| Author |
Message |
    
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 8:11 am: |     |
I can and do walk to both Maplewood Avenue and Springfield Avenue shops since my house is about equidistant between the two. I used to walk to Springfield Avenue a lot to make purchases at Starks, Maplecrest Hardware, Jane's Fabric Store, Brass Town, and the toy store (I forget its name)that used to be over by Maplecrest Park. These businesses are all gone now.
If I had a choice of businesses to place on Spingfield Avenue, I would include a few that provide basic services to the immediate neighborhood: a really good bakery (remember Pete's on Maplewood Avenue?), a 5 and 10, a crafts supply store, a fruit and vegetable store, a good basic grocery store, a cheese shop, a good book store, etc.
If people in certain parts of town have difficulty getting to Springfield Avenue because of parking, why not run the jitney on weekends between Maplewood Avenue and Springfield Avenue on a regular schedule. Maybe an additional stop at an underutilized parking area (if there is such a thing left in town) could be added for those of us who are slaves to our cars.
Does the Concierge Service include Springfield Avenue businesses? What businesses there have goods/services of the sort that would lend themselves to this approach?
What about on-line ordering/scheduling/shopping for local businesses in general? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 8:25 am: | |
Yes, the concierge service does include Springfield Ave. businesses. I believe there is a large (but probably incomplete) list on the website. I know Maplewood Tire and DiPietro's are there. I'm sure many others are, too, but I don't use the concierge for most of the services available. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:11 pm: | |
When I first moved here I used to shop Springfield Avenue as far as Irvington Center. There was a great fabric shop there, a Woolworths and a really good pizza place that I used to frequent. When the Irvington store closed I went into the fabric shop in Maplewood on Springfield Ave. looking for a zipper. I was told in a nasty manner that there were none because "nobody sews anymore"! I think a course in good customer service may help some of these shops as that may be the only thing they have to offer over big stores. (Riccairdi Bros. decorating has been really obnoxious also.) The only new "openings" that I have been aware of are beauty shops and day care centers, neither of which I need to make a trip to Springfield Avenue for. Way back when, when we moved here we were choosing between Westfield and Maplewood. At that time we felt the shopping was equivalent between the both towns. Have you seen Westfield lately? Now there's a "Development Committee"!! |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:16 pm: | |
I find myself in Westfield regularly. All the wonderful stores! And no place to park! Westfield has to be #1 in parking woes. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 1:02 pm: | |
And I've been told over and over again that the parking woes of Maplewood Village are a "sign" of the thriving business. Better to have parking woes than available parking and one junk shop after another. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:44 pm: | |
Here's my suggestion to help get people to the Springfield Ave.
There are a couple of municipal parking lots on or just off the Ave. that are under utilized so maybe we could offer a jitney stop at one or several of these lots where the commuters can leave their cars there and take the jitney to the station. When they get home from work maybe they would shop at one of the stores on the Ave. being they are already there.
I also think that Police presence will be a must. People have to have the sense of security, and I think that is one of the biggest problems right now. I truly believe that a lot of people feel that there is a lot of crime on the Ave. I don't know if there is or isn't but this is what people think. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 3:54 pm: | |
The question is what STORES will they SHOP at??? There's only so much food we can buy at DiPietro's. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 5:20 pm: | |
Teach66,
I know that there aren't many stores to shop at now but I believe part of the whole plan is to bring in new stores. And the only way you will get new stores is to make the Ave. appealing to the storeowners and the shoppers. No one can predict the future but I think we need to take the chance. What happens if we don't? |
Teach66
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 9:06 am: | |
It sounds like a "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" situation. Personally, I think we need some "better" shops to take the chance, which in turn will make the Ave. more appealing. Rather than making the Ave. more appealing (whatever that may mean) - and then hoping that some "better" shops will take the chance. In the past 7 years there has not been one shop that has opened that has made the Ave. more appealing to shop at. I believe it's going to take something big, a magnet (like Old Navy or Renovation Hardware) or to sell the Ave. as an "artsy section" with loads of antique shops & funky cafes - which will then make the Ave. more appealing. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
Developers do not want to build a store unless they sense there is a commitment from the town. To hope an old navy or similar type of store opens by magic is not going to happen. The town has to be aggressive. Someone mentioned Westfield earlier. They spent money to fix up the town and to get stores to come. It is not really a which came first situation - the chicken or the egg - as teach thinks. The town has to spend money on springfield avenue. And it does not happen overnight. There has to be a long term plan and a short term plan. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 2:41 pm: | |
Took a trip to Office Depot in Springfield. It's located in a strip mall just off Rt. 22, but accessible via Mountain Avenue, without going onto Rt. 22. I was thrilled when it opened a couple of years ago - at last an office supply alternative to Staples. Every trip to Staples was hair raising because of the need to cross the highway and make a left hand turn back onto Rt. 22 westbound.
Well, I arrived to find the final closing sales days. The place was picked clean to the bone!
Depressed, I asked a salesman why the place was closing up.
He replied that it was because it WAS NOT on Rt. 22!
Back to shopping at Staples.com - not as good as brousing those aisles, however.
All this raving relates to this topic by noting that if you build it, they MAY NOT come. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 6:25 pm: | |
RENT CONTROL MUST END- this is one of the important variables in a positive development of Springfield AVe. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 10:24 pm: | |
Rent Control is irrelevant till someone wants to rent it. At any rate, no one has corrected my reading of the rent control ordinance. It doesn't apply to commercial buildings. |
Nolan
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 3:37 pm: | |
Melidere, The rent control ordinance applies to residential units in commercial buildings and not to storefronts, for example. There are plenty of such buildings on the Avenue. It therefore depresses the value of the overall building. If you want to support the improvement of the Avenue and enhance the prospects for attracting more upscale businesses, you have to get rid of rent control both on the Avenue and also in the surrounding neighborhoods and you have to correct serious pedestrian safety and aesthetic issues. To answer other points in this thread, Home Depot may come into Union in a less than attractive area with the thought of making a sea change in the area all by itself. However, because of site limitations in Maplewood, no business of that size can be attracted to the Avenue. We will attract smaller more entrepeneurial businesses if we create and support the environment for them. Given the facts of Maplewood's case, if we don't build it, they surely won't come. In my view, a more active Avenue with businesses which engage the adjacent neighborhoods and even the rest of Maplewood and beyond is key to shoring up and improving Hilton and Clinton. If we don't do it, those areas will continue downhill, accelerated by the fact that important types of stores are too remote from them. I am not in favor of doing some compromised and glorified curb improvement project or doing the renovation without getting rid of rent control and channeling other municipal and volunteer resources into the adjacent areas to enhance the prospects of success. The biggest danger to success is the inclination of some of the more timid souls in town to improve the Avenue incrementally. The biggest danger of doing nothing is that the town could follow the Avenue right down the drain. |
Townie
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 4:40 pm: | |
Mtierney,
There is a Staples in West Orange -- or at least there was just before Christmas, the last time I was there. |
Sac
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 4:46 pm: | |
There is also a Staples on Main Street in Madison (Route 124?) It's in the same shopping center as the bowling alley - on the right as you travel there from Maplewood/SO. It usually only takes about 15 minutes to get there. |
Townie
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 4:53 pm: | |
Actually, here's the link for all of Staples stores within driving distance of Maplewood:
http://www.staples-locator.com/Multi.asp?GRP=USA&MIN=5&MAPSIZE=&CITY=west+orange&STATE=NJ&ZIP=&image1.x=46&image1.y=12 |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 8:49 am: | |
Nolan,
Thank you for finally explaining to me why there is such a focus on this rent-control thing. I hate rent-control, but i still tend to feel it is a bit of a diversionary issue in this case.
If you are going to lay the problems of the avenue at the feet of rent control, how do you explain the fact that the village appreciated more than the town average and is having their taxes go up, when they, too, have a lot of apartments in the upper floors of those buildings?
You have studied the issue. As i pointed out before, i would kill to have been able to raise the rents on my building by as MUCH as the cpi over the last 10 years (in my perfectly maintained building) and don't see the ordinance as restrictive YET in the areas of town that are of concern.
Do you have any idea of the numbers of apartments that would be affected if the landlords were allowed to significantly raise the rents tomorrow?
Are there some other issues here that aren't obvious? Is the rent-control ordinance limiting the numbers of buyers of those buildings as they worry about the future effects of the orndinance on those buildings?
You and i agree on almost every issue...the only point of disagreement is this rent-control thing. I think we can safely make improvements in the avenue, do what we can, as a town, to make the area aesthetically pleasing and improve the perceptions of the avenue as safe, and worry about rent control as an issue, later.
If rent control is not the 'theoretical' argument that i perceive it to be and is actually a 'practical' problem to the enhancement of the avenue, then we need to garner those people affected and make a serious push to get the town council to change their minds. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
Why not give rent control to existing families and allow landlords who invest in their properties to have the market guide them on what to charge? What is wrong with that? Affordable housing is a whole other issue, don't confuse them. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:24 am: | |
Finally explaining to you ?
Melidere, you crack me up !
Mr. Nolan has presented this same exact well researched and clearly articulated argument against rent control numerous times directly to the deaf ears of our Township Committee.
I'm glad you're finally paying attention. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:17 am: | |
glad i brightened your day, U. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:42 am: | |
Dump rent control.
The town is forcing the landlords to subsidize tenants with no corresponding tax credits.
Landlords (like myself) buy properties as investments to MAKE money, not to provide subsidies for people.
If it costed the TC something they may reconsider thier position on it. But it costs nothing, the landlords are bearing the cost. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 12:09 pm: | |
Jfb,
Has rent control limited your aility to charge what the market will bear? I'm with everyone else here who opposes rent control as a matter of principle and because it usually ends up making things worse, but it seems to me in the case of Springfield Ave and surrounding areas that the market is soft enough that our rent control isn't what's hurting landlords' interests. |
Nolan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 3:44 pm: | |
Melidere et al, In rough measure according to my files, there are 169 buildings reporting in under rent control, with the number of units varying from 2 to 114. Most appear to contain about 3 or 4 units. The overwhelming majority of these buildings are on the East side of town. 13 buildings appear on the Avenue itself, 31 on Boyden Ave and Boyden Parkway but only 11 in and around Maplewood Village. I know there are some which are not on the list I received and I also know there are a large number of illegal conversions which certainly won't be reporting in and which certainly won't be troubling themselves over the rent control ordinance. The fact is that Maplewood Village has other strong factors going in its favor and a much smaller percentage of rent controlled units than plagues the other side of town including the Avenue. It appears to me that about 90% or more of the rent controlled housing is on the East side of town. As far as impact on individual rents is concerned, it affects the ability of an owner to sell and more importantly to borrow on the asset in order to make capital improvements, ie much needed renovations. Not only is it hard to borrow with rent control depressing values, it is also discouraging to owners to renovate and improve or even maintain in a situation where the landlord has the burden of proof that he is not receiving a "fair return" or that the capital improvement can be apportioned in a given percentage to the tenant's leasehold. And yes, this does affect Maplewood landlords including those on the Avenue who would raise rents and invest in upgrades if this ordinance were repealed. On a going forward basis, even if Melidere's property is yielding only low rents now, what happens if the town invests $10mm in infrastructure and hopes to see increased interest in Hilton and Clinton? Should Melidere be constrained by a 2% increase over the low base he is at now? Should Melidere have to justify to the Rent Levelling Board why he should be able to recoup his further investment (of course, only after he makes it)? Should the stressed out taxpayers of Maplewood have to absorb the cost of infrastructure and allow tenants to breeze by on a 2% increase which translates into depressed assessments of the rental property and concommitant artificially lower taxes for them? Should the people who invested their life savings in Hilton and Clinton have to subsidize that and have to tolerate the reduced property values which generally follow being surrounded by rent controlled properties not as well maintained and seldom improved? Should we be giving tenants a bye on unproven grounds that they "need" rent control even though none is required to prove need to enter or stay in rent controlled units? On the other hand, some of us are prepared to let retired people who own and have paid taxes here for 50 years be pushed out by galloping tax rates. And finally, if some of you think rent control is not the issue because it has no effect, it follows that it is not necessary and should be repealed. Rent control is not the only villain here. Decades of neglect, economic ignorance, incompetence and indifference and what Julian Bond so eloquently called a "lack of testicular fortitude" also share the blame. Why we would embark on a renewal of the scale we foresee and tie our shoelaces together with rent control is beyond me. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 5:00 pm: | |
Nolan,
Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to your point of view, and if there's ever a vote on rent control you've got mine. My question at this point is whether it's actually holding back property values now. Certainly you're right that if property values begin to climb beyond what rent control will allow, landlords will get screwed. I suppose even landlords would prefer this situation to generally depressed property values, but I'm sure we agree that's not the point.
If, as you say, the vast majority of controlled properties are on or near Springfield Ave and Boyden (I can believe this, although I'd be interested in seeing real data), then one should be able to show that the values of commercial properties with attached apartments in those areas are depressed relative to commercial properties without apartments. Am I right?
I wanted to try to look this up myself using the database, but unfortunately the apartment class (4C) seems only to be large apartment complexes, and small buildings with 4 familes or less are rolled into the residential class (2). Do you have access to better data? |
Nolan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 5:38 pm: | |
Lseltzer, I took the statistics I posted from a listing I received from the Town over the past year. From what I know of Maplewood geography, I calculated the percentages for the different parts of town. I estimated but I didn't guess. How good that info is, as in how complete, I don't know, although it comports approximately to what I would have expected. As I said above, I know of landlords in town and in particular on the Avenue who have told me to my face that they would increase rents for some of their units if they were able. I suspect the degree of the distortion caused by the ordinance can vary depending on how long a unit has been occupied by a particular tenant, ignoring the impact I cite above caused by the depressive effect of rent control over time even on units which do turn over. The answer is YES, there is a present impact on current rents. Beyond that, the Town is scheduled to break ground on the Avenue in April last I heard. I don't see how we can wait any longer to deal with this nuisance. Measuring the precise impact of the ordinance is difficult in the best of circumstances and nearly impossible where as here the TC does not want the issue studied. Hope the foregoing clarification is useful. Spread the word. |
Nolan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 5:46 pm: | |
Lseltzer, I also heard in December that Certified explained that certain properties were valued at less than others in some neighborhoods due to the fact that the lesser valued properties were rentals and subject to rent control, exercising downward pressure on the values. This was cited by Burt Liebman as further reason not to re-enact the ordinance. I did not hear the Certified explanation myself, only Burt's report of it. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 8:50 pm: | |
Nolan,
i'm having trouble reconciling your words and the ordinance.
The cost of capital improvements can be passed on to the tenants. It's burdensome and annoying that paperwork has to be filed with the town, but the money can be invested and can be recouped.
The taxpayers are not further burdened by the limitations on the increases...the increases in taxes are fully able to be passed on to the tenant, in another surcharge.
Indirectly, you are absolutely correct. If rent control is depressing prices and the rest of the town improves around them...the rest of the town will absorb the bulk of the increase in taxes.
I must admit i had been more of the opinion that the 86 tax act did more to depress the prices of multi-family housing than rent control, but perhaps not.
I suspect that it is more likely that landlords are using this opportunity, as we ask them to help us invest in the avenue, to get rid of a thorn in their side, and i don't blame them a bit. I can see where someone working on the springfield avenue project would definitely have an easier sale if they didn't have to answer for such a blatantly anti-business, anti-landlord, anti-investment ordinance.
Personally, i can't justify the ordinance. If we want to subsidize renters in this town we ought to just be honest about it and grant them a stipend out of the town budget. Taking it from landlords is counter-productive to building the community. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:31 am: | |
What is the relationship between rent control and the lack of business development on Springfield Ave.? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 3:19 pm: | |
There is none, but someone keeps bringing it up for some strange reason. |
Nolan
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 3:41 pm: | |
Only 50% of the rent increases can be passed on to the residential tenants. Read the example printed in the ordinance. As far as capital improvements are concerned, the ordinance allows a landlord to apply for a "Capital Improvements Surcharge" to the Base Rent. The ordinance allows this when a Landlord makes "major" capital improvements. It doesn't define "major." The landlord must first make the improvement and pay for it, prove that it benefits the tenant and then apportion it among tenants based on the proportion that each tenant pays Base Rent. The surcharge is then collected from the tenant monthly at the rate the landlord depreciates the improvement, but if the landlord finances the improvement, the landlord cannot recoup any allocated portion of the interest incurred. What landlord in his right mind is going to undertake major capital improvements in the hopes he can run that gauntlet and actually recoup his investment when he won't even know whether or not the items will be approved and sufficiently allocated for him to recover his investment. As far as the "Tracks" comment is concerned, I would direct him to the "fair return" provisions of the ordinance and note that in mixed residential and commercial properties, revenue and expense are calculated by including both types of spaces and that no hardship surcharge is allowed so long as the commercial properties are keeping the buildings afloat. I.e., the commercial properties are subsidizing the residential units in those buildings. Beyond that, it should be clear that any buildings on the Avenue burdened by rent control will be crippled in their production of revenue streams and will be unpredictable investments as far as improvements are concerned for the reasons I give above on the capital improvements surcharge analysis. |
Nolan
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 3:43 pm: | |
Excuse me, in my first sentence in the previous posting, it should read "only 50% of the any tax increase..." Hope there was no confusion. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page