| Author |
Message |
    
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6566
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | 
|
Until you begin thinking about how every developer is now EXPECTING a PILOT. PILOTS are lazy ways to market a community. Punto y final.
With demographics like South Orange has (high household income, high disposable incomes, high educational levels, etc.) there should not have to be give-aways to developers. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 537
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:13 am: |
|
They can EXPECT whatever they want. That doesn't mean they'll get one. Assuming the BoT acts responsibly (stop laughing), only in those situations where a PILOT makes sense will there be one.
As for our demographics, they don't mean all that much to renters, and as a whole we don't tend to patronize local businesses very well. So our demographics are suppporting other towns like Maplewood, Montclair, etc...
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 526
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:41 am: |
|
Woodstock: I think the key phrase is "Pilots remove village government's needs to keep costs down."
This had been my concern as well as a couple of other posters on this board (nywave for one). The concern was that with all the Pilot revenues going to meet municipal needs, the Village government would not feel as constrained to control spending as it would have otherwise felt. It can spend with the help of additional pilot revenues.
Then the other side of it is that the BOSE will be hard-pressed to turn down the BOE's proposed budget, since it can't tell the BOE to do what it hasn't been able to do.
This scenario has indeed played out this year. That is why you have Maplewood saying everyone, the BOE and Maplewood, has to be frugal. On the other hand you have South Orange saying "taxes are murder, but if it takes money it takes money." |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 540
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:02 am: |
|
doublea,
Agreed. The issue is not whether PILOTs in general are good or bad. It's whether a particular revenue/expense scheme is appropriate. And if a PILOT is granted, what provisions are in place to keep everyone's feet to the fire to keep costs down.
Mr. Rosner, I think I know the answer to this already, but is the name of the developer of the village market public knowledge? I know you've been hesitant to give it out on the boards, but I don't remember whether it's been publicly announced at all.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:47 am: |
|
The New Market developers are a matter of public record since they were designated by the BoT and have also appeared before the Planning Board.
Remember also on PILOTs that the educational cost is also picked up proportionately by Maplewood (57%). Of course if(when) they hand out some PILOTs the converse will be true. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Dave: The demographics might work for a developer but the small parcels of property, the higher than average and the distance from the major commercial roads (rte. 22, Rte 10, etc.) are the main reason the village need to take advantage of PILOT's. Most towns do not have a tax drain like SHU so we need to do everything we can to help stabalize costs and not cut services. Developers want to build flat parking lots on large parcels. Vertical parking is very expensive. Developers want access to their location from a major road.
doublea: What costs are you talking about. Be specific where you think we should cut? I have never heard you suggest anything other than a reval. I have not seen you at a CBAC meeting or a budget meeting and I don't think you ever attended a finance committee meeting.
Miriam: You are wrong. Woodstock posted the correct scenario.
Woodstock: The name of the developer is public. They made the presentations at the planning board. I don't remember the name of their group. If anyone wants that info, they should email John Gross.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 527
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:05 am: |
|
M.Rosner: My recollection is that you told me there was a lot of dead wood that could be eliminated. As a matter of fact, you asked me what I had heard at the first CBAC meeting regarding personnel. I haven't seen the 2004-2005 budget yet. Have any expenses been controlled? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 528
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:26 am: |
|
M.Rosner: You suggested that I go to the CBAC meetings. I told you that my impression was that the Village President had no interest in controlling expenses or taxes. You told me that my impression was correct and he is more interested in higher house prices than contolling taxes. You confirmed my opinion that trying to control costs is a waste of time. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Doublea: Sometimes you amaze me. You take some lines from private emails and use the parts you like.
I also told you that the village president is more concerned with raising revenues for the village rather than making cuts in the budget. I also told you that the BOT is concerned with expenses and that I specifically want to make some cuts in what I perceive as unneccessary expenses or dead wood. I did not confirm that your participation is a waste of time. That is what you wanted to hear and what you took from what I thought was a dialogue. I have also told you I get frustrated from people who complain but do not want to participate (and you are proving to be the perfect example). The fact that I suggested you go to CBAC meetings was because I thought you could help discover potential savings in the budget - both short and long term savings.
By the way, the BOT controls the vote on the budget, not the village president.
Increased housing values are a good thing and did not have to be seen as a negative.
I will have to remember that you are one person never to have a convesation with or an e-mail exchange. I will also have to remember that there is no such thing as confidential with you.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 435
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Mrosner,
This line makes me worry:
"I also told you that the village president is more concerned with raising revenues for the village rather than making cuts in the budget"
IF this is a true statement, I have to say that it is takes the cake as the dumbest statement by an elected offical. Can you confirm that this is true? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 529
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:30 pm: |
|
My first response was to Woodstock regarding Pilots and Village spending. Then you asked what cuts and I responded. I responded based on what you had told me. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked. |
Dan Shelffo
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 99
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:38 pm: |
|
I reviewed the spreadsheet used for the Village's presentation.
I disagree with the basic assumption of that model. The true value placed on the property was the 24 million construction costs which are determined by the re-development statute.
The property was recently sold for 43 million. I think sales price is a better measure of true value than statute. I do realize that some of the 19 million difference is due to appreciation.
What is interesting to note is that the construction costs where placed at 39 Million for the purposes of the recent sale which prevented an excessive profit clause that the Village had negotiated from kicking in.
Someone should re-run that model with a higher number and see if it is still a wash.
I also think that PILOTs should be looked at from the perspective of what the Village gets in return for the savings that the developer is getting. If the Developer is saving 20 million in taxes over the life of the PILOT what is the Village getting? If the answer to that is that we are simply getting the project than I think we could have at least gotten a better project than the Gaslight. If the BOT determines that the value being gained is worth granting a PILOT then the PILOT should be granted. That discussion should take place in public.
In the Star-Ledger a couple of weeks ago there was an article about East Orange's re-development efforts. The EO administration said no PILOT were being granted because developers were willing to under take the projects with out them.
I realize the EO and SO are two different towns with different factors affecting risk and so forth but I would ask the BOT to pick up the phone and ask EO how they are doing it.
I am not anti PILOT. I would welcome a PILOT on pure commercial property because I think that commercial properties are profitable rateables which is what we need. I have heard that there are no school age children in the Gaslight today but that could change. At 10K per child the tax savings (if it ever existed) will quickly be eaten up. Don’t kid yourselves, we have an excellent school system that parents in surrounding towns would love to send their kids to. We better be prepared to welcome all the new students that this unchecked residential development will bring. We better be prepared to bear the costs as well.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 541
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Dan,
I am glad to see you're in favor of a reval. If you're saying we need to take the true value of Gaslight Commons based on its rececnt sale price, then all of South Orange should be re-assessed so that all of our taxes can be properly aligned. If GC's payments are based on true market value, all of our taxes should be similarly based on real home prices.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not "pro-PILOT" nor am I "anti-PILOT." I just hate all the rhetoric that's been going around, and am tired of the knee-jerk reactions many people have to all things B0T-related.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Sylad: I can't confirm how someone else feels or thinks. My opinion is that the village president feels that over the years the budget is reviewed every year and that we are operating efficiently. I think he feels we should try and find other sources of revenue, increase ratables by making improvements in the downtowns and to seek every alternative including grants.
When I was having my private conversation with doublea, the point was being made that he felt the VP was not concerned enough with the budget. to some extent I agreed. We spend a lot of time trying to increase revenues while not enough time on the budget (my opinion). It was NOT to mean that he (or I) wants to see increases in taxes or that they are the only way to increase revenue. We need to do both - increase revenue sources and continually make sure our budget is cut to the bone without sacrificing services.
Over the past year I have talked many times with doublea (email and in person) and he chose to take one statement that could easily be misinterpeted.
If you want to know for sure how someone thinks go talk to him.
Of course, in retrospect, the dumbest thing for me was to ever have a conversation or to email doublea.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 530
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I'll say it again - I try to maintain the confidentiality of emails, even if I didn't ask for them. In this instance I was asked a question and responded by referring to an email that was sent by the person asking the question. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 819
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:05 pm: |
|
mrosner: The email you sent me about the monkey, 4 iron, and bag of ice, I'm all for it.
oops was that confidential? |
arizona
Citizen
Username: Arizona
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Mrosner is one of only 2 of our trustees willing to dialogue on MOL. Whether or not you agree with him I think his participation and commitment should be appreciated, not made fun of. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 542
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Not to diminish Mr. Rosner's nor Dr. Rosen's participation here, but Mr. Joyce does post here as well, at times. So it does seem at least half the Trustees are participating. And there are rumors that other trustees or village administrators read the boards here.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 820
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:05 pm: |
|
I know Mr. Rosner is one of the only people from town hall that post and I’m surprised that he does that, considering the same three idiots post the same stupid things every time he tries to answer a question.
He has explained PILOTS to no end, whether they are good for the town or not it is a way that the town does business. He even said that there would be a vote and gave an estimate of when it might be.
He has explained the Dugouts.
He’s explained SOPAC
He’s explained the conflict of interest.
He’s explained Sidwalks and shoveling.
He’s explained the Jitneys.
What the hell else can you really ask this guy to do?
Mr Rosner can you please lower everyone’s taxes, educate their kids, fix my cell phone reception, and make sure that 15 restaurants open (on time) in the next three weeks. Thank you.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 531
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Brett - I don't think this particular turn in the conversation had anything to do with M. Rosner. It started off with the Shoprite site and then the question of Pilots came up. I then responded to M.Rosner's question about village expenses. You may be tired of hearing about taxes and Pilots, but for the first time ever my wife and I have started talking about moving because of the taxes.
My wife's family has lived here for 50 years. There is a discussion in the education thread about "who's going to move." Maplewood's postion is that it doesn't want to lose its older residents in favor of younger families. I have raised the point that it is my impression that South Orange does not take this position. It is primarily concerned with house prices. There is no question that South Orange is not trying to watch expenses. If I'm an idiot for trying to control taxes and spending, and trying to stay in South Orange, which I love, that's the way it is.
M.Rosner knows about this and maybe this whole thing should have been handled in a different manner - but it wasn't. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page