Monday, July 11, 2016

Hopes, Fears Expressed for Muhlenberg Site

A developer selected to transform the long-shuttered Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center heard some residents denounce housing as an element of the renewal, just as they have since 2012 when 600 apartments were proposed for the site.

A diverse crowd including "Save Muhlenberg" activists, residents of the hospital's neighborhood and those whose families experienced birth and death there filled the Senior Center Monday to hear William Colgan of Community Healthcare Associates explain his winning concept.
William Colgan of Community Healthcare Associates LLC
  Real Estate Solutions and a committee painstakingly reviewed six conceptual proposals for the 10-acre site before selecting Colgan's firm. The company was found to have the necessary experience, financial capacity to get a bank loan, ability to incur debt and to offer a purchase price to JFK for the site, which the city does not own.

Colgan, Mayor Adrian O. Mapp and Economic Development Director Carlos Sanchez all stressed there are many more steps in the process, starting with acquisition of the site from JFK Health Systems and including numerous city approvals.

A slide detailing "next steps" (click to enlarge)
Colgan, whose firm has redeveloped closed hospitals in Jersey City and Paterson, said Muhlenberg's 500,000-square-foot facility would be partially demolished to make way for parking, while more than half would become a medical facility. The company will seek a "payment in lieu of taxes" agreement.

Although the $49 million proposal could create 600 jobs and bring tax relief, speakers reacted sharply to the proposed inclusion of veterans' housing and assisted living units.
Edward Danner is first up to speak
As soon as Mapp opened the meeting to questions, a line formed at the microphone. Although some wanted to share family memories of Muhlenberg, others sought assurance that their quiet residential neighborhood would not be marred.
With so many more steps to be accomplished, not all questions could be answered, but Colgan said, "Our goal is to work with Plainfield, to make what Plainfield would like to see."
Resident Donald Van Blake asked for something in writing about the proposal and said he was disappointed that there had not been "a clear, open declaration of the purpose of the meeting." Sanchez and Mapp reminded the audience several times that vetting the developers was just one step in the process. 
Perhaps the strongest concern came from Robin Bright, who said bluntly "There was no plan."

Bright said JFK "put a non-compete clause in there." Anticipating a "Wounded Warrior with PTSD" as a future tenant on the site, she said, "That is not what we want here."

Living 200 feet from the site, Bright  said, "I'm scared - there is no buffer."

When the Planning Board in September discussed whether to make an "in need of  redevelopment" decision for the site, board members voted against using eminent domain. Bright said she had wanted them to take the site by condemnation. 

"They should have," she said, "then they could put in the services we need and deserve."

Bright said there were too many children and women walking dogs in the neighborhood.

She said the veteran who killed police in Dallas had PTSD and locally so did a "guy who killed his mother."

She said she wanted JFK to be more flexible in what is put there. The audience applauded her remarks several times..
Colgan and Mapp had their heads together as Bright finished and Colgan said Mapp had asked him to "circle back" to his prior remarks. He said the Muhlenberg project was analogous to what the company did with Barnert Medical Arts Complex, a former municipal hospital. But when he mentioned an adult day center as a possibility, someone yelled that Muhlenberg used to have one and "they took it away!"

In all, nearly two dozen speakers commented on the presentation and their concerns about what might happen. The meeting was taped for airing on local cable channels. Mapp wrapped it up by acknowledging their concerns, calling the return of a hospital "highly unlikely" and emphasizing the possible benefits of Colgan's plan.

"Be patient," he said. "We are at the point where something is going to happen."

--Bernice

25 comments:

  1. How can a "non-compete clause"
    be constitional when it comes to public health? It seems like a healthcare monopoly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Veterans housing and assisted living units? We, the homeowners in the neighborhood, need to influence the type of housing that is being proposed for this site. It our neighborhood, not the Mayor's and not JFK's. Mayor Mapp, Listen to us! Thanks to the speakers for voicing our concerns. Sounds like Robin Bright hit the nail on the head. I'm scared too!

    Tim Kirby
    Martine Ave.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let go Mapp. 120 million investment and counting coming to plainfield whao, am living it. Christy is about to take my kids eduacation money away. Thank you Mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that citizens need to take a deep breath and also connect with reality. Anger at a bad deal when JFK took over Muhlenberg is certainly understandable - outsized silly comments directed at the Mapp administration and/or the developer is misdirected anger.
    I find the following things quite interesting after reading this post: 1) We (i.e. Robin B and Mr. Kirby) apparently are now profiling veterans as all crazed lunatics that are going to be hiding in bushes killing ladies walking their dogs and 2) Robin thinks condemnation was a really great option. I am just glad that she isn't an elected official because we would currently be spending hard earned taxpayer money in court battling a losing cause.

    The acute care hospital is not returning - the world has changed, delivery of medical care has changed and that is the new reality in Plainfield and elsewhere. Assisted living is a much needed and excellent idea for the site. Our town needs such services locally for those that want to stay near their friends and family and the impact with respect to traffic etc would be much lower than other options. Even if it is a 55+ community would be beneficial.

    As for the veterans housing I think Robin should start a NIMBY movement - Plainfield will come off looking so great and I can't think of a better person to promote the cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that assisted living communities are an important aspect of a community as well as veteran's housing, however, for far too long Plainfield has reduced itself to only such endeavors...when in doubt what to do with an abandoned area, we put up affordable housing, mixed retail, senior centers....wonderful things to do, but the town needs a much larger tax base than it has....We need to be much more creative in what we bring to Plainfield than the 'same old, same old.' I really thought Mayor Mapp was much more inspired than he has proven to be. Sorry! This town is not going to change....I've lived here for 28 years and it has not improved one bit, except by the homeowners who take it upon themselves to improve their properties and care for their homes. And what do they get? Poor schools, affordable housing, crime, drugs and gangs. I can't see Muhlenberg's proposal to bring anything different.

      Delete
    2. To you anonymous 10:47, I’m not saying all vets with PSTD are nuts hiding in bushes but how would you like a group home on this scale within 200 feet of your front door? It’s easy for people who live outside of the city or even outside of the neighborhood to pass judgment and co-sign bad decision that will have a negative effect on a community and their quality of life. Anonymous if you have some suggestions for what I should or should not do, sign your name to your comment and be the boss you think you are or keep hiding with your head up the ass of the person who feeds you.

      Robin B.

      Delete
    3. Robin - please point out where it says this would be a veterans group home? Group home and veterans housing are two very different things. Also - from what I have read you were involved in the process so apparently you don't play well with others. This is not the first time I have heard of you being involved in something just to turn on the project and protest with hyperbole and drama.

      "your head up the ass of the person who feeds you" - what in the hell are you talking about? This is the kind of thing that makes your sometimes well meaning comments come off as shrill and goofy.

      Delete
    4. Dah - i get such a kick out of your sky is falling, myopic "why isn't the world changing all at one time" comments. Keep up the good work - I get a giggle every time I read them.

      Delete
    5. Exactly. Thank you, Robin.

      Tim Kirby

      Delete
    6. f our Economic Development Director Sanchez can’t bring us anything other than apartments and Dunkin Donuts then he needs to be replaced. This is what you get when you hire someone that has no sink in the game.

      Delete
    7. Anon 2:48 - this is helpful stuff. Off hand critique with little or no information. I would suggest you go to some meetings or visit Mr. Sanchez to see what he has actually brought in and is currently working on - you would quickly find out you are uninformed and off base. Mr. Sanchez is a welcome addition to the city and has done some great things - and I am sure he will continue to do so.

      Delete
    8. If the town of Piscataway can take a family owned farm for open space by eminent domain and the city of Newark can take residential homes for a Home Depot, I'm willing to bet money that we can win and get the kind of medical services we ALL want. This comment is to 10:47, don't worry yourself, I'm not planning on running for office I'm not that good of a liar to be a politician. Besides I'm happy with the way my taxes continue to go down every year. NOT!!

      Robin B

      Delete
  5. I fail to see what there is to be afraid of here. I was at the meeting and we need a site that will make money and work. I don't think we'll get a 100% medical, doctor oriented site. I was also surprised to hear people speak of Veterans as some sex crazy predators who will troll the surrounding areas looking for victims. Some people are still looking for that perfect solution and it won't happen and a hospital is not coming back to the site. The building is deteriorating quickly and something needs to be done soon. JFK does have a say and we have to accept that. Eminent domain would cost us a fortune and JFK may have deeper pockets than Plainfield does. I hope people can keep it real and realize that time is running out for that site and compromise is needed. This was the committee's pick, not the mayor's and mixed medical use may be the only way to make this a profitable endeavor. Let's see what happens. This plan would bring a lot of full-time jobs to Plainfield. At lease they had a town hall and people got to give their opinions. We would not have seen this in previous administrations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I respect the mayor for his efforts in trying to re-develop the Muhlenberg site with medical use. By no means should anyone misconstrue my intentions and whether or not I lost faith in the Mayor and his ability to lead. I haven’t. As an individual who supports most of his efforts I never feel obligated to conceal my feelings or share my difference of opinion. I appreciated the Mayor selecting me to serve on the committee, however, since the start of the 600 unit apartment proposal I made my concerns and position very clear. Nothing’s changed; I still live in spitting distance of the site. I love my neighborhood and most importantly, my neighbor. This is not about me it’s about US.

    To start let me point out, 4 of the seven people who was on the committee do not live in Plainfield and was the ones advocating for this. One committee member works for the city and lives on the other side of town, 2 of us live in the 3 ward and I m the one that lives closest to the site (within 210 feet) and voted NO on this proposal. (Please note - Councilwomen Rivers never attended a meeting and was not involved in the process)

    I think what the developer is proposing is a great idea, just not in this residential neighborhood with little children and families. I understand the need to take care of our vets, that’s important, my father served in ww2, my brother who lives on the west end served 2 terms in Vietnam, all of my father’s brothers severed in the armed forces and retired from the service, I have cousins that are still in the service as their career of choice. So this is nothing personal against vets.

    The type of facility CHS is proposing is health care with residential housing that will be designed specifically for vets with chronic PTSD and other brain related injury and syndromes , this is not what the community meant when they said they wanted medical services and no housing.

    Because JFK incorporated a “non-compete” clause in the RFP the type of medical services being offered will be very limited and specialized. The medical services will most likely not benefit the community as a whole rather those with specific maladies common in one that served in war.

    The proposal as presented called for apartments on every floor of the hospital and the final count was a little ambiguous. So now we go from 600 units to residential housing for the mentally challenged. As I served on the committee to review these RFP’s I wrote on this practical proposal the word NO and “group home”, when I mentioned this in the meeting, the representative from JFK (whether he will admit it or not) who also served on the committed agreed with me that this would be a group-home.

    In September 2015 the planning board said the property was uninhabitable and in need of redevelopment and most likely would be demolished, now here we are today a few months later and a proposal to keep the main buildings intact and retrofit them for these apartments leaves me wondering why the change in plans?

    So now that this developer wants to keep two main buildings is there still a need to agree to a PILOT?

    As I said this concept is a great idea, just not in this low density residential neighborhood. We need to go back to the drawing board and stop accepting whatever comes our way like desperate dogs. This proposal would never fly in any of our surrounding communities and Plainfield has more than our fair share of group homes.

    Robin B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, thank you Robin!

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you have concerns, but "group homes" is just scare tactics and we don't have all the time in the world but we do have to compromise. This is just a start and we can work things out. Histrionics won't help and I don't think starting from scratch is needed. Eminent domain won't work as Plainfield can't afford the millions in legal fees to even go there. This was just a start and everyone isn't going to get what they want, but we need jobs and a site that will pay for itself or no one will want what will become a condemned building sitting on an overgrown empty eye sore. I would also like assisted living in Plainfield so when the time comes I can stay near my friends and church.

      Delete
  7. Multplying the proposed area for medical office space by current rents for similar space clearly indicates that the return is woefully insufficient to warrant a 49 million dollar investment. Assisted living , or some other residential component is necessary. Some thoughts: The objections raised focused on Veteran's residency. Would it be possible to eliminate the objectionable Veteran's component and make the residential portion entirely assisted, or elderly living? It would intersting to know the content of the proposals of the unsuccessful bidders. Did any of those proposals omit Veteran's residence in their scheme? Until the question was asked regarding the scope of the demolition of existing structures I had the naïve notion that the existing hospital building would be demolished and a new complex constructed. What has been prosposed is the demolition of the utilty buildings and rehabilitation of the main building. In other words, all of the new occupants,tenants and offices, will be "stacked" in the existing refurbished 7 story building. It is presumed that the Developer has great experience in these matters , but the concept of one building containing residences, and a large spectrum of medical, and medical related offices seems rather awkward? What happens to the two 1900 buildings was not revealed, i.e. the original hospital buildings designed by Evarts Tracy, who was an Internationally famous Architect. Are these structures included or excluded? If excluded what is their proposed disposition? If included what is there proosed use? The alacrity with which the JFK representative said that he was confident that he could work out the Agreement of Sale of the proerty with the developer suggests that the property is more a liability to JFK than an asset. Even in the andoned state the property is costing agreat deal of money to maintain. If true this gives the City and Developer leverage. Perhaps that leverage can be used to dimish the scope of the restrictive covenant that JFK has imposed regarding the tenancy. Absent such a covenant the Developer will enjoy a larger market and can perhaps substitute more office space for what would have been tenant space, or. alternatively, change the proposed occupany of the tenant space? Is part of the deal that JFK will continue receive, proceeds from from the operation of the project? It is hoped that with creative thinking and hard negotiating the tranquility of the neighborhood can be preserved and the deal consummated. Several hundred jobs, the payment in lieu of taxes and the availability of medical services are all desirable outcomes. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
  8. Last night's meeting was quite interesting. The issue of a "non-compete clause" needs more transparency. If there is such a clause, do the limitations last "forever?" Do the limitations "go with the land" as a deed restriction or do the limitations last as long as JFK is the neighboring hospital? How can a healthcare monopoly be created by a local RFP? If the "non-compete clause" does not exist, then why weren't there other options than Veteran's housing and assisted living facility? Both of those options do not compete with the current services offered by JFK. Some food for thought!

    One resident asked about the role of the State of New Jersey, and more transparency about that issue needs to be addressed. How will the bond on the land be paid back or will the State or the bank take a loss? More food for thought!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting and quite constructive questions. I would mention that an RFP can't create a medical monopoly only because it isn't saying competitive medical services aren't allowed in town - just not on the parcel currently owned by JFK - but still an interesting question.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 9:26 AM:
      Your point is well taken, but it raises another question - if competitive medical services are allowed in other parts of town and not on the parcel of Muhlenberg by way of a non-compete clause then the non-compete clause may very well cause "spot zoning."

      Non-compete clauses (agreements) are usually used between employers and employees much like two Supreme court cases in NJ: Karlin v. Weinberg, 77 N.J. 408 (1978) and Community Hosp. Group, Inc. v. More,(2005). Note that Community Hospital Group is also known as JFK Medical Center.

      One of the three key factors in cases of non-compete clauses in employment covenants is "not injurious to the public interest."

      If a non-compete clause exists, then this could be precedent setting because it involves a redevelopment project and land use and not an employment covenant. When and if the non-compete clause is signed by the developer, City and/or JFK, in this layperson's opinion it becomes part of a redevelopment deal/land deal, and could open up a Pandora's Box.

      It certainly would make an interesting legal case if there is a pro bono attorney out there who would
      argue the case on behalf of the public interest. More food for thought.

      Delete
  9. I live in the 3rd ward, so I cannot comment on the impact a Veteran’s home, group home or assisted living will have on the neighborhood surrounding Muhlenberg. I do know we do not need another Park Hotel facility. Not having a car I walk to past it every day, shop on Park Avenue and see residents sitting on the sidewalk outside of the building, be asked for money or cigarettes. As far as a Medical Facility, I would love to see the type of “One Stop Shopping” such as we had when Rutgers Community Health Program (RCHP) was on Rt. 1 in New Brunswick. In fact it was one of the health programs the city offered to their employees. I could set appointments for the entire family for the same day, get labs, x-rays, sonograms, mammograms, etc, and prescriptions all in the same building. For Senior Citizens (like myself) and others that don’t drive, it gives better access to our medical needs. Having more than one appointment in a month to out of town facilities, $20-$40 round trip cab fares add up as opposed to $8 round trip for a in town facility.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To coward, I mean anonymous 1:54, I would hope that I wasn't ask to be on the committee to rubber stamp what I find to be a bad decision. Since I was on the committee and you were not maybe I know a little more than you. Now if you were one of the committee members you know exactly what I'm saying is true and most likely afraid to speak your own mind. As far as playing well with others, I do that just fine, however, I will never compromise my belief for anyone. I don't know what project I was on before that I turned on, please enlighten me.
    My stance on this issue has not changed from the start, what would make anyone think that I would be OK with this is beyond me.

    Robin B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paranoid much Robin?
      I agree that you likely weren't chosen to rubber stamp - but unlikely that you were chosen to just get what you wanted either.

      Delete
  11. There were other proposals made for this site that were more visionary in scope and were meant to move Plainfield forward. It is interesting that the City chose the proposal that would most likely negatively impact property values in the area instead of a proposal that sought to create better community amenities for residents of Plainfield and that was intended to create a mixed used concept including medical use for the benefit of Plainfield residents. The City of Plainfield has to focus on being visionary and select developers who understand the mores and needs of the City. The selected proposal does not advance the goals and aspiration of Plainfield City residents. What were the other proposals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which visionary concepts were those? Would be interested in hearing those.

      Just as an aside - idea isn't always the deal closer, there is a large funding and risk assessment so if those visionary ideas couldn't be supported financially they would be hard to push forward.

      Delete