Thursday, August 20, 2015

Welcome Back, Mr. Rucker

Tony Rucker, a former City Council candidate in two past elections, has emerged anew with many thoughts on development. Here's one comment:

The JMT PILOT:The Council SHOULD make a component of a larger Deal

#1 If there is such a high demand for apartments on the a South Ave Corridor why does the city need to offer a PILOT to incentivize investment in the first place? 

#2 There is already tremendous pent-up demand for more upscale goods and services from the EXISTING 50K+ of Plainfields residents. Why don't the council advocates of this PILOT use this tool for things their constituents are already begging for.

#3 Finally, The council shouldn't place this PILOT on the agenda until it is a part of a much more comprehensive development plan that includes commercial development, entertainment venues and other attractions which every resident of this city would benefit from. Now that's the kind of project that deserves PILOT approval. 

Respectfully submitted. 


While Mr. Rucker was otherwise involved somewhere, Landmark Developers finally moved forward on plans for both sides of Gavett Place by the main train station. One is Art Lofts, which Council President Bridget Rivers praised in a groundbreaking last year. As one can see by clicking on the link, the project envisions market-rate residential units along with entertainment and restaurant compnents on both sides of Gavett Place. There is also the notion of making an adjacent portion of North Avenue a pedestrian plaza, as reflected on the new transit-oriented development maps on the city web site.

A lot has happened since we last heard from Mr. Rucker. The maps are a good tool for catch-up, as is the blog, if I may say so. (BTW, it's JMF, not JMT.)

--Bernice


16 comments:

  1. Thank God he didn't win the election. Every comment is in a vacuum. You work development from multiple angles and you manage opportunities as people show up with the checkbooks. The projects are managed against a master plan.

    Tony assumes that this is the only opportunity in Plainfield at the moment without doing any homework to see what other activity is starting based on the possibility of this project happening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I deleted this comment by accident (trying to use the smartphone's teeny screen):

    Did anyone see the infomercial on the local cable channel? It highlighted a lot of the project plans for new development in Plainfield and include the Mayor, most of the administration, some investor and some council people including Rivers. I was very impress with all the changes that in progress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tony is living in a magic world where no other town is looking for investment and Plainfield is in a bubble of its own. South Ave. is desirable because it more like Scotch Plains and upgraded. Plainfield is not the only town with desirable areas and other towns have a much better reputation than Plainfield. That's the reality and to move investment here we need, as the other towns do, give investors an incentive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tony, since you may have just arisen from a long winters nap, we need to offer a PILOT to get them here to begin with. Opportunities have come and gone with numerous proposals over the years. Only the failed Monarch has come to fruition plus the few that Landmark has completed. Thankfully more are in the works. PILOTS send the money straight to the Citys coffers to use as they see fit. Offering a PILOT will entice others to come to Plfd to build. Jersey City has been using them for years and look how well it is doing. You dont hold up one to put together others. You approve one and the others follow.

    Many of Plainfields 50K residents live in substandard rental housing in the city. Having new, modern apartments with amenities available will be a bonus for the residents living here who do not wish to buy, but deserve and can afford new. It will also attract new residents to the City as well as some who left for greener pastures.

    As to entertainment venues... if you are thinking movie theaters you can forget it. Will never happen. They shut down and bulldozed the big one down in Newark because of shootings and violence. The same rule applies here. You also have other options in nearby communities so they would be too close to build another. A theater for plays, shows or concerts might work if you can find an operator willing to take it on and an affordable location to do it in.

    But welcome back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Rucker. May want to rethink your desire. Are you asking for one developer to rebuild the town. 50 million dollar project is not good enough for you. Developers should be welcome block by block. Your thinking is what brought plainfield to this. This is good in addition to all else that started. Project like this stir additional projects. Think that way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sssshhh!!! Tony Rucker go back to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello to all,

    I understand for some in Plainfield there is an almost desperate desire to see new development. Some may criticize me but the kind of development that materializes and how that development is financed, are to me at least, legitimate concerns. I'm not against this project. I just think providing a 30 year PILOT is unnecessary to secure it.

    Year after year, we have all waited for developer driven taxpayer-subsidized high density residential units to lead Plainfield to the promise land.The idea is >>increasing population density will increase consumer demand for the types of commercial development and ammenities we ALL want. Plainfield already has the density, demand and demographic to support this kind of nonresidential development and at the next council meeting I will substantiate my claims. We can do better.

    So why the same old song about us needing more high density units? Simple, Plainfields development has been almost exclusively driven by developers, politicians and the real estate community whose short-term interests don't necessarily align with our city's long-term needs. Until the stakeholders and the citizens of Plainfield are equal and active partners in orchestrating Plainfields emerging future, true transformation of our city can't take place.

    Now regarding the "Welcome Back, Mr. Rucker" post itself, made me smile to tell you the truth. Why I was singled out I have no idea but I have lots of respect for Bernice and didn't consider it a slight in any way. I'm a proponent for the kind of development in Plainfield some say is impossible. But that mentality of "its impossible" never built the first skyscraper or put the first man on the moon. Being criticized goes with the territory and frankly they've never built a monument for any critic. See you guys at the next council meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony – this post is so full of non-information and hyperbole that it is scary. Lets take them point by point - in two parts. PART ONE:


      TR: I understand for some in Plainfield there is an almost desperate desire to see new development.
      **I am not sure I would say desperate – eager is probably the less dramatic way to phrase is.

      TR: Some may criticize me but the kind of development that materializes and how that development is financed, are to me at least, legitimate concerns. I'm not against this project. I just think providing a 30 year PILOT is unnecessary to secure it.
      **Tell us how you think the financing of this project is bad? Considering the PILOT is not the financing, I would be interested to hear the details from your perspective on how JMF has financed this project and why their choice of financing was so poor.

      TR: Year after year, we have all waited for developer driven taxpayer-subsidized high density residential units to lead Plainfield to the promise land.
      **Who is the “we” that has been so eager to have taxpayer driven development? And other than not contributing to the school system – how is this a burden on Plainfield taxpayers? There will be MORE money coming to the city under this PILOT than with the status quo.

      TR: The idea is >>increasing population density will increase consumer demand for the types of commercial development and ammenities we ALL want.
      **Is that the idea? Because I don’t think that is the idea at all. Adding 212 units will not make a measurable change to the population density of Plainfield. We have the 33rd highest population density in the state (8,255/sq mile). The idea is to create a different type of rental option in Plainfield that does not exist.

      TR: Plainfield already has the density, demand and demographic to support this kind of nonresidential development and at the next council meeting I will substantiate my claims. We can do better.
      **If there is so much demand and the demographic just calls out to developers to create non-residential properties, where have the developers been hiding? Typically developers go where the demand is – that is how they make their money after all. Maybe they just haven’t had a few minutes with Tony Rucker to show them where this demand is located and how they can have a great ROI.

      Delete
    2. PART TWO:

      TR: So why the same old song about us needing more high density units? Simple, Plainfields development has been almost exclusively driven by developers, politicians and the real estate community whose short-term interests don't necessarily align with our city's long-term needs.
      **Tony, last I checked developers and the real estate community drive this everywhere. Governments facilitate the process but there has to be a developer that is interested in investing. And where do you get this information that allows you to paint with such a broad brush? If a developer is building a project and plans to hold the project for 10, 15 or more years, wouldn’t you say that he is somewhat aligned with the city around him. Based on something I call “research”, JMF is a developer/manager of their properties. They building them, manage them, maintain them and hold them for a long period of time. That is a developer that is interested in being aligned with the city around him – to protect his investment.

      TR: Until the stakeholders and the citizens of Plainfield are equal and active partners in orchestrating Plainfields emerging future, true transformation of our city can't take place.
      **You have got to be an attorney because this says nothing. It is total empty fluff.

      TR: Now regarding the "Welcome Back, Mr. Rucker" post itself, made me smile to tell you the truth. Why I was singled out I have no idea but I have lots of respect for Bernice and didn't consider it a slight in any way. I'm a proponent for the kind of development in Plainfield some say is impossible.
      **Another empty statement. You are a proponent of development that some say is impossible – however, the type of development that you support isn’t clear. Unless of course you are referring to the type that is not driven by developers and the real estate industry – so apparently that is the amish type where we all meet in the town square and raise ourselves a retail space one weekend.

      TR: But that mentality of "its impossible" never built the first skyscraper or put the first man on the moon.
      **You realize that both of those these “impossible” things were subsidized by the government right?

      TR: Being criticized goes with the territory and frankly they've never built a monument for any critic.
      **You really are just making this stuff up as you go aren’t you? No monument was ever built for a critic? Jefferson ring a bell? He was a huge critic of John Adams administration – among others. The list goes on.

      Delete
    3. Did Plainfield recently acquire more land? The last I checked it was only 6.034 sq mi.
      Any increase in population is a burden on the city as a whole. Keep in mind this is just one unit of many. There is more apartments being built that can total more than 1000 residential rental units, it does make a difference.

      Delete
  8. ANON 7:23/7:24

    First off, it makes me giggle when people are so adamant about their ideas and not have the spine to attach their name to their own thoughts.

    Anyhow, since you spent so much time ANON 7:23 vetting my comment I'll respectfully address a few of your points.

    #1 To your point a PILOT isn't financing the deal. Well, The taxpayer subsidy IS a major component of getting approval for the financing package of the developer. If you were going to buy a home imagine if Wells Fargo knew your property taxes would never go up because all the other taxpayers in your town would pay any further increases on your behalf. Even if this project adds "new rental options" to Plainfield it doesn't merit a 30 year PILOT.

    #2 I want a more diverse tax base and would use PILOTS to incentivize commercial development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony - #1 - your scenario is interesting but doesn't change anything in my opinion. It can make a development more appealing to financiers yes - and part of that could be the fact that the tax rates in this state are such a hot mess that that can be required to to anything of significant size. Also - you can build all the commercial property you like but if your town becomes commercial central it isn't very appealing. Its the chicken and the egg - you need the market first then you get the commercial - and when the commercial is coming in serve a strong market, that is when you have leverage to negotiate and NOT do a pilot for those developments.
      #2 - how is this development not creating a more diverse tax base? Approx 400 additional residents - in a captive "walkable" district, who will need shops and services near by. Shop that will need to hire people to provide services - shops that will pay property taxes (or their landlords will). It is basic supply and demand - you just use an incentive to create the demand. Building commercial property creates a supply - that will sit here until we attract the demand.

      Delete
  9. BTW ANON, Jefferson was POTUS. I "think" that's why he has a monument not because he criticized John Adams who he ended up becoming the closest of friends.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tony - lets try this another way - Jefferson was POTUS and he was a critic on a large scale (which was your point after all). Lets set the Adams reference aside as that seems to be causing you to not see the forest for the trees. Lets go with, Jefferson was an enormous critic of England. So that takes us back to your comment about nobody building monuments to critics. In short - yes they do. Just because that critic eventually gained a high title doesn't change anything. For a less titled example we could go with Mark Twain - there are monuments to him and he was a very well known critic.

    My arguments are good for you - since you are a critic of the south avenue project - so this won't exclude you from getting that monument some day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ANON 9:52

    Whose name is dependent on time. The debate you're trying to have with me is irrelevant. Bottom line this PILOT is a tax subsidy the City doesn't need for development but I'm sure he'll take it if we give it to him. Over and out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Welcome Tony back into the fray! I love a good debate. This is how you see different sides.
    Nancy Jordan

    ReplyDelete