| Author |
Message |
    
Tracks
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 4:25 pm: |     |
I would guess that the taxes would be a wash but it would be hard to know in any given year. But the question of a development putting too much burden on a town is an interesting one. But where do you draw the line? Do you not allow families with more than two children to move into a town because of the burden it places on a school? Or should there be a surcharge to families with more than a certain number of children? How about families with three or more cars who create more traffic, etc? Municipal taxes are used for services without regard to income or family size except that the assumption was people with bigger houses have more children and greater incomes. Kind of a silly argument in today's economy.
There are hundreds of questions. And with the quarry... it is private property. Should a person be allowed to build on his property as long as meets the local zoning laws? Just because some people think it is beautiful, how much tax money does a town spend to preserve an open space?
The real question is not whether a new residential development is going to place to much of a financial burden on a town, but whether it is the best use of the land for the town. Is it safe to have more cars and people in a limited space? Would we better off with a different type of development? Does the town need more open space considering the reservation is right there?
Lots of questions for the planning board to consider. I suspect no matter what, some people will not be happy with whatever the final result is at the quarry. |
Dgm
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 5:03 pm: | |
Tracks,
Thanks for the balanced assessment of the issue. I would hate to burden the town with additional operational expenses, but I think that argument is spurious. The additional expenses, if any, would be incremental. Hell the village absorbed Newstead. What I think would be foolish would to be spend the money to preserve the quarry and put it on the backs of the entire town, particularly if the money is bond money. How are you going to save this land without buying it? Lets get focused, multiple families living in a one-family house, like on Third Street, are the problem. What are we saving this for? It is right next to the reservation (practically), it will be a hiding place for deer (and their buddies, the ticks.) What vocal minority uses this space anyway? I assume people are trespassing all the time to see how beautiful the site is, although as a former quarry, it is a brownfield. Answer me that, Riddler.
_DGM |
Mayhewdrive
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
DGM,
First of all, nobody is expecting the town to incur significant additional debt for the quarry property through bonds. With programs, such as Green Acres and Open Space Trust Funds at the local & County level, there is public money out there to be had. Last year, The Village already obtained $500,000 through the State Green Acres program, simply by submitting a one page application.
Secondly, the proximity of the Reservation is irrelevant. The Reservation is NOT located within South Orange, at all. The reservation is County land.
Just imagine if attitudes like yours prevailed over 100 years ago instead, when someone else had the foresight to preserve Central Park in the midst of Manhattan. Someone has to draw the line on development, and we think that time has come now. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 9:44 pm: | |
Central Park wasn't preserved. It was created and designed, and a number of neighborhoods were torn down to make it.
Frederick Law Olmsted did a great job! It looks so natural. I think he did the hills, the trees, the lakes---the whole bit. Amazing, isn't it? |
Dave
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 1:23 am: | |
Olmsted also did Essex County's parks. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 2:02 pm: | |
Right, he did Branch Brook Park in Newark. They have more cherry trees there than DC! |
Dave
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Closer still. He designed South Mtn. Reservation. |
Openspacer
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 5:27 pm: | |
Residential development like the projects on Third, Church and the one proposed for the Quarry will increase the property tax burdens for the rest of us.
Why? Residential developments like these cost more in services than they pay in taxes.
The average house in S.O. is assessed at 200k and pays 9k in property taxes (local, school, county and open space combined). 9k is about what it takes to send one child to our district.
If every newly developed housing unit had just one child, the assessed value would have to be 200k just to break even on the school tax. Now add police fire and DPW. Early discussions with local officials estimated the tax per unit in the Quarry to be in the $4,000/year/unit range.
Putting a development in the quarry, surrounded by the highest assessed real estate in town, will eventually shift the tax burden to the east side of town as the development lowers the surrounding areas property values.
Look at the locations of the Maplewood properties that got the biggest increase in assessments. Now, imagine how much lower those would have been with a 200 unit rental building in Roosevelt Park.
The quarry is close to the reservation. Probably about 400 yards from the rim of the quarry to the dead end at Hoskier Road where the Reservation borders S.O. This does not change the fact there are no public parks in town west of Ridgewood Road, there only 88 acres of parkland for 16,000 S.O. residents, and the S.O. residents voted overwhelmingly to burden themselves for the cause of open space.
I don't think we should view the Quarry as a burden. I think we should view it as an opportunity. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
Openspacer, you make some good points, but I do not think that a development lowers property values. If a gated development like Llelwyn park in W. ORange was built wouldn't the values of the surrounding areas increase? I would think so.
Your arguement about the schools is also unsound. It does not cost S. Orange $9,000 to send a student to school. It costs closer to $4,000. And for the units without children there is no impact.
It would be great to keep open space if it can be done without creating a financial burden to the town. The reservation which is part of Essex county and since S. Orange is part of the county it is an open space that was provided for the towns in the county. It is relevant since we can use the reservation and since there will be a long-term cost associated with the quarry for maintaining it.
A town is not supposed to profit off of residential property. Taxes are to pay for services. The more people who share in paying taxes, the less expensive it becomes to provide services in the long run.
Since traffic concerns are a major issue with developing the quarry, then those same concerns would be there if it was made into public open space. Hundreds of cars going up Tillou on Saturdays with lots of people wandering the woods. I would guess this would be a major safety concern for the residents of Harding, Tillou, etc. No revenue, but services would be needed (Police, Fire, etc). |
Openspacer
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:23 pm: | |
I did not and would never say residential development lowers property values. That is as broad and inaccurate as saying development lowers taxes.
You have to look at the specifics of the development. Take the Third Street development. After the planning board meeting when the builder got site approval I asked people from the neighborhood (Church & Third) why they were not speaking out against the project. They said it was because they thought the project would increase their property values. Great for them.
Take the Quarry. Putting in a gated community like "Llelwyn park in W. ORange" would probably raise the surrounding values.On the other hand, putting in 198 rental units will lower the property.
Look at the large developments in town over the last 25 years. The Mews, Village Green, The Newstead, 321 Wyoming, the senior building on Vose, the senior building on Grove and Jessica Way. All residential developments. Have they lowered you taxes or kept them from going up?
Check out the assessments on these properties, take a look at the municipal and school budget and tell me what housing units in the quarry should be assessed at in order for the town not to make a profit, but not to turn a loss.
All in all, I would just prefer to keep it open.
As for funding, The Village got $500,000 in Green Acres matching grant money, the municipal open space tax money amounts to an additional $100,000 per year, loans are available at 2% for thirty years and the county collects $100,000 per year from S.O. property tax payers for the Essex County Open Space Trust Fund. Plus it is an election year which means there is money there for the asking.
Seize the moment!
Dan Shelffo
www.shelffo.com/quarry.htm |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 2:11 pm: | |
Dan, Are you saying that all the funds for the green acres / open space be used just for the quarry? I thought that money being raised from the taxpayers was meant for all of S. Orange's open space. Was that money earmarked just for the quarry?
What is wrong with the project on third street? I would imagine that it would be better for a neighborhood to have nice apartments than a car dealership. I would think that would improve the values. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 7:53 pm: | |
Tracks, Just where in South Orange, other than the quarry, do you think that there is open space?
The Third Street development has a 30-year property-tax abatement. It will be making a payment-in-kind to the Village of South Orange in lieu of taxes, but nothing to the county or the school district. And the neighborhood it's in isn't exactly residential to begin with. A nice commercial use would probably be preferable from a tax-paying standpoint. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:06 am: | |
If I remember right when a commercial venture tried to move into the car dealership, the town rallied to stop it and the residents in the area had many villagers sign a petition to make the car dealership residential if it was ever sold. I am pretty sure the Village Mews residents were the most outspoken and the ones who said that a supermarket or any commercial venture would kill third street.
I also thought that Waterlands, old waterlands, flood's hill, and the tennis courts were open space land. They all could use money to make improvements. There is also the park in Montrose off of S. Orange Ave. The duck pond could certainly be spruced up. That is in the center of town and and a lot of residents use the park there and it is used for village events. I pay taxes and do not live near the quarry. I would want some portion of the open space money spent on the parks that I use too. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:17 pm: | |
I thought that the money was for acquiring open space to keep it open, not to fix up parks that we already have. |
Openspacer
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 9:36 am: | |
There are two possible sources of money at this point. There is the the municipal open space tax. That amount is about $100,000/year. This money can be used for: acquisition, development for recreation, maintenance, historic preservation or payment of debt service incurred for the above.
The other source of funding is the Planning Incentive (PI) Grant of $500,000. The PI program only funds land acquisition for recreation and conservation purposes.
There is other money out there as well from organizations such as the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust which specializes in water issues like pollution and runoff.
I think the goal should be to maximize the bang for our buck by coming up with a very creative open space master plan encompassing the entire Village and then get the funding for it. Input to the plan should come from anyone who cares. $600,000 is a great start but is not enough.
I do not think maintenance is creative enough to get more funding. We should acquire first and maintain later. The reverse is impossible. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 2:07 pm: | |
I was mostly referring to the tax that we pay which I think is supposed to generate the $100,000 previously mentioned. It would be great to acquire more open space. At the same time I want to see the open space we have kept up. |
Openspacer
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 10:44 am: | |
The municipal OPEN SPACE trust fund was passed by the S.O. voters by a 3 to one margin.
Anybody who believes that the money is intended to cleanup the goose guano at the duck pond was either not paying attention to the campaign or just doesn't get it.
Essex county has an open space fund to which we in S.O. contribute $100,000/year to. The county has been criticized from a wide range of people for using this money just for maintenance. They feel that if the money goes for keeping the status quo then all that was accomplished was a tax increase. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 1:29 pm: | |
I think it was passed for a lot of reasons. One of them was obviously to help acquire new open space (the quarry) but surely some of the funds were meant to help fix up existing open space. Cute to make comments about the goose guano, but the pond itself looks like it needs repairs. The waterlands can use more than just some maintenance work.
The point is I would not want 100% of the funds going to just the quarry over a long period of time.
And I do get it. This is a tax increase whether it is used to acquire new open space, fix up existing open space or just help maintain open space. |
Chico
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 6:31 pm: | |
I have some questions. Where in the approval/disapproval process are town proceedings now? What official village rulings have already taken place on this matter? Is there a web site that succinctly answers these questions? What position has each trustee taken on this issue to date (and what is each expected to take)? What is the purchase price of the property, today? Please, would some knowledgeable person help with answers? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 11:03 am: | |
There has been lots of rumors about the price and the current contract. I have heard numbers from $5,000,000 all the way to $7,000,000.
I think all of the trustees have said they are against a development of 198 rental units. I also remember there was some kind of settlement that was done through the courts (about 10 years ago) but I do not remember what the settlement was or the details. I have not seen a web site that completely covers it. |
|