple eye glass problem.  

 But how would you force every driver on the road to purchase and use their bifocals so that they can see the sign?  I think the point he was trying to make was that road signs should be easily read without needing reading glasses or progressives. 

There is NO signage indicating it’s one way on the street end of the exit. 

I’ve entered it only to discover the one way signs IN THE BACK totally out of view of anyone entering from the street!

Totally unsafe - it should be marked NOW.  There are sign-less posts already there on the street end - just hang something on one of them!

(OR take down the one way sign in the back)

I've never noticed an signage there.  Then again I walk there.  I don't drive.  The entire lot holds only about half a dozen cars, two spots of which are usually occupied by staff..  If direction of traffic entering/exiting the lot on the narrow driveway is a problem, it should be pointed out to the town engineer who would be the one to approve and authorize the signage.  Most motorists I know, unless they are mobility impaired, park in the adjacent DeHart lot and climb over the median to get to the senior center.  Thus my suggestion to install a sidewalk at that location.

The bifocals/progressive lenses comment referred to the stated need to switch between reading glasses and driving glasses to read the sign.  If there is no sign, this point is moot.

joan_crystal said:
Bifocals or progressive lenses would be one solution to the multiple eye glass problem.  If you really think this tiny lot needs one way signage, the town engineer would be the person to contact for this problem.  Another possibility would be to support the proposal to have a sidewalk connecting the DeHart Community Center with the Senior Center.  This would extend the drop off/parking options for persons with limited mobility.  Maplewood is holding an election starting May 15, 2019 for resident suggested capital projects costing $50,000 or less.  Each Maplewood voter can vote for up to two projects.  The sidewalk in front of the senior center is one of about 20 suggestions on the ballot.

Frankly, Maplewood citizens shouldn't be responsible for approving a project that should be done anyway.  What happened to pedestrian safety?  Now we're having a contest to see what gets funded?  This is mickey mouse cr@p.

The TC can just steal more money from the Open Space Trust Fund.

joan_crystal said:
I've never noticed an signage there.  Then again I walk there.  I don't drive.  The entire lot holds only about half a dozen cars, two spots of which are usually occupied by staff..  If direction of traffic entering/exiting the lot on the narrow driveway is a problem, it should be pointed out to the town engineer who would be the one to approve and authorize the signage.  Most motorists I know, unless they are mobility impaired, park in the adjacent DeHart lot and climb over the median to get to the senior center.  Thus my suggestion to install a sidewalk at that location.
The bifocals/progressive lenses comment referred to the stated need to switch between reading glasses and driving glasses to read the sign.  If there is no sign, this point is moot.

 There is no directional signage at the entrance driveway. There is a sign when you enter the parking area that tells you that the way out is one way, towards the street. 

There should be two sets of signs, one set at the entrance and another at the entrance. 

The fact that a municipal vehicle was going in the outzie, tells me that there is potential for a problem.

yahooyahoo said:
Frankly, Maplewood citizens shouldn't be responsible for approving a project that should be done anyway.  What happened to pedestrian safety?  Now we're having a contest to see what gets funded?  This is mickey mouse cr@p.
The TC can just steal more money from the Open Space Trust Fund.

 I agree with you.  Safety improvements to the Senior Center site:  closing Lexington Avenue at Burnett, addition of a crosswalk at the intersection in front of the senior center, and a sidewalk in front of the senior center (from Maplewood Crossing to the DeHart Community Center) were recommended by a recent pedestrian safety study of Burnett Avenue and Prospect Street.  Unfortunately, the money was not in the budget to pay for any of this.  When the TC decided to set $50,000 in capital funds aside for community proposed projects, I decided this would be a good opportunity to push for the easiest and least controversial of the recommendations and propose the sidewalk in front of the Senior Center.  As a friend said, this is a need not a want.  If you agree that the town should have done this already, please vote for the sidewalk in front of the senior center so the town can do it now.

ETA: While many of the other projects involve improvements to parks, which would qualify for open space trust fund money, this project would not meet the criteria for use of these funds.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

There should be two sets of signs, one set at the entrance and another at the entrance. 

The fact that a municipal vehicle was going in the outzie, tells me that there is potential for a problem.

 Since that portion of the roadway is already designated one way, this problem should be brought to the attention of the municipal department whose vehicle was traveling the wrong way on a one way roadway.

joan_crystal said:

ETA: While many of the other projects involve improvements to parks, which would qualify for open space trust fund money, this project would not meet the criteria for use of these funds.

This is a common misunderstanding of the Open Space Trust Fund.

It was NOT set up for improvement projects of existing parks.

Funds for improvements of existing parks should come from the standard budget, not the Trust Fund.

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:

ETA: While many of the other projects involve improvements to parks, which would qualify for open space trust fund money, this project would not meet the criteria for use of these funds.

This is a common misunderstanding of the Open Space Trust Fund.
It was NOT set up for improvement projects of existing parks.
Funds for improvements of existing parks should come from the standard budget, not the Trust Fund.

That may be true; but, in Maplewood Open Space Trust Fund funded projects have included field maintenance and playground and sports facility rehabilitation among other improvement projects in existing parks and athletic fields.  This trend will likely continue as long as mandated expenditures take up so much of the town budget and the town tries to keep borrowing for capital projects under control.

yahooyahoo said:
This is a common misunderstanding of the Open Space Trust Fund.
It was NOT set up for improvement projects of existing parks.
Funds for improvements of existing parks should come from the standard budget, not the Trust Fund.

 According to the Township's website, what the Open Space Trust Fund is for:

The general purpose of the Maplewood Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Committee shall be to recommend to the Maplewood Township Committee the prioritized use of funds from the Open Space Trust Fund for any or all of the following purposes:

1.  Acquisition of lands for recreation and conservation purposes;

2.  Development of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes;

3.  Maintenance of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes;

4.  Historic preservation of historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects and the acquisition of such properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects for historic preservation purposes; or

5.  Payment of debt service or indebtedness issued by or incurred by the Township for any of the purposes set forth in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, and D of this section.

joan_crystal said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
There should be two sets of signs, one set at the entrance and another at the entrance. 

The fact that a municipal vehicle was going in the outzie, tells me that there is potential for a problem.

 Since that portion of the roadway is already designated one way, this problem should be brought to the attention of the municipal department whose vehicle was traveling the wrong way on a one way roadway.

IT’S NOT MARKED!!!  I have entered it because it’s just a plain unmarked driveway UNTIL you go in and finally see the one way sign IN THE BACK! 

NOW I know but it’s an accident waiting to happen!!!

Has anyone mentioned it to the DPW, or are we just complaining on MOL?

nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:
This is a common misunderstanding of the Open Space Trust Fund.
It was NOT set up for improvement projects of existing parks.
Funds for improvements of existing parks should come from the standard budget, not the Trust Fund.

 According to the Township's website, what the Open Space Trust Fund is for:

The general purpose of the Maplewood Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Committee shall be to recommend to the Maplewood Township Committee the prioritized use of funds from the Open Space Trust Fund for any or all of the following purposes:

1.  Acquisition of lands for recreation and conservation purposes;

2.  Development of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes;

3.  Maintenance of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes;

4.  Historic preservation of historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects and the acquisition of such properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects for historic preservation purposes; or

5.  Payment of debt service or indebtedness issued by or incurred by the Township for any of the purposes set forth in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, and D of this section.

Exactly.  No where on that list does it say maintenance of existing lands/parks.  It refers only to lands acquired for recreation.  

In this case, you could say the Senior Center would qualify since it was acquired for recreation purposes.  However, improving a baseball field in Memorial Park does not qualify.  This is existing land/park.

yahooyahoo said:
Exactly.  No where on that list does it say maintenance of existing lands/parks.  It refers only to lands acquired for recreation.  
In this case, you could say the Senior Center would qualify since it was acquired for recreation purposes.  However, improving a baseball field in Memorial Park does not qualify.  This is existing land/park.

 I think it can be read to cover lands acquired before the institution of the Open Space Trust funding, which would cover all the parks (which at some point in the past were "acquired").

[Edited to add] But if there's some authoritative interpretation otherwise, I'd of course defer to that.

nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:
Exactly.  No where on that list does it say maintenance of existing lands/parks.  It refers only to lands acquired for recreation.  
In this case, you could say the Senior Center would qualify since it was acquired for recreation purposes.  However, improving a baseball field in Memorial Park does not qualify.  This is existing land/park.

 I think it can be read to cover lands acquired before the institution of the Open Space Trust funding, which would cover all the parks (which at some point in the past were "acquired").
[Edited to add] But if there's some authoritative interpretation otherwise, I'd of course defer to that.

The number one goal of the Open Space Trust Fund is:

"Acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes."

All the other goals build off of this one.  There is nothing the ordinance that discusses existing parks, lands, etc.  The fund was not meant for maintenance of existing lands when the ordinance was passed.  The TC has been playing a shell game with the funds ever since. They should just admit they blew it, I'd have more respect for them if they did.

yahooyahoo said:

nohero said:

yahooyahoo said:
Exactly.  No where on that list does it say maintenance of existing lands/parks.  It refers only to lands acquired for recreation.  
In this case, you could say the Senior Center would qualify since it was acquired for recreation purposes.  However, improving a baseball field in Memorial Park does not qualify.  This is existing land/park.

 I think it can be read to cover lands acquired before the institution of the Open Space Trust funding, which would cover all the parks (which at some point in the past were "acquired").
[Edited to add] But if there's some authoritative interpretation otherwise, I'd of course defer to that.

The number one goal of the Open Space Trust Fund is:

"Acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes."
All the other goals build off of this one.  There is nothing the ordinance that discusses existing parks, lands, etc.  The fund was not meant for maintenance of existing lands when the ordinance was passed.  The TC has been playing a shell game with the funds ever since. They should just admit they blew it, I'd have more respect for them if they did.

 Not necessarily.  If subsection 2 said "Development of lands acquired [in accordance with subsection 1]  for recreation and conservation purposes;" (added text in brackets), then it would be as you say.  But in the absence of such text, subsection 2 is arguably not so limited. 

You could make an argument that this wasn't the legislative intent of the clause, but there would have to be clear evidence a more limited intent in the record to support that, and legislative intent is only considered when there is clear ambiguity in the statutory language.

In a nutshell, it's not so clear.

When the Open Space Trust Fund ordinance was proposed, the TC (namely Kathy Leventhal) advertised that the ordinance was for creating new open spaces.  Many critics said it was just an extra tax that would be used for maintenance projects of existing parks but the TC promised that the fund was not for that purpose.  

I think we have to recognize the reality of what this fund has evolved into rather than what we thought/hoped it would become.

joan_crystal said:
I think we have to recognize the reality of what this fund has evolved into rather than what we thought/hoped it would become.

So you're admitting it's an extra property tax rather than a fund?

yahooyahoo said:

joan_crystal said:
I think we have to recognize the reality of what this fund has evolved into rather than what we thought/hoped it would become.

So you're admitting it's an extra property tax rather than a fund?

 No.  I can't speak to the original intent of the open space trust fund because I was not involved in its planning or inception.  Nor do I now or have I even served as a member of the group that determines how the money should be spent each year.  I can only comment on how these funds have been allocated since the fund was created.  

Can you please create a separate thread if you want to pursue the history, merits, intent, and [mis]use of the town's open space trust fund so we can get back to the OP's concern regarding missing signage at the two openings to the Senior Center parking area?

In South Orange, we have easy answers to conundrums like this: We’d take public funds earmarked for other uses, use them illegally for a giant sculpture that’s an eyesore, but demand it be shaped like an arrow so abstract that no one would know what the hell its supposed to be, accept a bid for 10 times its realistic value, ensuring a public outcry that’ll ensure it’s only 3 times any reasonable value imaginable. Have a grand ribbon cutting, at which you discover middle schoolers have keyed a giant penis in the side of it. 

If the penis points the right way, then motorists will understand whether it’s an entrance or an exit. 

metaphysician said:
In South Orange, we have easy answers to conundrums like this: We’d take public funds earmarked for other uses, use them illegally for a giant sculpture that’s an eyesore, but demand it be shaped like an arrow so abstract that no one would know what the hell its supposed to be, accept a bid for 10 times its realistic value, ensuring a public outcry that’ll ensure it’s only 3 times any reasonable value imaginable. Have a grand ribbon cutting, at which you discover middle schoolers have keyed a giant penis in the side of it. 


If the penis points the right way, then motorists will understand whether it’s an entrance or an exit. 

 Therefore, all that needs to happen is to move Tao to the Maplewood Senior Centrr driveway. Traffic will be appropriately directed.

Then send Maplewood the bill for the piece of sxxx art and S.O will be fine.