| Author |
Message |
    
Rheims
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 4:37 pm: |     |
Gerry (or are you Mayor Ryan for life, like a U.S. President?):
What percentage of the town's total taxes are taken in from commercial properties and how is that expected to change with the planned-for rebirth of Springfield Avenue? Will larger businesses, such as chain stores, be given tax breaks for moving in? Just curious.
Btw, if there's an award for fortitude and patience, you deserve it for dealing with some of these folks on the board.
Rheims |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:26 pm: | |
Just Jerry is fine, and thanks for your kind words.
I think that I mentioned that about 94% of the revenue comes from residential properties in Maplewood under the reval. That percentage is slighty higher than it was before the reval.
If commercial improvements on Springfield Ave cause increased assessments, then the improved property would pay a proportionally larger share of the taxes. For example, if the reval numbers were as they were on Jan 10, and then an increased assessment of $5.5M were done, the 2.66% rate would decrease to 2.65%.
There's been no talk of tax abatements for new move-ins.
Jerry |
Rckymtn
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:54 pm: | |
But isn't it safe to assume that once the area is "revitalized" we can hope that more businesses move in to the area? And that more business means more "commercial" tax revenue for the town? But the next step isn't so sure -- residential property taxes may not necessarily go down if commercial property revenues go up -- right? That question would involve almost too many factors to be answered, including the time factor, which likely would be years if not a decade.
What is the commercial vacancy rate along Springfield Ave. anyway? |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 7:29 pm: | |
It's my understanding that every commercial building on Springfield Ave., whether open and running or out of business , is already paying taxes (they better be).
Since there doesn't seem to be much if any room to build ADDITIONAL commerical buildings, this whole increased commercial tax revenue from Springfield ave. is smoke and mirrors sideshow.
I wouldnât bet the farm on the Springfield Ave revitalization plan solving Maplewood's tax problems. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 9:48 pm: | |
U don't have much of an imagination. Even if the vacancy rate were low (and there are many vacancies on Springfield) you wouldn't necessarily need to have new construction to increase the tax base.
Imagine that the revitalization works and business perks up there. Don't you think that this will result in an increase in commercial property values on Springfield Ave? |
Harold
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 9:51 pm: | |
Why would the re-vitalization work? You do not shop there now, why would you in the future? |
Tom
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:48 pm: | |
Well if there were a Borders and a Starbucks I'd be down there every weekend! |
Melidere
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
STarbucks!!!??#$%
say it ain't so, tom |
Rheims
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:53 am: | |
I disagree that revitalizing Springfield would not provide the town with some tax relief. By making it a more attractive shopping area, East side residential property values would go up, bringing them into greater balance with West side values.
I also disagree re not needing new construction. Springfield Avenue right now is fine for what it is: an ugly road for a town's less attractive needs, such as fast food, new tires, cheap liquor and oil changes. But if it is to be made a shopping district, a destination rather than a byway, it must be radically redesigned. And I don't mean just creating unified fronts, as in the Village.
I would suggest that Springfield be revisioned as a cross between the Short Hills Mall and the Millburn downtown, a loop of stores in which Springfield would be just one half. The other would be a new road to the east; property values are cheaper there and could be bought up more easily. This would facilitate the creation of large "anchor" stores in the center, such as a Barnes & Noble, a multiplex or Staples. Traffic would be one way up Springfield, the other way back on the new road to ease traffic flow and create, as a mall has, a track for people to walk. Streets crossing the loop could cater to less driver-oriented shops and more restaurants.
Fundamental to this plan is a simple realization: Springfield has never been a shopping district. It's a highway that shops have come to line, a mini Route 22. As a result, there is no architectural unity, nor is there any community. And one couldn't be laid over the avenue. So before the avenue is revitalized, it must first be reinvented. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
A loop with a new road to the east? Is the point of this to condemn Vic Deluca's house?
This would be a wonderful idea if it wouldn't destroy scores of homes and throw hundreds of people out of Maplewood. |
Rheims
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:19 am: | |
A loop would hopefully result in buy outs, not toss outs, as if by condemning.
I didn't realize Vic lived there. No offense was intended. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this or any revitalization plan since it would affect his neighborhood most. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:06 am: | |
Can someone confirm or refute a statement I heard the other day? I heard that the country club plays zero property taxes. Is this true? If it is true, is it "normal" for a country club located within a community to not pay any taxes? Thanks for the help |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:53 am: | |
Overtaxdalready: This is one of those old, false rumors that refuses to go away. I believe Jerry Ryan said a few months ago, the last time this one made the rounds, that the Country Club had paid $200,000 the previous year. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 3:05 pm: | |
Thanks for the info! |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 8:53 pm: | |
Did I hear correctly last night? That PSE&G and and the bus properties on Boyden and Springfield avenues do not pay taxes? If so, why? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:11 pm: | |
The bus property is New Jersey Transit. They don't pay taxes on the train station either, and it's silly to expect them to. They get more than a quarter of their funds from the state already. |
Bak
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:55 pm: | |
There were representatives of Maplewood CC outside with my husband at the TC meeting Tuesday night. Their assessment formerly was 2 Million and were upset that it was now 9 Million.
Their idea (those outside)was then to share a $9 million mortgage and buy the place and make millions each.
That place is well worth 2x its new assessment. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:22 am: | |
I suppose you are aware when you make that statement that most of that property is in a flood plain. |
|