Jim Spear responds to a Muhlenberg commenter:
Dear RC,
I hear you. . .I feel your passion and I hear your determination. Please don't feel hopeless. Your passion and determination can influence what happens. I believe it. . . and as I always say "We can't be so tempered that we are forced to standby".
When I spoke Wednesday night I started with, "I have a comment and a question".
My comment was that we should not be scared of development in Plainfield, (that doesn't mean I want 600 units on the Muhlenberg Campus). And then I said "I feel it's naive to think that we will get a full service hospital or manufacturing to return to the City". I was wrong to use the word "naive", I should have said "unrealistic". Though I do feel strongly about my view that a hospital may never return, I hope I am wrong.
Remember I was in the same room as you Tuesday night and I live in the same city as you, so I know how much we all want our hospital back. Those feelings led me to my questions which I feel had a significant outcome. . .
My questions. . . first, I asked Solaris if they had a developer. . ."NO" was their response. So there is NO developer in the back wings to do this project. It's just their dream, their vision, not ours.
My second question was more significant, "If you get Planning Board and Zoning Board approval, (they need this to change the zoning to residential and adjust the density in the area), and you move the Emergency Room into the Kenyon Building, (that's the building on the corner where the dialysis center is), will you NOT tear down the Hospital until you do indeed have a developer and an approved plan? Their response was "Yes". This is good for us and bad for them, because they have now said it in public, (for whatever it's worth).
Why is this significant? It's good for us as it will take a long time to get all the leg work done. During this time we can continue to TRY and find a better use for the campus. If they tear down the buildings we will NEVER get a hospital or any related use, and we will probably have an empty lot with no tax base.
Why is it bad for them? This is the scenario that led me to ask the question. . . Solaris say's it cost them 2.5 million annually to operate the empty buildings (7.5 million over 3 years). They also said it would cost 2.5 million to move the emergency room, and 5 million to tear down the hospital buildings, total 7.5 million. What does this mean? In 3 short years they recouped their money by saving 2.5 million dollars annually, and now we have a BIG empty lot, and again, no tax base.
What I don't get with this scenario is why they threaten us with the 2013 deadline, (the date the State mandates that the ER must stay open to). Why spend 2.5 million dollars moving the ER and then leave. . . I don't buy it. There most be some windfall by having patients funneled through Muhlenberg and into JFK. Overlook Hospital opened an ER at the closed down Union hospital, and the state didn't make them open it.
I would like to touch on my development comments. For some reason, (and I am guilty of this myself by fighting to stop a 7 story building on the GO Keller property), our automatic default response to development in our city is NO !! Personally I think we should embrace it. Our future is in our housing stock and our transportation hubs. Any major density increases should be around those hubs, and maybe to a MUCH, much smaller scale on the Muhlenberg Campus, (if it gets to that). And as I said earlier I was not advocating for 600 units there.
Think about it. . . the campus could be developed with single family homes mixed with town homes. The historic buildings on the site could be re-developed into condos or apartments. It could be a nice place with minor density increases which in turns helps our faulting retail sectors and puts the property on the tax rolls. It would be unfortunate if this property ended up with no hospital and another non-profit not paying taxes, (which is about to happen at the Armory).
It is important that any future development is done right and includes the stakeholders. That's what the Transit Oriented Vision Study was all about, that's what the Charrette was all about. Some people think it was all a waste of time, but that is not true. The Planning board is in the process of a huge undertaking by revising and updating the city's Master Plan to include these changes. So when the economy changes and building construction returns we can show developers what we, the residents of Plainfeld, vision these sites to be.
Admittedly, to an extent, this is what Solaris intention is too. They referred to this at the meeting when they stated, where they got their advise from, what that advice was, and admitted that they are not in the development business nor do they want to be.
In closing RC, I must disagree with your comment that this has anything to do with race, I feel the comment is unfounded as it relates to me. And it certainly doesn't unite us and moves us forward as a city to solve this issue. I do feel RC that you should not give up, we have a very talented and dedicated Planning Board, and a large pool of committed and vested residents, somehow we ALL will figure this out.
Jim Spear
Jim, your letter is complimentary to the two part blog I wrote last night , part 1 was posted today (Saturday) and the second part will be on line tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIn effect the hospital matter is a Greek Tragedy worthy of Aeschylus.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your response to RC. I was especially touched by your last paragraph. Thanks!
At the time of the Muhlenberg closing, I worked with a number of people on the "Buy Muhlenburg" concept.
ReplyDeletePeople liked the idea. We had a great response from the community.
In a short time I had a developer who was interested in turning Muhlenberg into a private senior specialty hospital, with a senior housing/assisted living component. We had also gotten interested from Somerset Hospital as a partner.
Solaris wouldn't talk to them. Their mission at the time was to get the hospital closed.
Now things might be very different. They have a new CEO, they need to do something with the lot.
I would argue that if the community develops their vision, assembles partners with the needed expertise, come up with the business model that would make money, get community commitment (remember, Plainfield citizens built Muhlenburg to begin with) -- we then can negotiate with Solaris to get the property into the hands of people who care about the community, the community needs, and what is best for Plainfield's long-term future.
Housing is NOT economic development. It is real estate development.
Plainfield needs to fix its schools, work on it's roads, clean up the gang issues. We have 1000 apartments empty and 1000 houses in foreclosure. It's going to take years before that excess inventory is absorbed. The recession/depression is not over by any means -- China is facing its own bubble and I believe will will be facing tax increases to pay for all the spending that's been going on. All this, I believe, will keep prices depressed in Plainfield, which equates to very little profit for a housing developer.
True economic development involves bringing businesses into town, incentives, which bring jobs, raises property taxes, brings new citizens.
Instead of putting retail/apartment buildings downtown, why isn't Plainfield courting IT companies to put their IT departments in downtown? The train is a huge sell. To me that brings people to town to spend money -- but go home. Income with very little cost to the town.
We lost a 1000 jobs with Muhlenburg. Who says we, as a community, can't creatively come up with a plan and vision that will create 1,000 new jobs?
Yes, we need to solve all our problems at once, dont we. Olive please come out of whatever la-la land you are in now and finish something for once.
DeleteJim, I appreciate and thank you for your response. Please understand that my comment was not racially motivated, however, the facts are Plainfield is predominately black and Hispanic and history can speak for itself. 600 unit apartment complex in Plainfield would not be the same 600 unit apartment complex in Scotch Plains, Fanwood or Westfield. I agree we all should be united in this cause and please believe me when I say that I absolutely do not see it as a race issue. I realize that this is all about business and not necessarily what’s best for the community or even the city. Again, there were many good ideas for use of that property that was mention at the meeting but I cannot stress enough that a 600 unit apartment complex is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteSolaris stated several times at the meeting that they were not in the real estate business so I’m still a little confused how they propose on putting an apartment complex on that property. Wouldn’t that put them in the real estate business? Are they going to give the property to a developer or sell it to a developer? If they are selling the property to a developer then why was it not available on the open market, for sale to all bidders?
Jim, I agree that single family homes or townhomes ‘for sales not rent’ on the site would be nice and more beneficial than a 600 unit project.
In closing Jim, you have every right to disagree with my comment as it relates to you. I don’t know you, as you don’t know me and if I misinterpret your remarks I apologize. I have no intention of giving in to a 600 unit apartment project. I’ve lived in Plainfield for 30 years and I plan on staying and fighting for what I believe in.
rc
RC,
ReplyDeleteCan you please explain exactly what do you mean by "the facts are Plainfield is predominately black and Hispanic and history can speak for itself."
Thanks.