| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4167
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:17 pm: | 
|
Watching parts of the Planning Board Meeting tonight as they discuss the "plan" for Valley Street. As I understand, the majority of Valley Street has been determined to be in need of "Rehabilitation" NOT "Redevelopment".
One major difference is that "rehabilitation" only allows a 5-year tax abatement, but redevelopment allows a 30-year tax abatement. Calabrese is "fighting" desperately against this for some reason. He keeps saying how the tax structure in this town will kill anyone who wants to redevelop without a long term tax abatement. Too bad he's not as concerned about the tax structure killing current residents.
My guess - Millenium Homes has put him up to it. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Isn't the other difference that Redevelopment gives more power to seize property than Rehabilitation does? (I think I remember reading this somewhere, but could be wrong)
I forgot about this meeting, so will only see the part from 9 PM onwards (taping now). Thanks for the update.
Glad to hear that Calabrese is not necessarily getting his way on this one. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
I heard a rumor that the rescue squad building was included in this plan. Has anyone heard if this is true? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4168
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:07 pm: |
|
The plan was online at: http://www.southorange.org/development/redev_study.asp
(thought it currently does not seem to be working) |
Sean Flood
Citizen
Username: Campus_sub_shop
Post Number: 167
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:09 am: |
|
MRosner, hasn't the Midas property now been included in the redevelopement/rehabilitation zone? I am sure it was not previous. In light of my original post (approx. 2 years ago) whereas I "hinted" at this, does that not concern you or do you see this as a mere coincidence? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2799
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:44 am: |
|
Susan is right that the major difference is the right to condemn with redevelopment. MHD, short term PILOT/abatement is nothing like the long term PILOT's (10 - 30 years). The money does not all go to the village and the assessed value of the property would still count in the split for determining the split for the schools.
Sean: One should not spot zone and I thought the intention was to include both sides of valley. I can't see leaving one property out of the zone. However, the BOT has never condemned an ongoing business and I do not think the intent would ever to condemn a business that just spent a small fortune renovating. If it was to happen, the business and property owners would be fairly compensated and the business would have to be relocated.
From the point of view of attracting a developer I would think it would be a lot easier using redevelopment (threat of condemnation is very powerful) vs a rehab plan. I would also think that if you wanted a smaller size development you would want a redevelopment plan (because of the power of a long term PILOT). The issue is to make sure the PILOT and condemnation powers are used responsibly and to our advantage.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3315
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
Quote:The issue is to make sure the PILOT and condemnation powers are used responsibly and to our advantage.
No offense to you, Mark, but what are the odds of that happening? I'd guess slim to none... oh wait, Slim just left the building. |
K_soze
Citizen
Username: K_soze
Post Number: 297
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
Is it true that the rescue squad buidling will be torn down? If so is the Squad going to be disbanded? Isn't that a dis-service to the town? I'm sure they'd be promised another location but we all know how those things go |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4169
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
When Millenium gave their presentation, they stated that the Rescue Squad would be re-located as part of THEIR plan.
However, last night the Planning Board was simply reviewing recommnedations of whether or not to consider Valley Street "in need of rehabilitation". |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2800
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:56 am: |
|
K-Soze: The rescue squad will not be disbanded even if they need to move. The rescue squad has a lot more volunteers than a few years ago including several from SHU. The current building does not meet all the needs that they have and so when/if they need to be relocated I hope we can help get them the much needed improved space.
I would think we should have to find the new location first.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
I raise this issue -- although some may think this is wrong given the historic nature of the firehouse --
This past weekend being in the village, there was so much activity at the firehouse -- traffic was jammed up for quite some time. (I think there was one call, then maybe they were moving the trucks around afterwards.
From a purely practical standpoint, having the firehouse smack in the middle of downtown is absurd. (OTOH, I don't have an alternative site in mind).
When the "big" redev project is evaluated, it seems to me that plans should be considered to move the firehouse and recue squad out of that area.
Considering the investment the village is making in the firehouse, makes this kind of nuts -- but long term, from a strategic development view -- it makes no sense to have these 2 village properties not included in the redev plans.
Pete |
Sean Flood
Citizen
Username: Campus_sub_shop
Post Number: 169
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:28 pm: |
|
MRosner,
The location was not in the redevelopment zone when it was "negotiated" and sold. As well, I was informed the town did not expect "the line" (as it was referred to) -meaning the redevelopment line dividing one side of Valley Street -from the side not being redeveloped (Midas side).
I would suspect someone may feel compelled to pay OVER ASKING (for a building that failed to sell 3 times at PUBLIC AUCTION over a period of YEARS)... had they been aware of such an impending move. I certainly was never made aware of this and (as you are aware) bid asking price for the location.
This was the "sweet heart" deal I was concerned with 2 years back -in which you disputed. I am not saying this is a fact, I am saying that something does not add up.
Would you agree or would you caulk this up as mere coinicidence? |
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 333
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
mrosner wrote:
Sean: One should not spot zone and I thought the intention was to include both sides of valley.
Seems to me a building that is at the end of a block and potentially near the end of the zone and is essentially brand new, could be spot zoned.
I really hope we're not going to see that building (Midas/THD) torn down after it is totally re-done.
If that is the path we're going down, I agree with Sean that it looks odd and is horrible financial, economic development and environmental policy on the part of the township. |
Sean Flood
Citizen
Username: Campus_sub_shop
Post Number: 171
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
The opposite side of Valley Street (Home Liquor -or what ever it's called now, side)was in "the zone" but not the Midas side. I am clear on that. }I called the original deal into question a long time ago. MRosner first disputed the notion and said something in line with "in hindsite, Sean may have been right" (not actual quote). I never knew how to take that and did not want to put it on him. Afterall, isn't he the one who takes the time to answer our questions?
I am wondering if all of these developments should be considered dubious or mere coincidence. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 994
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 2:56 pm: |
|
I appreciate Calabrese's fighting for longer term abatements, but the issue raises the question of what what is necessary to encourage necessary improvements and make them affordable to a property owner. I don't know what the average property tax is on Valley Street, but if it's (for example) $5,000/year, a property owner would save $25K with a 5-year abatement. Is that enough for him/her to go out and get a loan for the necessary improvements? That doesn't seem like much to me. If the average tax is $10,000/year, he's got $50K to work with. Go to a 30-year abatement, and now he's up to $150,000 - $300,000. (Please correct me if I misunderstand abatements.)
On an unrelated note, I found it ironic that one of the criteria used to determine whether a piece of property should be considered for redevelopment/rehabilitation is whether the property is more than 50 years old. In a mature community like this one, almost every building in town meets that criterion (anything built prior to 1956). There should be a better way to assess a property than its age.
And on a totally unrelated note, the body language of some of the board members was atrocious. They clearly didn't want to be in that meeting.
|
Nuff Sayid
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 433
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
I agree. The process is flawed. We don't have a master plan that's been updated since 1979 - 27 years ago. They want to place properties in redevelopment even though they really only qualify for rehabilitation, but it is to be left to the discretion of the board and the BoT. What a joke. The process is the problem, the leadership is ignorant and pay to play corruption is rampant.
|
Sean Flood
Citizen
Username: Campus_sub_shop
Post Number: 173
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Nuff,
I brought up what I saw as a "pattern" of either dumb luck or something just not right. There are just too many coincidences or thinge simply unexplained.
You mentioned "pay to play". Does anyone really believe that? If true, that stinks. If "pay to play" is the deal, it's a cancer ruining SO.
Find some populist a-hole subject and the BoT is here on MOL chiming in. Challenge them or ask for a direct answer and they are conveniently no longer on line, do not recall or were not elected to office then.
If these people are elected to serve the residents then here's an idea... go find out! If someone is up to no good, expose it! Otherwise join the boys club and people will interpret your silence as approval. |
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 166
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
I smell a RAT! |
Scalia
Citizen
Username: Scalia
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
I hope that everyone posting on this thread will be attending the meeting tomorrow evening regarding the Strategic Plan (7:00 pm, South Orange Middle School). |
John Glick
Citizen
Username: Jgg
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
In viewing the planning board meeting it would appear that while much of the study area was recommended by the planner to be rehabilitation, her explanation did not describe what the financial incentive would be for parcel owners to actually rehabilitate their properties. The planner seemed to also indicate that the property owners would in effect have to obtain loans on their own to make such improvements. Since I believe and presumably most residents believe that Valley Street needs to be improved, doesn't it appear based upon what seemed to be a very unsure explanation by the planner, that without much incentive from a profit standpoint or the financial means to make such improvements that the planners recommendation will almost certainly result in not much being done by the majority of property owners to improve Valley Street in the years to come.
I also agree with thegoodsgt's comment above that the planner should be able to come up with a greater reason than simply stating that buildings and sewers are 50 years old as the basis for reaching her conclusions. Based on that determination most of South Orange and for that matter the State of New Jersey would be considered rehabilitation. You would think that this planner who has apparently conducted many studies for South Orange over the years at what I assume has come at great expense to the Village would be able to cite reasons providing greater analysis than the obvious age of buildings and sewers to reach her conclusions. |
Nuff Sayid
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 434
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Why was a developer named for the 3rd street lot before any planning from the municipality was done? Update on strategic plan, input from community groups, etc... Does anyone watch the show on cable where three architects compete for the work related to a design concept for a home renovation. The town likewise with community involvement and participation as stakeholders should invite this type of planning tool to assist in our strategic planning initiatives. Well before designating any property under the state redevelopment law. The process has to be open, infomative and collaborative with the existing residents and property owners. By the way, I don't think South Orange has any buildings that qualifies as "blighted" under the redevelopment law thereby causing to exact an emminent domain cloud over the property. We may consider blighted exceptions only for properties the town owns (shop-rite). 
|
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
Just now watching this meeting via tape delay, and have a few comments:
1. As has already been said, Calabrese seems incredibly eager to give away long-term tax abatements, and keeps mentioning how onerous our tax structure is. He gives examples of potential tax breaks for residential housing improvements within the zone. Well, what about the rest of us who own residential real estate and aren't going to be in the zone?
There needs to be a very clear case made as to why my real estate taxes should stay as is, while residential real estate elsewhere in town gets tax breaks, whether in this plan or in PILOTs for new construction. I've never heard anyone make a cogent explanation of why any residential unit in this town needs a tax break, given the strength of our residential real estate market.
We need to be targeted in our use of tax structure to drive improvements.
2. I'm floored by the citizen who feels that massive tax breaks on her potential residential improvement aren't enough. She's concerned that we might not give her anything MORE than tax breaks and possibly low interest loans to drive improvement of her "$650,000 2 family home". Sorry, but you reap the gain -- either take a loan or sell the property to someone who can actually afford the investment. I see no reason why you need a grant from the town in addition to a potential tax break! I'm sorry, but she just sounded rather greedy to me.
3. Eliane Harris may annoy some people, but she continues to be an important irritant to the system, and I'm incredibly annoyed to see the Planning Committee try to silence her because she wanted to give a historic preamble to her question.
4. We haven't had a Master Plan update since I was in High School??? (and I'm in my early 40s now). The how the h**l can we make any forward going decisions on redevelopment or rehab plans? If the master plan rewrite is in process, let's finish it and do things in a logical order. (if the current order is actually logical, I look forward to someone explaining it to me!)
5. Departing audience --- shut the **** up. The meeting wasn't over yet, and its embarassing how loudly the Board is having to yell to try to finish the meeting. Don't have your freaking gossip sessions in the council chamber whill the meeting is still in session! Thanks to your misbehavior, the person filming the meeting gave up before the meeting was over.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4177
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Nice recap, Susan! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page