Tag Archives: Jocelyn Mathiasen

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 ASAP 500 more apartments on River Road, near the 245-apartment 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.

Risky? No. Left to their own devices the property owners won’t 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 probably won’t happen for many years – if ever – given current interest rates and the growing glut of luxury apartment buildings in the Chatham area.

(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.”)

With the 245-unit Ivy project sitting half empty next door and big apartment buildings going up all over the state, should the Borough plunge ahead with a scheme to build a 500-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?