Post Office Value archived

icdart said:

If what you want to see is plans for repurposing then lobby the TC to accept plans .
A few have asked the town to do just that but the TC continues on its merry way not accepting the pleas of the Village Alliance, businesses , and members of the planning board and residents to look at plans for repurposing

Why do we keep accepting this modus operandi ? We must begin to think more progressively about use of land and how we are developing ...repurposing should be considered and the TC who do not look at it's value are minimizing the growth of the town ..
As Fred Profeta stated in his appeal to the TC, it would be better to take time and consider options than to build a monolith that cannot be removed .

+1

I am not qualified to determine the value of the site.

Do you think there could be any circumstance where it would be reasonable for the TC to sell the land for less than the market value, or to even offer it for free, if the result was a project that in the long run would better serve the people of Maplewood

According to this article from the Village Green, the price was based on an appraisal done in February of last year. If you are really curious the appraisal should be available by filing a Freedom of Information request. I can't think of any reason why this should be regarded as confidential.

Unless you were buying the post office site for a warehouse the building is a negative. The cost of renovating it into something useful for other than a warehouse with a small office is undoubtably more than the assessed value of the building.

@bobk - not necessarily so...depends on the proposed use and extent of fit out / renovation to make it viable. Therre are numerous ideas floating...

The TC should be putting this on hold and pursuing the suggestions of those who have come forward .

Let's face it. The TC got rooked by the developer.

Well played, developer. Time for new leadership in the TC.

Show your math, please.

icdart,

There are people who are not accepting the "modus operandi." Several methods exist for requiring the TC to step back and take a look at alternatives such as repurposing, for example:

1) Maplewood Village Alliance approval of any building designed for the site is required by the Redevelopment Plan,

2) Planning Board approval is necessary of a detailed site plan, for which the developer has yet to invest any money,

3) The TC needs to explain how its 2013 Redevelopment Plan mandate that "there is no reason to retain any of the existing structures or vegetation" is consistent with its 1999 ordinance that "no building within [the Village] shall be demolished without its owner demonstrating significant financial hardship." This 1999 ordinance established a strong policy in favor of preserving Village structures, and the TC appears to have run roughshod over this policy without even noting that it existed. This may take litigation to resolve.

sarahzm said:

@indasechzer. I agree with you in that I hope it is not a done deal. I recognize the dire need in Maplewood for ratables, but I think development with a better balance of size, public space, parking and ratables would be a better choice for the site.

I just think that dubious comparisons with completely different properties are not the best argument.

My own unschooled opinion is that the post office building is the ugliest most ill conceived structure in the village, but if it could be repurposed to create a balance of ratables, parking, and public space, and be made something pleasant to look at (not just to aficionados of mid century architecture) and be done in a way that is economically viable I would be all for it.

Actually there are a number of buildings in the Village with unadorned simple lines - do you think they are ugly too?...these simple structures are interspersed amongst the more charming, interesting ones. However, ugliness is not a substantive reason to demolish a building nor is ugliness a hardship requiring redevelopment.

It is time for the TC to take a step back and have a fresh look at his project. The original plan was based on a supermarket/Kings. There is no supermarket signing on...so why not rethink the whole endeavor?

Some do think the PO building is ugly. However, for many with whom I have spoken this is a reaction to the fact that it is very worn, especially in the areas of the windows and the graffiti. With rehabilitation and thoughtful, creative changes, it can be quite lovely. The structure itself and the brickwork at both the interior and exterior are in excellent condition. The mid-century design with its clean lines and large swaths of glass provide many positive opportunities.

Again, this proposed demolition is a throwaway - a waste of the taxpayer / citizens' investment. Throwing away this building is a $1 MILLION loss for the town.

What taxpayer investment?

The taxpayer investment was making up for the income lost on that property all these years since 1958, measured by the difference between the DECREASING rent paid to the town every year and the value of the lost public use and appreciation of the 19th century library that was on that property before then (the Ricalton School and then former town hall and police station), OR the tax revenue that could have been received since 1958 if it had been used for taxable purposes. I think that's multiple millions of dollars in investment by taxpayers.

I see Inda has been cribbing your notes. Anyhow, that's lost income from where I sit, not investment, from the pov of anyone living here now, and even that's arguable. Therefore, are you honestly going to make an argument that current taxpayers have lost well over 100 years' worth of income, across countless administrations, all of whom failed to toss the PO out and build before now? Or at minimum at that woefully unprescient administration of 1958? I recall you were leading the charge some time ago to toss them out-- clearly much later than 1958-- and it doesn't seem like it was as easy then as today's hindsight might suggest, but I'm open to hear where it was, and as such, how it can be laid at the feet of TCs before or since.

Alternatively, because the USPS paid a pittance, we'd have been better off simply leaving the space as a public 19th C. school, or PD or TH (forgetting the fact that we'd outgrow them eventually, of course) given the benefit to taxpayers would outweigh the pittance over time? Are those millions in lost "income" net of maintenance, repairs and modernization over 100+ years? After all, we wouldn't want to wipe out our "investment" gains with something like the many million SO is currently spending in an attempt to save its own 19th C. center-of-town debacle, would we? Of course not.

Now, we can debate whether a PO building represents public use... probably would be interesting given the USPS is "...operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people". For 50+ years there wasn't an issue with having a building serving a public use located in the heart of town, much as it is in towns large and small across America, but now it's a problem? So again, you (and others before and after you) should have just tossed them out and didn't, but the issue is with the current TC who did? Odd.

fredprofeta said:

There are people who are not accepting the "modus operandi." Several methods exist for requiring the TC to step back and take a look at alternatives such as repurposing, for example:

1) Maplewood Village Alliance approval of any building designed for the site is required by the Redevelopment Plan,

2) Planning Board approval is necessary of a detailed site plan, for which the developer has yet to invest any money,

3) The TC needs to explain how its 2013 Redevelopment Plan mandate that "there is no reason to retain any of the existing structures or vegetation" is consistent with its 1999 ordinance that "no building within [the Village] shall be demolished without its owner demonstrating significant financial hardship." This 1999 ordinance established a strong policy in favor of preserving Village structures, and the TC appears to have run roughshod over this policy without even noting that it existed. This may take litigation to resolve.

And since we're talking about millions in lost taxpayer investment/income above, I hope the average taxpayer/citizen realizes that if your Plan A (MVA denial) and Plan B (PB denial) both fail, that any fallback to Plan C (litigation brought by a scant few vs. the town over what I assume is a line or two buried in the initial SID ordinance) could likely cost the town (and by extension all of us) the very same millions purportedly lost by previous generations. As with anything in life there are tradeoffs I suppose.

ctrzaska,

You're off on a frolic and detour. I was simply responding to your simple question as to the taxpayers' investment in the PO site over the years. I said nothing about the wisdom of TC decisions over the years, did not suggest that the gorgeous and historic 19th century building (preserved for history in one of the murals in town hall) be used to house town hall functions, or anything else about the interesting things you mused about. You did not take issue with my arithmetic, except to call it a taxpayer expense rather than an investment - but that is mostly semantic. If the extra taxes I paid to offset the declining revenue from that site would have been invested by me instead in equities, I don't see why that doesn't constitute an alternative investment in the site by me.

In any event, I do not fault any TC for decisions along the way (except the late 1950's crew which allowed the historic building to be demolished and agreed to a crazy declining revenue schedule with the PO). Nobody could move the PO out of that site after that (and Lord knows I tried hard as the expiration date on the lease approached in the early 2000's - as did Vic after me).

I do not want to compound an original demolition mistake with another. I want to save the town money, not waste it on tearing down the newest structure in the Village, which can be made very aesthetic. With respect to contemplated litigation expense which you opine about in your post - suffice it to say that you do not have enough litigation experience to put an accurate number on it. Divining the meaning of words in an ordinance is usually decided on motion rather than a full blown trial, and it would be unreasonable for that expense to exceed $20,000 on either side. Even a trial (if it ever came to that) would not reach $100,000 - so your estimate of millions is simply fantasy. For sure, demolition costs paid by the town would far exceed litigation costs to prevent the demolition.

The line in the 1999 SID ordinance which prohibits demolition is not "buried", as you characterize it. It has as much prominence as the other provisions, and it is a cardinal rule of ordinance interpretation that every word in the document must be given meaning, if possible. You want to see something that is truly "buried" but is getting national attention? Then focus on the language which the plaintiffs are relying upon to try to get the Supreme Court to throw out the Affordable Care Out. But the Supreme Court is applying the same principle - every word must be given meaning, no matter how much other language surrounds it.

I'm totally confused. The critics seem to be complaining that the town is selling the property on the cheap while simultaneously advocating a requirement that the current structure be kept and re-purposed, which is bound to decrease the property's value by even further restricting what can be built.

I continue to be baffled by the fear of change and the notion that the town should somehow be preserved in amber circa 2013. The idea that the village as it exists in our time is somehow so precious and perfect that it must be protected from change is the height of arrogance. Imagine if the residents of 1880 or even 1957 had felt the same way. We wouldn't even have the PO to fight over.

I know this places me in the minority but, in case folks haven't looked closely, there are some god-awful ugly buildings in the village. See, e.g., the stretch from Lorena's to Garubo's. The one- and two-story buildings housing the shops along the west side of the street range from shabby to nondescript. This is not Venice, folks. Indeed, I would say the village is, from an architectural standpoint, pretty tired. The newest building -- the one we're bickering about -- is as old as me! The village could use some new blood.

But, what the somewhat scruffy, architecturally disheveled look of the village tells me is that what makes a an inviting and vital village is not whether a particular building is 45-feet or 25-feet tall or whether an example Sputnik-era utilitarian architecture is preserved but, rather, the mix of businesses and services operating there. If there's a reason for people to come, they will come. No one is coming to Maplewood Village because of it's quaint architecture. They are coming because they want to eat at Lorena's or go to the movies or get their nails done or browse the bookstore. Similarly, no one is going to stay away because the new building on the PO site has four or even five stories instead of three. Given this, the need for more housing options in town and generally, and the fact that multi-family housing near transit and commerce is as green as it gets, I say build, baby, build.

Ask any visitor from out of State which town in our part of New Jersey has the most quaint "Village"

Livingston? West Orange? Orange? Even our cousins in South Orange have busy South Orange Ave running down the center of their Village.

If a building must rise.........then for the love of Mike........at least make it proportionate to those around it. Keep it in scale. Is that too much to ask?

Warts and all............red balloons and all......ask those visitors. And they do not know our restaurants or hair saloons or coffee shops. It's called ambiance and ask how they like it.

Oh good Lord David. Stick with your argument for parking meters - you made more sense with that one.

I could not disagree more with Mr. frazer's assessment. The village of Maplewood brings a very unique charm to the community.

David Frazer isn't saying downtown Maplewood isn't charming. Of course it is. His point is that if you look carefully, some of the actual underlying buildings are quite ugly and don't fit in with what we think of as the feel of the village. Which is true.

Frank said:

David Frazer isn't saying downtown Maplewood isn't charming. Of course it is. His point is that if you look carefully, some of the actual underlying buildings are quite ugly and don't fit in with what we think of as the feel of the village. Which is true.

I completely disagree.

With what?

Frank said:

David Frazer isn't saying downtown Maplewood isn't charming. Of course it is. His point is that if you look carefully, some of the actual underlying buildings are quite ugly and don't fit in with what we think of as the feel of the village. Which is true.

I think this is correct.

I guess with the hints being dropped by author and fredprofeta, a lawsuit is in the works.
Good times!

Fred Profetta is a respected attorney. I do comic relief.

casey said:

I guess with the hints being dropped by author and fredprofeta, a lawsuit is in the works.
Good times!

Dickish.

The main issue, in my opinion, is the scale of the new building. It does not fit the current scale of the downtown area. It will stick out like a sore thumb, in time we may get used to it. However, it is perhaps the most central location in the commercial district so we need to get this right the first time.

fredprofeta said:

There are people who are not accepting the "modus operandi." Several methods exist for requiring the TC to step back and take a look at alternatives such as repurposing, for example:
...

3) The TC needs to explain how its 2013 Redevelopment Plan mandate that "there is no reason to retain any of the existing structures or vegetation" is consistent with its 1999 ordinance that "no building within [the Village] shall be demolished without its owner demonstrating significant financial hardship." This 1999 ordinance established a strong policy in favor of preserving Village structures, and the TC appears to have run roughshod over this policy without even noting that it existed. This may take litigation to resolve.

The idea that anyone would consider litigation (or at least walking around telling people that this was a basis for litigation) piqued my interest.

In Maplewood's municipal code, there is a chapter on Special Improvement Districts, and in there a section entitled "Design Criteria (Maplewood Village)" (That section is at this link). Annotations indicate it dates from 1999 (as in, probably the "1999 ordinance" referenced), and was most recently revised this past December: "Added 7-6-1999 by Ord. No. 2095-99; amended 1-16-2001 by Ord. No. 2142-01; 4-17-2001 by Ord. No. 2158-01; 12-16-2014 by Ord. No. 2765-14".

Section 237-9.1B(6) from there does state: "Demolition. In keeping with the preservation element of the Township of Maplewood's Master Plan, which recognizes the need to preserve structures of historical significance, no building within the district shall be demolished without its owner demonstrating significant financial hardship and without having a proposed alternative for new construction (i.e., schematic plans drawn by a licensed architect or engineer) approved by the MVA Design Review Committee and Village Alliance Board and the Planning Board with proof of project financing, i.e., lease agreements, loan agreements, mortgage commitments, etc., except in instances where the Uniform Construction Code requires the demolition of a fire-damaged building."

While that does indicate an interest in preserving the "structures of historical significance", there is also the ordinance specifically addressing redevelopment at the site of the Post Office and approving the plan for that site (Ord. 2725-13).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Township Committee didn't know that the Design Criteria ordinance existed, since it was revised and amended this past December. It looks more like there is a general ordinance for the Village, and a specific ordinance and ongoing approval process to replace the Post Office building.

I'll add my own personal view that the Post Office may be the least likely building in the Village to meet the definition of "structure of historic significance", which is the concern of the Design Criteria ordinance, but that doesn't matter for purposes of discussion.

In any event, I don't know if the existing municipal provisions would provide any support for a claim that there was anything contrary to the township's code (such as to support the notion of litigation based on that) which would derail the process which has already been under way for several years now.

yahooyahoo said:

The main issue, in my opinion, is the scale of the new building. It does not fit the current scale of the downtown area. It will stick out like a sore thumb, in time we may get used to it. However, it is perhaps the most central location in the commercial district so we need to get this right the first time.

Says it all.

author said:

yahooyahoo said:

The main issue, in my opinion, is the scale of the new building. It does not fit the current scale of the downtown area. It will stick out like a sore thumb, in time we may get used to it. However, it is perhaps the most central location in the commercial district so we need to get this right the first time.

Says it all.

Somehow, I doubt it.

A lawsuit would probably scare away developers.