Tonight In Montclair, The Plofker Show

how could you do business with a guy who already f$&*#@ this town over?

wake up people!

The first word that comes to my mind is "NO".

Motclair is looking more and more like Pottersville every day. yeay!

Funny, those are the 2nd and 3rd words that come to my mind, too!

The words that come to my mind are more the four letter type. He can Plofker himself.

You know those invisible fences they use to keep dogs on their property? Perhaps scientists can create one just for Plofker, to keep him confined to his yard.

Could someone explain to me why the name "Plofker" triggers such strong reactions here? Do you really want Montclair to be another "Bedford Falls"?

(In Bedford Falls, the big diversion of an evening was to walk down to the library.)

Two more words, "Christopher Court".

Quaker: No, I would just like Montclair to be Montclair and not Celebration, Florida, or worse, certain sections of Orange County, California.

Doesn't the town have any "say" on how it looks? I'm confused.

Isn't it a cooperative venture between the town and the developer? Why would Mr. Plofker be the sole arbiter of design?

Why don't you all just come and listen? That way, at the end of the regular meeting, you can get up and give your thoughts, opinions, etc. You have an opportunity to tell others how YOU think things should be! Take that opportunity!

Of course, judging from the comments above, I can see why some might be embarassed to speak.

This town needs a hotel.

Of course, judging from the comments above, I can see why some might be embarassed to speak.

They'll just stay Hiding in Bariastaville

Maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions, folks should wait to hear what he has to say and judge the proposal on its merits (or lack thereof). First people are angry because we lost an inn ... now they want to fight the idea of building a new one. I certainly understand some of the venom directed at Plofker, but let's direct it where it belongs -- toward the planning board and council that approved Crisco. Why not pressure THEM to make sure that they only approve a viable plan that will benefit the community. After all, THEY are the ones who hold (and always held) ALL of the power and control over what gets built.

Frankly, I don't care if he builds a hotel or a dog grooming place, just as long as he does what was part of the re-development plan - provide 80 - repeat 80 parking spaces for the public use so I can still find a place to park when I go to the movies.

Christopher ct. part 2 on the way.... yipee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One has to wonder what kind of strings Plofker had to pull to get an audience before the town council. It's my understanding that any new site proposal normally has to be presented first to the planning board in an open hearing -- where the public is able and expected to participate. Perhaps Plofker hopes to garner the support of the town council to put pressure on the planning board to approve his proposal.

Actually this sort of trial balloon is not without precedent. Prior to his demolition of the Marboro Inn, he presented his initial proposal for twelve homes to the homeowners in the area. Guess he learned from their negative reaction that appealing to the public was not his strong suit.

However if the rumors are true and he proposes 160 rooms, where does he expect anyone to park their cars in this area? Or is he trying to pull the same strategy he pulled in Christopher Court by initially proposing a large number of rooms and then seemingly settling for a lower number to appease everyone. In any case the end result will probably overwhelm the resources of this area and result in a horrible traffic and parking mess.

softrider,

if he has circumvented the process, he could only have done so with the support of the council and THEY should be held responsible. if the council and planning board end up approving a bad plan that does not fit and is not in the interest of the community, THEY should also be held responsible. this time around we should be holding the council and planning board's feet to the fire. looking out for OUR interests is THEIR responsibility. if they fall for a a ploy like you describe, it is due only to the THEIR incompetence.

Does he have pictures of them doing the nasty at the Marlboro Inn?

In addition to visiting relatives and the occassional business guest looking for an off-interstate experience, get ready to welcome the revelers that usually frequent 160 room off-the-beaten path hotels. Say hello to the drunken frat boys in for the weekend football party, escort service afficionados, and other intersting folks coming to sample all Montclair has to offer. Welcome to Plofkerville!

In addition to visiting relatives and the occassional business guest looking for an off-interstate experience, get ready to welcome the revelers that usually frequent 160 room off-the-beaten path hotels. Say hello to the drunken frat boys in for the weekend football party, escort service afficionados, and other intersting folks coming to sample all Montclair has to offer. Welcome to Plofkerville!

What's wrong with an evening spent strolling to the library? How many people wistfully pine for the loss of Pottersville when George Baily returns to his real life in Bedford Falls? I'll cling to my blissfully naive longing for life in a Bedford Falls any day! And that doesn't include constant over development to continue to line the pockets of the local greedy Potters.

Every man,

I'm not so sure frat boys would pile into the hotel to attend the Montclair State football game. The idea of people coming into Montclair for a Giants or Scarlett Knights game is even less likely based on location. The hotel rooms won't be cheap from the sound of it either. So why go there when you can stay at the Red Roof on Route 3 for a fraction of the price? Same goes with the hookers. $200 a night rooms aren't exactly the type of place you bring people of that profession. Upscale hotels in a small town usually don't become a magnet of "interesting folks". It sounds more like like you've got a bout of NIMBYism.

I've heard from someone at Montclair that Plofker, if he can't get a national hotel chain to sign on, will want the rooms to be converted to condos.

I attended the meeting last evening. The hotel will be same height as the tower of the Siena project under construction. I think 6 or 7 stories.

Will have a parking area within hotel - 1 level underground and 1 ground level. It is 139 rooms I think. Architect said they will have large open areas around hotel so it is not jammed in between the Unitarian Church and South Park Restaurant.

I guess Church Street is indeed changing.

They hope the influx of hotel residents will bring more business and energy to the area, especially after 5 pm.

The height they are asking for will require a variance. It will be as tall as the highest point of the Sienna.

The hotel will have a restaurant, but will not have meeting or event rooms. Who needs another restaurant, I thought, but event/meeting rooms DID make sense, but what do I know?

Tyler - I think you hit the nail on the head. Plofker does not have a national hotel chain lined up. Might this be a ruse to sneak a new condo building into downtown? Watch to see if the design is altered somewhere along in the process to include primarily 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom "hotel suites". Later when Plofker claims that no national chains are willing to lease the property, he makes his application to convert to condos.

"Architect said they will have large open areas around hotel so it is not jammed in between the Unitarian Church and South Park Restaurant."

Are they going to tear something else down to create this large open area? Or maybe they are planning on shipping in a large open area -- cause we all know how those artists renderings makes these projects appear to look.

Watch Plofker f*ck everyone over again, and laugh in our faces.

Show up, and bring your pitchfork.

i bet national hotel chains can 't wait to get into this market. like it or not, what's the difference between montclair and short hills economically speaking anymore? The short hills hilton does fabulously well, so does the Westminster in livingston and the Marriot residence in West Orange. The fact of the matter is there is so much office space within 10 miles of montclair, and that's what these companies look for when investing. the hotel will do fine.

Hey everyman,
You are pretty funny. You should work for the Bush administration. You almost got everyone worked up about these horrible sounding impending dangers of bringing a hotel into town. Frat boys! Hookers! Oh my! You alarmist tool.
Aside from this developers crappy taste and awful past performance in single family home building, anyone have a legitimate reason a hotel would be BAD for downtown Montclair? A little more life past 5pm in the downtown district is nothing but good news for a town like this. You want Mayberry, move to any of the hundreds of bland, nondescript suburban New Jersey no-mans-lands.

What's the difference between the Short Hills/Livingston hotels and this one? As another poster said, this hotel WILL NOT have event rooms, meeting rooms, etc.

Those other hotels are venues for weddings, corporate meetings, etc.

Even the Marlboro Inn was more accommodating.

The hotel may not have meeting rooms, but it has a real downtown area to attract clients. If i'm flying in to north jersey and i have business to conduct, i want to stay in a place where there's a nightlife, good restaurants, theatre, an art museum, shopping (church street). I don't want to stay on route 46 or on route 10.

Come on,

If Steve Plofker successfully circumvents the process thanks to the council's cooperation, he is ALSO responsible for whatever monstrosity is built. The philosophy that states, "If you can get away with a selfish idea, then more power to you" is really sickening. YES, the council bears part of the blame, but I'm growing a little weary of moral loopholes that allow Ken Lay's family to enjoy his ill-gotten gains because he died before sentencing could be carried out, politicians getting rich off wars because it only make sense to make a profit wherever one sees fit, etc. Just because you can get away with it doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility!!!

fonzie,

you say: "Watch Plofker f*ck everyone over again, and laugh in our faces."

The only ones who can do that are the planning board and council.

I don't have a problem with a hotel, per se. I just don't want Plofker to be the one to build it. Have you seen his handiwork, people?

Lets's ...

We have council and planning board to look out for the interests of the town. There is no loophole here. Mr. Plofker has to live and develop according to zoning and building regulations like everyone else. ONLY the planning board and council have the power to grant a variance. If they grant a variance to my neighbor to raise the height of his house 3" above code it is THEIR doing. Is my neighbor greedy? After all, it may add to the value of his/her house. I may not like it -- but ultimately I need to place blame squarely upon the shoulders of the town for letting it happen after a process that provided for FULL DISCLOSURE. No, the blame here need to fall squarely on the shoulders of the town.

"uber-developer Steven Plofker"

ubermensch...how Nietzche of him.

Believe it is only the planning board which can grant a variance for a new building site. Guess Plofker is trying to give the impression that the town council is behind his proposal or he hopes this will put pressure on the planning board. Under the sunshine law (which often seems to be ignored in this town) planning board members are not suppose to discuss these matters except in an open, public hearing. Yeah, right.

As to the restaurant Plofker needs this to obtain another cheap liquor license in his pocket. Hotels of this size are granted a license from the state as opposed to the expensive process of trying to buy one in the open market. Remember he got the other one as part of the deal of purchasing the Marboro Inn.

Some of my personal concerns about this project.

The Plofker team used a tactic they have used in the past - "We could build the hotel within a few feet of the property line instead of leaving the open space." This sounds a little like a threat that if they don't get the required variances, they will change the plan to eat up the open space. They used this tactic for the Fullerton Street project and Crisco.

If the height variance is allowed, this will be the measuring stick for any future development in the downtown area. Do we really want that area to have near high rise structues lining the streets?

I also agree with previous posts regarding the possibility of condoizing if no "national" signs on. Even if a national does commit and the business doesn't materialize, condos are a real possibility.

The lack of meeting/banquet facilities amazes me if they intend to succeed as a hotel.

Come on,

I'm not talking about legal loopholes, I'm talking about moral loopholes. As I said in my first post, just because you can make $$$ from a deal doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility. Mr. Plofker is a member of this community. If his decisions anger the community, he needs to bear the brunt of that anger.

Of course, this would all be germaine provided he had a conscience. But since it's not, hey, c'est la vie. Let's all applaud him for his astute business decisions, right? After all, profits -- not civic responsibility -- are what make the world go 'round!

Dear Now,

There's a nice article in today's Star Ledger about how Plofker bought the Wellmont for under $900K in May, and is now looking to sell it for $1.5MM, six months later after doing nothing to improve the property.

Nice profit margin, huh?

That's how "developers" may money.

Ten Top Trivia Tips about Steve Plofker!
1.Steve Plofker was first discovered by Alexander the Great in India, and introduced to Europe on his return.
2 Early thermometers were filled with Steve Plofker instead of mercury!
3. Two grams of Steve Plofker provide enough energy to power a television for over twenty-three hours.
4.Only one child in twenty will be born on the day predicted by Steve Plofker!
5.Steve Plofker is only six percent water.
6.Lightning strikes Steve Plofker over seven times every hour.
7.Oranges, lemons, watermelons, pineapples and Steve Plofker are all berries.
8.If you put a drop of liquor on Steve Plofker, he will go mad and sting himself to death.
9.Steve Plofker cannot jump.
10.It's bad luck to whistle near Steve Plofker!

Now ...,

The thing I really struggle with here is the idea that we don't seem to be asking the people with the power to stop himm accountable for THEIR lack of civic responsibility. THEY are the ones we have chosen and charged with safeguarding the community -- but they continually relinquish that responsibility. If you want to assign moral responsibility to Plofker, that's fine.

You say, however, that "If his decisions anger the community, he needs to bear the brunt of that anger." The fact is that he makes "requests" -- the council and planning board make the "decisions." They are the ones who effectively say "yes, we think this is a good idea and WE are going bend to law for you so that this project can be accomplished." My question is simply this -- where is the moral and legal outrage for the civic bodies that let his projects go forward? They are more culpable to a much greater degree -- after all, as a developer, his goal IS profit ... but the nature and purpose of the planning board and council is to EXERCISE civic responsibility. Yet these are the precise bodies that fail to do so.

At the very least -- let's save the bulk of our derision for these fools.

Come on,

You characterize Plofker as someone who generates "requests" like bread hosts mold...effortlessly, naturally, and without thought. The fact is, Plofker is the one who comes up with the plans for these godawful monstrosities. He DECIDES to tell the public that his development will include 8 houses, and then DECIDES to build 12 as soon as he can get away with it. He also DECIDED to buy the Wellmont, publically declaring he was going to preserve the property for something other than condos, when everybody knows he's going to DECIDE to push for whatever makes him the most money.

I've got plenty of problems with the people who decided to vote for George W. Bush, but when I see the mess his administration has created, I end by blaming the man himself. Does conducting a war in Iraq as a means to increase his own wealth absolve him of guilt? Not according to your logic, because Congress decided to grant him permission to go ahead with his "proposal". Sure, Congress shares part of the blame for the war, but I'm a big believer in tackling the source of the problem, rather than treating its symptoms.

Sorry, the bulk of my derision is reserved for Plofker.