The 96-unit subsidized housing complex has a prospective buyer who needs transfer of an existing "payment in lieu of taxes" agreement in order to proceed and has offered to increase the amount from 6.28 percent to 10 percent of the rent proceeds. The buyer, Liberty Village Estates Urban Renewal LLC, also proposed electrical and plumbing upgrades, a new community room, a communal laundry and other improvements.
Unless the company can get approvals needed for a HUD contract by May 1, the subsidized housing complex could move to market rate rents, an attorney for the company said at the April 7 meeting where the PILOT resolution lacked consensus to be put on the April 15 agenda. Rivers dismissed the idea of time constraints and said action would be taken at the regular meeting, but numerous speakers last night challenged the proposal. Among them was former Councilman Malcolm Dunn, who served on the Housing Authority when the complex was developed. Dunn urged the council to seek concessions.
Resident Mustapha Muhammad also called for caution, characterizing the deal as "last-minute politics being thrown at you from this administration." Muhammad said it has been eight years since the community room has been used and said, "The owners need to be accountable."
Attorney William Eaton, representing the buyer, enumerated all the proposed improvements including the increased PILOT amount and explained that the current owners, Liberty Community Associates, face expiration of their Section 8 contract. He said he worked with the previous administration last year on the PILOT proposal and with the management to improve their performance score, but Rivers and others on the council insisted they did not have enough information.
Eaton said he would be happy to meet with them, but the principals were observing a religious holiday and would not be available until Thursday. He said the company owns 6,000 units of affordable housing and will obey a local ordinance that gives city residents first consideration for jobs at the complex.
However, nothing Eaton or the city's Economic Development director, Carlos Sanchez, said persuaded the council to take action Tuesday.
"This is like a rush, rush, rush," Rivers said. "We have two meetings in May," she added, alluding to what she said was a May 31 expiration of the Liberty Village rent vouchers.
According to a special report of the National Housing Trust on Expiring Section 8 Contracts, the Liberty Community Associates contract expires on May 6.
Liberty Village Estates Urban Renewal LLC sought the PILOT approval in order to effectuate a May 1 transition. The vote to move the resolution to the agenda Tuesday required five affirmative votes, but only Rebecca Williams, Cory Storch and Tracey Brown voted "yes," with Rivers, Vera Greaves, William Reid and Gloria Taylor voting "no."
--Bernice
With the demagogues and hucksters coming out against improvements and a 59% increase in PILOT fees, one can only guess that they're holding out for some piece of the action.
ReplyDeleteLooks like green didn't get his "donation" yet so this is what we get improvements get put on hold.
ReplyDeleteJune 3rd can't get here soon enough and unfortunately we have to wait till January for this obstructionism to end.
Now we know the urgency. The PILOT tax cut will expire on sale unless there is a modification approved by the council. But, this only puts money in the owner's pocket, the very owner who has underinvested in Liberty Village for 30 years. Without approval of a transfer, the owners will have to reduce their selling price because of higher taxes. Approval gives them millions, millions as a reward for letting the property deteriorate.
ReplyDeleteAnd who pays? It is the Plainfield School System and other tax payers! Low PILOT rates eliminate school taxes. Let the PILOT expire, and the Plainfield School System will have a new source of revenue. That will reduce tax increases for the rest of us. The buyer offers to pay 10% of rent in PILOT taxes, about half the rate the rest of us pay, but the School Sytem still gets nothing.
I don't know if Rivers, who used to be on the school board, has taken this into consideration, but eliminating the PILOT is a plus for our school children and the other tax payers in Plainfield.
Thank you for that perspective.
DeleteThat's an interesting point Anon 11:54. I wasn't at the meeting, so I don't know if that was a reason given for opposition, but PILOT impact on schools is certainly valid, as pointed out by the NJ State Comptroller here- http://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/08_18_10_tax_abatement_pr.pdf
DeleteA portion of the payment for the school district should be factored into the agreement, and the City should take this into account going forward.
Of course there isn't much detail on the blogs concerning why some voted 'Yes' and some voted 'No'. So it sounds to me like politics gone awry, rather than politics used for bettering the community.
Please explain how the school system gains by eliminating the PILOT. Do you expect the present owners to pay taxes? Do you expect the Housing Authority if it takes over the property by default to pay taxes? IT is we the citizens and the city that gain by having a responsible owner paying more money and presenting an attractive code meeting residential property.
ReplyDeleteDoc how do you know the property owner will improve the units? I am resident here and we were told the owners that took over out property from the housing authority that they were going to improve the units and they didn't. So why do you have so much faith in these people do you know them personally. When you have been burnt so many times it's hard to trust again. Fortunately my unit is in tip top shape, but some of these units need a full make over. They took our community room its just awful
ReplyDelete1:29 I have no personal knowledge, like you I am not in any closed loop. But we must trust legal agreements, and if there is failure to go after the responsible party to the full limits of the laws. The present status of the complex represents a failure by administration- and it was not Mapp's- to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility. Too often code violation charges have been focused on certain few who have had the gall to challenge the 'city". and not on bad landlords. If the penalties for code violation are not strong enough to mandate compliance then they should be rewritten. There must always be an out for hardship. The community room has been gone for 6 years; who took your side?
DeleteI have been on the city council for 3 years. Not once since I have been here have the elected council representatives of the 4th Ward discussed the deterioration and abject living conditions at Liberty Village with me privately, publicly, at any of our council meetings, or with the public at any meetings--not even the annual town hall meetings that we hold in the 4th Ward. I get calls from 4th Ward residents, though, and I try to help them if I can. I was not one of the two other colleagues that Cory Storch mentioned last night who had a meeting with Jerry Green to discuss this company and this project last year, although I believe Councilor Rivers was, so perhaps she can tell you who the 3rd one was. Until Cory mentioned that meeting, the presumption was that Councilor Rivers was blindsided by the company--but if she was aware of the discussion regarding this proposal since last fall, why is she feeling rushed?
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting that Jerry Green railed against this proposal at the last HAP meeting, but yet here we find that he was the one who brought these folks to the table. What's going on? Curiouser and curiouser.
Rebecca
I would like to know the reason why those council members voted against this.
ReplyDelete1 - The city would get an increase in revenue - The council constantly talks about relieving the taxpayers of their tax burden, yet they voted no
2 - The new owners said that they would employ Plainfield people to help with the repairs that need to be done - The council constantly talks about needing jobs in Plainfield, yet they voted no
3 - There was a question asked if any other buyers were in the mix. My question to those councilors are - why are you interested in another buyer (especially if it means more time goes by before Liberty Village is fixed)? If you are suspicious about this buyer because of the Connelly properties, why would you not be suspicious of others?
4 - It has been two weeks, and I heard that the councilors did not want to be "railroaded into a decision". What railroad? You had two weeks to get questions answered, plus, Mr. Sanchez and the proposed new owner's lawyer were at the meeting to answer questions. ALL QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COUNCIL WERE ANSWERED. So again, what railroad? The council members who voted no still need more time? I ask them - for what? And have you arranged a meeting with those people who can answer your questions?
5 - The question about raising rents came up. My understanding is that HUD sets the rate. Currently, the maximum rent that renters will pay is 30% of their income. This is a federal law and the owners must abide by it. But, I do have a question here - if the HUD agreement expires in May, does that mean that the subsidy runs out and that the rent paid by the people who live in Liberty Village can go up?
I find it ironic that two of the councilors who represent the people living in the Village voted no. Several people said that Plainfield should hold out to get something for this. Frankly, as a Plainfield resident, knowing my fellow neighbors are living in a safe and clean environment is what I get out of it.
So, as we left the council meeting yesterday, those council members who could have helped the people living in deplorable conditions went home to their safe, clean, and comfortable homes, and people living in Liberty Village have no relief in sight from their deplorable conditions.
I would like to know from those who voted no - why?
Jeanette
I suspect this is Jerry's way to derail Mapp, he orders "his councilors" to obstruct the progress of Plainfield, Rivers, Reid, Taylor, and Greaves.
ReplyDeleteGreen meets with Storch and whom evers to start the deal and now he stops it?
Well, when the rents go up because the HUD runs out, how are these 4 going to squirm out of this?
LET THE PILOT RUN OUT AND LET THE UNITS BECOME FAIR MARKET VALUE.
ReplyDeletePolitics.. politics .. politics.. don't suppose the New Dem's will support reasonable candidates from another party who want the city to move forward??? Or is the lip service only good before the primary and after the election?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that we have to keep in mind is that the owners may just decide to walk away from this project. They operate 6,000 units in at least two states. Mr. Sanchez said that he visited one of their other properties in Bethlehem, PA, and found it clean, well-maintained, and with a community room and so on. If they do not get the PILOT, they said they would not be able to get the proper financing. So, they will most likely move on to some other city and find some other property to manage. The Plainfield residents who currently live at Liberty Village will then have to continue to deal with the horrible conditions that their council representatives and the last mayor ignored for all these years. HUD gave the current management a very poor rating. Randy Wood, according to Malcolm Dunn ( all people), said that the property is not worth what the buyer is willing to pay. This is in the absence of ANY actual data, of course. There's no reason to attach any veracity to any of these supposed statements, which are pure conjecture. None of what Dunn said made any sense, anyway. The residents of Liberty Village have no true representation of their interests. All they are getting is shafted by their own supposed representatives, who are willing to have them continue to suffer from bad living conditions. It's shameful.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
Aren't Reid, Taylor, and the rest the folks who are so interested in getting more "affordable housing" for Plainfield? Here's an opportunity to do so and they say no? What's the matter with them? Or are they looking for a payoff?
ReplyDeleteit's very simple, the deal was done without the usually suspects getting a cut. Now in the case of the Muhlenberg property, the fix is already in and the promise of palms being greased has been negotiated.
ReplyDeletePlease plan on attending the zoning board meeting tonight and let’s send a clear message to the city council, Jerry Green and JFK. Your plan to move the emergency room with the enticement of a new and improved medical facility is not want we want for the property if it comes attached with a 660 unit projects in the middle of our low density single family neighborhood.
Robin
Robin, it's the Planning Board, not the Zoning Board, that's meeting this evening to consider JFK's application. 7 pm at the Public Library.
DeleteWhat in the world is happening here? The screen shot says the expiration date is May 6. Why do the politicians feel its right to play games with us as the pawns? We can't afford to lose a affordable property. The Pilot is going up by more then 50% and the old owner is out of the picture. Why wasn't this approved months ago?
ReplyDeleteTo 8:30pm - If you are a resident of Liberty Village, I urge you to attend the community meeting on Monday. The people you elected to help you are the ones not approving this deal. Let your voice be heard, and I hope things work out for you.
ReplyDeleteHUD is not approving the loan, so if the new buyers aren't approved, my bet is you can expect a rent hike (although I do not know that for a fact).