| Author |
Message |
    
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | 
|
After years of debate & misinformation about the cost of the Quarry property (the Steglitz/Theroux campaign suggested bogus numbers ranging from $10 million to $20 million), the TRUTH is now public information....The Quarry property was sold for $6.1 million.
To think that the Village ALREADY spent at least $1.2 million (plus more for legal fees for Matthews) toward the COAH obligation/water improvements, plus they already have received $1.25 million in Green Acres money...all that was needed was another $3.7 million to acquire the property - Which could have easily been done with our existing open space trust funds (over $100,000 anually) & Green Acres loans at 2% per year - with no negative impact on taxpayers.
(http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/trust.htm)
What a waste & lack of Vision by the current politicians & those who came before!
 |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Mhd: The following is meant to be constructive, not adversarial, and then perhaps enough on the subject of the quarry. All of us are residents with I think the same objectives, and we suffer or triumph together. The fallacy with your argument is that it was Trammel Crow/ Pulte Homes who purchased the property for $6.1 million. Yes, perhaps, if the Village had offered to purchase the property before TC became involved we could have purchased it for the same sum. But TC/Pulte intended to make a good profit by building there; and the BoT would have had to pay 9-10 million dollars once they held the option on the property. And that is factual. The Board (with the help of the public pressure) did negotiate the number of units down from 198 to 69, which was a considerable achievement under the circumstances. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4180
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:12 am: |
|
Just curious. Why would the Village have to pay around 75% more for the property than TC paid?
Obviously, if there was more than one bidder, the price might be higher, but 75% higher? If the Village used eminient domain the price should be the fair market value, which the sale establishes. Given the cost of site preparation there had to be a limit to what TC would have paid as it stands it looks like TC got a bargain, even though site prep is a lot more in a quarry than on farm land in Sommerset County. |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 159
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:59 am: |
|
A rule of thumb for municipal real estate transactions: If the municipality is a voluntary participant in the real estate market, it has a high probability of getting hosed either as buyer or seller (i.e. purchases of parks or brownfields for development). The probability of hosation is substantial for non-voluntary transactions (rights of way for example). The people on the other side of the table see the municipality as a deep pocket or as easily influenced in the transaction by the political process. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page