| Author | Message | ||
     CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2003 |
Here is a -granted radical and fairly agressive - idea, if Seton Hall doesn't want to pay a reasonalbe share of taxes, why don't we propose redrawing the boundries of South Orange and invite Newark to adopt the portion of South Orange currently held by Seton Hall. I think it would have a real impact on the school's enrollment if their address was no longer a quaint town but rather a city - for better or worse- known for crime and urban decay.If this idea is presented to Seton hall perhaps they would be more willing to pony up the cash to support the town they reap the benefits from. | ||
| vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2002 |
CageyD, Cagey idea, indeed!  | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 282 Registered: 3-2003 |
I hadn't realized that Seton Hall also used the Village ballfields and tennis courts. I hope that the fact that the Village is discussing a partnership with Seton Hall for SOPAC does not diminish any feeling on the part of Seton Hall that it should be a "good neighbor" and make a reasonable payment to the Village. Because of our small size, the impact of Seton Hall on the tax impact of the Village is significant. This matter should be a priority as far as the Village officials are concerned. There are a lot of other issues that have to be considered in getting us through this "crisis," but the Seton Hall issue is certainly high on the list. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mark, Thanks for the feedback. Going back to the BOT meeting the other night (and preaching to the choir), we need to behave as we are in a crisis, which we are. If those properties can be developed into real ratables now (and I know that is an assumption on my part - but my hunch is that they can), isn't it potentially dangerous to be counting on the return that SOPAC can "potentially" generate. SOPAC is realistically years away - our crisis is now. Are we banking and risking too much now and in the future on SOPAC? Initially I was excited about SOPAC, but given the uncertainty, risk and current situation that the town is in, is it worth incurring the cost (including interest expense) - both real and opportunity costs - now? Even putting a fence in I am sure cost money, not to mention design plans, redesign plans, etc. Thanks. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 602 Registered: 4-2002 |
nwyave: I do not disagree, but if there is to be a SOPAC, those propeties are vital to the project. We need to look at short and long term solutions and see what will be best. We need to come to a final decision about SOPAC and whether the project is still viable. Then we can make a decision about the NJ Transit property. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 100 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mark, Further to my previous post, in a way is the town taking on too much business risk with these properties similar to the Midas property. The town can't afford to be in a psn to either own property or defer ratables with the hope of other developements. My understanding is that we got into the Midas situation because of a potential development on the Beifus site that carried itself all the way to the mechanic shop on the north west side of SO Ave (oppposite of the tressle)and needed to potentially relocate businesses to the Midas location. That didn't happen. My concern is similar with SOPAC - we could not be collecting ratables with the Stickley properties with the hope that SOPAC will happen, when there are so many uncertainties with that project, and we need money now. Thanks. | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 47 Registered: 8-2001 |
Re-Development and the Midas Touch I read with dismay in the August 7, 2003 News Record that the Village owned former Midas Muffler Shop was offered at auction for the second time with no takers. This means that the Village must throw even more money into this project and the overall boondoggle called re-development. The Midas situation is an example of what is wrong with government getting into the real estate game. The Village entered into a land transaction from a position of weakness that removed a commercial ratable from the tax roles without a clear and executable plan. And the taxpayers, as usual, get stuck with the bill. I first became aware of the Village acquiring the Midas property while reading the minutes of the Board of Trustee meeting on 6/12/2000. Those minutes are on the Village web site. Ordinance #00-13 was a Bond Ordinance authorizing the issuance of $570,000 in bonds to purchase the property. At that meeting someone in the audience asked if anyone had taken a look at the impact this bond ordinance would have on taxes. Trustee Steglitz gave the following explanation: "You do a bond or note for $600,00 at 4˝% or 5% for 15-20years. This bond could be for 30 years since it is bonding property. You have to understand the reason we're doing this is because it's part of a plan wherein other property available in downtown will bring in a rateable as much as $10-15 million". Later Trustee Steglitz further clarified the Village’s plans by saying: "What the Village has done, there was a parcel of property that was available on Valley. We went in and purchased the property because we need another parcel to enable us to put together something for redevelopment purposes. And if not, this is fair market value. We own property. We sell it. That's the other side. That's very simple". Sounds like a plan to me. The Ordinance passed 6-0. Not even an abstention. What Trustee Steglitz failed to mention for the record that night was that the property had recently (within the past 90 days) been sold by Midas to a company called Advanced Info Systems for $460,000 who then flipped the property to the Village making a quick $100,000 profit. I wonder where Advanced gets its info. In the recent News Record article about the flip Mr. Gross said, “The property was purchased in anticipation of downtown redevelopment. One thing we committed to was relocation of downtown businesses. It's certainly a valuable property and it had a potential for public use. When it became available, we thought it was prudent to purchase it instead of condemning it,” I think it would have been prudent, if there were a plan for using the property for the Village benefit, to buy it from Midas and save $115K (SO also gave the seller 15,000.00 in carrying costs. And if we did not have a plan we should have left the property on the tax roll. So the Village buys the property for $560,000 and also gives Advanced a credit for $15,000 to cover the sellers carrying costs from the original closing date. Total cost $575,000. Now the building sits empty for two years. Instead of generating $48,000 in taxes the building sits idle until the jitneys arrive and need a place to park. Now we want to sell it. And look at the reasons given for selling, from the recent News-Record article: Trustee Allan Rosen said one idea had been to use the site "as a potential backup for the fire station, but since we're rehabbing the fire station, it doesn't have that potential use any more.” Rosen said trustees had discussed using it as a repair shop for village vehicles or for storing jitneys. Gross said using the site, as the villages garage “is not the optimum use it’s not quite large enough to do maintenance on vehicles. It certainly helped us over the winter but, from our view, it's much better for something consistent with the downtown. It also gives the village a lot more control. If it had been sold to someone else, "We would have little control over what the use would be. Now we have more control over this and we thought that was important." Ah, the ever important control. Sounds like a plan. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 375 Registered: 6-2001  |
You really can't compare SHU to Drew. It is not a Methodist institution (even though the campus houses the Methodist Archives). It's population is 95 percent residential and is miniscule compared to Seton Hall. They do have the Caspersen Graduate School and the Theological School, but again, these are tiny compared to Seton Hall. They have their own playing fields and recreation facilities. They're just not as much of a drain on local services as Seton Hall. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 76 Registered: 5-2001 |
It should be in SHU's best interest to help maintain the town it "lives" in and maybe they need a little reminder of that. Look, politics can be ugly, but let's just say a story floating around the media that the local fire dept is in jeopardy of cuts and SHU has the means to do something to help but has refused, could be particularly damaging to this particular school's reputation. Yes, this is a threat but there's what's legal and then there's what's right. The school acts like it's the Vatican in there, a sovereign state. I know the TC at least pays lip service to getting more snuggly with the powers that be behind those walls, but maybe it's time to show this teddy bear has some teeth too. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 77 Registered: 5-2001 |
And BTW, there are plenty of examples of educational institutions taking an active role in maintaining the vibrancy and solvency of the communities in which they reside. Pitt and CMU have played major roles in transforming Pittsburgh from an industrial center to a medical and technology center. Is this a good analogy? No and yes. No, because the example is a huge transformative effort which took many years. Yes because compare that to a school which sits there and does the minimum of what it has to do (which, basically, is nothing) while the town around it suffers. This could be part "college town," I'll tell you what, I've been to college towns, I've lived in college towns, and this, my friends, is no college town. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5150 Registered: 5-2001  |
SHU owns about 30 properties throughout town. Its primary address at 400 SO Ave. is assessed at $107,736,000. Drew pays taxes to Madison and is assessed at $104,172,700. I don't have the tax figure. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 604 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: Thanks for getting that info. I also fear that they will try and buy more property. I have pointed out to them that they could buy more property in Newark too. There is another thread that has been started and one can see the impact of having a college in town. The amount of police calls to off-campus parties continues to grow and last year one of those party's led to a house burning down (no one was seriously hurt). SHU needs to be a better neighbor and they need to contribute their fair share. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2003 |
Mr. Rosner, that comment was not fair... as I stated in the other thread, SHU probably has no legal control over student behavior in off-camus homes. What is the result of a police visit to a party? Are they fined for breaking the decible allowance? Are they fined for littering? Are they checked for underage drinking? Seems to me that the town has the responsibility here.... and what about the landlord? Is there a way to make him accountable for renting to a bunch of college kids? Don't we have some law against boarding houses? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 285 Registered: 3-2003 |
SoOrLady: Please see my post in the "Seton Hall Student Nightmare" thread. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 19 Registered: 9-2003 |
doublea: your post makes a great deal of sense , thank you | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 605 Registered: 4-2002 |
SoORLady: The police will tell them to quiet down and clean up the mess. We will make sure the landlord is aware and he could be given a summons if the problems persists. They will be fined for littering if observed. The town's responsibility is to send a police officer there when they are made aware and to enforce the law. There are laws against boarding houses. However, the courts have ruled on this issue and student's living together "as a family" are not subject to those laws. I know it sounds ridiculous and it lets landlords rent out homes to a large number of students. SHU does have a policy in place that subjects to those students to some of the same "good behavior" rules as if they lived on campus. Several students were given warnings last year. The issue is complicated by the fact that SHU does not have anywhere near the number of dormitory rooms needed for a school with their population which is one of the reasons so many students live off-campus (I know there are a lot of students who prefer to live off campus anyway). SHU might not have any legal authority over students living off-campus, but they certainly have a responsibility to work with the village to minimize any off-campus problems. You might think I am unfair to SHU, but after dealing with them for over four years, I think I would say that the village has been more than patient with the university. | ||
| ril Citizen Username: Ril Post Number: 114 Registered: 6-2001 |
My mother lives in a shore town in NJ that has a similar problem with group rentals. They now have very strong police oversight of such houses--large fines are given for the smallest infractions (noise, littering, drinking), and the fines doubled each time. This quickly amounts to a considerable sum. (Tenants are warned about this before they sign a lease) The landlord is notified each time the police come to the house, and after a certain number of violations (I think it's 3), the certificate of occupancy is revoked, and the residents must vacate. This seemed draconian at first, but since this policy has been in place, the town has become much quieter, and the year-round residents are much happier. If SHU won't step up and take care of its problems, perhaps SO should institute similar measures. If nothing else, the money from the fines would help. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 20 Registered: 9-2003 |
Mr. Rosner - it's early in the semester. Perhaps these students are not aware of their responsibilities and are under the impression that an animal house atmosphere is appropriate for off-campus living. Since the University has set the standards for them, the University needs to be made aware of the situation. Most Universities have students who choose to live off-campus, doublea's post on the other thread explains how one town handled the situation of summer rentals.. perhaps some reseach should be done on other communities. As far as paying their fair share, I was under the impression that they did contribute in the $200,000 range. I'm aware of the main campus and the administration building and seminary on Centre Street, where are the other properties located? What are their uses? | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5151 Registered: 5-2001 |
Soorlady, If SHU paid the same rate as we do, they should be paying more than $2 million annually, not $200,000. The 30+ properties are located throughout the town; some are residential. | ||
| growler Citizen Username: Growler Post Number: 232 Registered: 11-2001 |
That number makes ya think. |
