< Bloomfield Brookside school >

< Messages posted to thread:  >

< From                                 Date        >

<                                      05-Jul-99 >   

< Just Curious                         05-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

<                                      06-Jul-99 >   

< Common Sense                         06-Jul-99 >   

< Maynard G. Krebs-future BLFD taxpay  07-Jul-99 >   

< Just Curious                         07-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                08-Jul-99 >   

< To Susan et al                       08-Jul-99 >   

< To Susan et al                       08-Jul-99 >   

< To Susan                             08-Jul-99 >   

< observer                             08-Jul-99 >   

< Someone who knows                    08-Jul-99 >   

< Oldtimer                             09-Jul-99 >   

<                                      09-Jul-99 >   

< Juliet                               09-Jul-99 >   

<                                      09-Jul-99 >   

< Juliet                               09-Jul-99 >   

<                                      09-Jul-99 >   

< Juliet                               09-Jul-99 >   

< From one who knows.....              09-Jul-99 >   

< To Juliet                            10-Jul-99 >   

< Juliet                               10-Jul-99 >   

<                                      11-Jul-99 >   

< Popeye                               12-Jul-99 >   

< Andy                                 12-Jul-99 >   

<                                      13-Jul-99 >   

<                                      14-Jul-99 >   

< Just Curious                         14-Jul-99 >   

< Just Nauseous                        14-Jul-99 >   

< Concerned                            15-Jul-99 >   

<                                      16-Jul-99 >   

< one who knows                        16-Jul-99 >   

< susan                                16-Jul-99 >   

< To Juliet                            17-Jul-99 >   

< observer                             17-Jul-99 >   

< To observer                          18-Jul-99 >   

< Juliet                               18-Jul-99 >   

< To Juliet                            19-Jul-99 >   

< Someone Else                         19-Jul-99 >   

< to someone else                      19-Jul-99 >   

<                                      19-Jul-99 >   

< to the blank above                   19-Jul-99 >   

<                                      20-Jul-99 >   

< Archivist                            21-Jul-99 >   

<                                      21-Jul-99 >   

< Unfortunately...                     24-Jul-99 >   

<                                      27-Jul-99 >   

<                                      28-Jul-99 >   

<                                      28-Jul-99 >   

< the tempest                          28-Jul-99 >   

< anarchy                              28-Jul-99 >   

< Mr. Logical                          28-Jul-99 >   

< Mr. Obvious                          29-Jul-99 >   

< To the tempest                       29-Jul-99 >   

< Archivist                            29-Jul-99 >   

< Cal                                  29-Jul-99 >   

< Mr. Logical                          29-Jul-99 >   

<                                      29-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                29-Jul-99 >   

<                                      29-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                29-Jul-99 >   

< observer                             29-Jul-99 >   

<                                      29-Jul-99 >   

<                                      29-Jul-99 >   

< Help us all!                         30-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                30-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                30-Jul-99 >   

< Susan                                01-Aug-99 >   

< susan                                02-Aug-99 >   

< susan                                02-Aug-99 >   

<                                      02-Aug-99 >   

< anarchy                              03-Aug-99 >   

< nausea                               03-Aug-99 >   

< clarify                              03-Aug-99 >   

<                                      03-Aug-99 >   

< Question                             03-Aug-99 >   

< observer                             03-Aug-99 >   

< Question2                            03-Aug-99 >   

< observer                             04-Aug-99 >   

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 05-Jul-99 >

Why not call PSE&G and ask if you're concerned?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Just Curious
< Date: 05-Jul-99 >

For the record, I did not post above on 7/5. Is there a reason to use someone else's screen name? What are you trying to accomplish?

Just Curious

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

We're all JUST CURIOUS as to why no one wants to tell us who the political donors are but never deny it was done!

The list?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

the papers on the sale/purchase of the property?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

ok, both! the purchase papers AND the political donor list! seems reasonable to ask

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

You can supply the purchase papers? Are you sure?

I don't believe you. i think you are lying.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

asking for BOTH is lying? hey, we all want information, why not get it all furnished in one big swoop? it would end the rumors and spin.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

OK w/me, but I don't think you can produce the goods - bigshot!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Common Sense
< Date: 06-Jul-99 >

Excuse me, but I don't see how anyone can produce "purchase papers" when that paperwork stays with the buyer and seller. If you're looking for a record of the sale transaction, that info is available at Hall of Records, Newark, or at the assessor's office. It's public information, and anyone truly interested can do the research.

The political donor list, on the other hand, is not posted for review.

So the demand for "purchase papers" is a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off repeated requests for the political donor list. Surprise, surprise!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Maynard G. Krebs-future BLFD taxpayer
< Date: 07-Jul-99 >

So like man...you gots the political donor list handy, man?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Just Curious
< Date: 07-Jul-99 >

Can anyone out there in cyberland tell me how the developers of the Brookside School were able to purchase the property for only $200,000? The way I understand it the property was to be a part of an auction in late 1995, but was pulled from that auction and sold ofr the amount above. This same property had sold in 1988 for $1.5 million. The building sits on approximately 1.75 acres, had been cleaned up inside(asbestos removal etc.), had a variance for 42 units (rather than the 36 allowed for in the Zoning Ordinance) and was sold for only $200,000? Does this make sense?

Just Curious

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

To those who are new to this thread:

The Brookside school at 73 Essex Avenue (and Baldwin) is supposed to be condomiums and the building was supposed to have been renovated following a site plan in effect since 1989 and which retained the architectural integrity of the building. Now we have a de facto apartment building (which has, defacto, rezoned the neighborhood) with renovations done in what has been described to me as "builder's standards". Our property values have been diminished by this renovations; the amount of taxes have been reduced, our quality of life has been reduced and this sets a precedent for all future public-to –private conversions.

The Brookside Betterment Coalition, Inc. was formed in January of 1999 by a group of neighbors concerned about the illegal renovation and the zoning variances requested by the Developer.

The only recourse citizens have to try to correct this problem is to appeal the zoning board decision (made on January 14 of this year) which the BBC did thru the firm of Podvey Sachs. This appeal is currently going thru the judicial process.

In conjunction with the appeal, the law firm subpeona'd the records on the sale/purchase of the property. However, the developers' attorney went to court to block this subpeona. And managed to find a judge who would rule in favor of the developers. ( Go Figure. If this purchase is on the up-and-up then why would they bother to quash the appeal?)

This is a very simple summary of a story filled with twists and turns that would make your head spin.

To find out more about this topic: - review the postings since the Thread began in December. - Go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/sotillos/disc1_toc.htm Here you will find the architectural drawings as well as other information about the Brookside Fiasco.

Inquiries can be sent to the BBC, Inc. at box 2431 Bloomfield, Nj 07003 or email NJ_Bloomfield@yahood.com. ( We also attend the public council meetings )The BBC is also seeking donations to defray the legal expenses; many thanks to those who have already contributed. (Please note: We do not provide donor names to anonymous posters on the thread; We are not a front for any political endeavor.)

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Susan et al
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Susan et al
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

Thank you for the synopsis. Good luck with your cause. I have been following this thread to try to get a handle as to what the problem is. I think I understand now.

As far as your last statement, I understand that you do not randomly furnish donor lists to anonymous inquisitors but I must warn you to be wary as to who's money you accept. If the politicians are at all honest, those donations are recorded in something called an ELEC report which is a public record. I fear that your intentions could be compromised if the wrong people get involved. Just be wary! Your organization is working too hard to be tainted. Again, good luck!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Susan
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

Please explain to me HOW your property values have been diminished by the renovations at Brookside. Are you saying your properties were worth more when the school was a weed- and rat-infested, graffiti-covered eyesore? Are you saying that apartment renters, as opposed to apartment owners (and that's all condos really are--apartments), are riffraff? Really?

HOW has your quality of life been reduced? Because adult occupants have driven away teenage loiterers?

HOW was the architectural integrity of the building lost? (Yes, I've seen the 1989 site plan and drawings.) HOW could taxes have been "reduced" when the building was never assessed as condos to begin with, no taxes were paid on it all the years it was a school, and precious little taxes were paid during the pre-redevelopment years when it was privately held?

HOW do you imagine the developer's attorney "found a judge who would rule in favor of the developers" when the assignment judge is the one who decides who will hear cases? Could it be that your arguments LACKED MERIT? Could it be that the judge saw this for what it was--an attempt to create a platform for a November council candidate? An attempt that backfired?

Sorry, I don't mean to insult the BBC membership. I'm sure 99% of you were 100% sincere in your efforts. But I think you were used.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > observer
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

"What we have here is a failure to comminicate."

I will agree that a developed property (vs an undeveloped one) does not really lower property values. However , I think the point that Susan and others are trying to make is that the value of the Brookside property is much lower, as developed, than it would have been if it were developed as per the 1989 site plan that local residents fought for.

As it stands now the building is a "builders quality" apartment. The developers testified that they had no plans to market the units as condos. Rather than being an upscale condominium as per the Zoning and the original site plan, it is a clean but common apartment house. For an example of what it could have looked like, take a ride up Glen Ridge Avenue to the Glen Ridge/ Montclair border and take a look at that school to condo conversion.

Had it been developed according to the 1989 site plan the Township would have realized more in taxes and the neighborhood would have been further enhanced.

As for the "suit" that so many refer to, it is really an appeal of the most recent Zoning Board decision and is the only avenue open to the Brookside residents to try to get the plan that so many fought for in l989 adhered to.If the Building Inspecter and other Township officials past and present had done their jobs, this would not be necessary.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Someone who knows
< Date: 08-Jul-99 >

Everyone is screaming that it is an Apartment House. How come the Tax Assesor has a TAx Bill for each Unit??? Sounds like Condo's to me

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Oldtimer
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

Excuse me. I've lived in Bloomfield for many a year, and I don't EVER remember Brookside neighborhood residents "fighting for" the 1989 site plan. They did OPPOSE plans at one point, and rightfully so, when a developer wanted to overload the building with dwelling units (I've forgotten the specific number).

But that's a far cry from demanding the architectural frills that some of the posters here keep harping on. And don't kid yourselves into thinking the tax value is MUCH LOWER because those frills are absent! Call the assessor and find out for yourselves on what bases a building is assessed. (Hint: it's not decorative touches.)

I believe the poster above is right; Brookside is now assessed as condos. What people on this thread don't seem to understand is that condos can be RENTED OUT at the owner's discretion, just as the owner of an apartment building rents out those units and just as a homeowner can rent out his/her house if s/he chooses. So a building of condos is a de facto apartment building anyway.

BTW, Susan, how do you conclude your neighborhood was "de facto, rezoned" following the Brookside conversion? Was the neighborhood "de facto, rezoned" in 19-whatever when Brookside was built as a school? And don't you think your neighborhood is a lot quieter and less traffic-congested, now that Brookside is no longer a school?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

Probably she hasn't been around long enough to know

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Juliet
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

Dear Oldtimer,

Thanks for the post above, but please get your facts straight.

I don't know what your definition of "fight" is, but spending $4000.00 of your hard earned money to appeal a wrong decision by the Zoning Board qualifies as a fight to me. The original approval by the Zoning Board granted the first developers 48 units rather rhan the 36 allowed for by the governing zoning ordinace. Of equal concern was the fact that there would only be 1 1/2 parking spaces per unit. Trying to scale back the number of units and increase the number of parking spaces to 2 per unit was the main thrust of the appeal so you are partially correct.

The result of that appeal to the Township Council was a compromise reducing the number of units to 42 and providing 84 parking spaces. Those were the main features of the plan, but the appearance of the building was also a part of it. That didn't change because of the appeal and was binding on anyone who built under the l989 site plan.

That plan called for landscaping to screen the parking lot, lighting that didn't shine into neighboring homes, a larger percentage of landscaped area, walkways connecting the property to the adjacent streets, the placement of the dumpster away form neighboring residences (certainly not next to a public sidewalk and the general maintainence of the appearance of the building . The current developer ignored all of those features, only getting the increased number of units right. If he wanted to make changes he should have gone before the Zoning Board and sought them before he started.

As for your arguement concerning condos vs. apartments, while you are technically right, the state of the property as it exists now is not what most people would consider a building of condominiums. In general practice the developers do not retain ownership of all the units, but offer them for sale to individuals. Of course this developer testified that he never intended to sell any units, but had planned for them to be apartments from the beginning. One owner renting out the units equals a de-facto apartment building. So far he has received only a partial assessment on the building as a single unit. It is my understanding that the property will not be fully assessed as individual units until sometime after October.

Assessments are not based on frills but on the value of the property. A well developed property done according to the original plans would have had a higher market value and therefore brought in more taxes

As for your last comments; Brookside was built as a school in approximately 1898. I dont think there were any zoning ordinances at that time. In fact many of the houses in the neighborhood weren't even built. The arguement about traffic and congestion if it had remained a school is moot, since it is not and never will be again.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

So if Juliet is not a member of BBC, how come "she" knows how much they've spent to fight?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Juliet
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

The figure I used was the amount spent by the first group, "The Brookside Neighborhood Association" Ibelieve it was called. The $4000.00 figure was in one of the local papers.

Stop worrying about who I am and trying to divert attention from the facts.

Have a Nice Day, you idiot.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

I'm Just Curious about something Juliet: Are you Anarchy, too?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Juliet
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

Also RWB, Susan, Gary, Felix, Observer,Vicki and anyone else who you might want to believe. Of course there couldn't be that many different people with ideas that differ from yours. Obviously we must all be one person.

Have a Nice Day. You, also, are an idiot!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > From one who knows.....
< Date: 09-Jul-99 >

I know the screen names of a variety of posters and everytime I read someone accusing Gary I. of taking on multiple personnas I sit back and laugh. I am not Gary nor do I know him but I do know some of the posters and apparently some people think there are only a handful of people that post. There are more than you think and there are even more that are reading. We are laughing at you............................

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Juliet
< Date: 10-Jul-99 >

Try prozac, really! Maybe you are not a member of the BBC because they wouldn't have you! They are not nasty people, but you are. They are not antagonistic, but you are. They present the facts as they see them but you present your interpretations as you want us to see them.

Please go back to Marion and Gary (ahem) and tell them that this won't work either. If Charlie D. was on the case in our ward, maybe this group wouldn't have to go to this means. The sin of it all is that he likes to throw around the fact that he believes himself an asset because he's a lawyer. Well, then how come he didn't know the law in this whole matter? A toll collector would have been just as useful to this ward, heaven forbid!

For the sake of the credibility of the BBC, please stop posting. You are hurting our cause and drawing negative attention to us. Find another way to campaign and leave this group of taxpaying citizens to their mission.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Juliet
< Date: 10-Jul-99 >

To the poster above...

Are you a member of the BBC? Your last paragraph would seem to imply that you are, but the rest of your post seems out of character, especially your swipes at Councilman Daglian and Greg Burnett.

To anyone ...

Would someone please explain to me what the first paragraph in the post above means.

.......

Facts are facts. If anyone reading my posts thinks that I have been wrong on the facts I would be happy to hear it. As for the above posters comment that I am antagonistic...well he/she is entitled to an opinion, but I disagree. In my earlier posts I called two posters idiots because it was obvious that they hadn't even read the post they were commenting on. I'm entitled to my opinion, also.

Have a Nice Day. Don't ever change. Your beautiful baby.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 11-Jul-99 >

Ok the fog has lifted....Read Juliet's post! According to her, a member of the BBC wouldn't take swipes at Daglian or Burnett!

so there you have it! we KNOW who the political donors are!

thank you Juliet! You may have been a beautiful baby, but baby LOOK at you now!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Popeye
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >

do you read crystal balls? or taro cards? entrails?

You are so desparate.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Andy
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >

No crystal ball needed. Here's what Juliet said:

"Are you a member of the BBC? Your last paragraph would seem to imply that you are, but the rest of your post seems out of character, especially your swipes at Councilman Daglian and Greg Burnett. "

So, Juliet, I ask, why wouldn't a member of the BBC take a "swipe" at Daglian or Burnett?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 13-Jul-99 >

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >

So does the political donor list include anyone ELSE besides Daglian and Burnett?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Just Curious
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >

Who ever said there was a "political donors list"?

If the questioners have information about this, why don't they post it?

What is the "political" benefit to be gained by supporting this group?

Just Curious

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Just Nauseous
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >

Why does the ever-infernal Juliet rotate egos with the pseudo-psychological Just Curious whenever a raw nerve becomes exposed?

Why would Juliet state that BBC members would not take "swipes" at Burnet and Daglian?

Why is Just Curious always trying to comandeer every thread he enters?

Just Nauseous

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Concerned
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >

Sorry to hear about your illness. Maybe you're pregnant.Try to relax and make an appointment for a check-up.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >

If that's the best you can do, no wonder your candidates are so panicky!

The political donor list?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > one who knows
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >

there is no list because there are no political donors

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > susan
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >

To those who are new to this thread:

The Brookside school at 73 Essex Avenue (and Baldwin) is supposed to be condomiums and the building was supposed to have been renovated following a site plan in effect since 1989 and which retained the architectural integrity of the building. Now we have a de facto apartment building (which has, defacto, rezoned the neighborhood) with renovations done in what has been described to me as "builder's standards". Our property values have been diminished by this renovations; the amount of taxes have been reduced, our quality of life has been reduced and this sets a precedent for all future public-to –private conversions.

The Brookside Betterment Coalition, Inc. was formed in January of 1999 by a group of neighbors concerned about the illegal renovation and the zoning variances requested by the Developer.

The only recourse citizens have to try to correct this problem is to appeal the zoning board decision (made on January 14 of this year) which the BBC did thru the firm of Podvey Sachs. This appeal is currently going thru the judicial process.

In conjunction with the appeal, the law firm subpeona'd the records on the sale/purchase of the property. However, the developers' attorney went to court to block this subpeona. And managed to find a judge who would rule in favor of the developers. ( Go Figure. If this purchase is on the up-and-up then why would they bother to quash the appeal?)

This is a very simple summary of a story filled with twists and turns that would make your head spin.

To find out more about this topic: - review the postings since the Thread began in December. - Go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/sotillos/disc1_toc.htm Here you will find the architectural drawings as well as other information about the Brookside Fiasco.

Inquiries can be sent to the BBC, Inc. at box 2431 Bloomfield, Nj 07003 or email NJ_Bloomfield@yahood.com. ( We also attend the public council meetings )The BBC is also seeking donations to defray the legal expenses; many thanks to those who have already contributed. (Please note: We do not provide donor names to anonymous posters on the thread; We are not a front for any political endeavor.)

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Juliet
< Date: 17-Jul-99 >

Enquiring Minds STILL want to know why no BBC member would ever take a "swipe" at Burnett and Daglian! C'mon, you're dying to tell us anyway! Just watch your tongue - some of us are sensitive!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > observer
< Date: 17-Jul-99 >

Can't you people make up your mind? You rant and rave at "Juliet" and when she decides to heed your advice and stop posting you are looking for her to answer your questions. Make up your mind.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To observer
< Date: 18-Jul-99 >

Juliet owes us! We tolerated her ridiculous and rude tirades.....until s/he SLIPPED! About a poster not possibly being from the BBC because they would never take a "swipe" at Burnett and Daglian? The "non-member" that has all the inside dope on the group and starts a broo-ha-ha whenever the donor lists, political that is, is asked about?

No, Juliet TOLD us what we all knew all along! Its cowardice that keeps s/he away, not brains!

Guess s/he let his/her candidates down!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Juliet
< Date: 18-Jul-99 >

Short and sweet (like me).

Anyone connected with the BBC and in fact non-BBC residents of the area, know that Daglian has been responsive to their requests for assistance in this matter.

As for Burnett, the reference was to a toll collector, so I assumed it was to Greg, not Vicki. Greg is the President of the BOE; they have nothing to do with the Brookside issue, so there would be no need to take a "swipe" at him.

Have a Nice Day!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To Juliet
< Date: 19-Jul-99 >

Does it get you confused deciding whether to post as Just Curious or Juliet? Posters, and VOTERS, aren't stupid!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Someone Else
< Date: 19-Jul-99 >

This is a shame. Susan is the only person on this thread making any worthwhile contribution. I believe she is sincere and dedicated to fighting what she believes is a violation of her neighborhood. Good for you, Susan.

Juliet, Just Curious, etc. you are doing nothing to further the cause of the BBC. It has many sincere members (like Susan). You are turning this into a circus. Your comments have led to other posters questioning the motives of the BBC, their donor list, etc. You are taking the efforts of good people and turning them into a political issue. For instance, I don't care what Burnett does for a living or that the BOE is not empowered to do anything about Brookside school, or whatever contrived reasoning Juliet will come up with. Saying members of the BBC would not take a swipe at him does imply that he is involved in some way. In fact, people fighting to preserve their neighborhood and who love their town enough to stand up and fight, should be enraged when someone does not carry their fair share and logically, Burnett might take his share of "swipes" from such persons!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > to someone else
< Date: 19-Jul-99 >

posters aside,what's your opinion of the issue?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 19-Jul-99 >

What's the difference? Why do you care what "someone else" thinks?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > to the blank above
< Date: 19-Jul-99 >

can't "someone else" answer for themself?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >

Nah! Juliet'll just get her garters in a knot again! Or will she just become Just Dang Curious?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Archivist
< Date: 21-Jul-99 >

Coalition gets day in court.

The Bloomfield-Glen Ridge Brookside Betterment Coalition is going to court, and they're taking the Brookside Manor owners and the Bloomfield Zoning Board of Adjustment with them.

This day is long overdue. There is no reason that the zoning board should have approved a variance on the development of the Brookside Manor Condominiums, after proprietors Val Iglar and Michael Romeo ignored a previous ruling in the first place.

This case deserves to be in court, and Iglar and Romeo and the zoning board deserve whatever judgement is levied against them. They should have known better, but it is quite obvious they didn't

There is no place in our municipalities for the completely unprofessional way this case was handled by the two parties being sued.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 21-Jul-99 >

When is the court date?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Unfortunately...
< Date: 24-Jul-99 >

......the wheels of justice move slowly.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 27-Jul-99 >

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 28-Jul-99 >

Didn't Juliet pay her dues? Mighty silent! Uh oh! That's right the "PDL" word was mentioned! As in Political Donor List!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 28-Jul-99 >

Juliet won't discuss the PDL

The BOE won't discuss their failure with channel 34

Vicki won't discuss South

Do we see a pattern, folks?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > the tempest
< Date: 28-Jul-99 >

Sure, the pattern is you guys trying to make like something exists or happens when it doesn't exist or didn't happen.

aren't you happy you got Juliet to take a vacation? Now that she's on vacation, you are twisting her absence to be a confirmation of your twisted notions.

Did you ever consider writing fiction? you would be GOOD.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > anarchy
< Date: 28-Jul-99 >

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice?

Just this!

Jus dis,

Judas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judas,

Jude,

Punch em Judy,

Howdie Doodie,

howdy crappy

brookside manure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice?

Juiliet!

romeo?

No, rotten.

No! – nor tin,

nor tim,

no, north on

essex.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice?

Julius

Ceasar

Salad.

Sale ad?

No.

4 rent by appt only!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Julius,

Brutus –

Et tu Brute?

brute too -

molee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So lame!

So, lay me!

So, now I lay me

down to sleeze.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

god bless america!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Mr. Logical
< Date: 28-Jul-99 >

There are no political donors ergo no political donor list.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Mr. Obvious
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

WRONG! Reread the posts. That question was NEVER denied! A non-denial is an affirmation ergo who is logical? Not you!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > To the tempest
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

Putting aside Juliet for a moment, if in fact s/he is on vacation...

The BOE DIDN'T fail miserably with channel 34?

Vicki IS screaming about South at the mike in her "I AM A TAXPAYER" routine?

There IS a pattern and it ISN'T fiction!

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Archivist
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

F. Residential condominium conversion of existing publicly owned structures.[ Added 8-3-87]

(1) It is the intention of this subsection to provide a means to allow flexibility for the conversion of existing structure while at the same tiime providing certain requirements in the public interest.

(2) Residential condominium conversion of publicly owned buildings no longer needed for public purpose may be permitted by the Planning Board in accordance with the following standards:

(a) A maximum density of twenty (20) units per acre shall be permitted.

(b) Minimum floor area standards contained in 27l-23 of this chapter shall apply

(c) Off street parking requirements contained in 271-27A of this chapter shall apply.

(d) A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site area shall consist of landscaped open area, exculsive of the building area, parking area and driveways. Existing trees two (2) inches in diameter shall not be cut down.

(e) The bulk and setback regulations for the R-G Residential Garden Apartment Zone contained in Schedule B of this chapter shall apply except where variations exceeding these minimum standards now exist.

(f) Each required parking space shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and eighteen (18) feet long and shall have a minimum backup of twenty-two (22) feet.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Cal
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

You folks in the know over this issue should get a picket organized against these flagrant violators of Bloomfield's laws.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Mr. Logical
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

To mr. Obvious,

Where did you study logic? A non-denial is an affirmation? If I accuse you of being a pedophile and you don't deny it than you are one? Conversly if you do deny it than you aren't , no matter what the truth?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

Well he didn't deny it?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

This is url for article summarized below. http://www.njo.com/njcommunities/ledger/essex/c744aa.html

=======================================================

Lawyer ordered to pay for negligence of funds

07/28/99

When Roseland attorney William Soriano agreed to act as escrow agent in the 1992 lease-purchase of the Braviak Funeral Home in Whippany, he had a duty to both the buyer and seller to control the funds directly. Instead, a judge ruled yesterday, Soriano negligently allowed his clients, L. Richard Smaldone and his wife, Jacqueline Lowe, to place the money into a bank account they controlled. .... a judge ruled yesterday, Soriano negligently allowed his clients, L. Richard Smaldone and his wife, Jacqueline Lowe, to place the money into a bank account they controlled. According to the ruling, every report Soriano made to the Braviaks over a four-year period contained material misrepresentations. That makes the lawyer liable for the $224,692 mentioned in his last report to the sellers, the judge ruled. Superior Court Judge Reginald Stanton in Morristown [issued] a nine-page written opinion in which he states that the case is being referred to the state Office of Attorney Ethics for possible disciplinary action against Soriano.

======================================================= WHy is this on Brookside Thread?: Ralph Salerno, the lawyer for the Brookside School developers has a William Soriano on his firm's letterhead. Salerno's firm is in Roseland. Perhaps there are 2 William Sorianos in Roseland? Also, Jack Soriano, who represented the developers at the zoning board in January (and who probably represents the majority of variance requests at the zoning board) is 'of counsel' at Salerno's firm.

Does anyone know whether there are several William Sorianos practicing in Roseland? And whether this is NOT the William Soriano affiliated with Salerno?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

Is Ralph Salerno also the attorney involved with Dubrow?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

I have not heard anything about Salerno being involved with Dubrow.

Salerno was NOT the lawyer at the Annin zoning board meeting.

Salerno was the lawyer representing Home Depot.

Salerno represented the Brookside developer in 1989 when he requested a variance to build 48 units from the zoned 36. THe neighbors had to hire a lawyer to have that number knocked down to 42.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > observer
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

Well it looks as if Mr. Obvious is a pedophile and another lawyer has been shown to be less than honest.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

not just - “ another lawyer has been shown to be less than honest. “

but - a particular law firm -

( the one that represented the brookside developer 10 years ago

& coincidentally represents the new developer now

& coincidentally represented home depot which, according to the IP is what is being investigated by the FBI,

“ has been shown to be less than honest. “

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 29-Jul-99 >

are they on the political donor list too?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Help us all!
< Date: 30-Jul-99 >

Can anyone give me a "complete and detailed" history about the Brookside Condos. Can you tell me dates and who decided what? Not just a one sided "opinionated" history, but an accurate unbiased account so I can be an informed citizen on this issue.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 30-Jul-99 >

To those who are new to this thread:

The Brookside school at 73 Essex Avenue (and Baldwin) is supposed to be condomiums and the building was supposed to have been renovated following a site plan in effect since 1989 and which retained the architectural integrity of the building. Now we have a de facto apartment building (which has, defacto, rezoned the neighborhood) with renovations done in what has been described to me as "builder's standards". Our property values have been diminished by this renovations; the amount of taxes have been reduced, our quality of life has been reduced and this sets a precedent for all future public-to –private conversions.

The Brookside Betterment Coalition, Inc. was formed in January of 1999 by a group of neighbors concerned about the illegal renovation and the zoning variances requested by the Developer.

The only recourse citizens have to try to correct this problem is to appeal the zoning board decision (made on January 14 of this year) which the BBC did thru the firm of Podvey Sachs. This appeal is currently going thru the judicial process.

In conjunction with the appeal, the law firm subpeona'd the records on the sale/purchase of the property. However, the developers' attorney went to court to block this subpeona. And managed to find a judge who would rule in favor of the developers. (If this purchase is on the up-and-up then why would they bother to quash the appeal?)

This is a very simple summary of a story filled with twists and turns that would make your head spin.

To find out more about this topic: - review the postings since the Thread began in December. - Go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/sotillos/disc1_toc.htm Here you will find the architectural drawings as well as other information about the Brookside Fiasco.

Inquiries can be sent to the BBC, Inc. at box 2431 Bloomfield, Nj 07003 or email NJ_Bloomfield@yahood.com . The BBC is also seeking donations to defray the legal expenses; many thanks to those who have already contributed .

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 30-Jul-99 >

To Help Us all: The BBC does not have a formal archive of the history. This chat line has actually been an effective way to record the various activities that have gone on. If you email us (see below) with your questions then we can provide more specific answers.

To those who are new to this thread:

The Brookside school at 73 Essex Avenue (and Baldwin) is supposed to be condomiums and the building was supposed to have been renovated following a site plan in effect since 1989 and which retained the architectural integrity of the building. Now we have a de facto apartment building (which has, defacto, rezoned the neighborhood) with renovations done in what has been described to me as "builder's standards". Our property values have been diminished by this renovations; the amount of taxes have been reduced, our quality of life has been reduced and this sets a precedent for all future public-to –private conversions.

The Brookside Betterment Coalition, Inc. was formed in January of 1999 by a group of neighbors concerned about the illegal renovation and the zoning variances requested by the Developer.

The only recourse citizens have to try to correct this problem is to appeal the zoning board decision (made on January 14 of this year) which the BBC did thru the firm of Podvey Sachs. This appeal is currently going thru the judicial process.

In conjunction with the appeal, the law firm subpeona'd the records on the sale/purchase of the property. However, the developers' attorney went to court to block this subpeona. And managed to find a judge who would rule in favor of the developers. (If this purchase is on the up-and-up then why would they bother to quash the appeal?)

This is a very simple summary of a story filled with twists and turns that would make your head spin.

To find out more about this topic: - review the postings since the Thread began in December. - Go to http://chss2.montclair.edu/sotillos/disc1_toc.htm Here you will find the architectural drawings as well as other information about the Brookside Fiasco.

Inquiries can be sent to the BBC, Inc. at box 2431 Bloomfield, Nj 07003 or email NJ_Bloomfield@yahood.com . The BBC is also seeking donations to defray the legal expenses; many thanks to those who have already contributed .

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Susan
< Date: 01-Aug-99 >

As it turns out, the first name on the letterhead for Salerno's firm is Soriano.

Does anyone know whether this is William Soriano, the lawyer who is going before the Ethics Board.(see prior posting regarding article in Star Ledger.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > susan
< Date: 02-Aug-99 >

correction to 8/1 posting:

William Soriano is not going before the Ethic Board; the judge is referring the case " to the state Office of Attorney Ethics for possible disciplinary action against Soriano".

We have heard on this thread from those who have said they had received information from the developers' attorney. Would you be able to answer this question?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > susan
< Date: 02-Aug-99 >

correction to 8/1 posting:

William Soriano is not going before the Ethic Board; the judge is referring the case " to the state Office of Attorney Ethics for possible disciplinary action against Soriano".

We have heard on this thread from those who have said they had received information from the developers' attorney. Would you be able to answer this question?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 02-Aug-99 >

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > anarchy
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

crooked development -

approved & blessed by crooked officials -

crooked compliance - covered up by current crooked officials -

represented by crooked law firm

crooked

crook - ed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

god bless america

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > nausea
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

crooked issues

political donors

crooked politicians

campaign strategies?

only in Bloomfield

pass the Tums

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > clarify
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

Question:

Is Salerno a working partner with William Soriano whose case has been referred to the Attorney Ethics Committee? .

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From >
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

If William Soriano did something wrong, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SALERNO??? They are partners in the same firm.. What does one case have to do with the other?? I guess it makes for some conversation

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Question
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

Why is it that since one of Mr. Soriano's clients stole money that Mr. Soriano now becomes "less than honest" and his firm becomes a "crooked law firm"? Don't you have the responsibility to be truthful in what you write, or at least more careful? Didn't you read the rules before you posted?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > observer
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

I believe that Mr. Soriano breeched his fuduciary responsibilities by certifing that money that should have been available to his clients was there when in fact it wasn't. That makes him "less than honest" to most of us. As for the rest of the firm, I guess that they get tarred with the same brush, although "crooked law firm" sounds a bit extreme. Then of course there are those of us who think that all lawyers are crooked.

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > Question2
< Date: 03-Aug-99 >

Why is this law firm crooked? What's your evidence for this statement?

< Subject: RE: bloomfield brookside school >
< From > observer
< Date: 04-Aug-99 >

I am using the logic of that well known pedophile Mr. Obvious, who stated that a non-denial is an affirmation. (see posts from 7/29 for background).