It was a great meeting, but still many questions. If we lived in a perfect world, all meetings and information centers would go like the other night’s meeting of the Atlantic Highlands governing body at the movie theater.
Unlike last year when they presented the original redevelopment plan for the Mother Teresa school property, no one was as forthcoming with facts, information , explanations and discussion as last night.
The 3 R’s
And residents made it clear that Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle should be the Three Rs for the council to strongly consider when dealing with the school property.
While senior housing is definitely still a strong desire and need for the borough, the idea of Open Space and a public park in the center of town are great ideas as well. Perhaps even a park for recreation and relaxation and preservation of the former Mantell house as a historic site or museum are possibilities.
There were many ideas floated in the meeting, and a brilliant and very patient planner with impressive credentials ready to listen and seemingly willing to do what it takes to make swift changes if that’s what the governing body wants.
Conflict
Mayor Gluckstein recusing herself from any discussion probably would not make any difference in a final vote in the long run. But so wise and generous of her to do so to avoid any possible appearance of any conflict. She well deserves, and Council member Hohenleitner gave it to her, praise for a generous and wise decision.
The people Speak
Ladies like Marilyn Scherfern and Elaine Egidio should also be listened to, considering all their efforts and hard work in getting a town-wide enthusiasm for becoming a wildlife refuge. While both are long time..make that life…residents of the borough, they have both seen a lot of change and want to try and preserve as much of its small town beauty and camaraderie that makes it so special.
The Mayors Speak
The fact two former mayors were present, well versed on everything and eager to give their opinions is another example of how fortunate the borough is to have leaders who not only lead the town but love it enough to continue to be involved. I’m convinced that both Mayors Dick Stryker and Bob Schoeffling would have also been there and having their say if they could.
Former Mayor Harmon has long since been a staunch advocate of preserving land for its beauty and resources, and his ideas last night were also outstanding. Open Space in the heart of town keeps the town settled, comfortable, and beautiful, to say nothing of all its environmental benefits.
Questions
Perhaps it isn’t in the purvey of the planner, but it seems to me, if he says it’s cost prohibitive to reconstruct the school, he should have had some facts and figures to back it up. He should have known the cost of demolition if they looked into that part, yet he said he had no idea, it was above his paygrade. Then how did he come to the conclusion that demolition and rebuild is cheaper?
If the borough is considering approving anything that permits demolition, let’s hope there will be some studies done on the impact to the environment the location, and the nearby houses before that’s underway. An awful lot of dust and more will be floating in the environment and the residents need protection from that as well.
It’s interesting the planner didn’t give any information on the impact more residences would have on the area in view of the McConnell tract construction which will add more houses already.
Hope
Let’s hope the council listens to a recording of last night’s meeting again, reads any letters they have or are receiving, take everyone’s ideas into consideration and perhaps tweaks the proposed redevelopment plan enough to lean a little bit on the side of the majority of residents.
Praise
Praise goes to council and the administrator, to say nothing of the theater, for the location of last night’s meeting. Free popcorn and drinks aside, it was a great presentation with fabulous explanations, plenty of room, comfortable seating, an attentive audience both eager to hear and so willing to listen to information they haven’t had explained that well before. Even reserving a second theater should there be overflow was thinking in advance and appreciated by everyone who attended.
First a correction – The planner stated that it would be cheaper to demolish the school and then rebuild multi-family residences. Those calculations were done by one of his partners. Because they were not done by him, he was unable to give a breakout of the demolition cost. You are implying that his firm’s calculations are inaccurate or incomplete and that is not fair.
Second – Yes, it was an excellent session. The “New Kids Running Town” appear to be far more open than the old guys.
Third – Yes, many interesting ideas, all of which come with significant costs. How many will be in favor of all those things if their taxes skyrocket?
Sorry, Jim, you’re the one who is wrong here … on several counts. I worry that a partner in a firm cannot share information, or simply doesn’t have or know it … and the public just has to take the word of the partner who heard it, but does not explain it. And secondly, I did not imply anything at all. How could I? I was not given the courtesy of knowing the firm’s calculations so I cannot say, let alone imply, the figures are inaccurate or incomplete.
Muriel, quite frankly, you are “out of your lane” to use the planner’s expression. I worked in a professional services firm for 48 years. If a colleague I respected and considered to be an expert gave me an opinion on something, I often found no need to review his or her calculations or reasoning. And if I did, I would not necessarily remember details. Furthermore, your clause “if they looked into that part” is clearly a suggestion by you that their work might not be accurate or complete. Jim
Jim
Thanks again for your opinion, I always appreciate the feed back.
I am not saying that the expert (whomever he/she may be) didn’t do a full, complete and through job. I didn’t say that he/she didn’t do all of the research. What I am saying is that the Planner, who was at a meeting where questions were going to be asked. Where it was entirely feasible that financial questions would be asked … didn’t have the answers. I consider myself an intelligent enough person, that I can and should be trusted with the numbers … not just being told something … ergo, it’s a fact.
There are experts that contradict what was presented. They show the benefits and advantages of renovating a building which has “Good Bones” but is in need of updates and interior renovation. I would also be interested in understanding any environmental impact of demolition.
I appreciate that you were comfortable relying on your colleagues when you were in professional services. But this was a presentation with a Q & A … and some of the A’s weren’t known
I challenge you to name another expert who has inspected the Mother Theresa building and prepared an estimate of the cost to rehabilitate it as apartments, senior housing or any other feasible and economic use in a residential zone. The people who spoke in favor of rehabilitation were citing anecdotal examples of other projects that might not have any similarity to the Mother Theresa building. And none of them cited any expertise in rehabilitation or new construction. Although there might be some negative environmental consequences, it is painfully obvious that the building should be demolished.
Jim: Don’t be so defensive and please try to keep an open mind, I haven’t been in the school in years so I have no idea what it is like, but I guess you have since you said it’s painfully obvious the building should be demolished. The planner at the meeting said on the outside it looks very good but the interior still had prayers on the blackboard, etc. Kind of silly to be talking about that to give firm reasons why you are convinced it should be taken down. I don’t think it’s asking too much for a planner …the second we’ve paid for so far….to be simply saying the building is useless rather than giving some estimates he got, some things the people who told him that said, specifics on why it should be torn down. You’re on the Fort Hancock committee…are you against people coming in and rehabing the buildings the government has let go to such an extent? Do you think their millions are being wasted? That building apparently means something to lots of people, at the very least, they deserve to hear some basic details on how a decision that monumental has been reached.
Comments are closed.