The takeaway for developer Joseph Forgione late Monday night, as suggested by Council President Bridget Rivers, was that he should meet with Councilwoman Diane Toliver, who heads the Finance Committee, to "renegotiate the PILOT and come up with a win-win."
The PILOT is a 30-year tax abatement plan that was negotiated between the developer and the city with the help of a redevelopment attorney that the City Council previously agreed to hire. With all due respect, Toliver has less than one year's experience on the council and her business expertise relates to operating her beauty salon.
The formal redevelopment process, which has been underway for a year, has many steps involving both the Planning Board and the governing body. Forgione apologized for any misunderstanding Monday, but also explained that he thought the council's participation in the process meant they were informed.
The situation reminded me of one from many years ago, when a developer who had been working with local officials for three years finally came before the council and got such a rude reception that he walked out and dropped the project. Forgione does not seem to be in that state of mind, even though Councilwoman Gloria Taylor made a crack about "money under the table." When finally permitted to speak, he assured Taylor there was no wrongdoing involved.
Forgione even offered to have his architect flown in from Virginia to address council concerns. At the Aug. 6 Planning Board meeting, he had not only architect Angela Kostelecky on hand, but also attorney Andy S. Norin, planner John McDonough, traffic engineer Craig Peregoy and engineer Brett Skapinetz.. The Planning Board had an engineer, James Giurintano, to cross-examine Forgione's witnesses.
The Planning Board hearing will continue at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in City Hall Library.
Smiley suggested there could be a special meeting for the City Council to act on the two ordinances needed for the project, one for the PILOT agreement and another to vacate a portion of Old South Avenue. No date has been announced for a special meeting. If the ordinances pass on first reading this month, they could be passed on second reading and final passage in September.
Among reasons for urgency on the PILOT, Sanchez said it is needed so Forgione can obtain financing for the project. Forgione needs to close on contracts for the 11 lots involved and he also hopes to clear the site before bad weather sets in.
Besides commenting on the blog, citizens with opinions on the PILOT can also contact council representatives directly at their phone numbers and email.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Convincing your customer to buy a bottle of Nexus shampoo with the perm they just got vs a $50,000,000 investment with a PILOT...yeah, ok, uh-huh...
ReplyDeleteSo frustrating seeing the closed minded thinking that some in this town have. Any little change elicits such hysteria. Plainfield has the opportunity for one of its single largest investments in decades, something that could really spark growth for the city and people want to help the developer look for property in another town to build his project on - or worse, ask him to build an olive garden so that we can have terrible food and 20 low wage jobs. Frustrating may not be the word - maybe the word is sad or pathetic.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rutherford has posted the video of the council discussion on the South Avenue development on his blog, Plainfield View--it is "must see" viewing so that those who were not in attendance can see and hear the whole sad thing--it's about 40 minutes long. The comments about "playing games" and "alternative lifestyles," whatever that means (it's usually code for something), were particularly distressing to hear. Taylor expresses such disdain for yoga, of all things...YOGA. We have yoga here in town! Where has she been? Her comments about who might be moving in...she asks.."who's to say that Plainfielders even want to do the things promoted" by the developer--such as yoga--she asks whether it fits "this community", meaning Plainfield. Yoga?? Maybe she needs to go and see how popular all the local yoga classes are before making such an outlandish statement! Then, she says, "...other folk? Who are we talking about? And I'm going to be very specific...we're talking about white...or black professionals...are we talking about gay couples...are we talking about couples with husband and wife...I mean, what are we talking about..and why is that the way we should go...?" She actually thinks that she (and her "constituents") should decide WHO should come to Plainfield??? Doesn’t she know that discrimination is illegal?? Does she think that "white" and "black" professionals don't already live here? Does she think that "gay" people don't already live here? And the "couples with husband and wife" comment...I guess she doesn't realize that we have marriage equality in NJ...sounds like that was added to cover what could be construed as homophobic words--why would she care if gay people moved here? Why would she think that she and her "constituents" would GET TO DECIDE who moves here? Then she goes on a rant about who can afford to live in this new development. Perhaps she doesn't understand that the people who can pay the rent will live there—just as everywhere. I live in a building and I pay the rent to live there. What is she talking about? The information on this development was widely disseminated to the public and to the council going back over a year and a half, the council HIRED the redevelopment counsel, approved the need for redevelopment, there have been PUBLIC HEARINGS every step of the way, as per the law—Councilwoman Taylor was present. Mr. Sanchez has been very open with us, the developer has discussed the project at the Planning Board meetings—which are PUBLIC MEETINGS that the council has every right to attend, and now she is trying to act as if she has been left in the dark. It was my hope that the council would look at this project as the spur to further development in our city…$50 million…I was hoping that that would be the legacy of this council. Now…I think the legacy may just be…nothing.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
Much of what Gloria Taylor says at Council meetings has little to no value -- it's usually a lot of double-talk and grandstanding and way too much self-importance. She often utters non-sense which if you carefully listen is bitter, angry, hateful speech - using certain code words.
DeleteIt's time to start calling Gloria, her gal pals and her outspoken public supporters on their language and their hate.
Let's call it for what it is -- if it was a white person uttering what comes out of Taylor, her council pals and their friends, there would be an outcry in the African American community.
Change is happening all around Gloria and company -- they're losing ground and they don't know how to manage it, so they will do or say anything to keep from sinking; what they don't realize is that they've already begun to descend in to the abyss.
Lalo - well said. Gloria is a fool who would be excellent on Fox News where they like to just toss out hyperbole and innuendo as if they were facts.
DeleteIt will be a great day when she is tossed out - either at election time or if a recall of some of these dopes can get any traction.
I just hope their constituents know that very little has been done for them by this part of the council. Gloria just likes to hear herself talk - doing anything constructive isn't of interest. That goes for Rivers, Toliver and Greaves as well. Sadly Brown is just a disappointment. She at times seems to genuinely want to help moves things forward but sadly is also ineffective at the end of the day.
I will also add that Williams could stand to stay until the end of the meetings. I am sure she gets frustrated by the show that goes on around her but leaving early out of frustration (assuming that is the case as I have seen it happen many times before) isn't a really helpful maneuver.
Many on this council are ill informed, even when they have been given all of the information they need. Diane Toliver is not in any position to make changes to the Pilot. When experts the Council approved and other experts have come up with this, questions are fine, but to intimate that wrong doing has gone on and "under the table" things have happened is just dirty politics. Some of our Sharon lovers don't have any right to talk about anything "under the table", especially when they would not agree to a forensic audit and backed Sharon on the shady deals she and her minions did during eight of the worst years Plainfield has ever seen. Let's be honest and real. Rivers, Taylor, and Toliver have a right to ask questions, but their behavior here is almost impeachable.
ReplyDeleteI just watched David’s video. To Gloria Taylor, I cannot not wait until your time is up, I promise you, you will not be re-elected to the 3rd ward. You are the only one that think they have power that they actually don’t have. Council members, if you wanted to be included you should have made yourself available and attended some meetings. Why were you not at the planning board meeting a couple of weeks ago? If you were, you would have seen the entire plan. Keep in mind, it’s your job as an elected official to make yourself available in presence and knowledge. Now you want everyone to kiss your butts as if you all were the Queens of the city. Affordable housing - we DO have more than our fair share and don’t need any more. Should we build new rental units full of amenities and rent them for a $1.00 because that’s what some can afford. After listening to your comments it’s evident that you were coached by Jerry Green. I’m sure after his greedy little pockets are greased you will be singing a different tune.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, Rivers and Brown are so ghetto they can’t’ see beyond the projects. Unfortunately, this isn’t even about the Pilot being requested. It’s about power that some on the council think they have, but don’t, and getting permission from the man that still think he controls Plainfield. Gloria make sure you can count the votes in November. The four (or should I say five) of you make my stomach turn with your ignorance and arrogance.
Woooow ....... !
ReplyDeleteThis is almost like the days of Mitchell vs Taylor !!
Let's not confuse talk of the project with talk of the PILOT. The redevelopment project was started last year, but when was the PILOT first mentioned- last year or last month? If last month, council has a right to be angry at having a demand for a multi-million dollar subsidy sprung on them. If the PILOT was kept secret until last month, one can rightly question who was acting in good faith? So when did it first come up?
ReplyDeletehttp://ptalker2.blogspot.com/2015/08/planners-hear-south-avenue-proposal.html
DeleteThank you for your rationality.
DeleteHaving a pilot agreement to bring a business that would hire Plainfielders would be a good deal,but using a pilot for rental property with not enough parking or green space is a bad idea. Council should VOTE NO till the developer changes the plans for more parking and green space.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the link, Bernice. So the PILOT wasn't publically mentioned until August 6th. Seems a lack of good faith to wait so long in the development process before springing it on the council.
ReplyDeleteThe Council members had plenty of time to attend meetings and read the PILOT. Don't defend them for not doing their job. How much time should we give them, months or years. Get real. The PILOT wasn't finalized months ago and had to pass through lawyers and other experts. It may need to be modified, but this plan has been in the making for a year and a half with Council blessings up to this week.
ReplyDeleteI applaud Council Members who refused the tax abatement. There were many problems with this proposal and I believe there has been a lot of deception, starting with the alleged cost of the building. It doesn’t look like a $50 million project. I also thought the proposed apartment building was unattractive.
ReplyDeletePlainfield is an extremely desirable city, with gorgeous architecture and close proximity to one of the greatest cities in the world. I don’t think we need to entice developers with tax breaks and I don’t think we need additional housing. Plainfield has a vacancy rate of 12%.
Growing up in Plainfield in the 1970s, I experienced a Plainfield that was much quieter with lighter traffic. With the building up of surrounding communities since then, there is much more traffic throughout the main thoroughfares of Plainfield. Let’s not consider adding traffic. Let’s consider preventing our city from becoming far too congested.
Let’s work together on re-establishing a hospital in Plainfield. Bad decisions by elitist political officials along with the nationwide problem of intense racism against poor black people and poor immigrants has financially destabilized the lives of most people living in Plainfield. The illegal closure of Muhlenberg hospital has led to the premature deaths of many.
As Adrian Mapp stated in the above video, his agenda is to “stabilize” property taxes, and so he is appealing to the desires of the well to do. He is a fiscal conservative. And now he is attempting to rule as a dictator with his proposal to replace the Planning Board with a private entity in the guise of saving money.
If we think creatively, we can improve Plainfield without displacing and brutalizing the poor and working class but instead, ensuring their basic needs are met.