| Author | Message | ||
     Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 18 Registered: 2-2003 |
I had volunteered to pull together a two-way exchange of information meeting on PILOTS/abatements, between the participants of this thread and some of the Village Trustees. After the following post of 5/31 by Mr. Matthews, I leave the organisation of such meeting in his hands, with my thanks. John Gross and I are discussing putting together an information session on Abatements and Pilot agreeements. Most likely it will be done in conjunction with a forthcoming request for a tax abatement and Pilot Agreement, assuming there is such a request. Assuming we do the program we will facilitate the program ourselves and it will be open to the general public. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 816 Registered: 5-2001 |
Is the 5 year abatement period a South Orange rule or does it apply in other towns also? | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. DeVaris: While deferring to Messrs Matthews and Gross to host the PILOT info meeting in your June 2 post, I wonder if you would nonetheless be willing to continue to head the troops in making sure that such a meeting is held. Mr. Matthews says "Assuming we do the program (i.e. PILOT educational), we will facilitate the program ourselves, and it will be open to the general public." "Assuming" as used by Mr. Matthews in this case does not connote a definite "will do". And he has yet to state a specific date, time, and place. Unless the details are forthcoming as to date, time, and place in the next day or two by Mr. Matthews, will you be the watchdog, to prod Matthews/Gross, and to keep the rest of us informed if a date, time, and place aren't imminently forthcoming? Given school closings, and summer vacations, I suspect if we do not hold this meeting before June 25th, it won't happen, if at all, for several months. Then, all the information, questions, assumptions shared here in the recent past will have been for naught. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 168 Registered: 3-2003 |
Sac: Each municipality that wants to adopt the five year abatement rule must do it on an individual base, pursuant to enabling legislation of the State. I think you're from Maplewood and I don't think Maplewood has adopted such an abatement ordinance. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 19 Registered: 2-2003 |
Washashore, you are right, it behooves us to have the meeting before the end of June. I will gladly follow up on making sure that we have it soon. I wish we all understand that we are aiming at a bi-directional communication between this group and two or more Village Trustees, and possibly with the participation of Messrs. Gross and Matthews, in a panel discussion format. The purpose of the meeting will be two-fold: a) to make the opinions on PILOT/abatements which have been expressed so far in this thread, known to the Trustees, and b) to have the Trustees present their facts on PILOT/abatements. To that end I suggest the following: I hope that Mr. Matthews will be able to arrange for a June meeting. If we do not hear from Mr. Matthews on this thread before June 15 on a definite meeting date, let’s all hold open the date of Thursday June 19 for a 7:30 p.m. meeting with two Trustees (or more, if Mr. Matthews rules that it is ok) who would be willing to attend such meeting. I will reach out to some Trustees to arrange for their participation. Messrs. Joyce, Rosen, and Rosner would be the first ones I would ask, since they all have presence on this site, and two of them (Messrs. Joyce and Rosner) have expressed interest in the meeting. The location of the meeting could be my living room, (that way I will not have to schlep all over town bottles of ouzo and Metaxa in brown bags), as long as Doublea brings the rugelah. This will happen only if Mr. Matthews does not come forth with a June date by June 15. The proceedings of the meeting will be recorded by one of us, and, after their approval by all participants, they will be posted on this thread for everyone's information. Any other ideas? Eric | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 35 Registered: 12-2002 |
Not to be looking to cause a problem here, but I'm perplexed by Mr. DeVaris' desire to limit who can and/or be involved in this meeting, particularly in light of his recent campaign about inclusion. While some of us may not be as vocal and as informed as others as to the process we all have a vested interest to know the facts. All I'm asking is for consideration, as I believe Mr. Matthews and Mr. Rosner have previously suggested, that this meeting be open to anyone who wishes to attend. If necessary I'd be happy to help Mr. DeVaris schlep whatever he needs to schlep.  | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 171 Registered: 3-2003 |
I can't speak for Eric, but I'm sure he wanted it to be open to anyone who wishes to attend; I definitely want it to be an open to everyone meeting. My guess is that Eric was trying to schedule something sooner rather than later and it came out suggesting it would be limited. Eric? | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 329 Registered: 6-2001  |
I agree with Doublea. I get the impression that Eric is trying to ensure the meeting occurs before the end of the school year, and is offering his home in the event that a more suitable location may not be available. I, for one, applaud Eric for his determination to see this through. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 20 Registered: 2-2003 |
You are right Doublea, I suggested a meeting with anyone who wishes to attend. The following is an excerpt from my May 24 post here on this thread: I believe the issue is important enough to justify such meeting. That is why I am willing to be the facilitator of such a meeting. Those interested can e-mail me at ericdevaris@aol.com, and we’ll take it from there; your identity will not be divulged on this board, if you so wish. Or you can post on this thread your willingness to meet, and your availability. In response to my post seven people so far showed an interest to attend the meeting; with you, Vermontgolfer, it makes eight people. That made me think that this would be a meeting with small attendance. But because I thought that the subject in question would be of interest to a wider audience I suggested that the proceedings be recorded and be posted here for the information of everybody else. That is called "inclusion", I believe. I am open to the suggestion of Mr. Matthews for a meeting in a public space (Baird Center or Village Hall) with adequate publicity for a wider attendance; that is why I left the organisation of it in his good hands. But if Mr. Matthews doesn't come through by June 15 with a date and location, then I suggested a definite date, and a location within my means, i.e. my living room. Vermontgolfer, you are welcome to this meeting, like everybody else, wherever it is held. There will be plenty of ouzo and rugelah. And if there are too many of us for my living room, let's hope for a good weather, we'll hold the meeting on my deck.  I hope my answer takes care of your perplexity. Eric PS.- I have left the electoral campaign behind me, and looking into the future. How about you? | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 36 Registered: 12-2002 |
Eric, I only raised the question because in an earlier post, and I frankly want to move ahead, you posted a message listing specific individuals. When I saw your last post, it raised a question. My only interest is to make sure that South Orange continues to grow and prosper so that my children will be proud of where they are from and be able to enjoy their lives. I appreciate your invitation and I would hope that Mr. Matthews would be able to arrange for this very important meeting that could be open to anyone who has any interest. As for the weather and the actual meeting place, maybe we should consider an ark, this is getting ridiculous. Thanks Eric. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 21 Registered: 2-2003 |
Vermontgolfer, I am happy we cleared the skies. Eric | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 37 Registered: 12-2002 |
Yes I am also, now only if the weatherman would, things would be wonderful. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 36 Registered: 3-2003 |
It is clear from reading the posts on this thread that there is a clear difference of view with respect to a meeting to be heald to discuss tax abatements and Pilot agreements. During the election in private posts I offered to meet with some residents and John Gross to explain generally how tax abatements and Pilot agreements work and specifically how tax abatements and Pilot Agreements work or would work in South Orange. One poster, I believe it was Bets, suggested that instead of meeting with individuals that a general meeting be held at which anyone who wanted to learn about tax abatements and Pilot agreements could attend. John and I could then provide an explanation and questions could be asked and answered. Eric DeVaris wants to turn this into a "bi-directional communication between this group and two or more trustees, and possibly with the participation of Messers Gross and Matthews, in a panel discussion format". I assume what Mr DeVaris is suggesting is a debate on the subject between the trustees and those opposed to tax abatements. That is not what I have proposed nor what I will participate in. The program John Gross and I will participate in will be one to help educate the public. Any Public debate in which the trustees participate should be at an open public meeting attended by all the Trustees at which they are considering whether to grant a tax abatement or not. Since the possibility exists that either New Market and or Beifus will ask for a tax abatement and Pilot agreement it makes sense to wait and see if that happens. John Gross and I can then make a public presentation utilizing actual numbers and then an appropriate debate can occur at a meeting of the Board of Trustees if it actually considers whether to grant a tax abatement and enter into a Pilot Agreement. There will be considerable preparation needed for John and I to make a public presentation. It makes much more sense for us to do it when the work has to be done rather than creating a presentation from what we went through several years ago for LCOR. While I realize this does not meet some posters proposed June deadline it is something which would be done within the next two or three months. (The June deadline is in any case unrealistic because John and I have other things which make it it impossible for us to prepare and make a presentation in June. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 24 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Matthews: In your June 7th post, you indicate that " a possibility exists that either New Market and/or Beifus will ask for a tax abatement and Pilot agreement" and further suggest that "it makes sense" to wait to hold a public meeting until if and when these agreements are requested so that you and John Gross can use "actual numbers" for a Board of Trustees meeting presentation. You further suggest that this should be the only meeting held to educate the community re: tax abatements and PILOTS as they would work in South Orange. While I agree that if and when New Market and Beifus request tax abatements and PILOTS, a public meeting using "actual numbers" must be held, it is still critically important that a first meeting on PILOTS, using Gaslight Commons as an example, be held now so that the public can be as informed as the town administration will be when the time comes to discuss the merits of and make a decision on granting or not additonal PILOTS. We need this first public meeting that has been discussed in this thread NOW so that we can understand, ask questions, learn, and be better prepared to participate in the discussions/decision-making on New Market and/or Beifus. The two meetings are not mutually exclusive but rather are equally required. Since all of the "actual numbers" and rationales for granting a PILOIT to Gaslight Commons already exist, there should be little additional work for you and John Gross to muster in order to have this important meeting in June. I look forward to your positive response, and a date in June when the public will be invited to this first public presentation on the use and value of PILOTS in SOUTH ORANGE. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 131 Registered: 8-2002 |
Rather than waiting "in case" either of the new developments ask for a pilot or other abatement (unless that is imminent -- as in the next few weeks) -- for me a meeting would be helpful to understand the financial issues relative to Gaslight -- a done deal. So far a number of us have made educated guesses at what the numbers might look like. Instead -- let's look at what the real numbers are. Then -- regardless of whether these new developments ask for abatements of some kind -- we'll all be better educated. And if they do -- then we'll that much further ahead. I assume that when we have "real" numbers -- some of will want to "debate" the issue both ways. Right now I don't have enugh info to take a stand. But please -- let's get the knowledge out -- sooner rather than waiting for unknowns. Pete | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2002 |
I agree with peteglider and others that, at least for me, it's important to understand the impact of PILOTS so I can at least intelligently discuss the issues. It's an important issue and one that I think we need to meet head on and not beat around the bush. Again, seconding petergliders words, please let's get something sooner rather than later. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 23 Registered: 2-2003 |
Since Mr. Matthews does not believe in a two-way communication, but he only wants to talk to us, I will settle for a one-way communication. Let's have this informational program where Messrs. Matthews and Gross will expose the numbers regarding the Gaslight Commons pilot. I hope that the program will allow ample time for a Q&A period. But please, Mr. Matthews, plan this meeting in June, if you want to have any audience. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 114 Registered: 5-2001 |
What is the reluctance about presenting on the Gaslight deal? It's done. It's legal. The main points can be laid out in powerpoint and most of these posters seem to understand the main concepts. The financial outcomes cannot be predicted yet anyway and it is hard to net out the qualitative benefits. The question again is "How much gets the job done, and how much is too much." SO properties are the Village's only taxable resources, so of course everyone wants to have input. Last time I checked, Village government was set up to be more Jeffersonian than Hamiltonian anyway. (Jefferson held that though the people might make mistakes, governments could usually rely on the public's good judgment.) | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 165 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mr. Davaris, I don't think Mr. Matthews objected to a two-way discussion. I think he was more concerned that it would turn into a debate, rather than discussion. I would agree with him that that is not the best use of everyone's time. I don't think the idea was the simply present a PILOT program and run out the doors like their hair is on fire . Perhaps a presentation with a Q&A period would work. Or a presentation where they take questions as they go. I would think presenting Gaslight Commons (or another PILOT, if there have been any others)would be easier than any new PILOTs that come up, since it seems that some of the numbers are secret during the negotiations, and therefore not subject to public release. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 132 Registered: 8-2002 |
About "secrecy" -- clearly there is proprietary financial and business information a developer should not be forced to disclose to the general public. However, I am not so interested in the developers business case per se, as the business case of how this impacts revenue and taxes! On that side the numbers should be open - right? Pete |
