If you remember, the EPA also cleared the Ford sites in Ringwood and we all know how that went! Ford had plenty of money to spread around in those days and most people were not as educated and tuned in to environmental issues as they are today. I certainly think it is in the towship's best interest to double check on how thorough the inspections were, rather than pay for it later both financially and in the health of our people.

They're not building the center in Ringwood Phyllis, nor would I want it there, nor would it even be approved there. The Crossroads site is perfect for what they want to do, no houses to condemn, plenty of space, major highway access. If there were forest there to destroy I would probably say no, but there isn't anything there but a dumpy looking open area, and if (by chance) the empty Ford plant was still there, you'd be begging them to put in a nice, clean, attractive mall in it's place. BTW, did you protest the Sharp building or Sheraton projects?

Sad by true. I think it is safe to say that there was NO OVERWHELMING support FOR the change in zoning. So that very very least, the township council and then mayor should have had the decency to await the outcome of a referendum to gauge the will of the township residents. Lacking an overwhelming support for the zoning change, the zoning should have been kept in place rather than inviting the legal expense of 3 (?) law suits caused by the councils double flip-flop in that matter.

Complete irresponsible handling of OUR money.

I can't believe that you still insist on believing those things Joe. Did you not read any of the threads over the last few weeks? I guess personal perception truly is some people's reality.

Like I've said before, 2000 people voting no in a referendum (especially a non-binding one) is not going to force a change to any plans, so 500 surely isn't going to make a dent. They had no backing to their argument. It was pure emotional hysteria without logical rationale, and you're still saying those things even after the last traffic study says the traffic is not a problem with the installation of a cloverleaf. There's one of your worries solved. You solve the problems, not stop the project. You move forward, not backward.

We have an estimated 160,000 potential customers in the surrounding area potentially adding to Mahwah's businesses' cash flow. This matters. It's good for this town whether you believe it or not.

If you read the other thread about taxes. Crossroads is the 5th largest property tax payer in this town, most likely destined to be number one after this center is built. You work with your largest tax payer and compromise on projects and make sure they follow the rules, you don't dis them by telling them they can't build the only thing economically viable on their own property.

Andy, there wouldn't be three lawsuits if Ms Susan Chin and her Stop Mall cronies hadn't butted in. There wouldn't have been a flip flop. There wouldn't have been a useless referendum to appease them and shut them up. There wouldn't have been a waste of time for everyone involved answering the same questions over and over again ad nauseum. I wouldn't be here arguing with you. You and I would be shopping at the new center six months sooner, and all the hysteria... all the hysteria would be past history and forgotten, just like it was with Pilot, Home Depot, and every other project before and after that. It's a shame that we have to deal with the whiners supporting no facts that every single town in this country has to deal with, instead of people that have legitimate, provable grievances that we can work with.

JP - it was precisely the "whiners" who managed to keep the Pilot plans in the spotlight until Pilot changed it repeatedly from the originally planned monstrosity (with overnight facilities and entrance to Ridge Road) to the very nice, even-smaller-than-original layout that we can enjoy today (and which I SUPPORTED!). I am VERY THANKFUL to the outspoken residents who kept an eye on this for all of us!

Home Depot - sorry, I never took any issue with that. It was a retail business in a retail zone.

Taxes? The story you cited confirms that the largest tax payers to be the corporate offices and other non-retail facilities (A&P is the only retail facility I recognize on that list). If the Crossroads eventually were to be developed as it is zoned now and had been zoned all along, its assessed value would have gone up too (in line with all the other top 4 properties on that list!) and potentially take the #1 spot -- with nice and quiet NON retail businesses.

As far as shopping there - who knows. I can tell you that I do make a point avoiding Rt. 17 as much as I can. I find most everything I need (including plenty of restaurants) by using local roads. I hardly go to the Olive Garden for that reason. So a place a mile or two up, and then back, on Rt. 17, has no particular attraction to me.

That's exactly why it's people like you Andy who kill me. If you're not interested in going to the mall if it's built, and have no interest in driving the highway to get there, then why in the world are you complaining? It doesn't affect you.

I understand your need to highlight the changes they made to the zoning as your grievance and the "principle" of making that change without seeking the towns opinions, but, quite frankly, as our duly voted in local government officials, they had absolutely every right in their position to vote on and change the zoning, and do it without any further permission or blessings from the town's people. They already represent us by being voted in as our elected officials. You may not like their cumulative decision, but it is their decision to make for us in the town's best interest (and yes... this project is in the town's interest). I won't even go into the limits they have on squashing personal property projects with you, but suffice it to say, if an owner meets all the zoning, planning and building requirements there's very little they can do after that except tie the project up in red tape. But in the end, your complaining about the zoning changes does as good now as my complaining about "certain people" starting the complaints in the first place. It's neither here nor there. It's my objective here to try and constantly point out the absurdity of the Stop Mall group in the first place.

Actually Hank, they don't want what's best for the town collectively, they want what's best for - them - individually. Every single one of them has their own personal agenda (for which only a couple of them have come clean on, as we've seen in past threads). They have no clue and can't even conceive the benefits of a project like this to the town. They don't realize this is something they should be thankful for collectively and probably won't realize that until they are standing at that site and shopping there and it finally dawns on them that they had nothing to worry about just like past projects. It really shows that the developers had enough faith in our area that people are willing to risk millions and take a chance on this town. It's something our reps on the council and our mayor can't speak about bluntly in public to the opponents because of protocol and politically correctness but they all know what I'm talking about.

once again I stand corrected this JP guy is on a roll.

JP, it's telling that you try to squash any different opinion by implying that ONLY people who agree with you do so because they want the "best for the town", while everyone who happens to divert from your prescribed correct opinion, "want what's best for them individually".

It shows how closed your mind is and your own illusion of your own infallibility.

Don't you see how easily this goes both ways? One could easily make an equally rediculous claim that those who support the Crossroads Mall do NOT want what's best for the town, but what's best for them. The developer just wants the profits, YOU just are too lazy to drive a few miles, YOU just want the promised tax effect in your own purse NOW (rather than hold off until an equally tax-beneficial corporate buyers/tenant can be found), etc.

The REALITY is that people on BOTH sides have the benefit of the town in mind - but each side looks at the available information from different angles, and based on their prior experiences, their personal priorities of one item over another, their trust in the promises by one side or forecasts by the other,... they have drawn DIFFERENT conclusions on what is "best" for the town LONG term in THEIR opinion.

Just because their conclusion differs form yours, Big Brother, doesn't make it invalid or ill motivated.

I don't think that's correct Andy. I don't think the opponents actual DO have the town's concern in mind and only use that as an excuse because it looks oh so much better. I personally think most of them DO have their own little personal agendas and biases having nothing to do with the town. Some of them are the exact same whiners that oppose EVERY new building project in Mahwah.

Got it, JP - you are holding your hands to your ears, because everyone with a different view has bad intentions. That's one way to always be right <G>. Finally explains why nothing is getting through.

You can accuse me of a lame excuse like that Andy, but the very core of your objection to this project (they had no right in changing the zoning without a pre-change referendum) isn't valid. It was a legitimate move by our town council and mayor and they had every right and the responsibility by their elected status to do it.

You and 2000 others in this town may not like the decision, but it wasn't you (plural) who were making it. Your elected representatives were. There might be a lot of things in this town I might not like, but I accept them. We don't run this town based on what every towns-person individual whim or agenda is. Our council members strive to make educated fiduciary decisions for the good of all of us. You seem to want to object to that principle (when YOU don't like it), so maybe you'd like the town folks to vote on every single individual item that needs to be decided upon and just let majority rule? Don't think so.

As to the project now having "third party" input as to changes that can make it the best center it can be, that's all well and good, but I had no doubt from the beginning that the project will be great "as is" without your input or anyone else butting into it. So why wouldn't you, unless you have trust issues with things like this. I inherently BELIEVE any problems arising WILL be solved. Do you think the developers, the council, the mayor, the planning boards, the construction company are all idiots? That's insulting to me and them.

JP - in the absence of substance, you now try false quoting?

>> the very core of your objection to this project: they had no right in changing the zoning <<

In fact what I did state on 3/5 was precisely the opposite:
"they were in their legal right"

But, having a right is not he same as doing the right thing! We all have the right to get it WRONG!

Why do you think that countries give the right to "free assembly" and why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so jealously guarded principles? If you want people to cheer the government 100% then let's build it in North Korea!

Sometimes government (on any level) DOES get it wrong (they too are only people and subject to error). In that case, the constitutions/basic laws of many countries have safeguards in place so that the press can investigate and report the news, even if it's inconvenient - and people have the right to join in opposition.

Did I think the decision for the mall was made by "all idiots"? No, and I never even remotely implied that - hard as YOU might try.

I do think the council and mayor are elected to got about the business of managing the daily affairs fo the town, making decisions, entering into (some even long-term) contracts, etc. But I do feel that it would have been the "right" thing to be modest with the "power" assigned to them, by checking BACK with their constituents on an issue that very obviously is dividing the town and take that feedback into consideration FIRST.

None of that, not one thing you mention, is going to happen Kevin. You may not believe it, you may not even want to believe it, but that is the way it's going to go down. Experience tells us that almost every controversial project started in this town the same way. First there's the whining, then there's the changes, then the building follows, and then... nothing! No dire consequences, no sky falling, no end of the world because we put up a new site, nothing. You call it nonsense and I say it's you and your rant that's nonsense. We'll see who's correct when we're both shopping at the new "Life Style Center". (You'll shop there, right? I'm betting you will.)

I actually DO have an issue with the construction Kevin. I would rather see the whole project under a closed roof. An enclosed center. Make it a REAL mall. A place to enjoy (inside) in the winter, but I realize that people would literally freak out if they suggested that.

Kevin, I'm going to point out to you something I've already said over and over again and somehow you just don't get. The council and mayor, as our elected officials, had (and still have) every legal right to change the zoning without any input from the residents. It's something you need to get over and manage. It's water under the bridge. In your mind, and some others, they need to be held accountable... for what??... for doing their jobs??

...for using the power and trust (the "rights") vested in them by the voters in a manner that did NOT represent a majority of the voters' vision for the township.

Having been voted into a position doesn't mean that you are unaccountable to your voters during your term. While they may have looked at the Crossroad decision as merely a "fiscal" matter - one that brings tax revenue into town earlier rather than at some undetermined future - that does not mean that the majority of the voters agreed that the money was worth the trade-off.

We all sometimes very consciously make decisions that are against our own "quantitive" monetary interests, because we factor other "qualities" in the equation of what's "best" for us overall.

Wait a second Andy, I contend that they DID represent the majority of citizens in Mahwah at the time of their decision and had every thought in mind of doing the right thing for Mahwah and that site. We didn't have this outpouring of grief about the mall until the opponents ginned up everyone to a frenzy during the summer months and had to put it on a non-binding (ie:irrelevant) referendum (which was just appeasement to shut them up for awhile). You're assuming the same negative sentiment existed way back in May of 2011 when this zoning change was made. I don't think so. I would bet that most of the people living here could have cared less what was happening with that site (15,000 of them still don't) until they were moved to protest in a chain reaction fashion started by someone who had a personal agenda against this project and let it tangent off in all directions. You actually should be questioning THAT person and wonder why it is that opponents like that are even allowed to disrupt town business in that fashion to the point of eventually having to defend both sides of this issue with local tax payer money. THAT's what you should be angry about, not the council doing their jobs.

All we actually KNOW for certain is that WHEN the voters were actually asked to consider everything the developer, the council AND the opponents had to say for and against, the majority of voters did not approve of the zoning change.

Prior to that we know that enough residents were concerned to sign the necessary petitions, and to take time from their scheduled to ask the council to poll the residents before acting on the issue.

Yeah, many weeks after the changes were made, when certain people had enough time to gin up anti-council sentiment and let 2000 townspeople be used for their political agenda by getting them to sign (what turned out to be) a useless petition and pointless referendum. You see my point Andy don't you? Where were all the protests in the many weeks before the council took the final vote to approve the zoning change? Where was the campaign then to persuade them to not approve it? Non-existent? The whole anti-mall fiasco, subsequent petition and vote was, initially, purely a result of some people feeling they weren't "asked for their blessing" before the decision to change the zoning was made. All the other issues like traffic and flooding, and now environmental problems were added on as superfluous cover to justify their personal protest. They used those people because they knew they couldn't get anywhere as a small group, so the call was made to "take it to the people!!! Let them decide!!!" Yeah ok, so. What did that prove? Nothing? So don't blame the council for a decision they made while performing their jobs, with doing the correct thing in mind at the time. The only thing they should be blamed for is caving to the pressure of a very small percentage of the citizens of this town and really screwing things up. They should have stood their ground and not go backwards. Now they'll be sued no matter how the end result turns out.

Of course, the other possibility is that your fellow townspeople aren't just dumb sheep who followed the pied piper to the polls, as you consistently paint them to be (just because that could be the only possible reason that they have an opinion differing from you). The alternative is that they have at least as much intelligence as you, JP, and after assessing the benefits and risks actually prefer no mall -- imagine that... that 2,000 people could be right...

Not a chance Kevin, not until that center is up and functioning.

That's one of the most ridiculous arguments that keeps coming up occasionally about this project. Like I've said before and I'll say again, they aren't building this mall on top of town square, it isn't on Franklin Tpk, there are no houses on the land, it's not near the mayor's office, nor is it anywhere near YOUR home. It's begin built on private property which is severely under-utilized and is becoming an eyesore. If you think that having new business there is not conducive to the economy of this town, then you have NO idea of what you are talking about.

It's going to be challenge for a township to remain a township. You have 287 and 17 going through it. They develop a bit here and a bit there. What's the harm in that? Eventually you run out of land, the manufacturing and retail population exceed the residential population, the local roads get congested, you need more traffic controls, infrastructure, sidewalks, wider roads are needed, and before you know it, Mahwah town becomes Mahwah City. We are well on our way there.

If it doesn't get built it won't be because of people like you Resident. Why don't you (try) and argue for your "side" here on Patch and add to the conversation instead of automatically dismissing mine with your (always) snarky remarks (similar to what happens at town meetings lately). BTW, I don't happen to see your real name on any of your posts either. Pot, meet kettle...

JP, by your analysis, any land that is not developed is being under utilized?

Wendy, aren't the real bullies the opponents of this mall who applied pressure type tactics to force our local government into a compromising and iffy reverse zoning position subjecting this town into the possibility of a multi-million dollar lawsuit if this center does not get the go ahead now? You are right, no one likes bullies. They dished it out to the council, now let them face the facts that all their misdirected effort to try and get this project stopped at the planning stage didn't work. I'm sorry but I must be bluntly honest with them. All this talk of the town going to hell after this project is complete is just sheer fantasy and wild conjecture. And no, I do not want all our land developed, just the ugly rundown area by the Sheraton will do. Lets build something Mahwah can be proud of on ribbon cutting day.

I don't think the term "bully" is used when those being governed (the "underdog") by their elected representative (the ones holding the power), are protesting against the way they are being governed and seek to be represented.

(You wouldn't call the "underdog" the bully, when he uses every available *legal* means to stand up for himself.)