My position regarding the Muhlenberg closing and future of the campus has been that it involves complex issues that Plaintalker is not equipped to address. In the past, I have left the heavy coverage to the daily newspapers, thinking they have resources that a one-person, hyperlocal blog cannot match.
Plaintalker has, however, tried to follow the land use boards and I believe that is where future uses of the campus will most likely be decided. One of my questions on the "Muhlenberg Followup" post was whether any applications had been filed or were anticipated. The answer was that "JFK has submitted a letter to the Mayor and Council requesting that the City rezone portions of the Muhlenberg campus to allow for it to be redeveloped into a mixed use healthcare, residential, educational and retail campus."
*Correction: A re-zoning would take place through the Planning Board, as in the recent TOD-D and TOD-N changes. The process below would take place only if the applicant wished a variance from current zoning.
From my point of view, this is not the same as submitting an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with all necessary information and having expert witnesses testify on the merits of the proposal, while the board and members of the public can ask questions in a quasi-judicial setting.
Of course, any applicant is free to lobby elected officials and the community for support. It's just that doing so is not a substitute for the process outlined above. It would also provide the basis for some factual reporting on exactly what is proposed and whether it meets goals of the master plan and zoning ordinance.
Journalists are notoriously bad at math, but if the development envisioned by JFK would produce annual property tax revenue of $2.5 million, it appears that its assessed value would have to be around $35 million if the total tax rate is around 7 percent. (Feel free to correct me.) If so, surely there must be close examination of any proposed project that large, and the land use boards are where that must take place.
--Bernice
What JFK doesn't put in their calculation:
ReplyDelete1. Increased impact/cost/taxes due to increased school enrollment.
Right now in Plainfield we have families of four living in single rooms. A landlord hungry to fill 600 "luxury" apartments in a bad economy won't ask too many questions, especially if those renters don't have cars
2. The negative impact to the surrounding homes' property values.
Being near a hospital is good.
Being near a 600 apartment complex is bad.
3. They tout 100 permanent jobs. Big deal. How about a medical complex that has 800 permanent jobs? Or 500 permanent jobs? Permanent jobs = people buying homes in Plainfield or living in Plainfield.
4. Plainfield has enough renters as it is. Why would ANYONE think more renters is good? Property ownership is better for the
5. The 600 apartment density JFK is proposing does not meet Plainfield's zoning and parking standards.
6. "Luxury" apartment market feasibility. We have "luxury" condos that aren't selling. Now they are being rented and not full. We have lots of empty houses. The demand is not there.
Plainfield should be looking towards Economic Development -- building apartments is not economic development. Economic development is about attracting businesses that create jobs.
As an addendum to my comments:
ReplyDeleteJFK is proposing a new high density zone "7A".
Our current high density zone "7" allows 18 units per acre.
JFK wants 65 per acre.
And this is good for Plainfield?
If JFK can't do anything with the property, then deed back the areas they can't use and turn it into a park. The city can use more open space.
This land belongs to the citizens of Plainfield who have donated funds and supported Muhlenberg during the last 100 years.
Why should we bow down to a non-profit corporate raider, who wants to make a buck by taking away services from Plainfielders, ruining our property values, and taking the money they make back to another community?
The Council can ask the Planning Board to consider a proposed zone or zone change, or the Planning Board can initiate the proposed change on its own or upon an application by JFK, but both Planning and Council are key players. Even if the Council favored the proposal, the Planning Board should require that JFK submit a complete application, with appropriate fees and escrow.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning details are worked out through Planning Board hearings, followed by an affirmative vote to move the change(s) forward. The proposal then goes to the Council for amendment(s) to the zoning ordinance.
If the proposed amended zoning ordinance fails to get Council approval, the zone change does not take place.
Should the zoning changes fail to get approval, or should JFK skip the Planning Board and go directly to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Zoning Board should not (and I believe would not) consider that application, since it would result in a zone change by variance.
The place to head off any undesirable changes to the Muhlenberg zoning is at the Planning Board, which can (and should) get JFK to fund the Board's own expert's review of the proposal through use of JFK's escrow payment ($1,000 minimum, adjusted upward to account for anticipated expenses).
As long as Jerry Green remains in the cabinet business, the only proposal on the table will be "luxury condo" related. Do the math: 600 condos = 600 kitchens. Every developer knows this is Green's bread and butter. Plainfield screams with potential - beautiful homes, history and people. One step forward with one seat ride to NYC (thank God for that even though it's in BETA stage), yet 10 steps back with this whole JFK debacle. If our elected officials genuinely wanted to preserve Muhlenberg, where were they when it closed?! Oh well, that's the beauty of democracy - it gives us a voice. We need to wake up and exercise it.
ReplyDeleteWhile you're doing that condo math if you assume one person apartment, we would need a new school because there is no space for them. My child attends Cedarbrook K-8 and my sister has a son at Evergreen, both of which are over crowded. Who's going to pay for a new school? Jerry's Cabinet business? The developer? JFK? No, the tax payers.
As if we don't already pay enough in property taxes!
DeleteAll of a sudden we are too good to have low income people live in our town ?? That was the excuse white communities gave for decades. Now if you are saying people who commit crimes are not wanted, then that is another thing.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect 12:58AM --
DeleteIt's not that anyone's too good for low income people in our town; in fact, 24.1% of Plainfield residents live under the poverty level and 7.6 live at 50% below the poverty level (2009 figures)link here: http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-Plainfield-New-Jersey.html
Both of the above referenced figures are 50% more than the state average. If you take a look around or do a little digging, Plainfield has it's fair share of low income/affordable housing, group homes, half-way houses, etc.
Part of Plainfield's economic hardship over the past several decades is, likely, due to the disproporionate increase in government subsidized housing, one family homes chopped up into 10 rentable units, slum lords and a lack of code enforcement -- all issues which, very likely, stem from the effects of low income housing.
Many of the neighborhoods where low-income housing exists in Plainfield, the areas are depressed, crime-ridden and there is no pride of ownership or community. Understandably, the idea of developing additional Section 8/low income housing anywhere in Plainfield is a fearful thought, moreso in the midst of a low density, well maintained, quiet community such as the Muhlenberg Campus.
Every homeowner deserves the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the investment they've made in their home without having to fear that their neighborhood will be negatively affected by what the historical trend has been when low-income housing is introduced into the middle of a financially stable neighborhood. Think: Newark, East Orange, Irvington.
Let's be thoughtful about the process, preserve what we have and work to find solutions that are inclusive and benefit all -- hard, but not impossible.
No, we are smart enough to know that we are not the only town where low income people can live.
ReplyDeleteWhat arrogance !! Poor people are not BAD people. People who have an attitude of Goverment OWES me something, therefor if I do not get it I will steal it from others, destroy [vandalize] what others have and push them to the ground as I walk by are BAD people. Give me a thousand poor hard working, going to church crowd anyday over the "Let's be like Tony Sopario & Snooki crowd"
ReplyDeleteWho is on the planning board? What can surround homeowners do if they wish to stop this?
ReplyDelete@Jeffer, no one intimated that poor people were bad. However, please do not delude your righteous self into believing that low-income housing will not lower surrounding property values.