Based on my limited and random drives past 140 GPR on Sunday mornings I really haven't noticed heavy or, for that matter, moderately heavy traffic. It seems others have had similar contracts. Given the apparent lack of traffic I was surprised to read in an article in the Star Ledger that Mayor Sceusi commented that there would soon be a traffic light outside the entrance to the property. Does anyone believe that there is a need for one at this point in time? It seems that the traffic light was envisioned in order to deal with traffic from the full-scale operation which, in the Reverend's estimation will not occur for another five years. Any thoughts?
My thought is that the state (our taxes) should not under any condition be supporting infrastructure for a so called "church". There are people in our society who belong to no churches or synagogues or any other religious entity and so why should they be required to support with their tax dollars those folks who do belong to those things?
When a business places a strain on the infrastructure, they are required to improve it at their cost. Why is this business any different? Oh, yeah, I forgot - - - we all know the answer to that question, don't we.
Not sure what you were referring to Rat. The "church" is assumming all of the cost of the lite.
I agree that there is no way the lite should be considered until the full construction plan is approved and in place. Otherwise, Cart before the horse scenerio.
I extend my objection even further regarding the lite. A traffic lite envokes the rule of law by governing drivers and their actions. Why should the rule of law be given to a private organization for their discriminating use and convenience? This is not a public shopping center, or even an office bldg open to the public. It is a highly partisan, non-public, highly discriminating, tax exempt business, that once approved will be restricting when and how I can drive down GP Rd. When their circus is letting out, it is their decision that I must wait and give right of way to them. NOT RIGHT ! C.
"Not sure what you were referring to Rat. The "church" is assumming all of the cost of the lite."
------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that, Chuck? I seem to recall (at one of the PB meetings) ireland insisting that RT would have to pay for all infrastructure improvements to GPR. Is that discussion familiar to anyone? How can we find out for sure about this?
As for the rest of your assessment of the situation, I agree 100 %.
Rat
-- Edited by Rational on Thursday 9th of July 2009 08:44:38 PM
That is true, but I should have been more precise in my statement. The main element of the situation as stated by ireland at a PB meeting was the HE was not going to pay for the infrastructure improvements. He made it a point that it was the responsibility of the community into which he was comming to provide those improvements.
I may be wrong Rat. Hell, some people say I'm wrong most of the time, but I was sure that one of the preconditions of the plan was that they were responsible for all the costs and maintainance of the light.
What I also remember was that if the light was put at the entrance, it would require an 80x100' concrete island acrossed the street that would effectively eliminate all of the parking area for the Cleaners, Bagel Shop, Part of Norsemans, and the Twp Water Dept office. Regardless of my opinion of the circus, accomodating one business by putting several others out of business shouldnt be allowed. C.
And, ultimately the ones put out of business are RT taxpaying entities. The circus will become exempt from property tax. This is totally out of balance.
But, a big question is who is going to condemn those business properties? I have heard of towns, states and the federal government condemning properties for the so called "greater good".
But, since when does a "circus" have the right to condemn property for its own good? Seems like that could be a very interesting legal challenge by those property owners. I have not heard of that happening before - - - not even Kelo comes close to this.
If he takes those properties, does that mean that I can condemn my neighbors property so that I can take them for my own use, especially since I am an ordained minister too?
Rat
ps - - - it is interesting to note that nobody in town is squaking about the fact that the circus will be using township property (the old rail road right of way) for their turning lane. If anyone does not believe that we (RT) owns that land, I recommend that you go to town hall and look at the maps! How much is the circus going to pay us for that land? The likely answer is "nothing". Am I the only one who gets pissed off about that?
-- Edited by Rational on Saturday 11th of July 2009 10:38:39 PM
This kind of gets back to my original point. Why are they putting in a light in the near future and thereby putting some taxpaying and beneficial small businesses out of business in order to accomodate a future expansion of CC which won't happen for years and might not happen at all?
I think the rub of the plan that they are taking advantage of as far as the other small businesses goes is that the shops are actually using county right of way as parking. So technically, they are using property that isnt theirs to use. So the circus's plan doesnt "take over their property" or force them out of business, it just uses county road ROW and if by chance that eliminates all that they have for parking, then thats too bad. Just another example of Liarland's concern for the people of RT and how he wants to help our community. C.
I think the rub of the plan that they are taking advantage of as far as the other small businesses goes is that the shops are actually using county right of way as parking. So technically, they are using property that isnt theirs to use. So the circus's plan doesnt "take over their property" or force them out of business, it just uses county road ROW and if by chance that eliminates all that they have for parking, then thats too bad. Just another example of Liarland's concern for the people of RT and how he wants to help our community. C.
Chuck,
Yes, and no, if you look carefully, you will see that the line drawn by the county is more than the designated 20 feet from the center of the road (county legal right of way). In this case it's more like 50 feet from the center of the current roadway, making the condemnation of the additional 30 feet questionable at best. As for the businesses using the county right of way for parking at all, it was the county who came in and put up the curbs and repaved from the building to the curbs the last time around. if you drove by there at all during that time, you would have known about it. So, if I was an attorney (which I am not), I could say that the county is who gave the rights away for the additional right of way when they added the curbing and repaved the business parking lot(s)........You might be surprised (as will the County of Morris) if that argument ever made it to court, as there are several case precedence that would be in favor of the business and land owner and would cause the County (and CC) a lot more headaches as the rights of one business owner does not negate the property rights of another business owner when it comes to additional development needs for road improvements. In essence, the business owner (CC) would have to compensate the other businesses for the loss of future business....
That sound interesting Mr. Bill. I hope your points dont go unnoticed when the time comes. I dont recall when the repaving/curbs were put in. Been driving past there for over 30yrs now, but I dont remember. C.
