| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 535
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 8:03 am: | 
|
Rescind Resolution Designating Millennium Homes as the Redeveloper:
Passage of "Resolution Authorizing a Settlement in Map Enterprises, Inc. v. the Township of South Orange Village, et al." allows the purchase by the Village for $1,250,000 the last property in the assembly of properties in the block specified by resolution #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.)
Block 2304, Lots 3,7,8 are Parking Authority lots on Third Street; Lot 5 is the Gulf Station now owned by the Village; Lot 4 is the empty car dealership which is this purposed purchase.
Is the Village inventorying these properties for some future grand plan that has not be communicated? I didn’t hear any discussion before the resolution was passed. Are we going down another slippery slope?
Will Millennium Homes build or if not should the redeveloper status be rescinded? If they plan on building, we will lose the parking facilities but at what price – these are our assets!
|
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 293
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
"Is the Village inventorying these properties for some future grand plan that has not be communicated? I didn’t hear any discussion before the resolution was passed. Are we going down another slippery slope?"
The above must be rhetorical questions unless the village government is a bunch of socialists bent on government control of local real estate... Once this area is developed, it will be school tax abatement time in South Orange once again. |
Peter J. Watts
Citizen
Username: Peter_watts
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Here are some questions...
How is paying $1.25 million a settlement? If Millennium wants to develop condos why didn't they buy it themselves? With a cash-strapped local government, where's that money coming from?
This sounds very, very fishy
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 539
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
It was part of a $3,000,000 bond issue that was also used to purchase the Gulf Station. Also, note that as stated below if they do proceed with a deck for 500 spaces at $15,000 per space they will need an additional $4,500,000.
Later that year they passed the resolution assigning these properties to Millennium as a redeveloper. What's that plan, Parking or Codo's?
From minutes: REGULAR MEETING, JULY 25, 2005
#05-16- Bond Ordinance Providing for Capital Improvements in and by the Township of South Orange Village, in the County of Essex, New Jersey, Appropriating $3,000,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $2,850,000 Bonds or Notes.
The Village Administrator explained that this is a bond ordinance to assign funds and appropriations to enable repairs and work on various Village buildings as well as to acquire and construct parking facilities at locations to be determined within the Village.
Village President Calabrese asked if anyone from the public wished to be heard on this ordinance.
Howard Levison, 343 Harding Drive, asked if there were any concepts or proposals at hand for the $2,5000,000 for parking facilities and he further asked what properties were to be acquired.
Trustee Rosen responded that the answer was yes, however, this could not be discussed in a public session because it would put the Village in a detrimental position during negotiations.
Mr. Levison asked how many parking spaces the Village was seeking for $2,500,000. He noted that the Board is asking the public to support a bond issue for something which is unknown. The Village Administrator, John Gross responded that there are various parameters about parking which can be discussed in public such as land acquisition. He advised that the Village is looking at several locations to either acquire or construct parking facilities.
He stated, however, that because of the nature of negotiations he cannot disclose any negotiation or potential negotiation sites at this time. He noted that parking and traffic studies project a parking deficit of 500+ spaces. He advised that on average, the cost of parking construction is approximately
$15,000/space. Mr. Gross stated that once negotiations have been finalized or final decisions have been made, the outcome will be publicly disclosed through a resolution of the Board of Trustees. He underscored that this bond ordinance is for an allocation of funds in general. A bond ordinance provides for the general allocation of funds, not specifics. He explained that a bond ordinance is authorization to utilize funds. Contracts for specific projects must be authorized by resolution by the Board of Trustees.
Mr. Levison asked who will be operating the parking facilities. Mr. Gross responded that the question is premature at this time. He noted that there were numerous options but no decisions have been made at this point in time.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 319
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 4:50 pm: |
|
assigning, as in, for free?
jd |
Elaine Harris
Citizen
Username: Elaineharris
Post Number: 142
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Please keep in mind that the $1.25 million was "only part" of the settlement. There was more. RE-read the paper and you will see. |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 263
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Boy, doesn't a parking deck @ $4.5mm sound a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot more useful than the $16mm SOPAC fiasco?
The real shame of the current administration is the overhang all their bungling will put on the future of South Orange.
Fewer dollars, better spent, shoulda, woulda, coulda really put this town on the map.
|
Peter J. Watts
Citizen
Username: Peter_watts
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Was the BoT keeping it under wraps they were in this lawsuit? Where was the News-Record on reporting this? I find this whole thing baffling. |
KRNL
Citizen
Username: Krnl
Post Number: 44
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
Question: The former auto dealer on Valley was Beifus. Is this property also owned by by the same Beifus that is "DEVELOPING" the South Orange Ave. property?
South Orange tax-payers should demand the real details to ANY planned development of these properties before it is too late.
Also, can the community afford more housing which will put more stress on the tax base by adding more students to our schools? The equation of whether additional ratables help ease the burden of property taxes on the homeowner base needs to include major analysis of this factor. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 544
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:40 am: |
|
KRNL, this property is/was not owned by Beifus. I think you are referring to the one down another block. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page