Township of Maplewood Considering Purchase of Parking Lot Behind Arturo's/Village Coffee
sarahzm said:
There was no other buyer for the WC. The neighbors filed a lawsuit and the other buyer withdrew his offer. The choice was watch it torn down and replaced with multifamily housing or save it. The people elected to act in the best interests of Maplewood chose to save it. I personally believe that in the process they saved an irreplaceable gem but (unlike a few others on this board) I realize this is just a personal opinion and that because I was never elected to serve, nor have I volunteered my time in that capacity to serve, my personal opinion on what constitutes valuable architecture should hold no sway in policy decisions.
All this argument about Post Office Vs Woodland Vs other purchases is moot. It's done.
Dont you see how the constant complaining, attempts to make giant issues out of nothing, and continued attempts at character assassination actually makes some of you look like a group of bitter, disgruntled, paranoid, self appointed, arrogant, desperate pseudo experts with a huge grudge against those in office. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to insult anyone - just raise awareness about how you may look to the rest of the world. Your credibility has disappeared. Your support has disappeared. Its sad that you cant see it.
Pretty amazing how only you can see it.............Are you related to Supergirl?
DaveSchmidt said:
Apologies for dragging the conversation back into the sewer, but I've lost track of how the bypass addresses (or if it was even meant to address) the village infrastructure needs that were raised in the Area in Need of Rehabilitation Study. Can someone provide, or direct me to, a refresher?
Also, the Redevelopment Plan itself says that "the redeveloper, at the redeveloper’s cost and expense, shall ... construct or install all on- and off-site municipal infrastructure improvements and capacity enhancements or upgrades required in connection with the provision of water, sanitary sewer, stormwater sewer, electric and gas service to the project, in addition to all required tie-in or connection fees." Would the status quo -- the parking lot under private control -- leave JMF to negotiate and bear the costs of access on its own?
+1000
The bypass provides a means for the increased load from the JMF building. The bypass shoudl be paid for by JMF and they shoudl be negotiating all of this. But the redevelopment agreement signed by our mayor states that we the taxpayers will pay for it instead. thanks!
The bypass will do nothing to repair the siphon and the sewer on Maplewood Avenue and in fact the reduction in head pressure caused by the bypass may worsen the situation on M Ave. (Reduction in head pressure is caused by cut off of the sewer line that runs from Jefferson Ave to Inwood place...
There have been no engineering or capacity studies done for any of these options, either the bypass or direct connect of JMF to M Ave existing sewers, both allowed by the agreements with JMF signed by the mayor. There is NO requirement in these agreements to improve the M Ave sewer problems. So in fact an increased load of say 40 bathroom and maybe 2 restaurants can be added to the already overloaded 1932 system.
How do I know all of this? Through OPRA and through speaking with an engineer.
Why aren't the merchants and landlords up in arms over this? Many of their basements already back up with effluent (i.e.sh*t) because of the inadequacy of the sewer and siphon. They typically take care of this on an ongoing basis this at their own cost when it is a township infrastructure issue.
The Area in need of Rehabilitation cites the sewers as the basis for the designation. This is flawed because the sewers are not in the cited/designated area...but that's another discussion, tho it pertains. The Area in Need of Rehabilitation Study proscribes a Rehabilitation Program for the sewers. So if this is the case, then the developer should be doing this and it should not be the taxpayers expense. But our mayor signed away that requirement.
Further, an Area in Need of Rehabilitation is precluded from using eminent domain to solve its issues per LRHL. But now it is likely that our mayor intends to solve the cited problem and basis for the designation of an Area in Need of Rehabilitation by using eminent domain. This is not so kosher.
This is gonna become more interesting as time goes by.
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
OliveBee said:
Further, an Area in Need of Rehabilitation is precluded from using eminent domain to solve its issues per LRHL.
I tried to document this when you raised it earlier, but I came up empty. Can you point me to where the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law states this?
Woot said:
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
No one that I know in EM or OhNo or VK ever stated that. In fact , most are pleased that it has been landmarked by the HPC. We wish the HPC was more pro-active in other arenas.
The only concern by most is the condition and is the money it needs to be brought up to speed. Also the noise from rent party, which seems to be the main tenant.
Also the lack of sufficient income and required expenditure. But no one i knwo has stated that hte answer is to demo it.
Do you have a quote? facts please.
author said:
sarahzm said:
There was no other buyer for the WC. The neighbors filed a lawsuit and the other buyer withdrew his offer. The choice was watch it torn down and replaced with multifamily housing or save it. The people elected to act in the best interests of Maplewood chose to save it. I personally believe that in the process they saved an irreplaceable gem but (unlike a few others on this board) I realize this is just a personal opinion and that because I was never elected to serve, nor have I volunteered my time in that capacity to serve, my personal opinion on what constitutes valuable architecture should hold no sway in policy decisions.
All this argument about Post Office Vs Woodland Vs other purchases is moot. It's done.
Dont you see how the constant complaining, attempts to make giant issues out of nothing, and continued attempts at character assassination actually makes some of you look like a group of bitter, disgruntled, paranoid, self appointed, arrogant, desperate pseudo experts with a huge grudge against those in office. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to insult anyone - just raise awareness about how you may look to the rest of the world. Your credibility has disappeared. Your support has disappeared. Its sad that you cant see it.
Pretty amazing how only you can see it.............Are you related to Supergirl?
She's not the only one.
DaveSchmidt said:
OliveBee said:
Further, an Area in Need of Rehabilitation is precluded from using eminent domain to solve its issues per LRHL.
I tried to document this when you raised it earlier, but I came up empty. Can you point me to where the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law states this?
I will find again....stay tuned.
max_weisenfeld said:
She's not the only one.
No, but it can be grating, just a wee bit, when it's always cast as if nobody outside OhNo/Engage could feel otherwise.
DaveSchmidt said:
max_weisenfeld said:
She's not the only one.
No, but it can be grating, just a wee bit, when it's always cast as if nobody outside OhNo/Engage could feel otherwise.
It's shocking that something posted in these threads could possibly be "grating".
DaveSchmidt said:
max_weisenfeld said:
She's not the only one.
No, but it can be grating, just a wee bit, when it's cast as if nobody outside OhNo/Engage could feel otherwise.
speaking for myself, I'm sure there are still people concerned about the construction of the new building. I'm concerned that the disruptions are minimized and that the builder sticks to all the promises made by JMF. If anything, I think most people who are following the issue have concerns.
but my personal observation is that some of what I read here doesn't seem to be very constructive. it's just complaining, blaming and accusing, and doesn't seem to be intended to improve the outcome.
the building is going to be built. period. so our choices are to bitch from the sidelines and say "I told you so," or we can raise our voices in a more constructive way. (or do nothing I suppose).
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
No one that I know in EM or OhNo or VK ever stated that. In fact , most are pleased that it has been landmarked by the HPC. We wish the HPC was more pro-active in other arenas.
The only concern by most is the condition and is the money it needs to be brought up to speed. Also the noise from rent party, which seems to be the main tenant.
Also the lack of sufficient income and required expenditure. But no one i knwo has stated that hte answer is to demo it.
Do you have a quote? facts please.
So if I search for the prior Women's Club threads where local neighbors complained about parties, noise, traffic, parking etc., I will not find any of the same MOL posters that were anti Post -office?
I don't think it makes logical sense for the many people who are adamantly opposed to the township spending the money to buy the WC and maintain it, and opposed to its uses to say they wanted the building preserved. at the time there were two options -- the township could buy it, or a developer was going to raze it and put up an Alzheimer's patient facility.
those were the choices. to be in favor of some other option that no one would have come forth with doesn't make any sense.
maybe they wouldn't have been "happy" with the WC torn down, but that would have been the outcome if the township didn't take the actions that they now criticize so strongly.
Woot said:
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
No one that I know in EM or OhNo or VK ever stated that. In fact , most are pleased that it has been landmarked by the HPC. We wish the HPC was more pro-active in other arenas.
The only concern by most is the condition and is the money it needs to be brought up to speed. Also the noise from rent party, which seems to be the main tenant.
Also the lack of sufficient income and required expenditure. But no one i knwo has stated that hte answer is to demo it.
Do you have a quote? facts please.
So if I search for the prior Women's Club threads where local neighbors complained about parties, noise, traffic, parking etc., I will not find any of the same MOL posters that were anti Post -office?
complaining about" parties, noise, traffic, parking etc.," is not the same as calling for demo...and I do not know what you woudl find. I asked you for your facts.
max_weisenfeld said:
author said:
sarahzm said:
There was no other buyer for the WC. The neighbors filed a lawsuit and the other buyer withdrew his offer. The choice was watch it torn down and replaced with multifamily housing or save it. The people elected to act in the best interests of Maplewood chose to save it. I personally believe that in the process they saved an irreplaceable gem but (unlike a few others on this board) I realize this is just a personal opinion and that because I was never elected to serve, nor have I volunteered my time in that capacity to serve, my personal opinion on what constitutes valuable architecture should hold no sway in policy decisions.
All this argument about Post Office Vs Woodland Vs other purchases is moot. It's done.
Dont you see how the constant complaining, attempts to make giant issues out of nothing, and continued attempts at character assassination actually makes some of you look like a group of bitter, disgruntled, paranoid, self appointed, arrogant, desperate pseudo experts with a huge grudge against those in office. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to insult anyone - just raise awareness about how you may look to the rest of the world. Your credibility has disappeared. Your support has disappeared. Its sad that you cant see it.
Pretty amazing how only you can see it.............Are you related to Supergirl?
Sh e's not the only
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Voltaire
I never said that they called to have it demolished. Reread my posts. I stated that some of the people that blocked the private sale of the Women's Club to Tom Kearns are the some of the same handful of people who opposed the Post House. I seem to recall John Harvey opposed to the plans at Women's Club.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/92441-Messed-Up-from-Patch-Woman-s-Club-back-up-for-sale?page=7#comment-2378210
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
No one that I know in EM or OhNo or VK ever stated that. In fact , most are pleased that it has been landmarked by the HPC. We wish the HPC was more pro-active in other arenas.
The only concern by most is the condition and is the money it needs to be brought up to speed. Also the noise from rent party, which seems to be the main tenant.
Also the lack of sufficient income and required expenditure. But no one i knwo has stated that hte answer is to demo it.
Do you have a quote? facts please.
So if I search for the prior Women's Club threads where local neighbors complained about parties, noise, traffic, parking etc., I will not find any of the same MOL posters that were anti Post -office?
complaining about" parties, noise, traffic, parking etc.," is not the same as calling for demo...and I do not know what you woudl find. I asked you for your facts.
I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that virtually all the homes in the immediate vicinity of the Women's Club had a "Keep the Village a Village" sign. Presumably that is support for saving the Post Office. And those neighbors had pursued strategies that nearly resulted in the razing of the Women's Club. It's not a leap to suggest that they were not agains razing the Women's Club if that's what it took to block the sale of the club to someone they didn't approve.
ctrzaska said:
I wasn't aware he intended to do so. Where did he confirm that?
Still waiting to hear where Vic confirmed ED was the approach here.
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
yahooyahoo said:
The TC did not have to purchase the Women's Club. There was another buyer. However, the neighbors complained a lot about loud parties, etc.
The TC bought it and rents it out for loud parties, etc.
Go figure.
Some of the same OhNoEngageaVillageKeeper neighbors
No one that I know in EM or OhNo or VK ever stated that. In fact , most are pleased that it has been landmarked by the HPC. We wish the HPC was more pro-active in other arenas.
The only concern by most is the condition and is the money it needs to be brought up to speed. Also the noise from rent party, which seems to be the main tenant.
Also the lack of sufficient income and required expenditure. But no one i knwo has stated that hte answer is to demo it.
Do you have a quote? facts please.
What other arenas do you find the HPC lacking ?
DaveSchmidt said:
OliveBee said:
Further, an Area in Need of Rehabilitation is precluded from using eminent domain to solve its issues per LRHL.
I tried to document this when you raised it earlier, but I came up empty. Can you point me to where the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law states this?
Probably 40A:12A-15.
ctrzaska said:
Probably 40A:12A-15.
Shoot. I saw that earlier, but for some reason thought one of the outs applied. Now I can't remember why I thought that. Anyway, thanks.
DaveSchmidt said:
ctrzaska said:
Probably 40A:12A-15.
Shoot. I saw that earlier, but for some reason thought one of the outs applied. Now I can't remember why I thought that. Anyway, thanks.
I think you are correct. The prohibition on eminent domain appears to take effect after the remediation is completed
DaveSchmidt said:
OliveBee said:
Further, an Area in Need of Rehabilitation is precluded from using eminent domain to solve its issues per LRHL.
I tried to document this when you raised it earlier, but I came up empty. Can you point me to where the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law states this?
The LRHL precludes the use of eminent domain for procuring properties within a designated rehabilitation area. It not address in any fashion procurement of properties outside such designated areas. The properties in question are not within a rehabilitation area.
If it is the responsibility of thr town (and I do not know if it is) to install a sewer line for the Post Office property, we do not need to buy the property for that purpose, we just need to obtain an easement for the sewer. Likely, all of our properties have sewer easements. Also, someone mentioned that the amount of property taxes being paid on these properties is less than the $11,000 lease payments. What I want to know is how can properties worth more than $600,000 being paying so little property taxes?
ml1 said:
I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that virtually all the homes in the immediate vicinity of the Women's Club had a "Keep the Village a Village" sign. Presumably that is support for saving the Post Office. And those neighbors had pursued strategies that nearly resulted in the razing of the Women's Club. It's not a leap to suggest that they were not agains razing the Women's Club if that's what it took to block the sale of the club to someone they didn't approve.
It's a leap
woot, I live two lots from the Women's Club. My wife and I find the noise fine - we enjoy living in the "city". The early trains and sanitation trucks at commercial establishments on Maplewood Ave have become a hum for us.
Only occasionally are there problems at the WC. Primarily, an overflow from events like a recent teen event, when the Police came by to restore order - a good thing.
We have never called to complain about WC events, and we even rented the facility recently for a workshop.
It seems like you have knowledge of people who have called?
My primary issue with the WC continues to be the decision, based on the financials. In brief, $1M to purchase with a loss of $55k annually in PILOT, $2M to renovate (J. Manning sworn testimony), and $56K in rental income (J. Manning sworn testimony).
Living next to the WC I can see deterioration of the building over time - look closely at the roof and take a walk thru the building. Having recently rented the venue for a workshop, means I will probably not rent it again as the facility is sub-par.
If the TC has a plan on how they are intending to fund the improvements, and can describe their end point with the building, so this venue becomes a great investment it would be helpful to the community to hear this. I fear a plan does not exist.
Without being able to trust that a plan exists naturally leads to skepticism about subsequent decisions like the PO (when all expenses are compared to income at the end I believe we will have paid JMF to take the building from us). And, the recent purchase of the church on Burnett simply creates more concern as to why the TC is making these decision on our behalf.
Thanks - John
Mark, my comment relates to your point also. I can only speak for me - I was not in favor of razing the WC.
Are you speculating or do you know?
I was in strong favor of finding someone to operate the venue that would honor the prior owners and their legacy over time. To date, we have not done that. If you look at the building and the lack of evidence of a plan we have leaned more towards disrespect than respect IMO.
More importantly, the $'s I shared concern me. The lack of evidence of a plan to manage and underwrite expenses concern me. Continue decisions like this w/o confidence concern me too.
Think beyond -John
Apologies for dragging the conversation back into the sewer, but I've lost track of how the bypass addresses (or if it was even meant to address) the village infrastructure needs that were raised in the Area in Need of Rehabilitation Study. Can someone provide, or direct me to, a refresher?
Also, the Redevelopment Plan itself says that "the redeveloper, at the redeveloper’s cost and expense, shall ... construct or install all on- and off-site municipal infrastructure improvements and capacity enhancements or upgrades required in connection with the provision of water, sanitary sewer, stormwater sewer, electric and gas service to the project, in addition to all required tie-in or connection fees." Would the status quo -- the parking lot under private control -- leave JMF to negotiate and bear the costs of access on its own?