The Sale of the Village Post Office and Adjacent lots: Your Views Should Be Heard
Dec 18, 2013 at 4:18am Edited
Johnharvey8 said:
.
And remember, we still don't know the true cost of the Woman's Club investment decision where we lost a payment in lieu of taxes, plus spent significant taxpayer dollars in purchasing, and now improving the property.
John
As everyone knows, there WAS a buyer for the Women's Club, a much respected local philanthropist . His effort was thwarted by a few people who lived on Woodland Road in the vicinity of the club. These residents knowingly purchased their homes next to a club with a banquet hall that seated hundreds, yet sued to prevent the potential buyer from using it as such.
Aren't some of the same people who filed that lawsuit founders of Engage Maplewood ?
Edited to add - not the case - I stand corrected.
Johnharvey8 said:
.
One other financial impact of the PO and other developments with multi-unit apartments that the TC has not addressed publicly and is possibly not being included in the financial analysis for their decision. It is the increase in the number of school-age children as a result of multi-unit apartments. I am not against adding students to the school district per se, but I do believe these additional "costs" should be discussed openly, and be considered in assessing and making alternative development decisions.
As recently as October, Vic shared with the College Hill Neighborhood Association that the PSE&G property development "would consist of one and two bedroom apartments which would not attract families with school-age children." Clearly a hard-to-believe statement.
Why is this "clearly a hard to believe statement". What evidence to you have . I think you know better, or your should. I also think you could use a bit more restraint, or perhaps be a bit more responsible, when implying that the mayor is being less than truthful about an issue when you don't have any evidence to back it up.
Look at similar projects. The Newstead, The Top and The Avenue in South Orange and Station House Plaza in Maplewood. Out of hundreds and hundredsof apartments, there are fewer than 5 children in all of those put together. Not one family with children has moved into Station House Plaza. Not one.
Even Gaslight Commons in South Orange , which is built next to a playgroud has very very few children. The only children I have been aware of there are those visiting divorced parents.
All of these projects were designed to appeal to a demographic that sadly, is poorly served by our current housing stock, empty nesters and 20-30 somethings. The Post Office apartments will likely appeal to retired people who want to stay in Maplewood, or young people who do not yet have the resources to purchase a Maplewood colonial.
I think if built with care it will be an asset.
pmartinezv said:
Please just dont allow another PILOT at this location. Our school budget can't handle it.
Another?
pmartinezv said:
Please just dont allow another PILOT at this location. Our school budget can't handle it.
We're talking about Maplewood (not South Orange).
Red_Barchetta said:
Gazebos and universal racism, perfect together. Awesome.
My post was tongue-in-cheek.
I see no reason to give away prime real estate to a developer to line his pocket.
And for those of you who have not been following this issue for the years it has been discussed, this is not driven by King's desire to relocate. We practically twisted their arm to justify this plan as no other big box expressed interest.
I SEE NO REASON TO GIVE AWAY PRIME REAL ESTATE TO A DEVELOPER TO LINE HIS POCKET.
I'm hoping that this is another tongue in cheek line that I'm missing. Or is it just more unsubstantiated hyperbole.
"GIVE AWAY PRIME REAL ESTATE " "LINE HIS POCKETS"
Do really mean to imply that the members of the Maplewood Township Committee and the Economic Development Commission are doing something illegal or untoward ?
Because it sure sounds that way.
By the way - here's a definition of "line ones pockets" to make too much money, especially in an illegal or questionable way.
MJH, maybe I was not clear - my conclusion was based on the analysis that Vic provided me via email - his facts! Not unsubstantiated opinion. If you would like the facts to see for your self, I would be glad to share them with you.
I am not impervious to the issue, I simply believe it is too important to be pushed aside, ignored, or miscommunicated. Enjoy your day - John
I am not impervious to the issue, I simply believe it is too important to be pushed aside, ignored, or miscommunicated. Enjoy your day - John
sarazm - none of the three families who threatened legal action are founding member, or members of Engage-Maplewood. I do understand your logic that when people purchase a home they should expect to suffer consequences, however, I do not agree with it in this case. To avoid thread drift, my perspective can be found in that thread. Thanks - John
Sarahzm, I do not personally believe anyone involved in the decision is personally, materially benefitting from these decisions.
The irony of your statement,
"Do really mean to imply that the members of the Maplewood Township Committee and the Economic Development Commission are doing something illegal or untoward ?"
---- however, is that you refer of the TC and the EDC as two distinct groups of people as you would expect when good checks and balances are in place. They are not!
The EDC consists of three (of the 5) members of the TC - Vic, jerry, and Kathy. Any effective democracy would have checks and balances. This one does not. Later - John
The irony of your statement,
"Do really mean to imply that the members of the Maplewood Township Committee and the Economic Development Commission are doing something illegal or untoward ?"
---- however, is that you refer of the TC and the EDC as two distinct groups of people as you would expect when good checks and balances are in place. They are not!
The EDC consists of three (of the 5) members of the TC - Vic, jerry, and Kathy. Any effective democracy would have checks and balances. This one does not. Later - John
June, I firmly believe that, if the TC were open to engaging some of the talented people in town to identify some alternatives the ideas would have flowed. We even suggested a design competition back in the Spring to generate creative but sound ideas. This suggestion was ignored by the TC.
I previously complimented the TC on including some local architects/design folks to review the three remaining submissions, which they recently did. This was a terrific move.
They, the designers, voted unanimously for one of the three plans. My fear is that the TC will disregard this strong opinion and choose the developer I predicted previously on MOL - Murray Construction, as their plan is all about King's.
This narrow focus, in my opinion, is what has kept alternative thinking at bay. One developer described it as trying to fit 10# of potatoes into a 5# bag. Time will tell - John
I previously complimented the TC on including some local architects/design folks to review the three remaining submissions, which they recently did. This was a terrific move.
They, the designers, voted unanimously for one of the three plans. My fear is that the TC will disregard this strong opinion and choose the developer I predicted previously on MOL - Murray Construction, as their plan is all about King's.
This narrow focus, in my opinion, is what has kept alternative thinking at bay. One developer described it as trying to fit 10# of potatoes into a 5# bag. Time will tell - John
Johnharvey8 said:
MJH, maybe I was not clear - my conclusion was based on the analysis that Vic provided me via email - his facts! Not unsubstantiated opinion. If you would like the facts to see for your self, I would be glad to share them with you.
I am not impervious to the issue, I simply believe it is too important to be pushed aside, ignored, or miscommunicated. Enjoy your day - John
Why not just post those "facts" here for all to see? I think we should ALL be allowed to see what your privileged eyes have seen.
Dec 18, 2013 at 5:24am Edited
Design competitions can produce some creative ideas. However, some architects look at them as a time-consuming process in which they give away their ideas and thinking without compensation. So sometimes those who might have worthwhile ideas and experience sit out.
Not saying it's not worth pursuing, but it isn't always the most productive process.
Not saying it's not worth pursuing, but it isn't always the most productive process.
Johnharvey8 said:
Sarahzm, I do not personally believe anyone involved in the decision is personally, materially benefitting from these decisions.
The irony of your statement,
"Do really mean to imply that the members of the Maplewood Township Committee and the Economic Development Commission are doing something illegal or untoward ?"
---- however, is that you refer of the TC and the EDC as two distinct groups of people as you would expect when good checks and balances are in place. They are not!
The EDC consists of three (of the 5) members of the TC - Vic, jerry, and Kathy. Any effective democracy would have checks and balances. This one does not. Later - John
Good, but you were not the person who posted this - or were you ??
Your claims about the lack of checks and balances and of democracy have been stated over and over and over and over.
They have been refuted over and over and over and over too.
Johnharvey8 said:
June, I firmly believe that, if the TC were open to engaging some of the talented people in town to identify some alternatives the ideas would have flowed. We even suggested a design competition back in the Spring to generate creative but sound ideas. This suggestion was ignored by the TC.
I previously complimented the TC on including some local architects/design folks to review the three remaining submissions, which they recently did. This was a terrific move.
They, the designers, voted unanimously for one of the three plans. My fear is that the TC will disregard this strong opinion and choose the developer I predicted previously on MOL - Murray Construction, as their plan is all about King's.
This narrow focus, in my opinion, is what has kept alternative thinking at bay. One developer described it as trying to fit 10# of potatoes into a 5# bag. Time will tell - John
This sounds reasonable. Your position would be so much stronger if you stayed away from the hyperbole, exaggerations, veiled accusations, fear mongering and stuck to facts.
You would be more effective if you moved forward in a constructive, honest way.
Your tactics have turned a lot of people off. It's a shame
denniss said:
Johnharvey8 said:
MJH, maybe I was not clear - my conclusion was based on the analysis that Vic provided me via email - his facts! Not unsubstantiated opinion. If you would like the facts to see for your self, I would be glad to share them with you.
I am not impervious to the issue, I simply believe it is too important to be pushed aside, ignored, or miscommunicated. Enjoy your day - John
Why not just post those "facts" here for all to see? I think we should ALL be allowed to see what your privileged eyes have seen.
Agreed. I'm sure most people here are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions, and there's no doubt that any expectation of privacy exists with the info.
Johnharvey8 said:
Deborahg - clearly you subscribe to Jerry, Vic, and their TC colleagues belief that the only way to influence or express your concern as a Maplewood resident is to attend the Township Committee meetings. At a basic level this is not true, as the meetings are also on local cable as a source for getting information...
...Unfortunately, the TC looks at an empty room and assumes all in Town must agree with them. Not true.
You say "not true" twice above as if to imply that what you posit has a sound basis in fact, when nothing could be more "not true" than your conclusions. Would appreciate some clarification that these are merely your own judgments and opinions and nothing more, or some evidence to support these leaps of logic. Thanks.
Hey, posters...how about offering thoughts based on the original topic posted? I for one am working on a detailed range of thoughts to offer, which I will probably post over the weekend. Kudos to those who shared their thoughts and visions in responding to Dave's original post succinctly and respectfully. So to remind you what the big questions were, I quote:
How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?
Would you prefer to see something different?
Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking? Increased population? Cultural aspects? Diversity in retail businesses? Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general? Tax revenue? Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe? Aesthetic considerations? Others?
We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?
With a proposal at hand, your view should be heard!
How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?
Would you prefer to see something different?
Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking? Increased population? Cultural aspects? Diversity in retail businesses? Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general? Tax revenue? Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe? Aesthetic considerations? Others?
We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?
With a proposal at hand, your view should be heard!
If Kings gets a new store, what possible good use could go into old Kings?
tomcat said:
A really large nail salon!
Make that TWO nail salons, side-by-side!!
But seriously, could that space be perhaps used for an indoor play space for kids? Is it tall enough? Something that could be open more than just an hour a day for drop-in play.
Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:
Hey, posters...how about offering thoughts based on the original topic posted? I for one am working on a detailed range of thoughts to offer, which I will probably post over the weekend. Kudos to those who shared their thoughts and visions in responding to Dave's original post succinctly and respectfully. So to remind you what the big questions were, I quote:
How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?
Would you prefer to see something different?
Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking? Increased population? Cultural aspects? Diversity in retail businesses? Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general? Tax revenue? Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe? Aesthetic considerations? Others?
We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?
With a proposal at hand, your view should be heard!
Hey JB, did you get my messages?
JB should volunteer to be on the Planning Board, he may be able to put some of his ideas into action in a real sense. Better to be inside the tent than outside sometimes.
sarahzm said:
Johnharvey8 said:
June, I firmly believe that, if the TC were open to engaging some of the talented people in town to identify some alternatives the ideas would have flowed. We even suggested a design competition back in the Spring to generate creative but sound ideas. This suggestion was ignored by the TC.
I previously complimented the TC on including some local architects/design folks to review the three remaining submissions, which they recently did. This was a terrific move.
They, the designers, voted unanimously for one of the three plans. My fear is that the TC will disregard this strong opinion and choose the developer I predicted previously on MOL - Murray Construction, as their plan is all about King's.
This narrow focus, in my opinion, is what has kept alternative thinking at bay. One developer described it as trying to fit 10# of potatoes into a 5# bag. Time will tell - John
This sounds reasonable. Your position would be so much stronger if you stayed away from the hyperbole, exaggerations, veiled accusations, fear mongering and stuck to facts.
You would be more effective if you moved forward in a constructive, honest way.
Your tactics have turned a lot of people off. It's a shame
Sarahzm - why do you continuously attack these posters- we are here to have a forum, a dialog. John Harvey's information is typically thoroughly investigated...he asks lots of questions and reads all the related data. If you have data regarding PSEG site and Post Office site in support of your attacks. please provide it. Let's consider all the possibilities.
Winky said:
sarahzm said:
Johnharvey8 said:
June, I firmly believe that, if the TC were open to engaging some of the talented people in town to identify some alternatives the ideas would have flowed. We even suggested a design competition back in the Spring to generate creative but sound ideas. This suggestion was ignored by the TC.
I previously complimented the TC on including some local architects/design folks to review the three remaining submissions, which they recently did. This was a terrific move.
They, the designers, voted unanimously for one of the three plans. My fear is that the TC will disregard this strong opinion and choose the developer I predicted previously on MOL - Murray Construction, as their plan is all about King's.
This narrow focus, in my opinion, is what has kept alternative thinking at bay. One developer described it as trying to fit 10# of potatoes into a 5# bag. Time will tell - John
This sounds reasonable. Your position would be so much stronger if you stayed away from the hyperbole, exaggerations, veiled accusations, fear mongering and stuck to facts.
You would be more effective if you moved forward in a constructive, honest way.
Your tactics have turned a lot of people off. It's a shame
Sarahzm - why do you continuously attack these posters- we are here to have a forum, a dialog. John Harvey's information is typically thoroughly investigated...he asks lots of questions and reads all the related data. If you have data regarding PSEG site and Post Office site in support of your attacks. please provide it. Let's consider all the possibilities.
What is this "attack" you are referring to? Her criticism is legitimate and shared by others.
Dec 18, 2013 at 9:35am Edited
Winky, I wasn't attacking Mr Harvey - That one post was reasonable and I said so. However most of his other posts and many posts supporting Engage Maplewood are not.
I think your posts, and those of some others who share the Engage Maplewood agenda are purposely misleading and full of misinformation designed to scare and manipulate people into agreeing with you. That's all. Your tactics are lacking in integrity. I think it's dishonest. I think it's inflammatory. I think Maplewood deserves better than this. I think MOL is better than this. So, when I see it I call you out.
I'd like to add that I have historically not been a fan of the Mayor or of some members of the township committee. In fact, in the past, on occasion I have been deeply critical. But, I find the manner in which some posts here baselessly malign them to be offensive
Lets me give just one example of what I find objectionable. There are many more , but here is just one of your recent posts.
Not True as evidenced by your next statement
To a rational person, the fact that the proposals were shown to members of the Maplewood Village Alliance seem to contradict your previous statement. Furthermore, as Ctrzaska has said : If you don't know why the TC cannot release all of the details of the proposals you clearly have much to learn. Should you have any information which supports your second-(third?)hand contention that the MVA has been intentionally gagged from providing any information outside of those factors naturally required to be kept confidential as part of the bidding process, please provide the source of this information. All ears.
Did the Historic commission ever ask to be a part of the discussion. I don't think so. The Historic commission was created to identify historic sites and districts and to recommend their designation. Since the commission was created they have identified 11 sites. The Post office is not one of them. Nor are any properties in the Village. You say they have been shut out of the process. It seems that they have chosen not to be a part of the process.
So, in short, if you and your co-horts stop telling lies, I will stop objecting to them.
I think your posts, and those of some others who share the Engage Maplewood agenda are purposely misleading and full of misinformation designed to scare and manipulate people into agreeing with you. That's all. Your tactics are lacking in integrity. I think it's dishonest. I think it's inflammatory. I think Maplewood deserves better than this. I think MOL is better than this. So, when I see it I call you out.
I'd like to add that I have historically not been a fan of the Mayor or of some members of the township committee. In fact, in the past, on occasion I have been deeply critical. But, I find the manner in which some posts here baselessly malign them to be offensive
Lets me give just one example of what I find objectionable. There are many more , but here is just one of your recent posts.
Winky said:
All of this has been done substantially in secret with little effort to inform the town's residents and merchants. The Maplewood Village Alliance has seen the developers proposals but has been gagged. Have been told they must keep it secret. The Historic Commision has been shut out of the discussion.
Are we all in kindergarten here? This is absurd. This little DeLuca fiefdom has to stop. What are the priorities here?
All of this has been done substantially in secret with little effort to inform the town's residents and merchants.
Not True as evidenced by your next statement
The Maplewood Village Alliance has seen the developers proposals but has been gagged. Have been told they must keep it secret..
To a rational person, the fact that the proposals were shown to members of the Maplewood Village Alliance seem to contradict your previous statement. Furthermore, as Ctrzaska has said : If you don't know why the TC cannot release all of the details of the proposals you clearly have much to learn. Should you have any information which supports your second-(third?)hand contention that the MVA has been intentionally gagged from providing any information outside of those factors naturally required to be kept confidential as part of the bidding process, please provide the source of this information. All ears.
The Historic Commission has been shut out of the discussion. .
Did the Historic commission ever ask to be a part of the discussion. I don't think so. The Historic commission was created to identify historic sites and districts and to recommend their designation. Since the commission was created they have identified 11 sites. The Post office is not one of them. Nor are any properties in the Village. You say they have been shut out of the process. It seems that they have chosen not to be a part of the process.
So, in short, if you and your co-horts stop telling lies, I will stop objecting to them.
@Sarahzm - how dare you attack people with facts. Don't you know, this thread is supposed to be a rant untethered to reality.
weirdbeard said:
What is this "attack" you are referring to? Her criticism is legitimate and shared by others.
+1
Dec 18, 2013 at 9:53am Edited
Well, since you asked:
"How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?"
Somewhat nonplussed.
"Would you prefer to see something different?"
I would prefer any number of things: a bluegrass/punk/metal venue; an open-air food/junk market (a la the French Market in New Orleans); a roller coaster like the Cyclone; a GWAR appreciation museum; a field of lifelike terra cotta warriors; a staging area for a giant slide down which you can ride and get off at your shop of choice down the avenue; a REALLY big ball pit; etc. I realize, however, that none of my preferences are very realistic, and I'm pretty cool with the current proposal.
"Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking?"
I wouldn't want the overall number of spaces available for shoppers to decrease. But that alone shouldn't be a gating item.
"Increased population?"
Not worried about that.
"Cultural aspects?"
I think we have a lot of culture in our town and don't really need to be subsidizing more.
"Diversity in retail businesses?"
Would love more diversity if the market can support it. I don't think it can really be mandated by the town. Storefronts in the village become vacant pretty frequently, and if the market could support more diversity it would happen organically. In this area I'm actually in favor of the invisible hand of marketplace over central planning.
"Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general?"
No. This ain't Times Square for chrissakes.
"Tax revenue?"
Should be a major but not overriding consideration.
"Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe?"
Sure, and I think the proposed use would enrich it.
"Aesthetic considerations?"
To the extent that the township can reasonably control it yet still be able to fetch an attractive price from developers.
"We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?"
Pretty good. The process has been transparent and fair, in my opinion.
"How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?"
Somewhat nonplussed.
"Would you prefer to see something different?"
I would prefer any number of things: a bluegrass/punk/metal venue; an open-air food/junk market (a la the French Market in New Orleans); a roller coaster like the Cyclone; a GWAR appreciation museum; a field of lifelike terra cotta warriors; a staging area for a giant slide down which you can ride and get off at your shop of choice down the avenue; a REALLY big ball pit; etc. I realize, however, that none of my preferences are very realistic, and I'm pretty cool with the current proposal.
"Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking?"
I wouldn't want the overall number of spaces available for shoppers to decrease. But that alone shouldn't be a gating item.
"Increased population?"
Not worried about that.
"Cultural aspects?"
I think we have a lot of culture in our town and don't really need to be subsidizing more.
"Diversity in retail businesses?"
Would love more diversity if the market can support it. I don't think it can really be mandated by the town. Storefronts in the village become vacant pretty frequently, and if the market could support more diversity it would happen organically. In this area I'm actually in favor of the invisible hand of marketplace over central planning.
"Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general?"
No. This ain't Times Square for chrissakes.
"Tax revenue?"
Should be a major but not overriding consideration.
"Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe?"
Sure, and I think the proposed use would enrich it.
"Aesthetic considerations?"
To the extent that the township can reasonably control it yet still be able to fetch an attractive price from developers.
"We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?"
Pretty good. The process has been transparent and fair, in my opinion.
cstrazka - my first example if factually "true" - you do not need to attend the TC meetings to obtain information from the meeting, as it is on local cable. The second example is my belief - my "truth" - not a fact, but based on comments from TC members over time. I hope this helps - John
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
This may be hard for you to believe, but I don't find it so difficult. There is data to support this, though one could argue that the PSE&G location is a different case.
The argument about factoring the cost of the increase in the # of schoolchildren (if, in fact, there will be an increase) has been discussed previously. You seem impervious to these arguments.
At least Vic based his assessment on data. You, on the other hand, are simply offering an unsubstantiated opinion and then building a straw man argument on top of it.