Tag Archives: Jocelyn Mathiasen

What gives?

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

At Monday’s meeting, the Mayor & Council intend to accept the huge affordable housing Prospective Need quota imposed by the state last October 18. https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3106163/RESOLUTION__25-87_COMMITTING_TO_COMPLY_WITH_AFFORDABLE_HOUSING_OBLIGATIONS.pdf

https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/administrative-directives/2024/12/dir_14_24.pdf

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?

At the same meeting, the Mayor & Council are also poised to adopt a resolution to amend the state’s affordable housing law to do away with “unrealistic burdens” on municipalities. https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3106150/RESOLUTION__25-85_RESOLUTION_SUPPORTING_NJILGA_LEGISLATION.pdf

Here’s the proposed amendment: https://www.newjerseyhills.com/west_morris_reporter/news/bucco-calls-for-responsible-growth-in-regard-to-affordable-housing/article_55dad006-d8f7-11ef-b37f-3fee22524221.html

But the Mayor & Council have yet to announce any efforts toward advancing that amendment or reducing the unrealistic burdens on Chatham Borough. https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/civil/affordable-housing?fbclid=IwY2xjawIA3-pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQVmSy-JmZvt7OZupIHS4SES1HwsPN3zxvm1FyKEeeRSuHAlm8D8HCvO_w_aem_ndPSSH2i6leLkR2aqu3RHw

When are we going to get some answers?

Thank you!

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Looks like Chatham Borough will meet its January 31 deadline for raising $6 million to build a 15-unit, all-affordable apartment house at Post Office Plaza. https://www.chathamborough.org/government/news/691-5-million-state-award-to-complete-funding-for-post-office-plaza-affordable-housing-project

A perfect outcome? No.

We’d be better off meeting our housing quota by converting existing, market rate apartments to affordable units that would blend into the community. But the 15-unit affordable project was the best option on the table in 2022. https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/guest-column/articles/it-s-time-for-smart-downtown-development-to-move-forward-in-chatham-borough-developers-post-office-plaza-design-update?fbclid=IwAR2gYb0jslMJl2qDmmrk7nYYONwmFOI2oxjxdwJfSUPyv9Mr2Z5hKu0UgLo

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.”

Pitiful

Redevelopment, River Road, , , , , , , , ,

Our Mayor & Borough Council are plunging ahead with a Redevelopment Plan for another massive, 500-unit River Road apartment project that:

  • is NOT REQUIRED by affordable housing law; and
  • will NOT COUNT toward meeting the Borough’s RDP affordable housing quota!

Why would they do THAT? They offer two justifications, both flimsy.

  • First, they’ll tell you a Redevelopment Plan is the only way to “control” what gets built on RIver Road: Absent a Plan, they claim, the property owners can do whatever they want. That’s nonsense.

All Chatham property is subject to countless federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A Plan would actually make matters worse by providing for at least 500 rental apartments to satisfy setaside rquirements.

  • Second, they’ll tell you that with a Redevelopment Plan they can make the developer throw in some public goodies – such as a free riverside park. More nonsense.

Nothing is free. Whether or not the Mayor & Council manage to negotiate for any decent public benefits whatsoever, the rest of us will pay dearly in the form of a stealth tax increase triggered by the corporate welfare PILOT tax exemption the developer will demand and get, just as happened at the Ivy project.

The good news is that there’s still time to change all that.

Tell the Mayor & Council to put this project on ice until they’ve done their homework and considered their options.

Or better yet, shelve this massive Redevelopment project. Concentrate on urgent matters, like finding a way to meet the Borough’s affordable housing obligations without overwhelming our roads and schools, depleting our water supply, polluting our environment, or cheating taxpayers.

Context: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/letters-to-the-editor/articles/blind-faith

Stealth tax: https://chathamchoice.org/2024/10/a-slick-infomercial-for-corporate-welfare/

What about our water supply? https://chathamchoice.org/2024/11/water-water-everywhere/

Here we go again

Uncategorized, , , , ,

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.

On Monday November 11, the Council will vote to direct a Borough planner to start drafting just such a plan. You can see it on their agenda here: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/chathamborough/54501977-9f8c-11ee-a93d-0050569183fa-87c420e4-d6a2-4396-b701-70ff66871099-1731095422.pdf

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.

Come to the Borough. Council meeting on Monday, November 11, 7:30 pm at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. Use the north entrance. Take the elevator to the upper level. Or attend by Zoom: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/chathamborough/54501977-9f8c-11ee-a93d-0050569183fa-87c420e4-d6a2-4396-b701-70ff66871099-1731095422.pdf

Poor response: https://patch.com/new-jersey/chatham/borough-supporting-another-massive-development-river-road-nodx?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3WyQLIJjRrA656yOFZhCsqROaE5baV9gYZ9WzT4wwfflvk8LfY5WYe4j0_aem_POd3z1AP3xU68-EadQWMWw

Better follow up: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/letters-to-the-editor/articles/blind-faith

Find out Monday, November 28, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue or by Zoom: https://www.chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/mayor-council-meeting-13-1730154600

A slick infomercial for corporate welfare

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

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.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=298

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:

03:00:17 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=298

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:

  1. Identify the alternatives.
  2. Do its due diligence.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.”

– Chat GPT

Will the truth come out?

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Now we know that the Mayor & certain members of the Borough Council are aiming to partner with for-profit developers to build 500 MORE rental apartments on River Road, right next to the 245-unit Ivy project that went up last year. https://chathamchoice.org/2024/09/wait-another-big-project-on-river-road/

They claim that in return for the chance to collect big rents on the new complex, the developer will throw in some “free” goodies for the Borough, including a lovely riverside park.

Of course, in reality nothing is free.

To get the riverside park and other “free” goodies, the Council would have to agree to excuse the property taxes on the new project for 30 years.

That means instead of picking up part of the Borough’s ever growing expenses, automatically reducing your tax bill, the developer would pay smaller amounts known as PILOT payments.

Why would Council members even consider that? Because unlike tax money, which is subject to certain limits, the Council could spend the PILOT money on frills, gifts, or whatever else, and go right on raising your property taxes to pay for the “free” riverside park and other goodies.

In other words, you would pay for the “free” goodies for the next 30 years.

Why would the Council take on that long term burden – and put more than a thousand more people and hundreds more cars on River Road forever – when it could pay less for whatever the Borough needs and wants on its own?

Ask the Council’s financial advisor on Tuesday, October 15, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue. Use the side door. Take the elevator to the upper level. Or Zoom here:

https://www.chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/mayor-council-meeting-13-1728948600?fbclid=IwY2xjawF6FoZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHasSMW6-NiNkg-3-2lFLZ8wJz2h7iH8Q7GMc8mYRExEilNWeqS9nsLmWlw_aem_KhQbSrxfm87K-GFVKf_Q-w

PS: Is it true that the Council must do this deal or lose any hope of influencing what happens on River Road? No. https://chathamchoice.org/2024/08/myths-about-future-development-at-river-road/

The great spinmeister

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

Jocelyn Mathiasen is running for a third term on the Borough Council, trying to position herself as a mainstream opponent of overdevelopment, just as she did In 2018, when she first ran for Council using the slogan “Keep Chatham Chatham.”

https://patch.com/new-jersey/chatham/post-office-plaza-another-reason-vote-dems-tomorrow

Ms Mathiasen’s anti-overdevelopment posture is totally inconsistent with her six-year tenure on the Council.

During that time, she has never opposed, or even failed to promote and vote for, any step toward every overdevelopment scheme that has ever come along, including at Post Office Plaza and River Road.

There is no reason to believe she has changed.

No explanation at all

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

At their August 12 meeting, the Mayor & Council invited a Borough tax lawyer to address a mystery:

Why had the lawyer called off a property tax proposal, claiming in writing that “the Borough Council has decided not to proceed with the request this year,” when, in fact, the Council would not even vote on the matter for another week?

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256 starting around 2:06:00, and reported at https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/news/articles/chatham-residents-question-whether-borough-council-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-was-a-sham-vote-after-letter-revealed

The lawyer must have had some reason for saying that. Instead of revealing the reason, he seemed determined to fall on his sword, claiming full responsibility for the debacle. “It is my fault,” he insisted. “I just should have said that the Governing Body has not yet given me that authorization.”

So, why didn’t the tax lawyer say that? Why did he tell the Tax Board otherwise? The Mayor & Council never asked that key question, and the lawyer never volunteered an explanation.

https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256 reported at https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-tax-lawyer-offers-mea-culpa-for-canceling-hearing-that-preceded-sham-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-plan;

When will the Mayor & Borough Council get to the bottom of this situation and reveal what prompted the lawyer to notify the Tax Board that the Council had decided something, when in fact it had not?

When will the Mayor & Council tell us what they’re doing to make sure nothing of the sort ever happens again?

Check out this transcript of the CBC meeting on 8 12 24Download
Tax Board agendaDownload

Who did this?

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,

FOR THE UPDATE, SEE THE END OF THIS POST BELOW

Who officially called off the rolling reassessment at least one week before the Council voted on it at the 6/24 meeting?

Who told the Borough tax lawyer to call off the rollin reassessment at least a week before the Council voted on it?

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/news/articles/chatham-residents-question-whether-borough-council-vote-on-rolling-reassessment-was-a-sham-vote-after-letter-revealed

“It was not a sham vote,” insisted the Mayor, saying she wasn’t aware of the discrepancy until two weeks later, when Bob Weber showed proof at the 7/8 Council meeting.

Now the Mayor needs to find out who made that call behind her back and let us residents know.

UPDATE: Does the employee’s explanation make any sense at all?

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/sections/government/articles/chatham-borough-administrator-email-explains-behind-the-scenes-maneuvering-associated-with-rolling-reassessment-decision?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0qo8pJRehxHwQXntFkChEfi1a9ZtAK6bwifZcLPf8G1UX35830oJO8x2g_aem_dPs2URZRlpI54We43GFXsQ

Visioning?

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

What’s up with the so-called “visioning workshop” the Mayor & Council have set for next Thursday, June 27, from 7 to 9 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue?

They’re testing public support for a plan to build 500 more rental apartments on River Road, near the 245-unit Ivy project at the corner of River and Watchung.

To achieve that, they would offer developers a 30-year property tax break, prompting them to build even if the market is weak, and forcing us taxpayers to assume the risk that the rents won’t keep up with rising municipal costs.

The alternative is for the Borough Council to wait and see if the River Road property owners choose to build more apartments without a tax break.

Under current zoning, they could conceivably build 700 new flats there tomorrow.

But, left to their own devices, property owners may not build any more apartments on River Road anytime soon. Not unless, until, and to the extent they (and their lenders) think they can get rents high enough to pay regular property taxes and still make a nice profit.

That may not happen for many years – if ever – given current interest rates,.the 245-unit Ivy project sitting half empty next door and big apartment buildings springing up all over the state.

Under the circumstances, should the Borough Council panic and plunge ahead with a scheme to burden River Road with a second massive apartment project that may or may not produce enough revenue to cover Borough costs?

Or might it be wiser to wait and see how many more apartments the market can support at River Road?

(Either way, any new apartments will be at least 15% -20% affordable, and – contrary to what overdevelopment advocates would have you believe – the developer certainly won’t give the Borough a riverside park – or anything else – for “free.”)

Before making any plans for River Road, the Council needs to identify all the options, evaluate and compare the risks and benefits in light of market conditions and the effects on the Borough – both financial and in quality of life.