Read this if you think the Post Office Redevelopment is being rushed

In case it was hard to figure out, that was my OpEd. The opposition can begin to stone me now for being reasonable.

You are a God.

ETA: I meant, it's a great piece. Clear and helpful

Well done. Thanks for injecting a voice of reason.

A great summary of what has transpired in the past 10 years regarding this issue. Thank you for writing it and submitting it to Village Green.

probably the best of all the op-eds that have run so far. factual, no hyperbole, and respectful of all the differing opinions on the issue. if only everyone argued in such a manner.

I agree with all of the compliments about that Op-Ed. Well done.

Thank you Mr. Briseno. I know that you are not political but you would be a far more credible candidate for TC than Mr. Lembrich.

ArchBroad said:
In case it was hard to figure out, that was my OpEd. The opposition can begin to stone me now for being reasonable.

Thank you. You've provided plenty of food for thought.

(For better or worse, so did Winky, who took a lot of heat for posting anonymously despite having skin in the game. While distinctions can be made -- financial stake vs. volunteer input, for instance -- it's encouraging to see that any similar recriminations in this case have been held in check.)

ArchBroad said:
I'm reading a different Redevelopment Plan for Maplewoodright now, but I assume this is boiler plate language that goes in all of them.

That is not the correct quote. Here is the wording from the PO Redev Plan...

"This Redevelopment Plan shall supersede all provisions of the Zoning
and Development Regulations of the Township of Maplewood regulating
development in the rehabilitation area. Where there is a conflict
between the requirements of this Redevelopment Plan and the Zoning
and Development Regulations, this Redevelopment Plan shall prevail.
In all situations where zoning issues are not specifically addressed
herein, the Maplewood Zoning and Development Regulations shall,
however, remain in effect."

It is the third sentence that is an issue as well as the MVA's lack of compliance with their own charter/Maplewood Ordinance which states:

"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..."

The spirit of the language I found on the other plan and the post office plan you quoted are the same.

In case you missed my other comments, I happen to agree that it appears the last issue (MVA: demolition) should still be addressed unless we've both missed something elsewhere. I tried to find some other exemptionloophole or compliance documentation but wasn't successful, as I'm sure you did. But I suppose it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Inda, why would the charter of a non-elected advisory committee of the town government take precident over the redevelopment plan approved by the TC?

I think the Village Alliance does a great job (Fred Profeta is a member), but they should not have the power to overrule the town.

And, doesn't the Redevelopment Plan explicitly call for demolition of the structure? If the Master Plan has the hardship language in it and has the force of an ordinance (I don't know), it would still seem that the Redevelopment Plan language would govern.

Edited to correct typos.

Steve

That thought crossed my mind as well, though I've not heard it stated explicitly. The Plan doesn't state any hardship that I can recall, only that the building will be demolished and the reasons it must be for the Plan to be implemented properly.

@tbd - and all -

The charter of the MVA is incorporated in the Maplewood Ordinance as a part of code, so it is a legally binding requirement of the town's code. So while a non-elected entity (as is every board or committee except the TC), the MVA is a tax based public entity and still needs to comply with it's own rules and regs. Further, the Redevel Plan indicates review and approval by MVA and PB, so the implication is that MVA rules and regs for such review still apply. That is one good reason why the MVA has to comply with their regs

Further the redevelopment plan indicates demolition with no specificity, detail, or reason addressed for same (while the Rehabilitation Study indicates no such demolition but rather a "program of rehabilitation"). In many cases, where codes differ or conflict or are redundant, the more detailed code often applies. So the third sentence of the zoning section of the redev plan needs to be seriously considered.

Finally the Rehabilitation Study, as I wrote above, prescribes a "Program of Rehabilitation" and not demolition. In fact, the DCA (in a letter to DeLuca) required Maplewood to submit its "Program of Rehabilitation" for filing with the state/DCA. Maplewood did not comply with this request by DCA. Rather it wrote a Redevelopment Plan without transitioning from an "Area in Need of Rehabilitation" to an "Area in Need of Redevelopment", which has specific criteria - different than the criteria for an "Area in Need of Rehabilitation".

Finally, Alex Briseno, why would you post another, misleading adn not applicable zoning reg when you, as part of PODRS, should know exactly where to find the appropriate section in the applicable Redevelopment Plan?

I am also wondering, Alex Briseno - as part of PODRS, which prior to your OpEd and anonymous posts, was "sworn to non-disclosure", as you yourself told us, if it is appropriate at all for you to be commenting at all on MOL or in an OpEd, or anywhere, either anonymously or with your real name. I guess you may (or may not) then need to recuse yourself from further deliberations of PODRS when/if the project comes back for re-review. As the issues of appropriate use of abstention and recusal in the MVA will be raised anyhow based on recent instances, you may want to raise this issue with the MVA and TC when the time comes.

ETA: I only included the other plan text because I happened to be reading that one exactly at the time I was responding and I recall the post office text was similar.

I specifically indicated that the redevelopment plan I referenced was not from the post office. You should take a moment to read my text more carefully.

I have never divulged any information about what specific conversations that occurred within the PODRS. If anyone had asked who I was, I would have said so. Nothing excludes me from stating my opinions on Village Green or on MOL. I suppose Paul should recuse himself also since he wrote an OpEd? An OpEd is an opinion piece. Mine happens to be filled with facts that you don't like to hear.

It's interesting that you don't acknowledge the things I agree with you on and only focus on negative attacks.

here's the thing I don't quite understand. admittedly, I haven't combed through every township ordinance. but doesn't the township have legal counsel? if it was so obvious that the township is prevented by ordinance from allowing the PO to be demolished, wouldn't their counsel have pointed out something so obvious? no matter what anyone wants to say about Vic DeLuca or the rest of the TC, they aren't stupid people. So I'm inclined to believe our TC's legal advice was that the subsequent Redevelopment Plan allows for demolition, superseding previous ordinances.

Of course I saw you reference that it was not from the PO Plan. That is why I posted the correct one.

Rather than negative attacks, and I am not negative toward you personally as I do not know you personally, as you do not know me personally, I have strived to present facts i have gathered either by reading documents, attending meetings, or submitting OPRA requests or both.

And actually since MVA and PODRS is subject to OPRA, I must concur that perhaps then I am wrong and it is totally appropriate for you to write an OpEd and comment incognito on MOL. But in that case there was no reason either then for PODRS to be off the record as a secret society, as the meeting records are subject to public scrutiny, tho neither has in fact ever made public the minutes, records, etc.

ArchBroad said:
ETA: I only included the other plan text because I happened to be reading that one exactly at the time I was responding and I recall the post office text was similar.
I specifically indicated that the redevelopment plan I referenced was not from the post office. You should take a moment to read my text more carefully.
I have never divulged any information about what specific conversations that occurred within the PODRS. If anyone had asked who I was, I would have said so. Nothing excludes me from stating my opinions on Village Green or on MOL. I suppose Paul should recuse himself also since he wrote an OpEd? An OpEd is an opinion piece. Mine happens to be filled with facts that you don't like to hear.


It's interesting that you don't acknowledge the things I agree with you on and only focus on negative attacks.

I think we've been over the OPRA thing before.

Not over it yet....more to come

ArchBroad said:
I think we've been over the OPRA thing before.

Remember that we happen to agree on this transparency issue. I just do not happen to agree the regulations apply to an advisory non-voting subcommittee (which I agree is unfortunate), which seems fairly clear in the text. But again I'm not a lawyer.

Thank you AB for acknowledging that you are not a lawyer. I refrain from commenting on architechtural issues because I have no training in that area. It doesn't seem to stop some people with no legal training from commenting on legal matters.

The TC is the Municipal Governing Body. They can seek advice and input from groups like Maplewood Village Alliance and its subcommittees like PODRS but in the end they can reject all advice. I do not know what legal standing MVA has but neither I nor any other citizen voted for members of their Board. I do not understand why the MVA or one of its sub-committees would be subject to OPRA.

The PO site is owned by the Township. As the governing body the TC can do what it likes with that property so long as it does not conflict with State or Federal Law. The TC relies on the Township Counsel for legal advice. The person in that position has had the job for 20 years.

Town Ordinances are enacted by the TC. I would think that any action by the TC contrary to a Town Ordinance in effect amends that Ordinance, but if the Township Attorney believes it necessary to explicitly amend an Ordinance he would so advise the TC and they would act accordingly.

The attached is from the Dept. of Community Affairs website. FAQ on Special Improvement Districts:

http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dhcr/faq/idp_faq.html

Here is the last paragraph:

As such, we recommend that the District Management Corporation, even to the extent that it wholly predates it’s assignment by ordinance as the DMC for the Improvement District and that it may have a fully incorporated State and Federal status as its own private non-profit organization, seek to meet the spirit of public entity polices such as the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

It is merely a recommendation that the DMC which runs a Special Improvement District "meet the spirit" of OPRA. The preceding paragraphs state that whether an SID is a public or private entity has not yet been decided.

LOST said:
The attached is from the Dept. of Community Affairs website. FAQ on Special Improvement Districts:
http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dhcr/faq/idp_faq.html
Here is the last paragraph:
As such, we recommend that the District Management Corporation, even to the extent that it wholly predates it’s assignment by ordinance as the DMC for the Improvement District and that it may have a fully incorporated State and Federal status as its own private non-profit organization, seek to meet the spirit of public entity polices such as the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).
It is merely a recommendation that the DMC which runs a Special Improvement District "meet the spirit" of OPRA. The preceding paragraphs state that whether an SID is a public or private entity has not yet been decided.

and the paragraph before that one:

"NJ DCA’s Division of Local Government Services has assured our office that the State’s Deputy Attorney General’s (DAG’s) office of the State of New Jersey has not rendered an opinion on the question of whether or not all or some District Management Corporations should be considered public or private for several years. As such there is no additional clarity from the State with regard to this issue at this time. Please note that once a DAG decision is rendered, however, our offices will promote that outcome to all interested stakeholders, and update this section accordingly."

THE SID/MVA is an agency of the Municipal Government and as such is subject to OPRA...see Montclair case:

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/06/court_battle_leads_to_landmark_ruling_on_opra_rules_for_montclair_business_group_attorneys_say.html

"For other corporations similar to MCC, the court ruling likely means they must follow OPRA guidelines as well"

Isn't it the exemption clause for advisory committees, which the PODRS is, that is creating the friction, no?

I think you've already noted you have acquired meeting minutes for MVA Board things, unless I inferred too much from your previous statements.

ArchBroad said:
ETA: I only included the other plan text because I happened to be reading that one exactly at the time I was responding and I recall the post office text was similar.
I specifically indicated that the redevelopment plan I referenced was not from the post office. You should take a moment to read my text more carefully.
I have never divulged any information about what specific conversations that occurred within the PODRS. If anyone had asked who I was, I would have said so. Nothing excludes me from stating my opinions on Village Green or on MOL. I suppose Paul should recuse himself also since he wrote an OpEd? An OpEd is an opinion piece. Mine happens to be filled with facts that you don't like to hear.


It's interesting that you don't acknowledge the things I agree with you on and only focus on negative attacks.

Transparency, open dialogue and all that. Apparently.