The Sale of the Village Post Office and Adjacent lots: Your Views Should Be Heard

.

Thanks for bumping this. Now I have to read all four pages of arguing factions that I had never read before ... Should be interesting.

Not really. You will see Inda as "winky", her son parroting the same talking points (if it isn't Inda herself--I'll pass on the accusation), John Harvey introducing the 5-0 TC lockstep vote angle and also arguing that empty TC meetings doesn't mean that folks don't care (in a town of about 25,000 or so), a sniff of the PILOT argument, (albeit related to the PSEG site) that moved to another thread (and IIRC debunked there or elsewhere--can't remember that thread right now) and some other hits. Really, nothing to see here.

Exhibit A

This thread:

Best comment on this thread so far. I don't know how you've all been putting up with this for so long. I've also noted some of my private discussions with Winky somehow made it on here regarding why the PODRS wasn't allowed to tell her everything we were doing with our design reviews.

Just wow.

davidfrazer said:

Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:

I support what I believe is the right thing to do -- a broad dialogue with townsfolk about the future of our town as it directly relates to the PO site, and for the TC to be transparent in its processes.

I remain at a loss to understand how we have not had a "broad dialogue" or how the process is supposed to be more "transparent."

If I'm not mistaken, the TC held multiple public forums about the PO site. It has discussed the issue at countless open public -- i.e., transparent -- TC meetings. What do people want? To sit in on meetings with developers? To decide the fate of the property via referendum?

Those opposed to the process seem to object to the fact that the Mayor and other TC members have their own ideas about the site. What the hell is wrong with that? Are their minds supposed to be empty vessels on this issue [or any other] until filled up by the collective wisdom of our creative and thoughtful townsfolk? Hogwash. I don't want a bunch of luggageheads on the TC. I want smart, thoughtful, hardworking people -- and those kind of people tend to form opinions. And, I might add, those opinions, while certainly subject to challenge, are no doubt based on a much greater knowledge and understanding of the complex development issues involved than 95% of the public.

Finally, I'll say what I always say about these inevitable process complaints about big local policy decisions: what the process folks are opposed to is not the process but what they fear will be the outcome. If the TC were proposing to build a structure to their liking -- say a cultural center with trendy shops and no housing -- none of them would be complaining about the process. Process complaints are a means to trying to delay the ultimate decision long enough in the hope -- almost always in vain -- that the powers that be will change their minds.

max_weisenfeld said:
This thread:

Iim really sorry. I posted to it by accident

It provided me with much pleasant and amusing reading tonight though, so thanks!

Exhibit B

Winky said Dec 19, 2013:
@ Red Barchetta -

Some actually ARE debating that...some feel that the Post Office Building should remain and be improved and re-purposed for a new use. The First tenet of Sustainability and "Green" Design is that a existing structure is an asset to be re-used and improved, as there is infinitesimally less embodied energy in building re-use that in demo and new construction.
It is possible to take this mid-century modern structure, make changes, maybe even add a additional story or a roof garden...and make it something amazing. I could do sketches in a New York minute.

Why doesn't our TC/EDC consider that?

Dave's Exhibit A was supporting one particular part of my post. Forgive me, but I'm missing the relevance of Exhibit B to it.

A modest proposal to Jamie, et al:

• Set up a Post Office category
• Implement the capability for MOLers to block/hide categories
• Any thread with even a single post related to the PO gets moved to that category

sac said:
A modest proposal to Jamie, et al:

• Set up a Post Office category
• Implement the capability for MOLers to block/hide categories
• Any thread with even a single post related to the PO gets moved to that category

I can get behind this proposal.

I think we can arrange this.

It's better than banning anyone who mentions the post office for a few days.

Can we have an "Adaptive Reuse" category? We could add in the SO Villiage Hall (although that building is attractive).

Can we add a "Misinformation" category where we discuss the TCs illegal behavior and non-engagement with the town regarding the 60 foot building that Kings opposes with all the chain stores and reduced parking?

ctrzaska said:
Dave's Exhibit A was supporting one particular part of my post. Forgive me, but I'm missing the relevance of Exhibit B to it.

There was none. It was for those, like ArchBroad and Woot, who have characterized reuse as a Johnny-come-lately among the list of complaints.

DaveSchmidt said:

ctrzaska said:
Dave's Exhibit A was supporting one particular part of my post. Forgive me, but I'm missing the relevance of Exhibit B to it.

There was none. It was for those, like ArchBroad and Woot, who have characterized reuse as a Johnny-come-lately among the list of complaints.

It's a fair point. And interesting to see Winky raise this issue 17 months ago. I don't remember Author or others raising this issue until more recently but I may again be wrong.

I am sure that every reactionary in Maplewood has a rationale for their resistance to this change. They are all different. I find it disingenuous when the rationale keeps shifting. I will acknowledge that Inda/Winky as been consistent since December (at least) on this topic.

However, t is worth noting that I think I read that her failed RFP for the site did not include reuse? Again I may be wrong.

The RFP didn't include reuse because reuse wasn't what was requested by the council. The town said "We're going to demolish this and build something else, any ideas?" and Inda and others responded with those ideas based on the outlines given. I'm pretty sure no one proposed keeping the building and making it a farmer's market or whatever.

Did the town say, "We're going to demolish this and build something else, any ideas?"

Or did they say, "Here is the site plan, any ideas?"

Whether the existing building is razed or reused should be part of the site plan.

given that the overall PO development process had been proceeding for about a decade by Dec, 2013, and the first building renderings were released only a month later, it was pretty late in the game to be asking the township to go back to the drawing board.

is anyone saying that the re-use idea has only been floated in the last few months? I consider it a "late in the game" idea, but I've been well-aware that it was surfaced more than a year ago (turns out it was a year and a half ago).

Why should re-use even be a criteria for the project given that the P.O. building has no particular architectural merit?

People who favor reuse need to come up with private funds to cover the cost of reuse over less restrictive plans.

tjohn said:
Why should re-use even be a criteria for the project given that the P.O. building has no particular architectural merit?
People who favor reuse need to come up with private funds to cover the cost of reuse over less restrictive plans.

This would have been my assumption.

I guess we have to take people at their word, but I'm skeptical of people who say they "assumed" reuse was not even a possibility when the RFP went out from the township. if the building is so beautiful and significant, and re-use is such an awesome idea, why not ask the question? if a person is so passionately devoted to adaptive re-use, why not even raise one peep about it at the time the RFP was issued? Why would someone assume that a building that looks like a fortress, and was built as a fallout shelter was structurally unsound?

I have my own assumptions about why someone would not have raised those issues then and raises them now. But I won't voice my assumptions because

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs

Is jeremiah_birnbaum still posting on this board?

ml1 said:

is anyone saying that the re-use idea has only been floated in the last few months? I consider it a "late in the game" idea, but I've been well-aware that it was surfaced more than a year ago (turns out it was a year and a half ago).

No. I made up a misperception and pulled a couple of names out of thin air because that's what people who aren't fully on board with the Post House do. Plus, it's so much fun

Thanks, Woot, for taking the note, however insignificant its point, in the spirit that was intended.

per the rest of my post, it's still a late-stage idea if it's raised after a developer is chosen, and only a few weeks before the first designs are released. so I guess it really is insignificant whether it was raised six months ago or 18 months ago.

Ideas for reuse came in 2013 and 2014. The open public meetings asking for input and suggestions were in 2012.

ETA: Specifically it was January 2013 when ideas were asked for and December 2013 when reuse came up on MOL. That's almost two years too late at the earliest mention it seems. 5 months too late if you only count the July 2013 date of the Redevelopment Plan being issued, but by then the decision had long been made.

DaveSchmidt said:

ctrzaska said:
Dave's Exhibit A was supporting one particular part of my post. Forgive me, but I'm missing the relevance of Exhibit B to it.

There was none. It was for those, like ArchBroad and Woot, who have characterized reuse as a Johnny-come-lately among the list of complaints.