Some interesting letters in this week's Montclair Times. There's this trippy one about camels. And another about the need for preserving the past with references to the Marlboro Inn.
Here's one that didn't make the paper, and hasn't made it to the Watercooler (it's in that posting purgatory...). So of course, we'll print it here...
With our development policies (or lack of) approaching out-of-control status -- such an effort would not only help maintain neighborhood property values long term, but would begin to remove the threat of unwarranted knockdowns and potentially resulting blight.
It's a shame that Ms. Michaelson didn't have this same level of awareness earlier, when deciding the Marlboro Inn issue. There, she voted not to affirm the unanimous vote of our Historic Preservation Commission, to protect the Marlboro site. She did so without any coherent explanation why. The result is today's massive sub-division, which we all have to live with.
Just before the last council election, Ms. Michaelson was overheard at an event saying that she really didn't give a damm about preservation in Montclair. Accordingly, while in office, both from her perch at the planning board and her position on the township council, she has consistently voted with large development interests on virtually every major land use issue -- in one case, the Orange Parking Deck, with questionable economic results.
(see her development/economic philosophy re: the Wildwood Street open space/asset land sale in the May 11th Montclair Times. This would have only added more kids into the school system ).
Last year, for her council vote to decide a zoning change that extended the commercial boundary east of North Fullerton, Ms. Michaelson voted against Forest Street homeowners, potentially diminishing their property values. Instead, she helped the limited, commercial interests of her former campaign manager - to extend his parking area. At the very least, the deputy mayor should have recused herself, both from this vote and all prior planning board decisions effecting her campaign manager's business. She would not.
In another important land use decision, Ms. Michaelson refused to consider preserving the commercial, c.1900 Farrell building, which was located in-between the showrooms of the Volvo and Jaguar car dealership off Bloomfield Avenue. The Farrell building was ultimately torn down as part of the DCH dealership's expansion.
Despite considerable resident support, the deputy mayor did not take proactive action within the council to save, even the facade of this classic building. More importantly, she did not seek to include the car dealership itself, within an expanded downtown commercial historic district, as proposed by the HPC.
Everyone knows this car dealership looks completely out-of-place downtown. Given their expansion, DCH should have been included within the district. The council could have then used its leverage to negotiate real 'aesthetic' terms for the questionable parking deck deal, built on public-owned land. Ms. Michaelson should have tried to ensure that the huge Orange Street deck -- maybe even the entire dealership itself -- ended up looking more appropriate for Montclair - than the Route 46 panorama, ultimately constructed.
Instead, then councilman Ed Remsen threatened the appointed HPC Commissioners. He told them that if they included the dealership within an expanded district boundary, as almost all had wanted to, the council would not pass it. Remsen's behind-the-scenes explanation: DCH was owned by Asians who were culturally uncomfortable with any kind of official government review.
Interesting!
So forgive me for not taking Ms. Michaelson at her word today. However, her track record speaks otherwise. When there's a clear discrepancy between the general comments made by elected officials for press consumption at an open meeting, and their real voting record and actions -- one must question whether it's just concern over the next election, that's instead driving this seemingly political issue 'shift.'
Mayor Ed Remsen, in his recent public statements reported in the press, has also now tried to re-write history. He wants to appear concerned about density, over development, and preservation. Of late, he's been strategically trying to distance himself from the Marlboro sub-division. Mr. Remsen is now blaming the planning board for this total aberration. He however, tried to do the right thing, he now says.
In reality, it was the Mayor himself who was the primary political protagonist, both for Inn's knock-down and for the resulting, over-sized 10 homes. For you newcomers who can't fathom how our township approved this development, Mayor Ed Remsen promoted the Steve Plofker sub-division in the press, even when it was first announced as 12 homes. Overall, from his actions and intentional delays during the HPC/council Marlboro site review, Mr. Remsen was the official player who most directly prevented the township, from obtaining any real development say.
Under local law, the only way for Montclair to have gained legal authority to stop an overly dense sub-division at this site -- whether the Inn stayed or not -- was to vote for historic designation. When councilors Remsen and Michaelson both voted no, these two pols gave-away our development store.
So why the attempted image shift now by these officials, both whom may run against each other in the next mayoral campaign? Given their slate's arguably, ill-conceived development and hands-off land use policies, there is a growing public feeling that "enough is enough." That feeling is now percolating throughout the community. And they know it!
Both are now attempting to appear more "sensitive" to these controversial issues, which ultimately effect everything from taxes to property values.
In view of their voting record, we must now closely monitor the mayor and deputy mayor's statements. Their future press pronouncements must be compared to actual votes and support, when it really counts.
So let's welcome then, Ms. Michaelson's newly stated interest to protect homes on the state and federal historic registers. We should just be diligent, that this is not more pre-campaign rhetoric, but a real epiphany for her, as a reconsidered point-of-view.
The deputy mayor's next set of land use votes - will prove telling.
Martin Schwartz