UPDATE: See David Rutherford's video of the final discussion and vote.
Negotiations on the development began about 18 months ago and on Aug. 20 Sleepy Hollow Developers Urban Renewal LLC received site plan approval from the Planning Board for the 212-unit apartment complex with an array of amenities. But Mayor Adrian O. Mapp and Economic Director Carlos Sanchez said the deal depended on approval of a 30-year "payment in lieu of taxes" plan. A council majority had declined on Aug. 10 to move it to the Aug. 17 agenda for a vote, and on that date refused to add it despite a presentation by developer Joseph Forgione to answer any concerns. Mapp called Monday's special meeting in another try for approval.
But the roll call Monday yielded "yes" votes only from Storch and Rebecca Williams, with Vera Greaves, Diane Toliver and Rivers voting "no" on the PILOT ordinance. Another ordinance to vacate a part of Old South Avenue to become part of the development also failed, 3-2. Tracey Brown and Gloria Taylor were absent.
Among concerns voiced in public comment, Mary Burgwinkle had urged approval, saying, "I fear the city's reputation will be impaired if we don't do this deal."
Others, including Schools Superintendent Anna Belin-Pyles and School Board President Wilma Campbell, spoke against possible effects on the district. Belin-Pyles was concerned about a possible future transfer of the property to another holder and Campbell foresaw a tax burden if state funding, which now pays most of the school costs, should "disappear."
Several speakers had concerns about how many jobs the project would create for city residents, especially for young people and minorities. Norman Johnson said "local qualified skilled contractors" should be included.
"With all the talk about economic development, what about human development?" he said.
The project was expected to create 300 jobs during construction and seven permanent jobs when completed, and Sanchez said a 10 percent minority inclusion had been negotiated.
George Lattimore, president of the Plainfield Minority Contractors and Vendors Association, and Oliver Brown of Oveter's Construction also urged minority inclusion.
Jim Spear spoke in favor of the PILOT, saying it would yield $10 million in revenues instead of $3 million. Spear said numerous businesses along South Avenue had failed for lack of customers.
"Something needs to happen there," he said.
Spear said the PILOT concept was known at the outset, and it was not the school district's problem.
"The problem is charter schools," he said, because they reduce district revenues.
Richard Stewart countered Spear's depiction of South Avenue, naming numerous restaurants but Dairy Queen owner Donna Albanese said, "We have eateries, but that's not enough."
Speaking of her family's 40-year tenure in Plainfield, Albanese said if the proposed development was approved, "It will grow and it will spread, and isn't that exciting?"
Special Improvement District President Nimrod Webb disapproved of the 30-year term of the PILOT, saying one downtown had not brought in any businesses.
The meeting was televised and viewers will be able to hear the entire hour of public comment as well as remarks by Mapp and Sanchez and the ultimate votes.
After the meeting was adjourned, there was a confrontation between a male resident and Councilwoman Diane Toliver. Much of the crowd had dispersed when the fracas broke out. As others tried to break it up, Toliver said, "I didn't push him, he came in my face." Her husband, former PMUA Commissioner Alex Toliver, interceded, saying, "Nobody touch my wife." Diane Toliver said, "He jumped in my face," and told the man, "If you don't like it, take me down." As her husband led her away, she said, "He had no right to get in my face. I'm a Christian and nobody touches me. God is my witness - no one will disrespect me."
The Tolivers headed off to file a police report, according to bystanders.
--Bernice
"If you don't like it, take me down." As her husband led her away, she said, "He had no right to get in my face. I'm a Christian and nobody touches me. God is my witness - no one will disrespect me." ....
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe there is a whole chapter in the bible right after LUKE alluding to "being disrespected" ... if you have to tell people you're a "Christian"...you're probably not too good of one.
It is unfortunate that RIchard Stewart's complacency with economic development growth in Plainfield is based on the longevity of the likes of Burger King and Wendy's.
ReplyDeleteDoes he not see both sides of the road?
These businesses are not permitted in the other towns he mentioned, much like our council leaders that he supports wouldn't be.
Anon 8:07 - you are so right. Richard must think a verizon dispatch center, empty lot, white castle and numerous empty buildings are a sign of a well developed area
DeleteIt ended in a scuffle, which was, I suppose, an appropriate outcome for a project where just criticism can be leveled in all directions. Bottom line is there needs to be a shake-up of all entrenched power bases in this city, from the City Administration, the City Council, the school district, the SID, the Chamber of Commerce, you name it. We're a microcosm of a broken system. It is no wonder that on a national level Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are doing so well. We don't know what will happen in 30 years, so maybe we should just curl up into a ball.
ReplyDeleteSharon was entrenched. This administration isn't and we need to fire some City Council members. There was nothing unusual or out of order in this agreement except some people didn't get money "under the table".
DeleteWhat a real shame and a real missed opportunity for Plainfield. I worry that Plainfield will be left behind when compared to other communities who have thrived with the times and gentrified their towns and cities for future generations. One does not have to go far to see the impact smart investing has on a community. Plainfield desperately needs a plan. When I moved to Plainfield 12 years ago it seemed like things were on an upward trajectory. Not sure we are headed in that direction anymore.
ReplyDeleteWe are being "left behind" and Jerry's kids aren't helping move us forward. I wonder what they get for keeping Plainfield down?
DeleteToliver almost knocked me down after her husband and others pulled her off the male resident involved. When I cautioned her she came after me and they had to pull her back. If she had knocked me down, believe me, assault charges would have been filed! She displayed the behavior of a a two-year-old having a temper tantrum--I guess that could be expected from someone who publicly asks to be "spoon-fed." Her behavior was absolutely bizarre. In 32 years of attending Council meetings I have never seen a Council member physically attack a member of the community--obviously there's something deeply wrong here. In any case, her behavior was unbefitting, to say the least, for an elected City Council member.
ReplyDeleteToliver's behavior is inexcusable. What a shame. She has shown that she is not mentally fit to server on the council. Her behavior was nowhere close to Christ-like.
DeleteDottie- DianeTolliver's behavior was unbecoming of a councilwoman representing The City of Plainfield. She was and is a loose cannon. Her husband went to console her and she punched him on the arm and told him, "Get Off Of Me!" He backed off saying, "She will be alright." And then- she allowed Norman to take her arm and escort her out of the library with her husband behind them repeating over and over, "She will be okay. " There is something not quite right with her behavior.
DeleteUsing the words of Trump- "she had blood coming out of her eyes!" In other words - she saw red.
This is a very sad turn of events for Plainfield. If there was in fact a quid pro quo my some individuals to receive personal gain in exchange for some of the puppet council members votes then there should be an investigation.
ReplyDeleteI think it is also time to start the recall process. There is no need to provide a reason for a recall but there are many reasons to choose from. Rivers is a fool, Toliver is a fool and requires spoon feeding and Taylor is a fool and has attendance problems.
The drama from Toliver is hysterical. Maybe the guy was just trying to spoon feed her.
ReplyDeleteWe need to fire Toliver, Rivers, Greaves, and Taylor. If there's a petition, let me know. I will not be the only one to sign my name in large letters.
ReplyDeleteWhen ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
ReplyDeleteThe ramifications of this tragic decision will endue for a generation, perhaps longer; perhaps forever. Regarding the apartments which are being constructed in the core of the city, to what end? They will be rented and occupied almost exclusively by the Latino population. The rents can be afforded by the simple expedient of having large numbers of people in each apartment. This new population will not inspire an upgrade in the character of downtown businesses, rather, it will perpetuate what already exists. To those of you who opposed the new development on the theory that the downtown should be upgraded first, please explain who is going to build a 3 or 4 star restaurant, or open a major brand clothing store, in the current environment? The horse is new apartments which attract middle income families, and the cart downtown development; not the reverse.To those who oppose the potential influx of school age children with potential to overwhelm the public school system, let them explain why Charter Schools are proliferating and Plainfield's public schools are in a state of academic free fall. Let those who have rejected the additional tax revenue I ask from whence shall this millions you rejected now come? I suppose the rejection of some number of construction jobs and 7 permanent jobs, at least in part, can be compensated for by adding 7permanent jobs at the PMUA. It remains a mystery how the business lost to local merchants can be compensated for so perhaps one of the naysayers can offer an explanation?
Beyond all this there is the pall that the cast over any prospects for future developers to make application. Certainly several hundred thousand dollars was spent, perhaps more, in the application process which has come to no avail. Who is the next guy that will have the financial temerity to get in the batter's box?
The best we can anticipate is a stasis, a none growth no change town. The worst a slow but definable degradation of our infrastructure and finances.
This ramble would be incomplete without a comment on Councilwoman Tracy Brown. Her continuing record of abstaining, or being absent, during critical votes, is disturbing. Perhaps being a woman of conscience and well educated she understands the issues and is sympathetic to many of those which the Council majority rejects. However, she does not want to go against the tide of the Council's opinion for reasons best known to her. If this assumption is correct she should not run again as her vote could have made significant difference to the taxpaying public. Her vote during the infamous PMUA vote could have saved the tax payers a cool million dollars. This time the swing was 7 million.
Bill Kruse
Bridget Rivers explained that Rev. Brown was with the family of the young man who was fatally shot. She is known for helping such families in their grief and with funeral arrangements.
DeleteAll well and good, but when one job conflicts with another, maybe then it is time to stop burning the candle at both ends.
DeleteThat the Reverend's priority was with her parishioners is both understandable and commendable. That Reverend Brown is an asset to the community as a pastor is undisputed. The problem arises when she enters the political arena. Previous negative comments regarding her political performance have resulted in parishioners condemning the commenter on the basis that Reverend Brown is a wonderful woman. There is a failure to distinguish between the Reverend Brown and City Councilwoman, or PMUA Commissioner Brown. This suggests that tit may be unwise for a religious of any denomination to hold public office.
DeleteThis said, it remains my opinion that given the importance of the issue that Councilwoman Brown could have voted by proxy. It may be recalled that after the PMUA vote to award the million dollars that Commissioner Brown, who was absent on that crucial night, attested that had she been present she would have voted against the award. Will Councilwoman Brown now a state how she would have voted regarding South Avenue had she ben present? Bill Kruse
This is such a sad turn of events for Plainfield. Unfortunately, there will be people that think this was not passed because it was a bad deal for the city - those people will believe only what supports their pre-conceived ideas. However, the reality is that this was voted down for pure politics. The show put on by some on the council (at the two prior council meetings) claiming a lack of involvement was performed on a day when some of those same individuals had met privately with the developer.
ReplyDeleteThere was obviously some sort of attempt at a quid pro quo or some sort of desire by Green to not support a project that involved Sen. Codey's son. Maybe because Codey is considering a run for Governor against Green's buddy Sweeney.
The result is that we have silly games being played at the expense of Plainfield to the benefit of the few. The quid pro quo would be yet another example of people attempting to "extort" personal riches at the expense of the city. These are the same people that for years have done nothing to lift up their neighbors unless it involves lifting themselves up more.
The only way to get the change Plainfield needs in order to progress is through elections. We have the opportunity to replace one Green vote on the council this November. We also have the opportunity to replace Green this November. I hope that people start to understand that their vote does matter and does make a difference.
I must disagree with Richard Stewart's characterization of "restaurants" on South Ave. I do not consider White Castle, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, and Burger King restaurants. They are fast food joints and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteRichard Stewart did not call them restaurants, that was my word, but Donna's word "eateries" may be more correct.
DeleteThe Netherwood.......Giovani's?
DeleteBernice was there a reason given for Goria Taylor's absence
ReplyDeleteI did not hear a reason stated.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOf course we have concerns and questions about apartment building and PILOTS, however, I am so disappointed that the council chose to vote against this project. The remarks by Councilor Graves and Toliver left me with the impression that they really didn’t fully understand the PILOT. Truth be told, I suspect their minds were made up before they entered the building and no matter what pros and cons were presented the outcome would have been the same. I can see the vision and the possibilities of economic growth it could encourage. The businesses along South Ave mostly consist of fast food restaurants and a few other food type of businesses, we need more. Not too long ago people were talking about economic development along East 2nd , I can see tenants from the South Ave complex taking a very short walk over to East 2nd to enjoy a meal and drink of their favorite beverage alfresco. I want so much more for Plainfield than what we have and I know we can do better and deserve more. Yes, there is a chance this project could turn out to be a flop with the landlord dropping the rents just to get people in there, but we will never know what we can accomplish if we don’t take a chance. The location is perfect for this project and even if the tenants didn’t spend all their money here in Plainfield it’s still a great plan and a great starting point. I head a lot of concerns last night, such as the builder may be inflating the cost, to we are never going to get the type of tenants the builder claim this development will attract. There’s a part of me that agrees with all of that but the business side of me views this as a great opportunity to progress. The Mayor mention the fact that crime is down and yes we applaud him and take pride in that but, we need to go a little further. I was hoping by now that we had a successful marketing and branding campaign in place to entice the type of people that we’re targeting for these apartment. I wonder who was sitting at that negotiating table? I would have negotiated a commercial in there with the developer as part of a marketing program, Plainfield needs a little extra build up. If we have such a marketing effort and I missed it, then I say it needs to be more visible to everyone. Not only is this type of project happenng in Westfield, Cranford and Fanwood but people are by-passing Plainfield and going to Somerville and Bound Brook to these same type of apartments.
ReplyDeleteSince this is by far the largest investment in Plainfield, I say we hold back on any other apartments that are not already in construction, , move this one forward and let’s see who actually rents these unit. Without doubt we need to take steps to measure its success for future reference that is clear and precise.
I sure would like to know who tried to extort two parking lots in lieu of a yes vote for the PILOT. Do tell!
How does one start to comment on the outcome of last evening? It ended in a scuffle. It kind of reminded me of a St. Joe's of Metuchen soccer match one year when I broke up a fight between 2 boys over a referee's bad call. No one won. No one is winning now.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is we as residents of Plainfield are losing.
DeleteCouncilor Tolliver LOST IT!!! When I saw her punch her own husband who was trying to calm her down then I stepped back. She was swinging her arms like she was being attacked.
DeleteIf you listen to the residents of Plainfield and the SID's President we do not need this apartment building, nor do we need to give a 30 year pilot. The people have spoken and for the first time the council was listening.
ReplyDeleteIt was obvious from the get-go that council members had already decided how they would vote--they didn't have to "listen" to "the people."
DeleteBernice is correct. I called them businesses. I can add Giovanna's to the list if you like (which should satisfy your definition of “restaurant”). You have Italian Village which just branched off into Frepe Tex Mex and two Seven Elevens. An appliance store and a Portuguese “eatery/restaurant” opened up this summer. All these and the ones I mentioned last night employ more than 7 people.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that businesses do exist and have existed on South Ave. They are the examples that show businesses can develop, grow, and survive if they are business savvy, well run, and engage the community.
I do not believe that you need to build a 200+ apartment complex with a 30 year tax abatement to attract possible additional businesses. We already have 50K people in the city.
The city should advertise those business success stories as a means of attracting potential businesses. Instead I constantly hear that this complex is our last hope to attract economic development.
I do not buy that doomsday sentiment.
Richard Stewart
You allude to the prosperity of the Plainfield population.. How does that comport with 2,000 foreclosures? How does it comport with the statistics that at last look showed 17% of the residents living below the poverty level. and a mean FAMILY income in the 30K bracket? It may not be Armageddon, but it isn't wine and roses. You consistently refer to building up businesses. Tell us your formula....in specifics, not high blown rhetoric. Bill Kruse
DeleteWhere are your specifics!!... Your name is constantly in the comments section but conveniently absent or silent at council meetings, budget meetings, and any other PUBLIC meeting.
DeleteYou criticize the past and try to debase any new voice who doesn't agree with your agenda.
I never alluded to the prosperity of the Plainfield community. Those are your words.
I do not know where you get your numbers from but I see a population improving their homes, new development around town (including the building directly across the train station and the one a few lots down from it), and a population who may not be as successful as you would like them to be but fair enough to clearly not want this 200+ complex on the hope of some future/potential economic gain (where there were no specifics on how the 400+ residents would attract new businesses). Simply claiming that the ideal tenant would be “walking wallets” is not a sound or complete economic plan.
Lastly, as a resident I have a right to voice my opposition or support to any administrative or council initiative presented to the city.
As a citizen, and not an elected official, I am not responsible for coming up with specifics at your beck and call that solve all your complaints.
You want specifics so bad you can gladly petition me into office with that responsibility. Until then look toward your elected officials for guidance and stop attacking the public. Even better you can speak with me at a town meeting and we can come up with some solutions to present as adults (without the personnel attacks, bullying, and whining)
Richard Stewart
I get the idea now - we have the four basic food groups so the area is good to go and nothing more need. So short sighted. Also interesting that Nimrod (Bernice don't delete post as that is his name) wasn't in favor of the development or PILOT. This is the guy that is the president of the SID and he is stating that 400 +/- captive audience customers for his constituents in the SID aren't needed? I would suggest that the SID members pick a new leader. Those new bodies could spend money at the Portuguese BBQ that Richard mentioned - the one that is on its second attempt at the them after the first one failed after a year.
DeleteIt would also be nice if Nimrod would clean-up his property a little - chain link fencing and a lot packed with cars that overflows into an empty lot across the street isn't very appealing. Not that we need to develop that empty lot - since we have the four basic food groups covered.
2,000 foreclosures? How does it comport with the statistics that at last look showed 17% of the residents living below the poverty level. and a mean FAMILY income in the 30K bracket?
DeleteI think those are pretty specific.
Correction Mr Richard Stewart was the Chair of CBAC in 2014 not 2013.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor said in the meeting that someone approached him and tried to extort a yes vote in exchange for two city owned lots. If this is true, this is a criminal offense and should be reported to the proper authorities.
ReplyDeleteI think the dining room table meeting is old news, but it may have come up again as a quid-pro-quo. The mayor doesn't make that clear, and the actual meeting may have taken place before Mayor Mapp assumed office. It was to be a giveaway of two parking lots on 2nd Street between Central and Madison in the waning days of the Robinson-Briggs administration. The developer was Cecil Sanders, and along with his sidekick Malcolm Dunn, they enlisted the Housing Authority to act as the middleman. But housing authorities can't acquire property that isn't subject to a redevelopment plan, and there wasn't one. At the same time, Sanders and Dunn were PMUA commissioners. Our municipal code prohibits public officials from contracting with the City, or peddling their own or other's ventures to any public body within the City. It came in front of the Council several times in late 2013 and again the following year, but despite the Council majority's eagerness to push the deal through, it was ultimately shot down on legal technicalities. While this was brewing, Dunn's daughter was the HAP chairperson, and the council president's sister was a HAP commissioner. It would be interesting if this has come up again, especially in conjunction with the South Ave. project. If that is the case, the mayor should get it out in the open.
DeleteI take that back. On rehearing the mayor's comments just now, he does allude to extorting one approval for the other. These characters never stop trying to use the city to line their own pockets.
DeleteThe councils rejection of the South Avenue project should be looked at as a beginning not the end our development future. Ultimately, Plainfield's future growth should never be contingent on any particular project or developer. In the long-run focusing on>>[Improving the Quality of Life Factors {Live, Work, Play} that our existing residents experience and >>Improving the surrounding communities perception(true or untrue) of quality of life within Plainfield] will drive demand to live in Plainfield and therefore invest in our city.
ReplyDeleteIn the short-run some say we needed the South Avenue project as a necessary catalyst for subsequent retail and commercial development. I respectfully disagree. The reason why Plainfield hasn't attracted more upscale amenities and retail investment is our city's development strategy is focused on TOD residential and mixed-use development. In order to create a more diverse and vibrant local economy we need PILOTS yes PILOTS supported by a planning/zoning strategy that focuses on attracting commercial and retail development.
We should also take steps to improve our business environment by fast tracking licenses and permits for targeted-types of investment, focus on maintaining clean streets and aggressively enforcing quality of life violations. These initiatives need to be supported by a marketing campaign that reaches both residents and neighboring communities to shows things are changing for the better.
Tony,
DeleteWe are not in the 80s any more. TOD is here and now and has been for almost 20 years. Look at the towns around us. All thriving because they have qualified people running them and educated people making decisions. The commercial development you speak of will never come to Plainfield, ever. They had their chance and blew it. And they just did it again. Do you have any idea how many developers were watching Plainfield to see how they handled this project? Quite a few. And they did exactly what they all knew they would do. Denied progress. It is a damn shame to keep seeing Plainfield being thrown under the bus.
Commerical PILOTS yes, residential PILOTS maybe. But here's a silly dream- PMUA trucks with a driver and no workers hanging off the back. It can be done in some, but not all, sections of the city, with current technology. Hows about designing a truck with a strong robotic arm that can handle those other parts of the city, and partnering with one of the major vehicle manufacturers to have it built right here in the Queen City. It'll save lots of money for our own solid waste collection efforts, and it can be sold worldwide. There would be a rebirth of manufacturing here and I would definitely offer a generous PILOT for that without question. What about it Mr. Mejias, new PMUA executive director? Any thoughts?
DeleteAnon 404, it already exists and is being used all over the country. Great idea, but a little late.
DeleteHello Jeff,
DeleteI disagree that rejecting the South Avenue deal means better opportunities aren't possible for Plainfield. Putting that aside for now, I do think your point about how the deal was handled warrants further scrutiny.
When you have a 50MM project on the line that requires council approval keeping the the governing body informed throughout the process is critical. So long before it's even placed on the agenda for consideration, critical details like... the developer's proposal is contingent on a 30 year PILOT should be common knowledge by ALL members of the council. In fact, the council should have been informed as soon as it was understood a 30 year pilot was a requirement to secure financing for the project.
The fact the Council President Rivers stated the specifics regarding the PILOT were not known until recently shows a failure on the administration's part to effectively communicate these critical details. That being said, I believe Mayor Mapp is a more than capable executive. Hence, I predict an improvement in communication between the administration and dissenting voices on the governing body.
In all fairness Tony, they all knew.
DeleteDo we all really think this was about the PILOT?
You are right Jim, this is not about the PILOT it's about not allowing this administration to succeed.
DeleteIt's about keeping the control/power of Plainfield as it has been for many years.
It's about those who only want for themselves and not for the betterment for all.
It's about keeping your Union County job.
Tony Once the Council confessed their ignorance there remained an opportunity to become informed. I am confident that had they had the will they could have sat down with a member of the Administration, or some knowledgeable educator of their choice, and in a short session acquired the information necessary to make a sound judgment.. In the alternative, if they had studied the provisions of the PILOT and thought them too generous they could have developed a counter proposal and presented it for the Developer's consideration. No Tony, the rejection had nothing to do with the Council's objection to, or lack of understanding. Or, the Administration's alleged failure to inform. TOD is a hope. This was real. Sleepy Hollow Developers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and dedicated countless hours in corporate overhead to develop the deal. TOD remains a dream. Your job is to implement the dream. Go to it.
Delete
DeleteHello Jim,
The Council President stated for record the councilmembers never were informed about a 30 year PILOT until within the last month. The administration did not rebuff her claim.
ANON 8:52
DeleteThe degree and stage which the governing body was being informed and their role in ongoing negotiations are important factors. If they had both early access and stature within the negotiation process and never made suggestions or objections throughout then ultimately voted "no", I would agree that is inexcusable and is not good governance. That's a big if though.
Tony- Three previous council actions laid the groundwork for a Long Term Tax Exemption. Council actions! Maybe the Mapp administration could have "spoon fed" the details of the PILOT better and sooner. But members of the Council appear to have paid little, if any, concern all along the way. Don't discount the mayor's contention about attempts to extort approval for the South Ave. PILOT in return for permitting the Council to scam two free city parking lots on Block 247 for their buddies. That is much more the Plainfield way than these particular councilors paying much attention to any details, let alone having any pertinent objections or alternatives.
DeleteAlan,
DeleteI'd be interested in how the PILOT was formally introduced to the council. But according to what you're saying, I concede, there was more than ample opportunity for councilmembers to raise questions and objections.
Long-term tax PILOTS are considered (all abatements greater than 5 years >>up to 30 years). So I wouldn't necessarily consider it "spoon feeding" on the part of the administration to let the council know that the developer required a 30 year PILOT. I would call that "good governance" as councilman Storch would say.
I'm not touching the dirty politics thing. To suggest there was a quid pro quo offered that involved sitting councilmembers without actual proof does nothing but undermine an already weak working relationship that exists between council and administration.
Honestly! Some people are being so overly dramatic!!. We have residential construction going on in multiple places across our city. This rejection of this one particular complex will not mean we will not get any others.
ReplyDeleteThe TOD Grant will continue regardless of any separate development initiatives that occur or dont occur throughout the city. The TOD will spur additional development. Lets hope that the TOD does increase mixed use and commercial development in our train station area as well as across the city.
This is not the end of the fight -- just the beginning. If a changing of the guard is required at our local government level, then so be it.
ANON 12:06,
DeleteYou are absolutely right. Remain optimistic!
To 12:06pm - I felt better after reading your comment. You are correct, the TOD will occur and developers still want to make money and Plainfield is prime.
ReplyDeleteThe politics in Plainfield will not last forever. Thanks for your comment.