| Author |
Message |
    
Josh Holtz
Citizen
Username: Jholtz
Post Number: 266
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:36 pm: | 
|
The PILOT precedent has been set with the major projects in town. Any developer looking to build in SO will most likely look to a PILOT 1st. They will do what is in the best interest of their own business.
The public perception is that the Village hands out PILOTs out of desperation. Developers will try and take advantage of that.
As far as Montclair is concerned PILOTs have been granted - but what is the ratio of PILOT to non-PILOT major projects in that town? I would assume Montclair to have a low percentage of PILOT projects.
It would also be interesting to see how many of Plofker's Montclair projects have PILOTs. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 10:56 pm: |
|
Let's be blunt, Millenium is asking for what they want. They'd love to get a $3 million PILOT and control of most of downtown.
I think this is known as an initial negotiating position. Sounds like a lowball bid to me, with the extra money spent on trying to railroad this through our government without ever having to face competition that might give a better deal.
Look, downtown will be redeveloped someday, whether in one large development, or in smaller bites. Let's not let the current messes panic us into moving too quickly with a developer who is trying to do an end run around a real input process while asking for a rather juicy PILOT.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 384
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
It seems like the Millenium project is highly dependent upon building a bunch of parking decks...by SLoan Street, by SOPAC. Plus there are parking decks supposed to be built on Shop Rite and Beifus parcels, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know, but to me, parking decks create a very urban feel. They get dirty quickly, create security problems, have no greenery and are generally less convenient to use. I can't see using a parking deck to grab a Danish at Cait & Abby's for instance, or even to go to the "coming soon" supermarket. Plus you would be competing for a place with all those new residences.
I'd like to see Vallley Street developed, but I have serious questions about the Millenium proposal. And I don't think Valley Street development needs to include Sloan Street which is one of the nicer spots in town, and was so referenced by the Atlantic Group.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8577
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
It would serve all taxpayers' interests to have multiple developers bid on this major project.
In fact, I think we need to stop calling this the "Millenium Project" and refer to it as the "Valley Street Redevelopment Project". |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3336
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
There is a scathing Editorial in the News Record today by someone (I didn't recognize the name) who is very much opposed to the Millenium project.
Funny...at the meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Berkely begged people to write Letters to the News Record. I don't think this is what he had in mind.  |
Husky
Citizen
Username: Husky
Post Number: 18
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
I recognize that parking is a serious problem for the Village. But I also tend to agree with jayjay's comments that parking decks can be ugly, dark, and dirty. Beyond the problematic asctetics of parking decks, I've also found them to be difficult to get in and out of. Therefore, I found Mr. Berkely's comment that getting into Starbucks or Cait & Abby's would be easier since people could park in a deck to be laughable.
I also believe that effective traffic management and parking solutions are so central to Valley Street Redevelopment that any vision for that redevelopment should, at its fundamental core, take into account traffic and parking and be built around that issue. Millenium's approach seemed to be "this is what we're going to build and we'll let the rest of the Village worry about traffic later." |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Someone needs to prove to me that the town can gracefully handle 500+ units of dense housing in terms of traffic, potential school impact, and positive impact on town finances after all costs (roads, sewers, relocating Rescue Squad etc.) before I can support any project such as Millennium's.
Then I need to see an open process that ensures that valid competing offers can be heard -- this may or may not be the best deal available to our town.
Then I need to understand whether the project can be created without eminent domain, and if not, what eminent domain is needed (who loses a home? which businesses are lost?), and what alternative designs are possible without it. Old and modest is not the same as blight, and we should think hard before using a law designed to combat true urban blight against local residents and small business owners.
Then I need to understand why such a deep tax discount is needed to attract this development, given South Orange's attractivenss as a residential destination. Why the h*** shouldn't these new residents pull their weight? Why should they skip county and school tax and have a local tax rate frozen for the next 30 years? If this project is unattractive enough to need a major tax discount, maybe it isn't the right project. There may be an argument for using PILOTs to attract specific higher risk businesses (e.g. a downtown market or certain kinds of retail), but I don't understand the logic of giving them to anyone who wants to build housing in South Orange.
BOT and Millenium, explain all of this to me. Then I might become a supporter. Right now asking for my support is terribly premature. |
JoRo
Citizen
Username: Autojoe51
Post Number: 62
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:48 am: |
|
I'm no accountant, but $3M seems like a pittance. Let's not compare income to what Valley generates now, but what it could offer under different plans. And why are half/three-quarter-million-dollar homes getting a tax break in an affluent neighborhood? Is that the spirit of the redevelopment act? If it is, NJ is nuttier than I thought! |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3143
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 9:05 am: |
|
I think Susan has a lot of common sense.  |
User58
Citizen
Username: User58
Post Number: 399
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
One of the issues I have with this development is the retail space that will be included. I am open to the possibility of developing this area but without retail space. I believe that if they are allowed to develop this and include retail space then you can kiss any chance that South Orange avenue will ever come back. If they develop in stages with residential only then it will bring more strength to South Orange ave. and will attract new businesses. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
I disagree -- having great retail space in this plan is critical if SO is to be a vibrant downtown area.
The current "mess" of little shops and store fronts will never be conducive to attracting the kinds of businesses that will survive in the long run.
Mom & Pop sneaker and clothing shops are *never* going to be money makers -- the next generation stores *must* be competitive with stores that are at the malls.
IMO for the downtown village to thrive there has to be more residential (but probably not as many as 500!), convenient grocery shopping, and stores that keep people from immediately thinking "mall."
Combine that with entertainment options (SOPAC, Goat, and other cafes), and an array of restaurants -- not only will villagers stay in the village, others will come, and likely the Seton Hall community as well.
If we had unlimited suburban acres for parking, that's easiest, of course. But the other option are easy, convenient garages. Look at towns like Princeton, Montclair (that new garage is teriffic!) --
Personally -- if Beifus isn't ready to move forward once the PLanning Board meeting happens in March -- gave the project to Millennium. It'll be a chance for them to prove themselves -- an incentive, I'd think, to getting the thing done in record time.
Our downtown was an embarassment 5 years ago when I moved here -- every realtor made excuses and talked about "coming soon." And its changed very little since then.
Pete
|
John Glick
Citizen
Username: Jgg
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
I agree with peteglider that we as citizens should want South Orange to become a destination point with stores and restaurants that people from other towns want to patronize, as well as to keep South Orange residents in town. The presentation the other night made this point and also discussed a proposal related to additional parking to support the added activity for the additional stores and restaurants as well as for SOPAC events.
I would also think that it is a logical conclusion that the stores on South Orange Avenue will benefit from the increased activity in the Village as people will not shop exclusively on Valley Street when they are in the Village simply because these stores are new. The fact remains that if the only argument against adding retail is to protect the status quo, no progress will be made in the Village, and it certainly will not be a place where residents and non-residents alike will want to patronize on a consistent basis. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 426
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
What also needs to be discussed are the financial implications that this project will have on the Village Government. There are support services that will be required both in the implementation as well as the final phases. Increased density will require increased services from Police, Fire, DPW, Parking Authority, Code Enforcement, Health and Administration.
Therefore there needs to be a clear understanding of revenues versus support services.
We must understand the quality of life implications that these projects bring to the Village – Open Space currently running with a 65-acre deficit will be drastically impacted. Traffic patterns/flow are critical. Parking alternatives for dislocated lots and new retail establishments being defined as magnets/destinations are critical.
Managing this process will become key. We will need professionals at the Village level who are knowledgeable in the process.
The proposal includes purchasing Village assets - Parking Lots and aquired properties (Gulf Station). This should not be an incentive to balance our budget which has serious funding issues.
Note that a resolution has already been passed designating Millennium Homes as a redeveloper of Village properties. Block 2304, Lots 3,7,8 are parking lots on Third Street; Lot 5 is the Gulf Station now owned by the Village; Lot 4 is an empty car dealership.
"#80-04 – Resolution Designating Millennium Homes as the Redeveloper of Block 2304, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area."
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 427
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
What also needs to be discussed are the financial implications that this project will have on the Village Government. There are support services that will be required both in the implementation as well as the final phases. Increased density will require increased services from Police, Fire, DPW, Parking Authority, Code Enforcement, Health and Administration.
Therefore there needs to be a clear understanding of revenues versus cost of additional support services.
We must understand the quality of life implications that these projects bring to the Village – Open Space currently running with a 65-acre deficit will be drastically impacted. Traffic patterns/flow are critical. Parking alternatives for dislocated lots and new retail establishments being defined as magnets/destinations are critical.
Managing this process will become key. We will need professionals at the Village level who are knowledgeable in the process. We cannot make the same mistakes we see with current projects (New Market, Beifus, Sayid Plaza, Sickley Buildings, etc)
The Millennium proposal includes purchasing Village assets - Parking Lots and aquired properties (Gulf Station). This should not be an incentive to balance our budget which has serious funding issues by selling our assets.
Note that a resolution has already been passed designating Millennium Homes as a redeveloper of Village properties. Block 2304, Lots 3,7,8 are parking lots on Third Street; Lot 5 is the Gulf Station now owned by the Village; Lot 4 is an empty car dealership.
"#80-04 – Resolution Designating Millennium Homes as the Redeveloper of Block 2304, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area."
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2315
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Are Open Space requirements based on the physical size of hte town, or the population base? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10627
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Howard, you mean the BOT has made this, essentially, a done deal? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 428
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Bob K: At least a portion.
Rasto: Population |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2316
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
SDo adding people will increae our net O-S deficit? |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 206
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Howard notes:
"Note that a resolution has already been passed designating Millennium Homes as a redeveloper of Village properties. Block 2304, Lots 3,7,8 are parking lots on Third Street; Lot 5 is the Gulf Station now owned by the Village; Lot 4 is an empty car dealership.
"#80-04 – Resolution Designating Millennium Homes as the Redeveloper of Block 2304, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the Central Business District Redevelopment Area." "
I've asked this before and have not seen much info surface. I assume this resolution includes Parking Lot #7. Can anyone confirm this? Jeff Dubowy are you out there?
If so, why was Parking Lot #7 re-paved Summer 2005 if redevelopment was in the works?
Who got the contract?
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 438
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Parking Lot#7 is the SOPAC lot. You may be confusing the "Lots" mentioned which are property identifications with "Parking Lot" numbers. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 207
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
I may be confused. I'm pretty sure the last time I was on Valley St. (across from SO towing or whatever it is called) the sign said Parking Lot #7. The sign on 3rd Street (near rescue squad) has been missing since I started asking about it. I may be wrong.
I'm talking about lot(s) south of 3rd Street. Are they in the resolution you reference?
Thanks, Howard. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2561
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
SO1969: Not sure this will help but there is a map on the parking authority page of the website. It has the parking lot numbers and locations.
http://www.southorange.org/parking.asp
Then again, I remember seeing the same sign you mention about parking lot # 7.
The parking lots in question are the ones on third street between the rescue squad and the old gulf station with an entrance onto valley street at the back of the lots.
|
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 208
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
thanks, mrosner. On the web link, the lots I'm referring to - the ones you describe - are lots 3 and 6, called the Third Street lots.
I think an MOL lurker may be having some fun at my expense.
this morning, the sign I'd previously seen, and referred to on MOL, at the Valley Street entrance, which read "Parking Lot 7 Valley Street" was missing from its location across from Essex towing.
On 3rd Street, near the rescue squad, where the sign had been missing for weeks, was a sign reading "Parking Lot 7 Valley Street" - even though it is clearly on 3rd Street.
The point of this - an no one, not mrosner, not Jeff DuBowy, nor any of the other Parking Authority Commissioners or BOT members seems wiling to speak to this - is that these parking lots - the 3rd Street Parking lots - were just re-paved to the tune of, I'm sure, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.
This was done even though the cognoscenti knew the lots were slated for redevelopment.
The questions again are:
(1) How much did this cost?
(2) Who did the work?
(3) Why was the job authorized with the pending redevelopment?
I don't park there, so maybe it was an emergency paving job, whatever that may be - dangerously large potholes(?). I tend to think not. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3363
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
SO1969,
At the Presentation by Millenium, they stated that even if they had the town's approval today, it would be around 18 months before groundbreaking due to permits, environmental studies etc. Knowing how things move in South Orange, I wouldn't expect an approval for AT LEAST one year.
My point, being that even if everything moved along on schedule, those lots still need for function for at least 2.5 years.
I'm not making excuses for anyone, but PERHAPS that was the logic used. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 440
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
There was another problem that needed to be solved at that lot - it had a giant sink hole! |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 211
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
A giant sinkhole is a serious problem - one that can't wait for the redevelopment.
I'll drop this. Thanks for the info. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page