But WHAT “Redevelopment Contract” are they talking about?
Are they looking to renegotiate the Borough’s longstanding deal with the Ivy? Or the 15-unit project they agreed to build at Post Office Plaza back in 2022?
Last November 11, our Borough Council commissioned a draft Redevelopment Plan for a massive, 500-unit apartment project on River Road, next to the huge, 245-unit Ivy complex.
Since then, it’s come to light that the new project would be risky for Chatham Borough in at least seven ways, as follows:
First, this new River Road project is NOT required by affordable housing law, and it would NOT help fulfill the Borough’s new Fourth Round affordable housing RDP quota for 2025-2035 either.
The new apartments would be in addition to the Borough’s affordable housing quota, which the Council must figure out how to satisfy before the end of this June2025.
Second, the alleged risk associated with NOT adopting that 500-apartment Redevelopment Plan for River Road is totally imaginary.
Our Council President insists that, absent the new Plan, current zoning allows private property owners to develop up to 707 new apartments on River Road and the Borough would have NO say in the matter. That sounds scary, but it is NOT true.
In fact, about 40% of the Redevelopment Area (and more than 50% of the Gateway 1 district) is Borough-owned. Would-be developers can’t touch it without the Council’s consent.
Also, the part of the Redevelopment area that’s privately-owned is mostly small lots, all subject to many federal, state, and local rules and regulations, including setbacks. https://ecode360.com/6793110#29899351
As such, the owners of that private property would NOT be able to build anywhere near 707 new apartments there without Borough approval.
Third, if the Borough Council tries to prevent private development by adopting a rental Redevelopment Plan, then we’ll end up with far more apartments on River Road. That’s because to satisfy the legal requirement to provide at least 75 affordable units, making up at least 15% of the project, a rental Plan would have to provide for at least 500 new apartments – more than twice the number at the Ivy.
Our Mayor & Council are well aware that the Redevelopment Plan would allow construction of 500 apartments – twice the number at the Ivy. They heard it directly from Borough Planner Fran Reiner last March. Go to minute 1:06:00 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=197
Fourth, some Council members don’t seem to realize that such a Plan would also almost inevitably involve granting the redeveloper corporate welfare, at the very least a total PILOT exemption from paying property taxes, same as the Ivy.
Fifth, some believe the Mayor & Council could persuade a developer to provide MORE than 15% affordable rental units. A 20% affordable project, for instance, could be limited to 375 units. But what would the Council need to do to induce a redeveloper to accept that deal?
Would they give away some of the Borough land along the River? Allow the redeveloper to build several extra stories? Grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption? All three? How would such concessions impact financial security and quality of life in the Borough?
Sixth, even a 375-unit Redevelopment project would burden our precious water supply, and might force us to resort to less desirable sources.
Seventh, the Mayor & Council President claim that adopting a Plan would enable them to get the redeveloper to throw in a “free” riverside park and other so-called “amenities.” But the fact is that nothing is free.
To get those goodies, the Borough Council would have to accept an even worse a deal for residents and taxpayers. They’d probably need to give away most or all of the Borough land along the River, to allow the redeveloper to build even more extra stories, and to grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption.
Before spending any more time or money on another Redevelopment Plan for River Road, our Mayor & Council need to tell us how they would avoid getting stuck with a huge, 500-unit rental projectthat would clog up our roads, and would almost certainly demand an exemption from property taxes, forcing the rest of us to make up the difference.
Better yet, tell the Mayor & Council to set aside this ill-conceived scheme and concentrate on urgent business, including meeting our affordable housing quota without overburdening our wallets and infrastructure.
On Monday night, the Chatham Borough Council unanimously deemed “excessive” and “unrealistic” the 181-unit affordable housing obligation the State has assigned to the Borough, but then the Council unanimously resolved to accept that number anyway. https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=332 Minute 1:33:44
Also on Monday night, the Mayor was vague about the funds available to fulfill the Borough’s obligation to build a 15-unit, 100% affordable apartment house at Post Office Plaza, when in reality the numbers were readily available, showing that Borough taxpayers must pay more than $1 million to build the project.
To fill that quota with inclusionary rental housing, Chatham Borough would be forced to make space for more than 1,200 additional families, putting at least 2,000 additional cars on our busy streets.
Why haven’t the Mayor & Council demanded an adjustment for the lack of vacant land in the Borough?
If they go ahead and accept the number, will they have another opportunity to demand an adjustment?
When will they make that demand? What are the chances they’’ll get it?
What’s more, it is a far better choice than the option advocated by Council members Jocelyn Mathiasen, Karen Koronkiewicz, and now Mayor Carolyn Dempsey: a huge, 100+ unit, 85% luxury, tax-exempt Kushner project that would have clogged up Main Street and eliminated all of the public parking at Post Office Plaza.https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=80 (Go to 3:32:39)
That’s exactly what we’d be stuck with today if not for the courage of then Chatham Borough Mayor Thad Kobylarz, former Council members Len Resto, Frank Truilo, and still Council member Irene Treloar, who achieved a political and legal miracle with the help of lawyer Jonathan Drill, Esq.https://chathamchoice.org/2022/05/close-call/https://chathamchoice.org/2022/11/
When you happen to see Kobylarz, Resto, Truilo, or Treloar around town, there’s no need to say anything except “Thank you.”
Why didn’t they consider the effect on our water supply, for instance?
Chatham Borough draws its water supply from the Buried Valley Aquifer system of the Central Passaic River Basin via three deep wells near the Middle School.
Because “there is no practicable or affordable alternate water supply, as certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,”the Borough Code restricts the use of water, even when there’s no drought.
Given the scarcity of well water, why did our Council allow the Ivy project on River Road to bring in at least 500 more residents and even put a swimming pool on the roof increasing the demand for water by 27,554 gallons per day?
Can our wells satisfy the demands of yet another 1,000 residents, flushing toilets, showering, bathing, running dishwashers and washing machines? Will the new place also include a swimming pool?
What will happen to Chatham if our wells run dry?
Will we be forced to rely on a less desirable source?
Will the Council consider any of the other potential water consequences of overdevelopment, including runoff, flooding, and pollution of the wells and the Passaic River?
Do you love the giant Ivy apartment complex on River Road?
Now our Mayor & Borough Council are hell bent on building yet another massive housing project there – one that’s more than twice the size of the Ivy – and without having considered any alternatives or implications.
This project is NOT necessary. The Borough need not build it to meet its current affordable housing quota and, if built, it Will NOT count toward the Borough’s quota (RDP) for 2025-2035.
Not only would this new project be massive, we taxpayers would inevitably wind up having to pay for it by granting the developer a corporate welfare PILOT tax exemption.
Is that what you want? Would you prefer that our Mayor & Council consider some options before committing to this scheme? Do you have any questions? Don’t wait until it’s too late to ask them.
Back on September 23, Council President Mathiasen promised to level with residents about the crucial differences between PILOT payments of the kind the Borough gets from the Ivy, and the normal property taxes the rest of us have to pay.
Instead, she used our tax money to hire a slick financial consultant to do an hourlong infomercial for corporate welfare.
That’s the only way to describe her consultant’s presentation at the October 15 Council meeting. He made his best case for continuing to waive property taxes on big, new apartment buildings for decades, so that the Council can get its hands on a cut of the revenues, which they call PILOT payments.
Those PILOT payments are actually our money. And it’s a lot of money. With the Ivy, for instance, the consultant says the PILOT payments will average $1.7 million per year for three decades. That’s ten percent of the Borough’s current budget, and 13% of the municipal tax levy.
Does that PILOT revenue reduce the property tax burden on the rest of us, as a new taxable development would? No. The Council can spend it all and go right on raising taxes every year as usual.
In effect,PILOTs take money out of the pockets of the rest of us, by depriving us of the automatic tax break we’d get if the Ivy paid property taxes.
PILOTs also deprive us residents of the right to vote on how to use those extra public funds.
Ms Mathiasen’s consultant actually touted PILOTs as a way to use public funds for projects that are politically unpopular.Check it out here:
Huh? Why does the consultant think spending taxpayer funds to thwart the wishes of voters is a good thing?
Now the Mayor & Council are ready to plunge ahead with a second, luxury redevelopment project on River Road – one that’s twice the size of the Ivy, with 500 apartments, and will require taxpayers to subsidize it with yet another PILOT tax break.
Demand that before taking another step, the Council first:
Identify the alternatives.
Do its due diligence.
Present a timely, thorough matrix, comparing the costs, benefits, and other implications of that 500-unit PILOT project with other alternatives, including the normal, wait-and-see approach.
Hold a timely, robust public discussion.
“By using PILOT agreements, local governments can essentially raise revenue and finance public services in ways that sidestep the constraints of tax caps or spending limitations.”
