As Dan reminds us, Mayor Adrian O. Mapp has called a special meeting for 7 p.m. tonight (Monday, Aug. 31) in City Hall Library with two items, the "payment in lieu of taxes" for the South Avenue Gateway project and vacating a portion of Old South Avenue.
The possibilities are 1. Lack of a quorum, 2. A quorum rejecting the ordinances or 3. Passage of the two ordinances on first reading, which would mean possible final passage on Sept. 14 if a council consensus agrees at the Sept. 8 meeting to move them to the agenda.
Either No. 1 or No. 2 could sink the project, as Dan suggests, because the developer needs to acquire almost a dozen properties and clear them off to make way for the 212-unit apartment complex. Further delay into late fall or early winter could upset the developer's timetable and as we all know, time is money.
Perhaps since the Aug. 17 meeting at which several council members lambasted the deal and declined to act on it, council questions have been answered. But as with the defeat of the police dispatcher ordinance, there may be a whole other issue, offstage to the public, that will impact some council members' votes. Only those in the know will be able to connect the dots.
The dispatcher ordinance failed, it seems, because a quid pro quo didn't go through. Plainfield already has a reputation as a tough place to do business. If deals hinge on totally unrelated issues, how can any developer operate in good faith? A developer becomes an unwilling third party to some unseen intrigue between two powers in situations like that.
Whatever the outcome tonight, let us hope that it will happen according to the fact-based opinions of the deciders and not anything else. And should the ordinances pass tonight, again let the same hold true on Sept. 8 and Sept. 14.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We do not need more apartments in the city. We do not need to give tax breaks to developers,especially when John Stewart has his hand in it.
ReplyDeletePlease provide facts to support your statement.
DeleteThe use and length of tax abatements should have been on the docket from the minute a PILOT was mentioned in connection with the South Avenue Gateway project over one year ago, and certainly before the City Council voted to ask the Planning Board to launch an investigation to determine if the parcels were "in need of redevelopment", which was also over a year ago.
ReplyDeleteGoing forward, those concerned with the implications of exemptions would be best served by reading the analysis of the NJ State Comptroller's report "A Programmatic Examination of Municipal Tax Abatements" released five years ago- http://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf
At this late stage, I am still in favor of approving the 30-year PILOT as a necessary inducement to making this project fly, that will provide over $7 million in added revenue to the city's coffers.
If the Council wants to throw its weight around, it should do so now, ASAP, prior to the hashing out of the terms of the actual Redevelopment Agreement. That is a different issue entirely, and the Council should seek minimum guarantees for the employment of the largest number of Plainfield residents and subcontractors during construction, and contributions, either one-time or ongoing, to the school district to fund the implementation a specified program. It wouldn't be so bad if this program were in some fashion related to the business of construction and development.
Hi Bernice,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding everyone. I will be there after a 7 p.m. meeting, I hope. If there is no quorum I think the people in this city should consider recalling certain Council Members or docking them a few month's pay. This is not a situation we should be in and this PILOT is no surprise to most of us in the city, so if it is to certain Council members, then they are playing politics and should be canned.