Tag Archives: Redevelopment

Things fall apart

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

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.

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2972429/RESOLUTION__24-333_AUTHORIZING_DMR_TO_PREPARE__A_DRAFT_REDEVELOPMENT_PLAN.pdf

Since then, it’s come to light that the new project would be risky for Chatham Borough in at least six 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 affordable housing RDP quota 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 June 2025.

Go to minute 1:31:00 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=197

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

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.

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

In fact, about 40% of the Redevelopment Area is Borough-owned. Private property owners can’t touch it without the Council’s consent.

DRAFT Gateway Analysis – Copy – Copy – Copy 1 – Copy – Copy – Copy 2Download

Also, the part of the Redevelopment area that’s privately-owned is mostly dozens of small lots, all subject to many federal, state, and local rules and regulations.

P. 14  https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1399493/2022-05-27-HEFSP_amendment.finaladopted.pdf

As such, the owners of that private property would NOT be able to build anywhere near 707 new apartments without Borough approval.

Third, if the Borough Council tries to prevent such private development by adopting a Redevelopment Plan, then we’ll actually end up with far more apartments on River Road. That’s because a rental Plan would have to provide for at least 500 new apartments – more than twice the number at the Ivy.

The new Plan would have to be that big is to satisfy the legal requirement to provide for at least 75 affordable units, which must be at least 15% of the project.

P. 13 https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1399493/2022-05-27-HEFSP_amendment.finaladopted.pdf

That’s also the usual ceiling for developers of rental projects. So to induce a redeveloper to provide the minimum 75 affordable rental units, the Council would have to permit construction of a 500-unit project, twice the 245-units now at the Ivy.

Fourth, our Mayor & Council are well aware that the Redevelopment Plan would allow construction of 500 apartments. 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

Some believe the Mayor & Council could persuade a developer to provide MORE than 15% affordable rental units. But how?

Would they give away Borough land? Allow the redeveloper to build extra stories? Grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption? All three? How would that impact the Borough?

Fifth, 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.

Sixth, 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 even more Borough land, allow the redeveloper to build even more extra stories, and grant the redeveloper an even more lavish PILOT tax exemption.

 https://chathamchoice.org/2024/08/welcome-back/

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 project that 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.

https://chathamchoice.org/2024/12

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, improving the master plan, and figuring out if there’s a way to turn the Stanley Church into an asset instead of a money pit.

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.”

Severe drought

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

With water in such short supply, why is the Borough Council looking to build yet another housing project that would increase demands on our wells? https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/letters-to-the-editor/articles/blind-faith

Find out Monday, November 25, 7:30 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue or by Zoom: https://www.chathamborough.org/resident/calendar/mayor-council-meeting-13-1730154600

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

This just in

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

So what is Chatham’s affordable housing quota for 2025-2035?

See p. 33 of the October 18 report: https://nj.gov/dca/dlps/pdf/FourthRoundCalculation_Methodology.pdf

Word is that our planners will adjust the numbers shown in that report to allow for the scarcity of vacant land in Chatham Borough, and then try to persuade the State to accept its adjusted numbers as the quotas.

That analysis will probably be similar to that used in 2022, as shown on page 5 of the current Housing Elements, linked here:

https://www.chathamborough.org/government/documents/meeting-documents/planning-board-meetings/2022-planning-board-meeting-documents/2022-planning-board-agendas/2108-2022-05-16-hefsp-amendment-final4/file

The State says the Borough Council has until the end of this January 2025 to negotiate the final quota, and to adopt a binding resolution accepting it. https://www.njlm.org/civicalerts.aspx?aid=2924

For a list of deadlines facing the Borough Council, click here: https://chathamchoice.org/2024/06/deadlines/

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.

The big lie: Myths about future development at River Road

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

You’ve heard what the politicians always like to say:

To get any control over what gets built at River Road, we need a redevelopment plan, they insist.

Unless we have a redevelopment plan, the developers can build whatever they want, they wail, evoking the specter of towering , tacky, monstrosities.

But is that true? No.

Absent a redevelopment plan, any new, private development is subject to many federal, state, and local requirements, including plenty of Borough building, affordable housing, and zoning regulations that apply all over town, and some that apply to the Gateway Overlay Districts of River Road in particular.

For a new, private project at River Road, those requirements include the following detailed rules that set strict standards for almost every aspect of a development:

Affordable Housing §69-4A: https://ecode360.com/27401603#31809708

Land Development §165: https://ecode360.com/29899377#29899377

Gateway Overlay District 1 §165-35: https://ecode360.com/6793137?highlight=sidewall&searchId=5252782375618825#29899351

Prohibited: §165-5: https://ecode360.com/6792677#6792677

Health §274-§308: https://ecode360.com/11763943#11763943

Fire Code §136 https://ecode360.com/6792430#6792430

Keep that in mind next time someone tries to tell you that – unless we adopt a redevelopment plan – the developer “can build whatever he wants” or that adopting another plan is “the only way to control what happens at River Road.”

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.