| Author |
Message |
    
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 386
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:13 am: | 
|
J. Crohn: I think the problem is the money. The market in Philly was done with money from grants and the city. I don't know about chestnut hill. There is also one that was in the village (NYC) that failed (well it bacame a flea market) but it was a small one.
As good as an idea as it is, there is a risk to it and parking is always a concern. With multiple vendors and stores there would be even more parking needed.
Personally, I think we should try and figure out a location that we can use and still try to make the idea work (I am not going to suggest on here because it would not be fair to the existing owners).
Remember to Vote Line A on May 13th
www.leadershipwithvision.org
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:20 am: |
|
By the way, I think the Performing Arts Center was a wonderful idea. I think the criticism voiced by Shelley Stiles' group (sorry, the name escapes me just now) that it ought to have been located directly on S.O. Ave is silly.
But Stiles' group has raised some good points about viability. If SOPAC is built as an "arts center", yet ultimately must resort to showing Hollywood blockbusters and third rate dinner theatre, it will have failed to provide what this town needs, which is not just any old commercial developent, but unique contributions to the regional culture and economy.
Individuality, a generally non-parochial outlook, and not simply more of what surrounding towns consume, is what South Orange should represent--both to people who live here and people who don't. And I think that to achieve this we need developers with ideas in hand, not cookie-cutters.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:39 am: |
|
Mark, I imagine you're right (in general) about money being the rate limiting factor. (Philadelphia city grants probably were used to rehab Reading Terminal a few years ago, but the market has been there for, oh I don't know, a century? Chestnut Hill has an active and well-heeled business association; I know it financed off-street parking behind the stores, general beautification, and extra security for the whole shopping district. The Firehouse was set up and re-habbed, I think, by a developer, perhaps with some city aid, I'm not sure.)
Still, I would feel more hopeful if I knew the current admin was pursuing such a market (I'm glad to learn you support the idea, BTW), or any interesting and unusual collection of projects. The problem, as I see it, is that one such attraction (e.g., SOPAC) cannot succeed on its own. There seems to be a critical mass of distinctive shops, eateries, and entertainment required to bring people to a shopping district. Without that, any two or three enterprises are prone to fail.
Not to discount at all the good work underway, but if, as you say, the problem is money, then I guess we need people in office to work rather a lot harder raising it. |
Annie Modesitt
Citizen
Username: Modeknit
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:57 am: |
|
jcrohn - I couldn't agree with you more. 
We have SUCH an unusual and amazing community, but our leadership doesn't have the vision that they claim if they can't see the wealth of talent we can draw from right in our own backyard!
I am heartsick when I think of what might happen if an Arts Center is built with a sub-par theatre. I think an Arts Center would be a good addition, but a poorly planned and rushed Arts Center is worse than NO Arts Center.
(Yes, it's odd to think of something being 'rushed' when it's been 12 years in the offing, but that's part of the "hurry up and wait" mentality we see so much of here...)
I am voting for Open South Orange because I think Brian O'Leary, Eric DeVaris and David Lackey are all interested in gleaning ideas from the community on issues instead of presenting a poorly planned project as a fait accompli!
Annie
http://www.modeknit.com
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 95
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 3:15 pm: |
|
I have a really hard time with the whining going on here. SO has dozens of citizen groups. Those that are effective are taking the initiative to bring things forward so they can get done.
Its not the job of our volunteer elected officials to be personally involved in each of these organizations. That notion is adsurd! That's why citizen groups exist -- to come up with ideas, filter the best of them up, and propose plans for them!
If you want to make a difference -- join a group you are interested in, or start one up. Then figure out how to contribute and make a difference!
Stop the whining -- and be personally accountable and responsible. |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 309
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Its (sic) not the job of our volunteer elected officials to be personally involved in each of these organizations.
Sorry, pete, it is our volunteer elected officials' job to be accountable for the developments they negotiate. There is no honest reason why the supermarket developer should be given PILOT status. Why should a prime piece of real estate in downtown South Orange be given tax-free status for 30 years? What about parking? If this project goes through without adequate parking, it will never succeed.
As to SOPAC, I believe the elected officials are bound to explain why more than $1,000,000 has gone into a project with no visible results. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Pete: I think to a large extent that is what this election is all about. We do have an incredible number of residents who are extremely talented and volunteer their services and passion to South Orange. But when it comes to the larger issues, such as redevelopment or taxes, the attitude is "we know better than you." I will grant you that in their capacity as elected officials, they were elected to make the decisions. But these decisions should be made after listening to the residents, especially in our Village where there are so many well thought out and articulated views. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 96
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 4:07 pm: |
|
bets -- should our elected officials be accountable for their actions and commitments -- YES -- without a doubt.
my point is not about that -- but rather that individuals who want to contribute need to be responsible for doing so!
doublea -- well i'd say that's what the political process is for -- if opinions differ or it seems the job's not getting done -- the vote CAN make the difference. I will say again -- to me, its up to those articulate folks to be responsible to get themselves heard! (and I realize that for some that may be a vote for new faces!)
Pete |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:06 pm: |
|
A PILOT is not necessarily a problem if it is in a satisfactory amount. When the village decides to offer an ABATEMENT of the other layers of taxes, specifically the school taxes, then everyone else's school taxes go up when they rise, we really feel it. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Both amount and term... PILOTs or abatements for the life of construction, or during a period in which a facility is only partly occupied, can also be advisable. In the example we have in town, the abatement totals more than $700,000 annually and extends for 30 years. For a residential facility within walking distance of a train station, that is a concern.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 78
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 7:40 pm: |
|
Thirty years really is some deal. You'd think we went begging for the development. |
dgm
Citizen
Username: Dgm
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 9:49 am: |
|
Yeah you'd think so, so the next question is why allow the developer, who can pass school tax increases on to the many apartment dwellers in the rent formulation, get off the hook. I thought these were very desirable apartments. Meanwhile, the rest of us shoulder the burden of school taxes. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 97
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 10:14 am: |
|
In the debate Art Taylor (I believe) made a comment that across all the new condo/apt developments there were only 20 children.
This could be seen as justification -- that this type of housing does not add significantly to the school burden.
While that seems somewhat reasonable -- its hard to predict whether that will continue, and ultimately whether the added revenue coming to the village through this pilot offsets (in some way) lower revenue to the school district.
I am curious, however, by what authority can we grant a PILOT? Anyone have a link to the (I assume) state legislation of this?
Thanks -- Pete |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:14 am: |
|
Both at the debate and elsewhere, I've heard the contention that the relative absence of children can be used to justify a PILOT agreement. It doesn't hold up for me.
While the use of the property tax to fund schools has its drawbacks, it wouldn't work to say that only properties that send children to public schools need to pay the schools tax. We fund compulsory education because we see it as a social priority. The benefits of an educated society accrue to all, and philosophically and practically we fund schools by taxing those who both do and don't have children in school.
I'll see if I can find an online PILOT link for you
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 81
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:14 am: |
|
Pete,
Twenty children equates to about 77% of the enrollment increase for 2002, or 25% of the enrollment increase for 2001, or 30% of the enrollment increase for 2000, or between a half and a third of the enrollment increase for 1999.
Twenty children, especially if they are not dispersed equally throughout the school district (and they probably aren't, since they're likely to be young and, all residing in one location, will mostly be going to the same school) could equate to one additional elementary school teacher. The district is busy cutting teaching staff right now, so I'm guessing one additional teacher constitutes some kind of burden.
Moreover, people tend to live in rental units for less time than they live in owned property, particularly if they have children. So, while homeowners send 2 or 3 kids through the district, then continue to pay taxes during years when they are not using district services (thus continuing to subsidize the schools), apartment dwellers are likelier to move on--and the tenants who replace them may well have children.
It may be 20 children this year. But not over time.
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 98
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:23 am: |
|
I don't disagree that their is a fundamental societal unfairness to a PILOT. BUT -- ITs certainly a judgement call whether granting that break is a make or break it for a development. If this type of agreement substantially improves the quality of life, that's another consideration.
I'm reporting what I recall hearing -- considering that some of those developments have been around for a number of years -- the question for me is less about 20 kids -- but about total "kid -years" of education those properties generate.
Oh BTW -- since I don't feel I have the facts or data here -- this is not judgemental one way or the other.
Have PILOTS been granted in Maplewood? (and Brian -- a link would be helpful!)
Pete |
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:42 am: |
|
Everyone seems to forgot that if a PILOT was not granted much of the so called incremental taxes would go to the county, not to South Orange. Additionally, while I agree it's a prime location maybe without the PILOT the developer(s) wouldn't have rushed forward to build this complex, instead we'd still be looking at another empty site that we all would be complianing about, so let's be fair and look at the entire picture.
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Schools make up 54% of the local tax rate; municipal 27%; county 18%. Under a PILOT agreement, the portion that is not paid to the county does not go away - it is reapportioned among county property owners, including those who live in South Orange.
The site in question is a two-block walk from a train station that offers a 30-minute commute into Manhattan. The "Transit Village" guidelines indicate that residential property of this type should not be awarded a PILOT agreement beyond the time required for construction.
As well, the developer did not do any work around the site to improve (for example) New Waterlands or even the approach to New Waterlands that directly abuts the property. Those are the kinds of concerns we have brought up before, as part of the larger picture.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 1:07 pm: |
|
I checked out LCOR's website (the Gaslight Commons developer). By way of comparison, compare Gaslight Commons to what LCOR did in the District of Columbia. In D.C., ELCOR built a new school for $11 million and D.C. issued tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction cost.On adjacent property owned by the school, LCOR built a 211 unit apartment complex. LCOR entered into a PILOT agreement with the District of Columbia and only paid school taxes, which went to pay the interest on the bonds. In this case, the District of Columbia really got something - a brand new school, and the apartments which were granted PILOT status were built on vacant land which was owned by the school, and therefore tax exempt to begin with. |
Edwin R. Matthews
Citizen
Username: Edwinrmatthews
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 4:05 pm: |
|
A quick review of the information provided by Doublea makes it clear that the deal LCOR got in Washington is much better deal for LCOR than the deal the developer received in South Orange. Its average payment to cover the debt service for 35 years (and not just the interest as suggested by Doublea) would probably be around $531,000. Our average payment received from LCOR over thirty years is estimated to average $1.8 million per year. LCOR also had the benefit of the profit on the construction of the building (Probably in the neighborhood of 20%) and the benefit of not having to pay for the land (Probably a $5 to $6 million dollar item). These two items alone save LCOR in the area of $500,000.00 annually in interest alone. Debt reduction would cost them another $225,00 to $250,000 annually. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 4:42 pm: |
|
LCOR also makes land lease payments to the school. Aside from the sheer numbers, the purpose of the comparison is to show that in the Distict of Columbia case, there was a completely underutilized piece of land on which LCOR built residential units and was given PILOT status for this project, which can truly be said to have a positive effect by allowing a new school to be built. Without this development,the property would probably have continued to be underutilized and tax exempt. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to the value of the Gaslight Commons property, which after all is highly desirable because of its proximity to the train station. The same holds true for Beifus and New Market Square. It is an easy enough matter to run the numbers; PILOT status vs. non-pilot status can be quantified, taking into account the fact that PILOT properties are not included in the tax base for county and school tax purposes. I noted that at last night's Board of Trustees meeting, you said that Beifus had not yet entered into a Developer's Agreement, and if they wanted a "tax abatement" (your words), they would have to sign an agreement soon if Beifus was going to start construction soon. I'm sure that there will be discussion on this issue in the future. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Mr. Matthews, surely the issue is not what kind of deal LCOR got in DC vs. SO, but rather what kind of deal SO got in exchange for LCOR's development, and whether it might have been better.
Yes, South Orange puts more in its right pocket as a result of the PILOT agreement, but our rising school budget represents more than half our tax bill, and as Brian o'Leary noted, the county portion of taxes that a developer doesn't pay also ultimately gets paid by citizens (including SO citizens).
Basically, this kind of agreement, especially over thirty years (does the PILOT adjust for inflation?) means that some amount of money will be coming out of our left pockets in the form of increased rate of taxes.
Because no one can say exactly how much money that will entail over thirty years, and because no one can identify precisely what the impact on schools will be, nor the increased portion of our county tax, it's easy to claim that the PILOT agreement brings to SO more money than taxing the development in the usual manner would have.
I think this is probably short-sighted. The more taxes rise for reasons having nothing to do with the development's impact (but instead for reasons, e.g., related to homeland security or plummeting federal support for states) the more we will wish that LCOR was sharing our burden. Yes, in theory that $1.8 million annually will help keep municipal taxes down. But only by shifting the burden of economic restraint more heavily onto the schools. We already don't spend nearly as much per pupil as the affluent east coast communities many here want our educational standards to emulate: cutting the school-funding legs out from under residential development to hold down municipal taxes in half the school district can't be prudent.
I rather doubt it will even save us money, in the long run. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Mr. Matthews: In today's News Record, in the story
about the Planning Board's approval of the New Market development, there is the following:
"Planning Board approval doesn't mean construction is imminent.
The village is still negotiating a developer's agreement with the New Market group.
Residential density must be finalized. This number (96 condominiums) won't go up, but it might come down, Gross said."
This is exactly what I thought Bill Calabrese said that evening, but you told me differently, I think. Could density come down? I am mainly concerned that without density coming down, there will not be enough parking for shoppers. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 5:22 pm: |
|
M. Rosner or Mr. Matthews: This is probably a question that should have been asked at the Planning Board meetings, but I didn't have a chance to ask: since there is going to be a three level parking garage, will there be any security? Should security cameras be installed?
|
Edwin R. Matthews
Citizen
Username: Edwinrmatthews
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 9:46 pm: |
|
I tried to clarify your statement that the Village could overrule the planning board approval. It can't but it can where it is entering a developers agreement negoiate certain items. One of those items might be density. Another might be some of the parking issues. The developer needs only to provide parking for its tenants and customers. The Village might want to see parking for others on the site eg the bank and the Brew Pub.
The developer is responsible for the security for the parking facilities. The details of what that will consist of I don't recall (I am not even sure they have been finalized) |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Mr. Mathews: Thank you. If the village thinks that security cameras might be a good thing, maybe that could be incorporated in the developer's agreement. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 8:08 am: |
|
Mr. Matthews: Incidentally, when you "tried to clarify" my statement in your privale line to me, you did not mention density which was one of the key points made by Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Gross. I have copies of your private lines as I'm sure you do. |
Edwin R. Matthews
Citizen
Username: Edwinrmatthews
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
|
I am sure I did not mention density. I gave perhaps one or two examples. The developers agreement negoiations might involve discussions of dozens of things many of which will not end up in the agreement. The critical thing is it is a negoiation. The planning board gave an approval. The developer has a right to rely on its approval. If the developer insists on the approved density we can't take that away. Neither can the developer add to it. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:18 am: |
|
The critical thing is that the discussion has moved from public presentation to the planning board to private negotiations with village officials. My comfort level with the process would be much greater if the trustees committed to a period of public comment on a proposed agreement before signing it. |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:42 am: |
|
In this thread and elsewhere, Ed has made the point that I just don't understand PILOT agreements. I think I do, and my understanding suggests that they are less effective for South Orange than they are held out to be. I recognize this is an area of disagreement. That doesn't mean that I am wrong; it does mean Ed and I don't agree on the local tax impact.
I think that the claim that developers are unwilling to build residential units without a tax break (in the form of a PILOT agreement) tells you something we already know: local property taxes are too high. If the PILOT were not provided, perhaps the Gaslight Commons property would have been built on a scale more appropriate to the community. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 11:16 am: |
|
I started a new thread "PILOT Agreements" because I thought that this subject should have its own thread. In that thread, I set forth my analysis of the methodology that should be used to determine the financial impact of a PILOT. I would hope that someone from the Village would comment whether my methodology is correct. |
shrink
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:13 pm: |
|
A question to the village officials:
At a recent neighborhood association meeting, I understand that Mr. Calabrese mentioned that the proposed condominium development that is connected to the supermarket development has been changed into rental units.
Is this true? |
Edwin R. Matthews
Citizen
Username: Edwinrmatthews
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:45 pm: |
|
You have it backwards. It was originally rental and has been changed to Condominums. |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 68
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 7, 2003 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Went into the Dancing Goat Cafe. It looks really great. A lot of thoughtful work has gone into the design. The owner (an extremely friendly guy)is hoping to have it open by the end of the month - permits permitting. Seems like it will be a terrific addition to the downtown area. |
Eric DeVaris
Citizen
Username: Eric_devaris
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 7, 2003 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Dancing Goat Cafe promises to be a great hangout. I had a sneak preview too. It looks great! Great atmosphere! Randy, the owner, seems to know what he is doing, and he is doing good. I look forward to his opening. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 291
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 8, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |
|
nwyave,
What does the MENU at the Dancing Goat Cafe look like? Is it like "Village Coffee Shop" in Maplewood or "Suzette" in Millburn/Montclair?
Also, does anyone know when the South Orange Grill will be open for dinner (or is it already)? |
noracoombs
Citizen
Username: Noracoombs
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 8, 2003 - 9:47 pm: |
|
We went into the South Orange Grill last weekend--the owner, a guy named Jack, said that they should be serving food within a month. They had menus available--the food sounds like it will be great, and the owner was a really nice guy to boot. Looking forward to trying out the menu! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page