| Author | Message | ||
     Davel |
The NYTs ran a story about the 2 new SO apartment developments today. The first part of the story follows. I left me full of mixed feelings. I am happy to see the Valley St. area get a boost, but it sounds like they'll be considerably more car and train passenger congestion. Did the town really need to grant a 30 year property tax break to get the deal? Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/02/nyregion/02REAL.html February 2, 2001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE 2 Rental Projects Near South Orange Train Hub Under Construction By RACHELLE GARBARINE SOUTH ORANGE, N.J. ÷ The first two upscale rental developments in a dozen years are under construction near the heart of this compact suburb's reviving downtown and a block from its New Jersey Transit train station. One, with 200 apartments, is rising on a 4.7-acre site on Third Street and will be called Gaslight Commons, after the type of street lights that predominate in the 2.7- square-mile township. The other, Church Street Commons, is taking shape in two 25-apartment phases around the corner on Church Street. | ||
| Jem |
And if they really did grant a 30-year tax break, it's a fabulous deal for the owner, a self-inflicted kick in the pants for the village and a terrible blow to the schools. Does someone imagine that municipal services need not be provided to the complex? This stinks. | ||
| Kmk |
The apartments are not intended to be family-friendly. They are small, high tech and expensive, meant for empty nesters and young execs commuting in and out of the city. I doubt the impact on the schools will be noticed and most traffic should be pedestrian. That's the beauty of urban living. | ||
| Villagenative |
It might literally stink if they don't upgrade the sewer main that runs down Third Street. | ||
| Villagenative |
Kmk, you're dreaming. I live on Church Street, and the renters of the first apartment building are clearly two-car marrieds. I can never find a parking spot after work. I'll keep an eye ut for the kids. | ||
| Jem |
They still need police and fire protection, don't they? | ||
| Argon_Smythe |
Just a thought... A large number of residential units in close proximity to the village's core commercial district should substantially increase demand for commercial enterprises in the vicinity. In short, maybe the added residential population will encourage a developer to build a proper walk-in grocery and boost other commercial ventures along South Orange Avenue. Filling those empty stores would increase commercial ratables and therefore the tax base, raise demand, and therefore raise property values. How else are you going to increase demand for the commercial space in the area? Pretty brick paver sidewalks and benches make good stage scenery, but it's not much of a show without actors. | ||
| Tracks |
Church street looked like a disaster area 10 years ago. It is finally looking nicer. There looks like there is parking at the church street apartments so why would that increase on-street parking village native? Maybe there are some commuters who are taking advantage of the location. I agree with Argon Smythe. This should all help the downtown and help bring (or keep) businesses in town. | ||
| Villagenative |
Because they only built one parking spot per unit. Duh. | ||
| Tracks |
Well, I guess the town should put 24 hour meters on church street. That will teach those people to rent an apartment and have two cars. | ||
| Napes |
I don't live in S.O. (I live in Maplewood), but do the developers of these apartments intend to push them as train-friendly? If so, do you think they'll tell them that barely any of the rush hour trains in the morning have room for Maplewood and S.O. commuters? It's often almost standing room only by the time the 8:20 gets to us in Maplewood, let alone South Orange. I would hate to be one of those people who rents a new apartment all excited about the train only to find it's a lost cause. | ||
| Kestrel |
Considering that Columbia High is so overcrowded, which I believe to be the cause of at least part of its problems, might it not have been better for South Orange to build a High School in that place? Perhaps it is time to consider a high school for each community instead of sharing one? | ||
| Tracks |
Maplewood would have to pay for 60% of a new high school. I am sure that would go over real big. They should kick the administrators out of the building on Academy. They do not seem to do much good anyway and then there would be more room for the students. | ||
| Villagenative |
A little sensitive there, Tracks? Gee, isn't having the highest assessed property on Jefferson enough for you? Perhaps you could put the meters in to help pay your new taxes! Or get voted onto the trustee board in SO - they're looking for a few goof men! | ||
| Tracks |
"they're looking for a few goof men! " village native.... was that an accidental typo or a statement about the trustee board? lol not sure what you meant about having the highest assesed taxes on Jefferson. Who lives on Jefferson? | ||
| Algebra2 |
Napes, I don't consider the train a "lost cause". I take the 7:43 and stand about 50% of the time. I read my book, drink a coffee. I guess I don't consider it that big a deal. I moved to Maplewood because of the commute (and the town) and standing goes with being 1/2 hour from penn station, if I wanted to be guaranteed a seat I'd have moved to Summit. | ||
| Spw784 |
Just read in the paper yesterday that Matawan residents who live or own businesses near their train station are renting out parts of their property for parking. I believe the Ledger said that 3,800 people use the Matawan station daily. Maybe people who live near the Maplewood station could make some extra money renting out their driveways to commuters? (since you probably can't install parking meters, like Villagenative suggests). | ||
| Joso |
No one has written on this subject since 2/17/01. Hello out there. Here are my two cents. The real issue on the apartments being built on Valley and nearby is MONEY. How much money will this bring to the SO area? Will the Village be spruced up to be more reflective of the town, e.g. will it be Chelsea-like, Tribeca-like, SOHO-like or Hoboken-like? Will merchants make money? Will wealthy Wall Streeters keep apartments here? Will property values go up? Will we want to continue to live in the area? Everything else will follow. By the way, does SO have a forum to discuss town planning and associated issues? Did anyone attend when this issue was being discussed? Feedback, please. | ||
| Dgm |
Joso, Are you aware that the Gaslight Commons development recieves a property tax abatement from the school district. | ||
| Joso |
Dgm: Quite frankly, I know nothing of these apartments. I am actually trying to determine if their presence will enhance or really clutter the area. Why was there so much emotion on having them built (from the first set of postings)? That is why I am asking when was the issue discussed, if at all, at town meetings? What are the construction plans? Where can I see these plans? To get to your question, what does the tax abatement mean, i.e. was the town expecting to get something back, in another form, for this tax break? | ||
| Kathy |
The town (village) gave the apartment complex a tax abatement in return for a fee-type payment to the village that will equal or exceed what would have been paid to the village in taxes. However, since generally little more than 20% of property taxes go to the village (the rest go to the county and school district), the developers will be paying a lot less. And the county and school district will get nothing. | ||
| Dgm |
Joso, There is a rendering of the Gaslight Commons (thats the name of the apartments on the old Brunner site) in the Village Hall. The emotions of the last flurry of posts had nothing to do with the aesthetics of the complex, but the tax economics and the feeling that if housing becomes less scarce, rents will go down and a less desirable (whatever that was supposed to mean) crowd would move in. It was felt, among other things that the low taxes would burden us all, particularly the school district. -DGM | ||
| Joso |
Thanks Dgm and Kathy. I will need to get more information on this to fully understand its implications. It looks like the Village Hall is a good place to start. |
