Facts Matter

The space that was to be dedicated to Kings will now be an underground parking lot for the tenants.

apple44 said:

It's all pretty incredible.

Leave me out of this.

Really? Must we do this again? They were open and asked for all kinds of ideas. Nothing was limited. You can't change the program of the building after the Redevelopment Plan and the RFP are issued. You clearly do not understand the process at all.

http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=497

http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=528

author said:

ArchBroad said:

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

^^^^^ and This.

Oh cat fat. I was at the meetings. The only iinformation , the only discussion that was allowed was periphery
stuff like the shape of the windows ........the exterior building materials ......the set backs etc.
There was not a word allowed that did not deal with the Kings Folly building to be erected exactly as proposed.
Of course Kings had other ideas but that is another matter.

BTW, I love this.

paulsurovell said:
There's a new group in town.
Check our website: www.VillageFacts.org.
Hope to see everyone tomorrow at our booth in Maplewoodstock: #026.
Thanks to everyone who made this possible.

In my experience, saying that someone's efforts don't matter is pretty much being against those efforts. Maybe there's a subtle difference, but no more than that.

Also, Village Facts doesn't seem to be targeting the TC as its audience, so I'm not sure how they are late to the game. It seems to exist only to counter the misinformation being distributed by other groups. One could argue that had the other groups put out more credible information, this effort wouldn't be needed at all.

Bingo.

apple44 said:
In my experience, saying that someone's efforts don't matter is pretty much being against those efforts. Maybe there's a subtle difference, but no more than that.
Also, Village Facts doesn't seem to be targeting the TC as its audience, so I'm not sure how they are late to the game. It seems to exist only to counter the misinformation being distributed by other groups. One could argue that had the other groups put out more credible information, this effort wouldn't be needed at all.

Oh sure.........The TC would have changed its mind and we would now be building a nice Village Green to serve us all......Its all the fault of Engage and OhNO that the Kings Folly building is still being planned.

author said:
Oh sure.........The TC would have changed its mind and we would now be building a nice Village Green to serve us all......Its all the fault of Engage and OhNO that the Kings Folly building is still being planned.

And we're back to the "need" for a nice park to serve as Author's backyard. What happened to selling it for too little money and giving too much away in the PILOT? A "Village Green" would result in the expenditure of money without any revenue being generated.

Steve said:

author said:
Oh sure.........The TC would have changed its mind and we would now be building a nice Village Green to serve us all......Its all the fault of Engage and OhNO that the Kings Folly building is still being planned.

And we're back to the "need" for a nice park to serve as Author's backyard. What happened to selling it for too little money and giving too much away in the PILOT? A "Village Green" would result in the expenditure of money without any revenue being generated.

A nice village green would also mean demolishing the existing PO, which his group is fighting because of "improper procedures". Defending rule of law and such.

I think Author will post just about anything.

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did indeed miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

Why would you be sorry? It is plain as day that there is no substance to the opposition, only childish hyperbole. Paul's group is a great contribution to the support of this rational, well-considered and feasible plan.

The adults in the room need to start taking unapologetic action. Count me among those ready to make a financial contribution to Paul's group; I will leave it to him to decide how to use it.

Hey now!!! My check in any amount you need is available to you.

paulsurovell said:
There's a new group in town.
Check our website: www.VillageFacts.org.
Hope to see everyone tomorrow at our booth in Maplewoodstock: #026.
Thanks to everyone who made this possible.

All I can say is THANK YOU!

I want a button!

author said:

I am just saying that the we are past the stage in the debate where this information matters.

Every once in a while someone posts something on MOL and some else says "That's the dumbest think I've ever read". It's usually not true but the above is in the running.

author said:

If you would talk to the merchants of the Village as we all have you would see how very much they are opposed to this beast and have spent their time and energies in working with us.

Yes I am pretty incredible as evidenced by my four year old grandson who loves to sword fight with his grandfather.

Asked a long-time merchant today. She has no problem with it. She'd just like to see a large parking garage in Town.

No wonder you'd favor a fencing academy.

ice said:
New sign?: lieslieslieslieslieslisliesliesliesliesliesliesliesBE ABOUT FACTSliesliesliesliesliesliesliess....

author said:

ArchBroad said:

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

^^^^^ and This.

Oh cat fat. I was at the meetings. The only iinformation , the only discussion that was allowed was periphery
stuff like the shape of the windows ........the exterior building materials ......the set backs etc.
There was not a word allowed that did not deal with the Kings Folly building to be erected exactly as proposed.
Of course Kings had other ideas but that is another matter.

Three of the links under Fact 5 at www.VillageFacts.org go to minutes of community meetings. The two links posted by ArchBroad are part of this group of links. If you open the first link, this is what you'll find:

Township of Maplewood
Maplewood Village Post Office Redevelopment Plan

First Community Meeting – January 19, 2012, 7:00 PM

MEETING SUMMARY

Introduction

The Township of Maplewood is preparing a redevelopment plan for the Post Office
site and certain adjoining parcels in Maplewood Village. The process of preparing this
plan will include a number of opportunities for public involvement. The first
community meeting in this process was held at the Burgdorff Center for the
Performing Arts, a short distance from the project area. There were two main
objectives of this meeting. The first was to present relevant information regarding the
study area and its opportunities and constraints at the outset, so that the context in
which redevelopment will take place can be understood. The second was to hear
from stakeholders as to their ideas for the study area and what should be considered
for inclusion in the redevelopment plan. This meeting also provided an opportunity
for the community to ask questions about the study area, the redevelopment process
or related topics.

Context

The presentation at the outset of the meeting described the redevelopment process
and outlined its benefits compared to traditional zoning. Notably, a redevelopment
plan can be more specific than zoning in terms of development regulations and the
process provides the Township with more control over the timing of development. As
to the specifics of the study area and its context, the study area is approximately
0.75 acres in area and consists of three tax lots owned by Maplewood Township. The
lease for the Post Office located on one of these parcels expires in November 2013
and the Post Office will vacate the site by then.

The study area is located next to a commuter railroad station and in a key spot in
Maplewood Village, the Township’s central business district. Land uses in Maplewood
Village include retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor of buildings,
with upper floor residential and office uses in some buildings. Nearby “anchor” uses
include a small supermarket (King’s) and a movie theater on the west side of
Maplewood Avenue. There are also public uses in the vicinity, including parks and a
small performing arts center. The existing zoning for Maplewood Village generally
allows for the mix of uses found in the area, although it allows for greater building
height (50 feet) than currently exists in Maplewood Village (35 to 40 feet for a few
buildings, lower for others). Parking has been identified as a concern in Maplewood
Village, and a study addressing this topic is being prepared on behalf of the
Township.

Summary of Community Questions and Comments

A number of residents, merchants, property owners and other interested parties
asked questions and offered their ideas and concerns at this meeting. These are
listed below, and some are followed in italics by responses to questions or actions
that will be taken in response to the comment. It should be emphasized that the
items listed below represent suggestions and input from the community, and will not
necessarily be included as recommendations in the actual plan. The consultants will

2
provide answers to questions raised at the meeting and present a draft framework
for the redevelopment plan at the second community meeting on February 29, 2012.

Questions
•
Would the Post Office stay if the lease terms were more favorable? No. The
Township Committee’s understanding is the mail sorting component will
leave, and the Postal Service will fully vacate by November 2013. Township
would like to maintain retail operation in the Village

•
What would retail operation involve? Everything currently provided at the
Post Office counter
•
Who will own the building when lease ends? Likely the Township – to be
confirmed
•
Has anyone spoken to Kings about staying in Maplewood Village? Yes – they have provided a verbal commitment
•
Is there any environmental contamination on the site? Not known, will be
confirmed
•
Vehicles are currently parked on the site – will additional parking be
provided? That is the intention
•
Has the Township asked for quantitative value of various uses/projects? No,
but this concern will be considered
•
When will the Township sell the property? After a redevelopment plan is
adopted
•
Is there any benefit to the Township keeping the land? No, although it could
retain the property and lease it
•
Could the study area be expanded? Adding Ricalton Square to the study
would allow flexibility. The area in need of rehabilitation study would need to
be revised to include any additional properties
•
Will the redevelopment plan be in Village Alliance purview? No, but the
Township Committee would like the Village Alliance’s input in design review
•
A better design review process is needed
•
Will New Jersey Transit be brought to the table? The consultant has reached
out to NJT’s transit-friendly land use program and they are interested in
working with Maplewood
•
What about building over the railroad tracks? May be possible, but likely cost-
prohibitive
•
What is the timeline? Plan should be adopted by end of 2012, RFP (request
for proposals) would be issued in 2013, a redeveloper could be designated
by the summer of 2013
•
What would economic impact be of no grocery store? Not known – will be
considered

Concerns
•
Aesthetics of new building important
•
Maintaining retail operation of Post Office very important!
•
Maplewood is low density community,
homeowners are important. Should
evaluate pros/cons of increasing density.
•
Opportunity to engage new residents and get them involved in the community
•
What’s enough development?

•
An economic feasibility study should be completed
•
Is it wise to add residential versus
providing new attractions (e.g., cultural
space)?
•
Maplewood is four square miles. This 0.75-acre site is a gem which should be
a maximum revenue generator – locate less revenue-generating uses
elsewhere in Township
•
Township Committee agrees with above point – this site most important
redevelopment area in municipality
•
But also recognize desire to balance revenue with other public benefits
Ideas for Uses
•
Post Office retail use generates activity
– should be kept in area. Maybe in train station?
•
Redevelopment should be mixed-use: economic opportunities on ground
level, if feasible, have residential on upper floors
•
Site provides opportunity to add community space (e.g., cultural space,
discussion forums, “living room” type space)
•
Can include community amenities like
this as permitted use, which would
allow Township to include in negotiations for what goes on site
•
Kings is a downtown anchor – supermarket important
•
Kings, train station and Post Office are
pedestrian “generators” – bring foot
traffic to downtown
•
If Kings moves, what goes in its location? Don’t want to lose control of Kings
site – should redevelop as a package
•
Keep Post Office’s retail component, ideally with staffed counter
•
Perhaps a UPS store?
•
Could two-story retail be permitted? Zoning currently allows it, and plan could
as well
•
Is there a way to incorporate smaller
retail/service community spaces (e.g.,
shoe repair)? Perhaps a European-style arcade for small merchants
•
What about YMCA? Childcare? Pool?
•
Not rental housing, but high-end condominiums – attract “empty nesters,”
would provide fiscal benefit
•
Plan should include percentages of residential/community etc.
•
Should determine how much is too much
residential (e.g., what would school
impacts be? Can school district handle increase?)
Bulk
•
The existing 50 ft. height limit in the RB
zone is “absurd” – it should be less
•
The Township Committee has indicated it does not want building height on
this site to be any higher than the tallest nearby buildings (35-40 ft.)
•
The Township will also look at reducing the RB zone height limit
•
Maplewood has a charming small
scale – should be maintained
•
Building height should also take
into account rooftop structures
•
Should be included within height limit
•
Building setback should be provided to preserve two cherry trees in front of
Post Office


4
Parking/Circulation
•
A parking deck could be considered – at the very least, more than one level
of parking
•
Parking could go down – use grade
•
People don’t want to park in decks to shop
•
But could provide commuter deck instead, free up space for shoppers
•
Changing current vehicle circulation pattern would be disruptive
•
A traffic study should be done (a parking study is in progress)
•
Need to maintain vehicle connection through the lot to the south – as these
are private lots, need to deal with
owners to formalize public access
•
What about connection to Ricalton Square to north?

ice said:
New sign?: liesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesliesFACTSlieslieslieslieslieslieslieslieslies....

http://youtu.be/EuMNxNrZ1wM

I will also add that one of the reasons that the TC designated the post office plot "an area in need of rehabilitation" rather than simply sell it off to a developer, is that the designation gave the township more control over who bought the land and influence over what will be built and the details. Had the TC not had the forethought to go this route, Maplewood residents would have had little if any input.

Care to read it for yourself, here is an explanation:

http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/503

ArchBroad said:
Really? Must we do this again? They were open and asked for all kinds of ideas. Nothing was limited. You can't change the program of the building after the Redevelopment Plan and the RFP are issued. You clearly do not understand the process at all.
http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=497
http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=528

author said:

ArchBroad said:

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

^^^^^ and This.

Oh cat fat. I was at the meetings. The only iinformation , the only discussion that was allowed was periphery
stuff like the shape of the windows ........the exterior building materials ......the set backs etc.
There was not a word allowed that did not deal with the Kings Folly building to be erected exactly as proposed.
Of course Kings had other ideas but that is another matter.

.

.

cmarym said:
I will also add that one of the reasons that the TC designated the post office plot "an area in need of rehabilitation" rather than simply sell it off to a developer, is that the designation gave the township more control over who bought the land and influence over what will be built and the details. Had the TC not had the forethought to go this route, Maplewood residents would have had little if any input.
Care to read it for yourself, here is an explanation:
http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/503

ArchBroad said:
Really? Must we do this again? They were open and asked for all kinds of ideas. Nothing was limited. You can't change the program of the building after the Redevelopment Plan and the RFP are issued. You clearly do not understand the process at all.
http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=497
http://nj-maplewoodtownship.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=528

author said:

ArchBroad said:

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

^^^^^ and This.

Oh cat fat. I was at the meetings. The only iinformation , the only discussion that was allowed was periphery
stuff like the shape of the windows ........the exterior building materials ......the set backs etc.
There was not a word allowed that did not deal with the Kings Folly building to be erected exactly as proposed.
Of course Kings had other ideas but that is another matter.

this is a very good point

shestheone said:
.

shestheone said:
.

Ok then.

Somebody keeps accidentally posting when their wife's signed in.

ArchBroad said:

ice said:
Author - apparently you and Fred, and many others did miss the 'referendum', back when the TC was formally, and quite publicly, seeking input on the project. I'm sorry, but it was you who missed it, not me.

^^^^^ and This.

ice, Alex...really? That's not a referendum...and the LRHL does not permit a referendum btw.

ice said:
Posted by Author: "If you would talk to the merchants of the Village as we all have you would see how very much they are opposed to this beast and have spent their time and energies in working with us."....yeah they supported you with 30 VK signs (by your own account), and as the volumes of misinformation have been exposed, and the lawsuit has been disclosed, those 30 signs have dwindled to 8 or 10 (out of about 77 businesses total). At some point, your claim of strong support from village merchants should be re-evaluated. In any event, many of those opposed are simply trying to limit competition, which is not in the interest of everyday Maplewood residents like you and me. OK, like me, since I don't live next door to the site.

I think that is a very denigrating statement about the merchants. they are not simply in it about the competition. Of course they want to make money. But many have been in business a very long time - like 48 years....and many live in town...so it is about the Village for them. Many business owners still tell me they support our efforts, and many support the lawsuit.

Why don't you go and talk to them, even tho you don't live next door to the site.

I'll just leave this right here...

LOL

Steve said:

author said:
Oh sure.........The TC would have changed its mind and we would now be building a nice Village Green to serve us all......Its all the fault of Engage and OhNO that the Kings Folly building is still being planned.

And we're back to the "need" for a nice park to serve as Author's backyard. What happened to selling it for too little money and giving too much away in the PILOT? A "Village Green" would result in the expenditure of money without any revenue being generated.

You missed the jokes about a place for the militia to drill?

And the rest of Maplewood Township would have the use of a Village Green.

How many people in the Township would benefit by an oversized apartment building.

Do you think you will ever see the inside of one? You might be able to sneak into the underground parking lot though.