The other choice was condemnation by power of eminent domain. In the "in need of redevelopment" study prepared by H2M Associates, non-condemnation was described as an approach that would yield "a more favorable working partnership between the property owner and the city." In public comment before the vote, the first speaker was land use attorney Steven J. Tripp, who said Muhlenberg was opposed to condemnation and recommended non-condemnation.
The accord boded well for further action, although it will now be up to the governing body to decide what happens next. If the council accepts the board's recommendation, their next step would be to ask the Planning Board for a redevelopment plan, which will then come back to the council for approval.
Jessica L. Giorgianni of H2M presented the report to the board as a crowd of residents looked on. The site in question is a parcel that will soon contain only the hospital, which has been vacant since 2008 except for a satellite emergency department that is moving to another building on the Muhlenberg campus. Giorgianni toured the empty hospital and gave a graphic description of the water damage, mold, rusty sewer pipes, crumbling floors and ceilings and other issues that make it unlikely to be rehabilitated. She said it is costing the owner $1 million to maintain the dilapidated site, in part because utilities are serving the whole building.
"This includes operating a chiller that is sized for a 600,000 square foot building for only a 15,000 square foot SED area," the report said.
Utility costs for the SED are estimated at $67 per square foot, where expenses for such a facility would typically be in the range of $3 per square foot, according to the owner.
In public comment, Tom Kaercher asked Giorgianni whether a title search was done. She said a full title search was not done. The issue dates back to the 2008 closing, when activists raised the question of restrictions on use of the property.
Giorgianni said the report was not looking at what could be done with the property, but whether it met criteria for being in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment.
Alan Goldstein asked for Councilman Cory Storch, the governing body's liaison to the Planning Board, and Economic Development Director Carlos Sanchez to go over the report line by line with the council so members know what they are approving. He said most of the boards and commissions know what they are doing, but "that can't be said for the City Council."
It is not known when the council will take up the matter. A resolution could be up for discussion at the Sept. 8 agenda-fixing session and, if moved to the agenda, be up for a vote at the Sept. 14 regular meeting.
--Bernice
David Rutherford was right. As always, Bernice, your blog informs us. Thank you. -J-
ReplyDeleteThe only thing the City Council would be doing at this point is to accept the conclusion that this property is in need of redevelopment, and sending it back to the Planning Board, so that it can start a study addressing what should actually be done with that land. This does imply that the owner, or a potential buyer, will have some specific ideas to propose, but does not imply that the Board will go along with it.
ReplyDeleteAs for eminent domain, I agree that this is too big a thing for Plainfield to do. However the State could pursue condemnation too, and that is more realistic. The State has a multimillion dollar mortgage on the Muhlenberg property, but I think it will ultimately have to be cancelled and forgiven, so that JFK's asking price would plummet. I frankly do not care how many millions JFK loses in the deal.
If I become an Assemblyman, Muhlenberg's rescue will be my very first priority. You don't see Jerry Green lifting a finger for this purpose, either in past years or currently.
Jennifer or Jessica??
ReplyDeleteJessica! Thanks for catching that. I had the name in front of me. Must be blogger's fatigue.
DeleteCity Administrations have been in one way or another complicit in the "waste" that has befallen Muhlenburg by allowing it to continue unabated since the closing in 2008. Code Enforcement could have been used to prevent or order repair of "water damage, mold, rusty sewer pipes, crumbling floors and ceilings," etc., to preserve the facility, and collected fines to "pay the freight" along the way. Is that a fair assessment?
ReplyDeleteA side note: met a woman whose bio said she was born in Plainfield. When I mentioned I am a Plainfielder born and raised, she assured me that she had no connection with Plainfield; she grew up in Summit. Muhlenburg was the reason her birth was in Plainfield. She seemed to resent that connection while I always think both are grounds for pride.
It's evident that JFK had no intention of selling Muhlenberg. Their failure of maintaining Muhlenberg since 2008 is the smoking gun. JFK may have bought Muhlenberg, but they never bought the land. The land was donated to Plainfield back in 1877 to build a hospital. It's in my opinion that JFK should refurbish it for sale or tear the building down and foot the bill. And no way be allowed to build condos on land they neve own in the first place. JFK bought a business not the land.
ReplyDelete