Millenium again

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4396 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 4:40 pm:        I have heard that Millenium is presenting before the Planning Board tonight. Does anyone know what this is about?   Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1831 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 4:59 pm:        Probably in response to the planner's study that said that Valley St. for the most part did not meet the requirements of an area in need of redevelopment, but rather an area in need of rehabilitation. Calabrese wasn't happy with the planner's finding.   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4399 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:16 pm:        Interesting interaction going on between Lenny Berkely & Janine Bauer who is acting as Chair of the Planning Board. (anyone know why Janine is Chair tonight?)   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1970 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:18 pm:        Didn't someone post that she may be running for BOT? This could be a way of "introducing" her.   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1977 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:54 pm:        Well, i'm confused (again) the Millenium attorney went on and on, and then his "expert witness" really wasn't impressive and I think Sal Renda made much more sense that the witness did... What exactly are Millenium trying to achieve? Trustee Taylor caught the attorney (my wording) ommitting info or bending the information to suit purposes... Is this good for the Village, or is it something we should be against? Any help in clearing this up for me? Tks   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 640 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:40 am:        It still goes back to the question of what is the Village's Vision? Trustee DeVaris was to chair a public dialogue on the subject and issue a report. Should this be a prerequisite to proceeding or is it as Trustee Jennings states "it's about rateables". Does it make sense and what will the impact be with a density increase of over 1000 thousand? What impact/relationship does the other Condo projects have - Church Street, ShopRite Vose, Beifus, Saiyd Plaza?   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1978 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:18 am:        That's part of my confusion. Their "expert" went on about congestion on Valley and the driveways (kerbcuts?) etc. He said that he stood on the street and watched the traffic flow. I have been up and down that street at various times of the day including peak hours, and while it's not pleasant, i've yet to come to a dead stop and stay there. Sal Renda appeared to be saying to him that if they increase the population of that area that will in turn increase the useage of Valley and of course people entering and existing Valley at all times of the day, but either the expert missed this, or skirted around it, as I don't recall him answering/acknowledging this comment.   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1979 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:20 am:        Also, as Howard asks, what WILL the impact be on our town if our density increase by some 1000? We come back to the issue of parking, Obviously not all day long, but if people want to go to our supermarket, visit downtown to shop elsewhere, or dine at one of our eateries, where are they going to park?   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 641 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:35 am:        There are more components to the infrastructure that need to be understood: - Police - Fire - DPW - Sewerage - Street Lighting - Power - Water Supply - OPEN SPACE & RECREATION - etc etc   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1982 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:39 am:        yes, those as well..... Plus schools I imagine too.   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 642 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:42 am:        Yes, but they most likely offer PILOTS to the developers who will claim that there will be no children.   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1988 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:47 am:        How many of the residential units currently inside the area that Millenium want to "redevelop" have children living there? I bet it's a lot. This is a family town. It always has been and always should be a family town. I've said on another thread that we are not a Monopoly Board.... these are real people we are talking about. It also isn't Monopoly money that they are playing/paying with.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1009 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:59 am:        What I want to know is that if this towns population is going to continue to increase what are the towns plans for headcount increase in Police, Fire and First Aid..... These services are stretched to their limits as it is. Forget about the school space...let's just build a gigantic school trailer park and get it over with.   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1989 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:02 am:        Morning Bajou!   jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 712 Registered: 6-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:03 am:        This is what I take away about the situation. Millenium has been given rights as a "redeveloper" of a particular parcel on Valley St. I think its the old Gulf station area. Why they were given the rights, I don't know. Perhaps someone else knows the history. Now having been given those rights, they cannot be taken away. They are rights, alluded to several times by Berkeley. However, they have no partiucalr interest in developing that limited parcel, but want to develop the whole area under discussion. They apparaently can't do that until the area is desingated for "redevelopment". not "rehabilitation". Because with "redevelopment" status comes the village power of eminent domain...the power to take (buy) parcels from owners and create an area to be redeveloped in the aggregate. Also, with "redevelopment" status comes the power to grant up to 30 year tax abatements (PILOTS), which Calabrese et al seem only too anxious to grant. So Calabrese appears to want to give the redevelopment rights to the whole area to Millenium. He needs the area first to be so designated. (The Planning Board's outside consultant said the area for the most part only meets statutory requirements for "rehabilitation.") We'll see if the PB agrees with the consultant or if they choose to side with the Millenium position that the area will only be improved with "redevelopment" designation. The Millenium postion vis-a-vis the statute by inference seems to be that the area can meet the statutory requirements for redevelopment, despite the PB's consultant's opinion to the contrary. Regardless of whose postion you agree with, the question remains why Millenium should be the developer, and why not solicit proposals from other developers. Apparently, changes to the statute are in process in the legislature that would require towns to float RFP's (request for proposals) from several redevelopers, rather than to grant redevelopment status to one favored developer. This could account for the "rush". The question I am left with is why Millenium. Just because they don't have to, does not explain why they would not want to, get proposals from other developers. Of course the ace Millenium holds is that they already have redevelopment rights to that small parcel already. Its another instance of jumping the gun by our BOT before an overall vision and plan were in place. Its a mess and likely to get messier.   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 643 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:10 am:        That is not a small parcel but includes Village properties - all Third Street parking and now the Gulf Station and Old Car Dealership (or soon to be) both of which are purchased through recent Bonds.   Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 644 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:12 am:        And what if the that site is selected as the location for a Parking Deck - will they have to "buy" back these redevelopers rights?   joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 680 Registered: 1-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:37 am:        Thank you Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Renda for your insightful observations and questions. This too clever by half proponent is admitting traffic will be worse if it gets to build, but says not to worry, because the Village will widen Valley street and put in left turn lanes. All to be paid for by me. And you.   jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 713 Registered: 6-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:20 am:        Howard- I do stand corrected. Millenium's rights are not to a small parcel. In fact, its a significant parcel and why were they ever gven rights to town parking lots? Once again, the issues here raise more questions than answers.   John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:13 am:        Based on what has come out to date at the planning board meetings regarding Valley Street it would seem that everyone is in agreement that improvements are needed to properties on this road. The problem that appears to exist is that if it is determined that the area is in need of rehabilitation or it is determined that no designation should be made for this area, no matter what plan the Village may ultimately come up with, it will still be left to the individual property owners to spend money to make improvements, which based on past history will most likely not occur. This would appear to be the case as there was some mention that the planner retained by the Village has issued 4 or 5 reports over the last ten years or so similar to her current recommendation and it is clear that next to nothing if anything has been done to improve Valley Street. Further, it would also appear that if only a limited number of lots are designated in need of redevelopment within the area that is under review, the issue as to why the Village doesn't seek proposals from multiple developers seems moot. Apparently developers are not interested (and have not expressed an interest within this area of South Orange)in building modern residential and retail space that will be surrounded by older unattractive structures that will remain on Valley Street. This premise seems logical in that presumably most people would not want to purchase a relatively expensive home or lease retail space from any developer if it is surrounded by older unattractive structures that most likely will not be improved by these individual property owners. Ultimately in the end there appears to be no easy answers related to the Valley Street situation. In my view it boils down to a decision being made by the public at large and our town government as to whether we really want significant improvements to be made on Valley Street or simply maintain the status quo by leaving any potential improvements in the hands of individual property owners. Obviously there are costs and consequences no matter which way the Village chooses to go. In the end in my view if the choice is made to follow Ms. Gruel's current recommendation of maintaining the status quo, which is apparently similar to several recommendations that she has made over the years, then this is fine and we as residents may have less costs today. However, if this does occur then the community at large should not be heard to complain or left to wonder in the future if South Orange gains the reputation of being less desireable than other surrounding communities that choose to modernize their towns with the ultimate future cost of the value of our homes potentially decreasing. Does anyone agree with my assesment or am I missing something?   susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1667 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:46 am:        I think you are missing the perception of backroom dealing and the lack of clarity on how much of a deal we really need to give in PILOTs to get something done. The process that has been followed to date suggests favoritism and backroom deals in the name of speedy redevelopment (and this has worked so well with other town properties!). We comparison shop for our individual major purchases, and expect the town to do the same for potentially huge investments and PILOT giveaways. I need to see the case for why any residential development in this town needs a PILOT. We are missing any attempt to decide what the town actually wants and needs before going forward based on one developer's vision, with little assessment of the additional downstream costs vs. benefits for the town and various resident/business/school stakeholders. We are also missing the moral question of adopting a fast and loose definition of blight in order to get the right to condemn property owned by taxpaying residents and businesses. Personally, I'm willing to take a few extra years to rehabilitate the area if it is done in a way that respects the voters, residents and business owners.   peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 2068 Registered: 8-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:48 pm:        Susan -- I agree with your last statement -- to a point -- "I'm willing to take a few extra years to rehabilitate the area if it is done in a way that respects the voters, residents and business owners." Given 1) developments that were projected to add tax $$ (but have not), 2) the huge expected costs for SOPAC (which would have been off set to some extent by the "new" tax $$)... We really can't take years to move forward with a plan for downtown. SO taxes will skyrocket within the next year or two, and then we'll be hit by the revaluation (which adds uncertainty, more than financial issues per se). I am heartened that an organization like Millenium is interested in this project, at the same time we ought to be recruiting other potential developers. I have no clue who could do this -- since the current administration seems to be strangled in its own path just getting New Market underway. Pete   Elaine Harris Citizen Username: Elaineharris Post Number: 213 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:06 pm:        There is a promise of change in the Redevelopment Law in the near future, but as it stands now, and as it has been, once an area is defined "in need of redevelopment" there is NO PUBLIC BIDDING required. Accordingly, this has been described (by me) as a petri dish for corruption. That is not to say that there is "corruption," but the opportunity is extraordinarily ripe. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has given this process its blessing, albeit with a split 5-4 vote in a Connecticut case. Because the voters of South Orange and ultimately the United States Supreme Court have invited the concept of Redevelopment into their living rooms, so to speak, the devil they wanted is the devil they got. As fate would have it, my property is now one of only five that have been targeted by Susan Gruel(Village Planner) for "Redevelopment." She admitted that my property doesn't meet the criteria of the statute, but if the others in the block do meet the criteria, my property could be taken to "square off the block." As for the rest of Valley Street, for the moment at least, she recommends "Rehabilitation," which, I believe, is totally useless. For the sake of discussion, if you were in my position, would you rather deal with the company called Millennium, or the current Board of Trustees, acting in its capacity as a "Redevelopment" agency? Your response to that should be interesting. For the sake of the Village as a whole, would you prefer Millennium to the current Board of Trustees as far as "track record" of completing projects is concerned? I do not understand the reason for the tone of negativity that I read into some of the posts above regarding Millennium. You may not want redevelopment at all, but this company does not deserve disrespect. It is a business and it is doing what it is supposed to be doing, i.e. seeking a project. I have observed that it is doing its work very professionally. Millennium was invited to do this. Do you invite people into your home and then kick them out? Why should it be any different in the business world? Millennium is already the designated redeveloper for the Gulf station half of the block. If the BoT granted this status once, what's the problem now?   susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1669 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:28 pm:        Peteglider, I'd like to see an analysis that actually suggests that the Millenium project actually improves town cash flow before we assume it does. The likely PILOT will limit tax impact, while I've never seen an assessment of the costs of roadwork and all of the other things that Howard mentions above. I am quite fearful that we will give too large a project away for too few tax dollars, straining both town and school budgets (since some of the larger units I've heard discussed would almost certainly add to the school population). Elaine, I don't know the details of how Millennium got the redeveloper status, and am concerned because our BOT track record on picking the right developer does not seem to be very clear. Maybe I've missed the public discussion, but I'm unclear on what process was used to qualify and select this developer for the area that they have already been given. I'm concerned, underinformed and cautious, more than negative, although I may not have made that clear. My position is this: I'm uncertain on whether the scale of Millenium's plans is appropriate to our town. I'm convinced that whatever scale, we must have competition in order to assess what deal we should get from a quality developer. I'm also convinced that we should reexamine why such a hot housing market needs PILOT money for the residential portion of any new development.   John Glick Citizen Username: Jgg Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:11 pm:        Susan: I don't disagree that issues related to potential PILOT's and other issues need to addressed at some point down the line as part of the process of any development plan. However, what initially concerns me is the fact that stagnation will persist along Valley Street as has been the case for many years if the planning board is to follow their retained planners recommendation of designating this area in need of rehabilitation. Apparently this planner has issued four or five reports over the last ten years or so (presumably at significant cost to the taxpayers) making similar recommendations to what her current report proposes, and in the end improvements fall on individual property owners who historically have chosen to do next to nothing. Accordingly eventhough we as citizens have a right to be skeptical of projects within the Village in light of the the current debacles that are going on, unless the board recommends that much of the study area along Valley Street is in need of redevelopment, the Village will most likely be unable to attract any developers to come up with proposals. Unless and until we get to this point, whether its during this study or in future studies which may be years away, the proper process that you and I and many others in the Village seek will not occur as there would appear to not be a large enough business motive for developers to come up with alternative plans along Valley Street otherwise. This is why I am of the view that the community and our government need to make a decision as to whether they really want to see improvements on Valley Street. If this is the case, a large enough parcel of properties need to be designated in need of redevelopment as the first step to move the process along. If not, we will probably still be having this same debate many years from now which in the end will in my opinion impact the values of our homes negatively. Elaine: I agree with your view that Millenium is simply doing what any business would do in attempting to gain business. Simply because they have a financial motive in mind does not lessen my opinion that I am happy that a developer who has apparently been involved and completed alot of large projects has an interest in South Orange. This is certainly better than the developers we have working on the current projects in the Village that are stuck in the mud. It would be nice if our government were to take the approach of trying to learn something from Millenium based on whatever presentation that Millenium makes related to Ms. Gruel's study no matter what decision is ultimately reached because it is apparent in many ways that our planning board based on the questions that they have been asking the last couple of meetings and through their own acknowledgements has minimal knowledge as to the redevelopment process.   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4420 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:19 pm:        John, As has been stated elsewhere, people are "skeptical" of the redevelopment of Valley Street, because "redevelopment" elsewhere in South Orange has failed miserably. You can attribute that to Beifus or whomever, but the responsibility for the failure lies solely with the Board of Trustees, Village Administrator and Village Attorney. If the Village gets rid of Calabrese, Taylor & Rosen next Spring and new competent people are elected, I think you might find much greater potential support for redevelopment of Valley Street. However, the current crew cannot be trusted to redevelop what they started and certainly cannot be given MORE projects to mismanage.   susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1681 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:23 pm:        I think that there is a substantial difference between improvements to one of the more industrial/low end strips in town and a plan that basically involves flattening a large area and replacing it with fairly high density condos/etc. The range of improvements that we could do includes a Millenium scale project, but I don't like jumping to the conclusion that a large scale redevelopment that adds hundreds of new residents to town is the right answer, particularly if we have to earn the development via discounts on property taxes. By the way, most towns have a less attractive strip where body shops and the like are located. I'm yet to be convinced that that is a bad thing, and thus less convinced that we need scorched earth redevelopment. Let's figure out what we want, and then decide how to move forward. A mammoth individual project is only one of the options, and should not be rushed forward based on past problems. I'd be thrilled to see the planning process kicked into high gear, but I don't believe that the problems or the history merit skipping or shortchanging several very important steps.   Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 294 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:26 pm:        "...the proper process that you and I and many others in the Village seek will not occur as there would appear to not be a large enough business motive for developers to come up with alternative plans along Valley Street otherwise." Then we should solicit -- publicly -- multiple developers to come in and present their vision for this area. Everything should be considered here, including what the vision looks like, how long it will take to get there, what will be the impact on existing businesses in the zone, how much PILOT will they be requesting ($0 is a nice round number, hint hint), what additional municipal improvements will be needed and at what cost, what will be the impact on the tax rolls downstream. (I've probably missed a few bullet points here, feel free to add.) When we get MULTIPLE vendors telling their story, not just Millenium, we will have a basis to move forward. If it is evident that Millenium has its act together best and will deliver the biggest bang for the Village's buck, great. If it's someone else, great. And let's remember that "none of the above" is an option. I don't think people are necessarily objecting to Millenium here. People are objecting to a no-bid, opaque process, with no opportunity to see what else is possible.   MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4421 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:31 pm:        Quote: Then we should solicit -- publicly -- multiple developers to come in and present their vision for this area. Kinda like "Designer's Challenge" on HGTV, right? http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/shows_dsc   Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 442 Registered: 6-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:32 pm:        bulls-eye...   Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 296 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:50 pm:        Yup!   JoRo Citizen Username: Autojoe51 Post Number: 126 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:11 pm:        I think Valley Street is a serious distraction at this point in time. Let's fix the downtown central business district first. That's how towns are judged, not on an outlying commercial strip. As long as the core pedestrian area is derelict, nothing in this town will be right. As soon as the true CBD is thriving, the rest of the areas will perk up ... with or without government intervention and enticements to developers. And nothing of scope should be done without a revised Village master plan. Are we going to keep repeating the same mistakes?   SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 490 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:17 pm:        A new master plan requires a new BOT, JoRo. And without it, yes, the pattern is clear. I agree that Valley is secondary to the main hit and run disaster downtown. But the pressure is on and the clock running for those reponsible for downtown Beirut to latch on to anything that could be used to improve their ratings or help them stay in office. Hence, the Valley Street distraction will continue to become more prominent between now and the elections next spring.   kurt gibson Citizen Username: Gibbey28 Post Number: 1 Registered: 6-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:14 pm:        if they are going to turn the old gulf station and the car dealership into parking along with the existing parking alot what are their plans for the rescue squad building that is their. are we just going to not have a rescue squad anymore?????   jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 714 Registered: 6-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:46 pm:        If the village wanted to turn the old Gulf station into a parking lot, why did they designate Millenium as a redeveloper? Now it doesn't appear to me that than can even be considered as long as Millenium has redevelopment rights. Have I missed something?