Kings "looks forward" to Post Office Redevelopment Project

Just posted on the Township's website:

Ouch...

Nice! Thanks Annette for sharing this information.

Well, glad that's settled. Does this mean that everyone can go home, stop lawsuits and sign postings, and generally move on?

I know, probably not ...

And it really seemed like there was no possible solution didn't it?

Not.

But... but... I thought this most profitable store was closing over the simple issue of the size of a truck! Who knew it would be that easy? Well, besides Vic, who apparently meant it when he said he'd take care of it. Not that it took a great deal of brains or faith to determine he would, of course.

ParticleMan said:
Ouch...

Ouch is right.

@annettedepalma -

Please post or provide a link to the new site plan, plans, and elevastions related to this change. Thanks

Well, until OPhNo60! raised the issue of Kings at an MVA meeting in April, it was not being addressed and that threat of losing Kings was real (per Kings corporate reps at the time). At the meeting the mayor swatted the issue away stating that there was no issue as there was already an agreement (paraphrased), which there was not, per Kings corporate the next morning. Then in the May meeting, if you were there and saw it, it became a prime issue so much so that the mayor was terribly rude to the Kings representatives as they brought it to light.

So they have reached some kind of agreement and detente (where's that "reset" button) so that's nice, as the main anchor in the Village should certainly have a good rapport with the town's officials....We will see if it passes muster with the Planning Board. Would be nice if it were made public,

ice said:
Here are a couple of quotes from Dirk Olin's May Village Green Op-ed on the Kings matter... just goes to further show how out of touch he is with reality, or simply how disingenuous the claims of the Village Keepers are... "That’s Kings, as in the proprietor identified by our own redevelopment plan as the anchor of Maplewood village commerce. Does anyone want Kings to leave Maplewood? So that a handful of new residents can occupy an apartment building with a private gym and a yoga instructor?".....and.... "What is now evident is that the mayor is willing to risk the loss of Kings"......

nohero said:
Well, glad that's settled. Does this mean that everyone can go home, stop lawsuits and sign postings, and generally move on?
I know, probably not ...

You really need to keep up. King's is last week's issue. This week, we are all about views. The views of the P.O. back wall from the gum wall. The view of the P.O. back wall from the Village Coffee dumpsters. And, the view of South Mountain from the train station. This last view is critical. Many people have commented to me that it reminds them of the view of the Rocky Mountains from Denver.

IndaSechzer said:
Well, until OPhNo60! raised the issue of Kings at an MVA meeting in April, it was not being addressed and that threat of losing Kings was real (per Kings corporate reps at the time). At the meeting the mayor swatted the issue away stating that there was no issue as there was already an agreement (paraphrased), which there was not, per Kings corporate the next morning. Then in the May meeting, if you were there and saw it, it became a prime issue so much so that the mayor was terribly rude to the Kings representatives as they brought it to light.
So they have reached some kind of agreement and detente (where's that "reset" button) so that's nice, as the main anchor in the Village should certainly have a good rapport with the town's officials....We will see if it passes muster with the Planning Board. Would be nice if it were made public,

ice said:
Here are a couple of quotes from Dirk Olin's May Village Green Op-ed on the Kings matter... just goes to further show how out of touch he is with reality, or simply how disingenuous the claims of the Village Keepers are... "That’s Kings, as in the proprietor identified by our own redevelopment plan as the anchor of Maplewood village commerce. Does anyone want Kings to leave Maplewood? So that a handful of new residents can occupy an apartment building with a private gym and a yoga instructor?".....and.... "What is now evident is that the mayor is willing to risk the loss of Kings"......

I've written many times that ohno60 actually deserves thanks for what their efforts have accomplished regarding the Post House design. I mean that sincerely. But I'm also sincere when I say that at some point it's time to declare victory and take down the card table and recycle the leftover flyers.

You are correct ml1. The voices raised in opposition to the original plan have been heard and changes have been made.

Where things went of the rails is with the lawsuit which seems to indicate that the opposition is not interested in being heard so much as having their way entirely.

ml1 said:

IndaSechzer said:
Well, until OPhNo60! raised the issue of Kings at an MVA meeting in April, it was not being addressed and that threat of losing Kings was real (per Kings corporate reps at the time). At the meeting the mayor swatted the issue away stating that there was no issue as there was already an agreement (paraphrased), which there was not, per Kings corporate the next morning. Then in the May meeting, if you were there and saw it, it became a prime issue so much so that the mayor was terribly rude to the Kings representatives as they brought it to light.
So they have reached some kind of agreement and detente (where's that "reset" button) so that's nice, as the main anchor in the Village should certainly have a good rapport with the town's officials....We will see if it passes muster with the Planning Board. Would be nice if it were made public,

ice said:
Here are a couple of quotes from Dirk Olin's May Village Green Op-ed on the Kings matter... just goes to further show how out of touch he is with reality, or simply how disingenuous the claims of the Village Keepers are... "That’s Kings, as in the proprietor identified by our own redevelopment plan as the anchor of Maplewood village commerce. Does anyone want Kings to leave Maplewood? So that a handful of new residents can occupy an apartment building with a private gym and a yoga instructor?".....and.... "What is now evident is that the mayor is willing to risk the loss of Kings"......

I've written many times that ohno60 actually deserves thanks for what their efforts have accomplished regarding the Post House design. I mean that sincerely. But I'm also sincere when I say that at some point it's time to declare victory and take down the card table and recycle the leftover flyers.

Thanks for that sincere statement. We appreciate that you have taken the time to write that. We have worked hard at things that the town should have been doing without our prodding. We too feel that we have had an impact and if nothing else opened the issue to a greater number of citizens.

But no, the table and flyers are not over...it ain't over til it's over....and there is no deal as yet..nor a compromise

Thanks again.

if ohno60 was about keeping the pressure on to get the right design for the Post House, I would likely have become a member. But when I spoke to them, it was clear that saving the Post Office was their only goal. And I couldn't sign on for that.

When Engage was first being organized they claimed to be about fostering transparency in the process, and those claims lured me to an organizational meeting they held in a meeting room offered by Morrow Church. There were perhaps 8 to 10 people there and in less than 15 minutes I realized I had made a mistake. It was not about an open process. It was only about opposing development of the PO site, and it seemed to me that there were people there who had real emnity towards some sitting on the TC.

Even if I had sympathized with their cause I found their approach and the attitudes of some members disturbing and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

sarahzm said:
When Engage was first being organized they claimed to be about fostering transparency in the process, and those claims lured me to an organizational meeting they held in a meeting room offered by Morrow Church. There were perhaps 8 to 10 people there and in less than 15 minutes I realized I had made a mistake. It was not about an open process. It was only about opposing development of the PO site, and it seemed to me that there were people there who had real emnity towards some sitting on the TC.
Even if I had sympathized with their cause I found their approach and the attitudes of some members disturbing and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

Sarah, you are not correct and you are misrepresenting. Please do not promulgate misinformation.

The meeting you refer at Morrow Church was not about opposition. Though there were a few who attended that meeting who were about opposition, the mission of EM was and still remains transparency and communication - engagement of the government with the people. Oh and that meeting was attended by about 40 people. it was out of that meeting, that a long list of questions regarding the RFP was created and sent to the TC.

That meeting was prior to the realization by many that here was no substantial reason to demolish the existing building. Prior to that most of us, me included, assumed the TC had a good reason, like a structural deficiency or some such important issue. Re-examination of the Rehabilitation Study showed no substantive reason.

OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.

IndaSechzer said:


OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.

Are you part of ON6!? Because I recall you submitted a proposal that included the PO demolition.

ice said:
Posted by Inda: "(the) threat of losing Kings was real"...... No, really it never was. I think you know that.

Yes it was, if continued to be ignored by the TC adn PODRS....per Kings corporate rep, closely involved, who personally expressed that to me.

IndaSechzer said:

ice said:
Posted by Inda: "(the) threat of losing Kings was real"...... No, really it never was. I think you know that.

Yes it was, if continued to be ignored by the TC adn PODRS....per Kings corporate rep, closely involved, who personally expressed that to me.

How is PODRS involved in this?

Their mission was not to evaluate the programming criteria for this project.

(edited for spelling)

dave23 said:

IndaSechzer said:


OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.

Are you part of ON6!? Because I recall you submitted a proposal that included the PO demolition.

Pay attention Dave. Inda is all about preservation. She submitted a proposal including the demolition of the existing Post Office because she didn't bother to find out if the building was savable, she assumed the town knew there were some structural issues with the building.

Of course some important buildings are worth saving and preserving, even with some structural problems. This Post Office is not one of them.

IndaSechzer said:

sarahzm said:
When Engage was first being organized they claimed to be about fostering transparency in the process, and those claims lured me to an organizational meeting they held in a meeting room offered by Morrow Church. There were perhaps 8 to 10 people there and in less than 15 minutes I realized I had made a mistake. It was not about an open process. It was only about opposing development of the PO site, and it seemed to me that there were people there who had real emnity towards some sitting on the TC.
Even if I had sympathized with their cause I found their approach and the attitudes of some members disturbing and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

Sarah, you are not correct and you are misrepresenting. Please do not promulgate misinformation.

The meeting you refer at Morrow Church was not about opposition. Though there were a few who attended that meeting who were about opposition, the mission of EM was and still remains transparency and communication - engagement of the government with the people. Oh and that meeting was attended by about 40 people. it was out of that meeting, that a long list of questions regarding the RFP was created and sent to the TC.
That meeting was prior to the realization by many that here was no substantial reason to demolish the existing building. Prior to that most of us, me included, assumed the TC had a good reason, like a structural deficiency or some such important issue. Re-examination of the Rehabilitation Study showed no substantive reason.

OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.

Well, I spent about 15 minutes at the meeting and that was my experience. I arrived perhaps 5 minutes after the start time, spoke to a number of people and left quietly after the meeting got underway. I felt duped and I think the actions of Engage have shown that my initial opinion was correct. I am active at that church and went to another meeting there - so I peeked in as the meeting was going full force. Perhaps there were other Engage meetings at the same location, but at the one I saw, there were fewer than 15 people there. I'd say perhaps 10 .

If your claim of 50 in attendance at this preliminary organizational meeting is correct, it's interesting that Engage was able to muster less than 2 dozen to attend the even more important TC meetings

More b.s. The only way King's will leave Maplewood is if something happens to their profitability.

sarahzm said:

IndaSechzer said:

sarahzm said:
When Engage was first being organized they claimed to be about fostering transparency in the process, and those claims lured me to an organizational meeting they held in a meeting room offered by Morrow Church. There were perhaps 8 to 10 people there and in less than 15 minutes I realized I had made a mistake. It was not about an open process. It was only about opposing development of the PO site, and it seemed to me that there were people there who had real emnity towards some sitting on the TC.
Even if I had sympathized with their cause I found their approach and the attitudes of some members disturbing and I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

Sarah, you are not correct and you are misrepresenting. Please do not promulgate misinformation.

The meeting you refer at Morrow Church was not about opposition. Though there were a few who attended that meeting who were about opposition, the mission of EM was and still remains transparency and communication - engagement of the government with the people. Oh and that meeting was attended by about 40 people. it was out of that meeting, that a long list of questions regarding the RFP was created and sent to the TC.
That meeting was prior to the realization by many that here was no substantial reason to demolish the existing building. Prior to that most of us, me included, assumed the TC had a good reason, like a structural deficiency or some such important issue. Re-examination of the Rehabilitation Study showed no substantive reason.

OhNo60! started in January 2015 as an organization that fully opposes the PO demolition.

Well, I spent about 15 minutes at the meeting and that was my experience. I arrived perhaps 5 minutes after the start time, spoke to a number of people and left quietly after the meeting got underway. I felt duped and I think the actions of Engage have shown that my initial opinion was correct. I am active at that church and went to another meeting there - so I peeked in as the meeting was going full force. Perhaps there were other Engage meetings at the same location, but at the one I saw, there were fewer than 15 people there. I'd say perhaps 10 .
If your claim of 50 in attendance at this preliminary organizational meeting is correct, it's interesting that Engage was able to muster less than 2 dozen to attend the even more important TC meetings

I was at the meeting at Morrow.

So was someone from The Alternative Press.

https://www.tapinto.net/articles/engage-maplewood-gathering-brings-post-office-con

It was about the Post Office, as I recall, and as reported at the time.

Since I don't live in Maplewood, I've only posted a few times about this issue, but those have been heartfelt. I just don't get, legally, how any organization can claim to represent/sue because of harm caused to King's, unless it's King's itself. Presumably, they have done their due diligence, and if they have not, who's fault is that?

Edited to fix typo

tjohn said:
More b.s. The only way King's will leave Maplewood is if something happens to their profitability.

Its not called "The Alternative Press" any more.