The Pure Progress and Vision Action Balance tickets—both vying for three open seats on the Board of Trustees in the May 12 election—clashed on redevelopment and municipal finance issues in a debate Wednesday evening.

The tone of the debate was mostly civil, though shots were occasionally traded by Stephen Steglitz of Vision Action Balance and Michael Goldberg of Pure Progress. Steglitz, a former Trustee who left office in 2005 after serving for 12 years, touted modest tax increases during his tenure and steps taken to revitalize downtown—including the narrowing of South Orange Avenue in the mid-'90s—and attacked the current Board for using up budget surpluses.

Goldberg, a Trustee for the past two years, cited accomplishments like working toward shared services agreements with neighboring towns and bringing more transparency to the political process and spoke of the legacy of debt inherited by the current Board from its predecessors.

The lightly-attended debate was held in Seton Hall's Jubilee Hall and began with opening statements and a series of six questions prepared by the co-sponsors, the League of Women Voters and Seton Hall. The first addressed the Vision Plan, intended to steer the development of South Orange's business districts.

Pure Progress—consisting of Goldberg, Nancy Gould and Janine Bauer—expressed strong support for the plan and its goals.

"We’ll make sure that that plan doesn’t sit on the shelf and does get implemented," said Gould, who cited 18 years of experience as a planner.

Steglitz—whose Vision Action Balance running mates are Mary Washington Nieves and Dale Favors—countered that the Village received a $90,000 grant in 2005 to develop the Smart Growth plan, which provides broad guidelines for development, and the current Board agreed to pay nearly $250,000 for the Vision Plan.

"I will be very surprised if there are any major additions to Susan Gruel’s [Smart Growth] plan," he said. "I’m telling you that I’m back, and I’m going to save you money."

Bauer responded that the Department of Community Affairs had explicitly barred the Village from using the Smart Growth plan to amend the Master Plan—the ultimate intent of the Vision Plan—and that the current Board's predecessor had actually set aside $350,000 to amend the Master Plan.

When asked to comment on the Village's financial health, Steglitz, a municipal bond dealer, spoke of the January downgrading of the Village's bond rating from AA to A by Moodys, which would make it more expensive to borrow money. He emphasized the need for new residential and commercial ratables to keep property tax increases down and chastised Goldberg and Bauer—a former Planning Board member—for opposition to development at the quarry, which he says has added significantly to the Village's tax rolls.

Responding for Pure Progress, Goldberg spoke of the debt inherited by the current Board from its predecessor, citing statistics that the debt burden increased from $9 million in 1995 to $28.2 million in 2005 and has since dropped by 3 percent. He also mentioned the Board's efforts toward securing shared service agreements—including an outsourcing deal with Maplewood for turf mowing that will slash costs from $200,000 to $27,000—and the positive impact the Vision Plan would have on bringing in commercial ratables.

Steglitz and Goldberg also clashed on a question posed by an audience member on whether it's appropriate for Village Administrator John Gross to also hold the title of Chief Financial Officer. In 2005, Steglitz was among the Trustees who voted to move 80 percent of Gross's salary to the tenured CFO position.

"I think basically that that administrator saved us a lot of money," said Steglitz. "He did a good job, and we tenured him."

Goldberg in turn spoke of Gross's "astronomical" workload and said he thinks the 2005 contract renegotiation was fiscally irresponsible, since if the Village theoretically wished to fire its administrator, it would still be on the hook for the majority of his salary.

"I think it’s way too much work and responsibility for a single person to have," he said.

A difference between the two tickets was also drawn out during a question on whether the candidates support an ordinance—stricken by the Board of Trustees last month and up for review by the Planning Board—that would require landlords to register with the Village and pay fines if tenants commit multiple quality of life infractions. The ordinance is aimed at landlords who rent to Seton Hall students.

Nieves said she feels the ordinance unfairly penalizes landlords and would be extremely difficult to enforce.

"I see this as a weak attempt to raise revenue for the town instead of pursuing more plausible revenue streams," she said.

In his response, Goldberg said that the stricken ordinance is subject to much revision before being reconsidered by the Board, but he expects to have the final version to have the desired effect of improving quality of life in neighborhoods.