Just a few points of clarification. 1)The language of the proposed SID has not been "Hammered Out" yet. In fact, the attachments (Exhibits A-D) haven't even been modified to allow the review process to proceed. No further consideration can or should be made until the essential data is available. 2)The proposed ordinance which is based on a SID for a mall in Trenton continues to be considered. This is increasingly alarming since there are several "local" templates that could be utilized. Finally and most importantly there seems to be a complete refusal to accept that the Majority of the Business Community has not and continues to not support this agenda. We look forward to hearing as to when this cancelled meeting will be rescheduled for.

To clarify:
1) the "attachments" are the following:
Exhibit A - District designation prepared by the SID Advisory Committee
Exhibit B - Same as Exhibit A, but includes information required by the Act
Exhibit C - Projected 1st year assessment (based on Exhibit D and available as soon as the new property assessments are filed and certified)
Exhibit D - Estimate of 1st year expenses (prepared by the SID Advisory Committee)

2) The SID STATUTE was created based on a situation in Trenton and from which ALL municipal SID ordinances are based.

The meeting will be rescheduled for a date TBD in January.

Mr. Goldberg: are you actually stating that all SID ordinances are identical? Then why not use a printed form? Those of us who have real business experience don't believe that because we have seen that all SID ordinances are NOT alike. For South Orange to model itself after a mall is a disgrace. Malls have significant differences, like a common landlord for example, and restrictive covenants. And why did you have to go all the way to Mercer County for a model? How come you didnt use Maplewood or Millburn? What were you thinking? We are unique. We are not like a mall in Trenton. What kind of a leader would attempt this? You have no shame.

LOL.....I said that all municipalities base their ordinance on the state statute. Shocking, isn't it?

As you have pointed out, until the new property assesssments are filed and certified Exhibits C and D will not be available. Without these assessments there cannot be further consideration to this SID. Mr. Rother stipulated this at the last workshop as well. Furthermore, the advisory commitee's presentation was based on now outdated and incorrect data. With all due respect this is now the third time that a SID is being considered even though it's been rejected twice before due to not having its stakeholder's support. The stakeholders have not changed their position.