Apartment Boom Raises Questions

Resident Tom Kaercher asked a number of questions in a comment on the new development maps.

I do not have the expertise to answer them all comprehensively, but I will give my perspective and I welcome further comments and responses from readers.
Note: In his March 13 newsletter, Mayor Adrian O. Mapp credited Assistant Zoning Officer Ron Johnson with creation of these maps. If you have not yet asked to be on the newsletter list, call the mayor's office at (908) 753-3310 and submit your email address. 

It seems as though all the new development is in new apartments, all which will contribute Plainfield's already overburdened infrastructure (schools, roads, etc.)

Yes, nearly all the proposed development currently is for residential units. Ironically, that was the trend suggested in a 2012 report on best uses for the Muhlenberg campus, which residents roundly condemned. By contrast, a decade or so ago a strategic plan for the city called for a 10 percent reduction in tenants, who comprised about half of Plainfield households, based on a notion that tenants are less desirable than homeowners. Now apartments, especially along the Raritan Valley Line, are deemed the key to revitalization.

Hearings on development applications often include projections of the impact on infrastructure, but the fact that cities already have sewer systems and streets is considered favorable in contrast to development where infrastructure must be created. On the other hand, the sewer system is more than a century old and many roads here were built in an age when the "horseless carriage" was just coming into use.

The PMUA just increased its sewer connection fee per unit, so there should be some offset for repairs and upkeep of the sewer system. The real dilemma may be providing parking for tenants. A downtown parking garage has been proposed, but it is unclear who will pay for it.

 Are there any new industrial developments underway that would bring permanent jobs to the City instead of just transitory construction jobs?

I do not recall any major industrial development coming in. I think one premise of transit-oriented development is that residents can more easily commute to jobs throughout the area. It appears that the city will continue to rely largely on housing stock for tax revenues. A lot of new city residents take public transportation or vans to nearby industrial jobs.

What, if anything, has been said about how the influx of all the new apartments will impact the tax base?

So far most of the apartments (Park Avenue, East Fourth Street) have been created in existing buildings. I don't know whether changing from commercial to residential use affects the tax rate. Replacing older or smaller buildings with new construction (East Second Street, South Avenue) should bring in more taxes. That is probably something for the Finance Director to discuss, especially if developers are seeking tax breaks.

 Is there sufficient demand for apartments in the city or are they destined to become more low income housing once the developers make their profit from constructing them?

I think only time will tell on that one. My concern is that once these apartments are developed, there must be landlords or managers to operate and maintain them. Bad management will drive market-rate renters elsewhere.  It is too early to say how it will play out, as only a few dozen new apartments have been occupied so far. One hopes some lessons were learned from the Connolly story, where one company acquired most of the multifamily buildings and then failed. Just as block associations look out for neighborhood concerns, there may need to be tenant organizations to uphold renters' rights, or perhaps some advocacy from City Hall. 

--Bernice