To inquiring readers, yes, there are two items up for votes Monday related to the Landmark Developers subsidiary, "West Second Street Commons," including one to receive a Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement for the proposed 148-apartment complex and retail development on the PNC Bank block off Park Avenue
Here they are:
R 343--10 NON-CONSENT
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GLOBAL AGREEMENT WITH LANDMARK DEVELOPERS LLC REGARDING PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD AND THE DESIGNATION OF LANDMARK DEVELOPERS LLC FOR THE NORTH AVENUE EXTENSION. –CORPORATION COUNSEL.
Here they are:
R 343--10 NON-CONSENT
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GLOBAL AGREEMENT WITH LANDMARK DEVELOPERS LLC REGARDING PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD AND THE DESIGNATION OF LANDMARK DEVELOPERS LLC FOR THE NORTH AVENUE EXTENSION. –CORPORATION COUNSEL.
R 344--10 NON-CONSENT
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILOT) AGREEMENT WITH WEST 2ND STREET URBAN RENEWAL, LLC FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS WEST SECOND STREET COMMONS, BLOCK 245, LOTS 3,4,5,6 AND 10. – CORPORATION COUNSEL.
The first refers to redevelopment of the PNC Bank block as an extension of the North Avenue Commercial Historic District redevelopment proposal that dates back many years. Originally, the concept was to retain the historic facades of the city's first commercial district next to the main train station and to build modern high-rise structures behind them. Early on, more than 400 residential units were touted as being the "critical mass" needed for revitalization of the district.
Meanwhile, the "critical mass" number later dwindled to 100, but recently grew to 148, and the site shifted to the PNC block. I believe the first resolution is based on the need to fix lapses in steps to designate Landmark as the developer of the PNC block.
As for the PILOT agreement, it has never been mentioned in the 17 months preceding the current push for development of the PNC block. Its emergence now after the developer has received various approvals for the project happens to coincide with a new report from State Comptroller A. Matthew Boxer on the efficacy of tax abatements. This report is worth review by voters, as it spells out the impact on school districts, among other ramifications.
It will be up to the governing body to decide whether to grant the PILOT. The full resolution was unavailable Saturday at the Plainfield Public Library, either because the council packet was not delivered or because library staff could not locate it as was the case last week.
If after reading the Boxer report you have reservations about the PILOT, make sure you are on time to comment on the resolution before the vote Monday. The meeting is 8 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
--Bernice Paglia
NO FREAKIN TAX BREAKS I DON'T GET ONE!HORIZONS GOT ONE LELAND GARDENS HAS ONE WHAT IS THIS LIKE WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY. NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTY BUILDING ON PARK AVE.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the County is getting fat and happy while our Ccouncil doles out tax breaks. We did not gave a tax break to Monarch and we should not give a tax break to this guy?
ReplyDeleteI find it curious that this was not mentioned at all as you say Bernice.
This has a very strong odor to it.
I just want to know - when am I getting a tax abatement?
Before everyone gets their panties in an uproar, PILOT is used all the time to help spur development in areas where you might not normally have it. Its not something limited to Plainfield or Union County by any means.
ReplyDeleteAs 744 mentioned, why would Leland Gardens have one?? Its not a new development. It may have a new owner, but it would not warrant a PILOT.
Monarch could have requested it PRIOR to construction, which they should have asked for, but now its too late.
What needs to be asked is what would the normal tax payments be vs what are the PILOT payments proposed, and do they escalate over time as units are completed.
NO TAX ABATEMENTS FOR ANYONE...UNLESS OF COURSE I GET ONE.
ReplyDelete