The City Council approved a financial agreement Monday that is crucial to a $50 million 212-unit residential development on South Avenue and also designated Sleepy Hollow Developers Urban Renewal LLC as redeveloper of the site.
Before the vote on the "payment in lieu of taxes" ordinance, resident Richard Loosli called the agreement "inadequate and unfair" and not a penny different from terms the council rejected last summer. Alan Goldstein, a resident who closely follows city government, agreed with the developer's premise that the PILOT would yield $10 million while tax revenues on the existing properties would only be $3.8 million over 30 years.
"We should go along with the proposal," he said, before the unanimous approval.
Vera Greaves, Cory Storch, Diane Toliver, Tracey Brown, Rebecca Williams and Council President Bridget Rivers voted "yes." Gloria Taylor, a staunch opponent of the project, was absent.
The concept for the amenity-laden development was unveiled in a July 2014 meeting with South Avenue merchants, as reported on the Plainfield Today blog. Many more steps had to be accomplished, including designating the site "in need of redevelopment" and preparing a redevelopment plan. The South Avenue plans progressed until the PILOT agreement was rejected twice in August.
The council also approved a related resolution on vacating part of Old South Avenue, which abuts the site.
Approval of the PILOT means developer Joseph M. Forgione can now move forward with financing and acquisition of eleven properties that will comprise the project site. As part of the redevelopment agreement, the developer pledged to make improvements to the Plainwood Square Park between Old South Avenue and South Avenue and to perform all ongoing park maintenance. In addition, the developer will donate 100 tablets to the school district or carry out an alternative request by the city costing up to $10,000.
Forgione was present Monday, but declined comment for the blog.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bait and switch I bet you the house don't remember the field . It's not about we its about me . Politics as usual lets see how this helps locals and when I say locals I'm not talking about local politicians. What did Mapp give up to get these votes?
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:07 - you are so right. Additional money in property taxes over the term of the PILOT, $50 Million investment in the area and a spark to bring more development to South Avenue area and other parts of Plainfield - I see nothing in this for the locals! PS. I am being sarcastic, with your strange view on the world I thought it important to make sure that was clear to you.
ReplyDeleteI bet you don't have to look for a job . Just get up check NYSE then go have a latte at Starbucks. Oh I forgot they didn't build its yet on south ave. Of course my view of the world is strange to you . Historically it's always been like that and that's why I fight for justice on two fronts social and economic. And you fight the guilt of your racist mindset . Peace
Delete@10:39AM - interesting how you choose to paint everyone with the same broad brush you most likely detest being painted with.
DeleteI fail to see anything racist about comment posted by 9:26AM; moreover, the very people for whom you "fight for justice" I'm sure also enjoy the better things in life and often treat themselves whenever possible.
Why so much anger and hate?
Racist? Please explain what in 3:07's commentary remotely smacks of racism? You want more job opportunities; perfectly understandable. You despise Wall Street. You see Starucks as the symbol of oppressive capitalistic culture. The development will provide, according to the sponsor's representations 7 permanent jobs. There is set aside for local contractors. If local contract actors have the qualifications and low bid I am confident the developer would be glad to award work in addition to the set aside. For the life of the project the buildings, and the building's occupants will require a host of services; food. cleaning; groceries; decorating; medical; etc. At least some part of these will be provided or performed by local businesses. The project will also bring intangible benefits such as stimulating interest in other investments in the community. The existence of the project sends a message to others that they can do business in Plainfield. Where in all this is your justification for alleging bigotry played a roll in the decision? Suggest you come to next Council meeting, tell them they are minions of Wall Street, give the specifics of their discriminatory conduct, and ask each for an explanation. Bill Kruse
DeleteTo Anon 3:07/10:39
DeleteFrom: Anon 9:26
As is so often the case, if you can't argue intelligently on the facts you throw out personal jabs and a few cards from the race deck. Lets take your points one by one:
1) Your Ridiculous Comment: I bet you don't have to look for a job . Just get up check NYSE then go have a latte at Starbucks. My Answer: You are correct, I don't have to look for a job, but I have had to look in my lifetime. I don't check NYSE as I am not a holder of stocks - unless you know something I don't and then please forward me the information on my portfolio. I am also more of a 7-11 coffee guy - better priced and not as bitter.
2) Your Silly Comment: Of course my view of the world is strange to you . My Answer: Your view of the world is yours and I don't pretend to know what it is or condemn you for holding that view - unlike your inability to understand others views and opinions.
3) Your misguided Comment: Historically it's always been like that and that's why I fight for justice on two fronts social and economic. And you fight the guilt of your racist mindset . My Answer: Historically you may be correct - the fact that you are fighting for justice is another argument. It appears that you are fighting a class and race battle at every turn, even when you have no clue who you are addressing your comments and baseless generalizations to. As for the supposed guilt of my racist mindset - again, you have no idea who you are directing that to nor do you know my background, beliefs or any "guilt" that I may or may not have.
3) Your Smug Ending: Peace My answer: Unlikely that was sincere since you seem to be looking for an argument at every turn.
To paraphrase Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan - you are entitled to your own opinion but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
It's simple the pilot is the same. But the vote is now unanimous in favor of. Somethings fishy and it ain't Pete's .
DeleteHECTOR PROJECT anon 10:39... me thinks the only racist in the above attempted slap down was you.. Black, Latino, Asians aren't entitled to luxury rentals?? Black, Latino, Asians don't own stocks? Black, Latino, Asians don't spend money at Starbucks? Black, Latino, Asians don't believe progress and change are sometimes necessary for a stagnant politically strangled town such as Plainfield for so many years?? Blacks, Latino, Asians don't deserve an opportunity to live in a city that is growing and bettering itself by infusing new blood, new money and new hopes and ideas ?
DeleteYes dear anon 10:39, you showed who the true racist is in your rant.
New blood and New ideas? You just don't the your racist dialect and thinking. Peace
DeleteNew blood: COMMON TERMINOLOGY FOR PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FROM A PARTICULAR AREA.... PEOPLE... NOT RACE...and NEWS FLASH.. you'd be hard pressed to find ONE RACE on this planet that is NOT currently represented here in Plainfield. So, if I were to be the racist you SO DESPERATELY WISH I were,yes, new Blood, we've no Australian Aboriginals represented here in Plainfield, so I must be referring to them. In fact, that's exactly what I was hoping the new development on South Avenue brings into our town, Australian Aboriginals.
DeleteThey told the current property tax. $3 million over 30 years. They told the likely PILOT amount. $10 million over 30 years. I wonder why they never told the full tax rate on such a property.
ReplyDeleteBecause that would show that the PILOT rate is closer to the current taxes than full taxes. This may prove to be a bad deal in the long run, as this low-grossing site eats up valuable real estate in a crucial area near a train station. It's impossible to weigh this deal against other potential opportunities that may have come down the line.
But what do you expect? Politicians treat developers like missionaries. Divine, foreign beings who know the way and wish only to bring prosperity to our little corner of the world. They're not trying to line their own pockets or anything. Never that.
It may not be as good a deal in the long run but its a huge investment that will spur further development which will generate further tax dollars. Or we can just wait for those empty properties that have already been sitting there for years to find a whole bunch of buyers to invest in them and possibly bring in more tax dollars. Since waiting for individual properties to sell isnt working, this project is a great opportunity to kickstart some redevelopment in the area.
DeleteAnon 10:15 -
DeleteYou are correct, it is "impossible to weigh this deal against other potential opportunities that may come down the line" But that is the case with every decision - buying a house, buying a car, buying a plane ticket - everything has the potential to be a better deal down the line, or it can go the other way and show that the deal that was made was worthwhile.
Your comment assumes that 1) There were multiple developers lined up to spend $50 Million and 2) that Plainfield can wait around and see what happens in the future, when property values may go up or the economy could turn and they could drop.
Could a backroom deal have been made - sure there could have been. Is this a bad deal for Plainfield - hardly.
Anon. 3:07 must want Plainfield to stay as it is and be the place Sharon envisioned. Poor and undeveloped with nothing but dollar stores and bars.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the pointed sarcasm, Anon. 9:26.
Please remember Dottie Gutenkauf and her family as we remember her after her passing.
Glad to see it passed for the sake of progress in Plainfield, however, leery of the back room deal made to make this happen.
ReplyDeleteThe city council meeting where the SHD PILOT agreement was approved was sparsely attended. These days, blogs provide invaluable coverage. I would like to briefly expand on my "inadequate and unfair" labeling of the PILOT agreement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Jersey City- which seems to be this city's benchmark for PILOT agreements- receives more from PILOTs than it would from conventional taxation. Plainfield agreed to take 50% less. That's inadequate compared to jersey City.
Second, a fundamental principle of local taxation is that all property owners share equally in the property tax burden unless there is some offsetting public good. Every property owner in Plainfield will be paying over $340,000 in property tax on a $150,000 assessment over the next 30 years. SHD will pay only $105,000. That's almost a quarter million less and assumes a conservative $15 million assessed value and no tax rate increase. Over 30 years, the tax break for SHD will total over $23 million. That is almost half the cost of the project. Half the cost. When someone else buys or builds in Plainfield, does the city pay for half the cost? No. That is unfair to every other property owner in Plainfield who pays their fair share of the tax burden while SHD gets a $23 million tax break that covers half the cost of their investment.
Proponents seem to think there is a public good to subsidizing an apartment building on South Avenue. I disagree. I see it as a private money-making venture like any other development. Proponents say no development will occur without a subsidy. I see apartment buildings already being built without PILOT agreements. Those developers have faith in the future of Plainfield, more than SHD and its proponents. Who would you rather have in this city?
Richard Loosli