Possible to re-purpose the abandoned SO Animal Shelter?

(I do not follow the Pets category so please forgive me if I am missing something.)

I just realized today that, given it's location, the old SO Animal Shelter building would be a great recreation center for local kids.  Yes, it would take some work to renovate it for a new purpose but it would be a wonderful spot for winter or rainy summer day play groups or any other rec department use. Perhaps a small stair/path could be created to connect it to the ball field and playground just up hill.

If it were to be sold or leased to a private business it could also become any number of things like a cafe, a doctor's office, or an art gallery. 

I realize that there are all sorts of legal reasons why the space is empty but I hate to see any building left to decay.

So in the Mara's thread there was a suggestion for a doggy day care in the old Blockbuster space.  Seems like the old shelter would be ideal for that.  Not much repurposing needed for the space?

Considering how it's right next to the playground, and just up the hill from the planned Riverway redevelopment, a recreational center makes a lot of sense. 

And for all those reasons another animal shelter does not.

I would recommend going over to the Pets and Animals Category. There is a rather vigorous discussion regarding, among other things, the disposition of the former (and possibly future) shelter building. Suffice it to say you shouldn't count on anything different happening there any time soon.

If you want more details you can check it out: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/117100-Animal-Shelter-for-SOMa-why-no-progress-?page=28#comment-3168896

It's been quiet for nearly a month. I'm sure this thread will reignite the discussion. 

With the permission of the OP, this looks like a discussion about what to do with an empty building.

Yes, it used to an animal shelter. And the Blockbuster building used to be a video store.

The building needs an inventive re-use, because a neighborhood is no place for a shelter and one should never have been put there in the first place. Especially after the very vocal -- and ongoing objections -- of the nearby residents.

Something recreation-related sounds perfect for that site.

@tom, Precisely.

@mrincredible, YIKES! I avoid the pet threads for exactly that reason!

kmk said:

@mrincredible, YIKES! I avoid the pet threads for exactly that reason!

+1.  

I thought it was terribly brave of you to start this thread!

How about in the summertime, bike rentals and refreshments?

I think that sounds like an amazing idea.

Yes, a cafe would be lovely.  

Iced coffee and lemonade in the summer time and cocoa and cider in the winter.  even if it were just a counter with beverages and a few baked goods (like the train station) it would be great.  Get Cedar Ridge to be the concessionaire

I guess there's a few key points here.  Allow me to sum them up.  First, let me pull my glasses down my nose and look over them condescendingly.  Now imagine I have a flip chart and pointer...

Wait, where are you all going!?! I was about to pontificate!

Okay a few thoughts.  First of all it is, I believe, the property of the township.  So using it for a private commercial enterprise (doggie day care fr'instance) might involve some legislative action.

Second I think the township needs to sort out whether the facility would be used for a shelter again before any other plans for re-purposing the building can be explored. I'm not looking to argue whether that's best, but it's a fact.

Third, isn't there already a township recreation building called the Baird.

Last, if I'm not mistaken there may be a need for additional office space for the township now that we've sold the old Village Hall.  It might make more sense to renovate the former shelter into office space, since it's already owned by the township.

1. It would of course be leased out for those purposes

2. Putting other options on the table makes it easier for the BOT to say, "maybe we can do something better."

3. There's no law against more than one rec facility. Maplewood has (at least) two, one in Memorial Park and another in DeHart Park. 

4. I think there's enough room for office space plus some recreational facilities.

tom said:

1. It would of course be leased out for those purposes

2. Putting other options on the table makes it easier for the BOT to say, "maybe we can do something better."

3. There's no law against more than one rec facility. Maplewood has (at least) two, one in Memorial Park and another in DeHart Park. 

4. I think there's enough room for office space plus some recreational facilities.

Yes, but did you have a flip chart and pointer?

Didn't think so.  I win.   

Shoot, I forgot! 

I can do PowerPoint, would that help?

tom said:

The building needs an inventive re-use, because a neighborhood is no place for a shelter and one should never have been put there in the first place. Especially after the very vocal -- and ongoing objections -- of the nearby residents.

Something recreation-related sounds perfect for that site.

IIRC local residents were worried about noise, etc., before the shelter was built, but were promised it would not be a problem. After it was built residents reported problems with barking, one even called the shelter directly to ask if there was anything that could be done and was basically yelled at by the shelter rep who answered the phone. In a few threads these residents were now told "well, it's here now so it's too late to put it anywhere else so stop complaining." 

A local shelter would benefit many residents, but should not be done in a way that negatively impacts residents. A new location for a shelter needs to be found. Unfortunately, with housing concentrations the way they are in M/SO it might not end up being as local as people wish. Perhaps instead of a joint venture just between Maplewood and South Orange the two towns could find a third somewhat local town also in need of a shelter but who also has available space in a location suitable for an animal shelter and the three towns make it work.  

Also, I believe the complaint by the town stated that the current building didn't meet standards for a shelter. Specifically, it didn't have a separate ventilation system in any room so there was no legitimate quarantine area. This is puzzling since this wasn't a repurposed building, but rather a building that was built from the ground up with the intention of being a shelter.   

I am not trying to anger anyone but, a local animal shelter would only "benefit" residents exceedingly concerned with animal welfare.  

I would think that there are a greater number of residents concerned with the welfare of children and, therefore, more people would likely support a recreational use of the building over an animal rescue use.

kmk said:

I am not trying to anger anyone but, a local animal shelter would only "benefit" residents exceedingly concerned with animal welfare.  

I would think that there are a greater number of residents concerned with the welfare of children and, therefore, more people would likely support a recreational use of the building over an animal rescue use.

"Exceedingly" concerned with animal welfare? 

"Welfare of children"? A place for upper-crust suburbanites to take their kids for lemonade and cocoa contributes to the "welfare of children"? Gaaaahhhh. Could you sound more Downton Abbey? (And not in a good way.)

Just wait until you're trying to get the kiddos out of the car while parked on the side of the road. You can either fall into a ditch or else dodge your South Orange neighbors rocketing down the road to drop off their recycling and the public works dumptrucks trundling back and forth. That should be entertaining. 

If by "recreation center for kids" you mean bringing to that building children who have no pets and recreating them into children who have pets, I'm all for it. 

Otherwise, speaking as someone whose offspring over the years took advantage of the myriad of t-ball, baseball, soccer, scouting, community pool, tennis courts, YMCA, ballet lessons, piano lessons, voice lessons, art lessons, junior garden club, day care, after school care, summer camp in SOMA and probably some other recreation opportunities I've forgotten, I think our towns pretty much have that covered. Oh wait, I remember something they can't do anymore....volunteer at the local animal shelter. 

To build on what kmk said, I think it is quite important for the welfare of our children and our future to learn compassion and caring for those who are more unfortunate than they are.  Caring for a scared and forgotten animal goes a lot further in that regard than sipping lemonade on the patio.

bigben_again said:

If by "recreation center for kids" you mean bringing to that building children who have no pets and recreating them into children who have pets, I'm all for it. 

Otherwise, speaking as someone whose offspring over the years took advantage of the myriad of t-ball, baseball, soccer, scouting, community pool, tennis courts, YMCA, ballet lessons, piano lessons, voice lessons, art lessons, junior garden club, day care, after school care, summer camp in SOMA and probably some other recreation opportunities I've forgotten, I think our towns pretty much have that covered. Oh wait, I remember something they can't do anymore....volunteer at the local animal shelter. 

To build on what kmk said, I think it is quite important for the welfare of our children and our future to learn compassion and caring for those who are more unfortunate than they are.  Caring for a scared and forgotten animal goes a lot further in that regard than sipping lemonade on the patio.

+ 1 

There is already a recreation building in both town but no animal shelter. 

Regardless of where it is located (does not need to be the animal shelter), I think our town would benefit from an indoor playground, whether on town property or a private enterprise (like this one: http://theelksplace.com), for winter and bad-weather days. 

Also: http://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/kkSDfejH8bJalZDn5BFUJQ/ls.jpg

Vivaldo said:

Regardless of where it is located (does not need to be the animal shelter), I think our town would benefit from an indoor playground, whether on town property or a private enterprise (like this one: http://theelksplace.com), for winter and bad-weather days. 

Also: http://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/kkSDfejH8bJalZDn5BFUJQ/ls.jpg

I love this idea !! 

I knew I would make some folks angry. ;-) Lets agree to have different perspectives on the matter.

(BTW: My Downton Abbey language is a substitute for much coarser stuff.)

So, getting back to tom's point of several posts ago, I'm sure the town would not be at a loss for uses of a relatively new building if it is not reopened as a shelter. 

Therefore, maybe this is a discussion (specifically, what else can we do with that building) which is best put off until the decision is made whether that will happen.

I think my well thought out and reasonable post means that no others are necessary.  Thank you all for your interest, please carry on with your day.   

kmk said:

I knew I would make some folks angry. Lets agree to have different perspectives on the matter.

(BTW: My Downton Abbey language is a substitute for much coarser stuff.)




 

They are not angry. But they wish the animals in Maplewood and south orange have better luck than taking them to other shelters with an unknown destiny. 

Some people want the best for our animals and yes they get passioned about it. 

HarleyQuinn said:

bigben_again said:

If by "recreation center for kids" you mean bringing to that building children who have no pets and recreating them into children who have pets, I'm all for it. 

Otherwise, speaking as someone whose offspring over the years took advantage of the myriad of t-ball, baseball, soccer, scouting, community pool, tennis courts, YMCA, ballet lessons, piano lessons, voice lessons, art lessons, junior garden club, day care, after school care, summer camp in SOMA and probably some other recreation opportunities I've forgotten, I think our towns pretty much have that covered. Oh wait, I remember something they can't do anymore....volunteer at the local animal shelter. 

To build on what kmk said, I think it is quite important for the welfare of our children and our future to learn compassion and caring for those who are more unfortunate than they are.  Caring for a scared and forgotten animal goes a lot further in that regard than sipping lemonade on the patio.

+ 1 




There is already a recreation building in both town but no animal shelter. 

An animal shelter would be lovely. Just not there. Put one in an industrial/commercial zone, like where every other shelter is built. Between Valley Street and the railroad tracks, for example.

tom said:

HarleyQuinn said:

bigben_again said:

If by "recreation center for kids" you mean bringing to that building children who have no pets and recreating them into children who have pets, I'm all for it. 

Otherwise, speaking as someone whose offspring over the years took advantage of the myriad of t-ball, baseball, soccer, scouting, community pool, tennis courts, YMCA, ballet lessons, piano lessons, voice lessons, art lessons, junior garden club, day care, after school care, summer camp in SOMA and probably some other recreation opportunities I've forgotten, I think our towns pretty much have that covered. Oh wait, I remember something they can't do anymore....volunteer at the local animal shelter. 

To build on what kmk said, I think it is quite important for the welfare of our children and our future to learn compassion and caring for those who are more unfortunate than they are.  Caring for a scared and forgotten animal goes a lot further in that regard than sipping lemonade on the patio.

+ 1 




There is already a recreation building in both town but no animal shelter. 

An animal shelter would be lovely. Just not there. Put one in an industrial/commercial zone, like where every other shelter is built. Between Valley Street and the railroad tracks, for example.

Where exactly? What land will be left after all of the valley developments? The second 3rd and valley is coming. Everything else is built up...oh, and people do currently live here between valley & the railroad - in rather close proximity. Maybe they would not appreciate a shelter there?

if I recall correctly wasn't the building in South Orange build for an animal shelter and people donated for that cause ?? 

I don't understand why it can't continue to operate as an animal shelter with a different administration. I know some kitty ladies who would do magic in that place. 

By the way my hats go off to you ladies. Genuinely kind ladies. 

The current building was apparently built incorrectly for use as a shelter.

Also, the residents who live close to the shelter voiced opposition prior to its being built citing worries about noise. They were promised that noise would not be an issue. It was. They also had issues with people dumping strays outside the shelter. I don't live in that area so it doesn't impact me, but I do have sympathy for the people in that neighborhood and feel that another option needs to be explored before telling the local residents that they just have to deal with it.  

spontaneous said:

The current building was apparently built incorrectly for use as a shelter.

Also, the residents who live close to the shelter voiced opposition prior to its being built citing worries about noise. They were promised that noise would not be an issue. It was. They also had issues with people dumping strays outside the shelter. I don't live in that area so it doesn't impact me, but I do have sympathy for the people in that neighborhood and feel that another option needs to be explored before telling the local residents that they just have to deal with it.  

Poor management .. And clearly it was. 

It was also poorly placed. That many dogs, it is unavoidable that residents in the area are going to hear barking almost non-stop. It is a quality of life issue. Keep the dogs inside so the residents can enjoy peace and quiet and the dogs suffer. Let the dogs outside for air and exercise and the residents suffer. 

The location was poorly chosen. The original shelter was further down the hill and further away from the houses, but it was prone to frequent flooding. They built the new shelter higher up to address the flooding and ignored the concerns about noise.