But to get that “free” help, what would we need to sacrifice in lower quality of life, more traffic, pollution, crowded schools, higher municipal and school costs?
And is it really “free” if in return we must grant the developer a PILOT tax exemption, causing higher property taxes for the rest of us?
Shall we plunge ahead on blind faith or shall we first do our due diligence?
Would a pretty trail along the Passaic River really make up for all that sacrifice?
Delighted to see some fresh faces at the May 8 Borough Council meeting. Kudos to the four newcomers who stepped up to the microphone that night to talk about the biggest issue facing the Borough, namely:
Shall we use our Borough PILOT revenue from the new River Road development to reduce our property taxes and pay for urgent necessities like fire trucks? Or shall we spend that money on luxuries and gifts?
Before that night, every Borough resident who spoke out asked the Council to use our PILOT money for property tax relief and urgent necessities like fire trucks.
We heard a different point of view at that May 8th Council meeting, where three Borough residents – and a lady from Chatham Township – asked the Borough Council to spend some of our Borough PILOT money on gifts to our joint School District.
That’s understandable: Education is a worthy cause. If the schools need more money, then they should have it. And vigorous discussion can help foster informed decision-making.
Yet judging from the comments made at that Council meeting, we are nowhere near ready to make an informed decision about our Borough PILOT money. Some of the speakers seemed downright confused.
For instance, most of the speakers didn’t seem to realize that the PILOT money is OUR money – a Borough asset. If we give it away, we’ll have to raise our Borough property taxes to pay for necessities like fire trucks.
Also, most of the May 8 presentations to the Council rested on the mistaken assumption that the School District is is short on funds and has nowhere else to turn for help.
That simply isn’t the case.
In fact, the School District has far greater resources than does Chatham Borough – including a $86.3 million annual budget and the option to raise additional funds from Borough and Township taxpayers alike, using ballot questions like the two we’ll vote on this November.
As such, simply gifting scarce Borough funds to the School District makes no more sense than giving them to the local Post Office, New Jersey Transit, the Morristown hospital.
Important as those institutions are, they aren’t municipal functions, and neither is the School District. The Council has no business diverting scarce Borough resources to any non-municipal purpose without voter approval.
What’s more, the Borough Council has no right to meddle in School District affairs. It should stay in its own lane, and defer to the proper authority on local education: the School Board.
If the School District needs more money, the Township and Borough should share the expense – the same way they share every other cost of operating the schools- following the normal process the School Board has been using for years:
Residents pitch their ideas to the School Board. If the Board deems an expenditure worthwhile, it either fits it into its regular guaranteed annual budget, or else floats a ballot question, giving Borough and Township residents alike the chance to decide if the idea justifies raising our taxes. That’s the normal procedure. The Borough Council plays no role in that..
If the Council is determined to overstep its traditional role and consider diverting our Borough PILOT funds for a gift in excess of the Borough’s fair share of school expenses, it certainly should not do so without the consent of residents.
The Council should put the question on the ballot and let Borough voters decide.
At the very least, the Council should provide a timely forum for vigorous, robust public debate before even considering earmarking our Borough PILOT money for any particular purpose.
The Borough Council and voters alike should beware of making such an important choice based on false assumptions. For instance:
PILOT PAYMENTS: MYTH versus REALITY
MYTH: Only a selfish cheapskate – who values money more than the education of our children – would oppose gifting our Borough PILOT money to the School District.
MYTH: The School District deserves a portion of our Borough’s River Road PILOT money, because the District would have received nearly two thirds of the property taxes from River Road if it paid property taxes.
REALITY: Not so. It’s a question of accountability. For the Council to gift money to the School District is to do an end run around voters, diminishing the community’s voice in our schools – and potentially subjecting them to partisan political control.
REALITY: Not so. Given the 2% cap, the School District wouldn’t be entitled to any additional property tax revenue if River Road were a taxpaying development.
MYTH: Even if the School District isn’t legally entitled to a portion of the PILOT money, the Council should gift the District PILOT money in light of the additional schoolchildren at River Road.
REALITY: Nonsense. Absent voter approval, the School District’s portion of property taxes remains exactly the same whether enrollment plummets or soars. Why should the possibility of additional school children at River Road change that rule?
MYTH: If the Borough doesn’t promise to share our PILOT money with the School District, the quality of education will suffer.
REALITY: Nonsense. The School Board president has admitted it’s impossible to predict how much – or even if – the River Road project might increase school expenses. If it does increase expenses significantly, the District will budget for it – or else float a ballot question to raise more money, just like every other district in the state.
MYTH: If the Borough Council doesn’t share our PILOT money with the School District, it will unfairly burden Township residents with the cost of educating additional Borough school children at River Road.
REALITY: Preposterous. Borough residents are required to help bear the cost of educating additional children from new Township developments like the Enclave. How is it unfair for Township residents to help bear the cost of educating additional children from a new Borough development like River Road?
Our Borough Council got some good news at its April 10 meeting.
Retired Bloomfield Fire Captain Robert Penn reported that the apartment project going up on River Road is far safer than he had expected. Check out his words at minute 1:29:28:
Of course, our volunteer fire fighters are still hobbled by ancient fire trucks and have no good way to put out fires in the growing number of electric cars.
Can your town suddenly decide to zone one lot differently from its neighbors?
No. That’s “spot-zoning.” It’s illegal in New Jersey.
But there is an exception if the lot is arguably “blighted” or “in need of redevelopment,” according to a state law designed to help poor towns attract new construction.
For years, real estate developers have abused that exception to achieve a kind of legalized spot zoning:
They’ve used it to get around normal zoning laws in towns that have no trouble attracting investors.
They’ve used it to sweep away normal zoning rules for properties that aren’t blighted at all.
They’ve used it to qualify for whopping property tax breaks that enrich the developers at the expense of residents.
Sometimes they’ve used it to get title to public land without the normal checks and balances.
The courts usually turn a blind eye to that kind of abuse.
One noteworthy exception is the 2007 case of Gallenthin v. Paulsboro, in which the state Supreme Court made clear that the mere fact that a property is operated in a less than optimal manner does not make it “stagnant and unproductive” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e).
Now it seems the Court is beginning to tighten up the criteria for designating a property “in need of redevelopment” on the grounds that it is “dilapidated, obsolete, overcrowded” or has “other deleterious conditions.”
In a case published this month, Malanga v. Township of West Orange, the Court rejected the designation of the West Orange library as an “area in need of redevelopment” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d) simply because it was old, out of style, and needed repair. The Court also put to rest the idea that the mere assertion that a place is dilapidated, obsolescent, etc. will suffice, or that courts should defer to the township’s judgment on that score.
The Malanga case establishes that to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d), the township must show both:
1) evidence of “dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout”; and
2) that, as a result, the premises “are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.”
Great news for anyone concerned about reckless overdevelopment.
What effect will the Malanga case have on areas already designated in need of redevelopment? Ask an expert:
UPDATE: Turned out Captain Penn was 100% right about the Borough’s emergency need for new fire vehicles, according to the November. 2023 report by the experts the Council paid to study the issue. On July 8, 2024, the Council voted to spend $1.2 million on a new truck, some 40% more than it would have cost if they’d acted when first alerted to the issue.
Why would our Chatham Borough Council even consider gifting our River Road PILOT money to anyone when we’re in such desperate need of fire trucks and other necessities?
That was the elephant in the room at the Monday, 3/13 meeting of our Borough Council.
The elephant got loose during a presentation by a principal of BNE, the developer of the massive, stick-built apartment project going up at the corner of Watchung Avenue and River Road.
Asked if our volunteer fire department has the equipment, the manpower, and the training necessary to fight a real fire at River Road, the presenter, a principal with the developer, BNE Real Estate Group, said, “Yes, currently Chatham Borough has what they need to fight a fire in that building.” See the video linked below starting about 1:18:00.
Brave, dedicated, and skilled as they are, our volunteer firefighters need more personnel, more training, and far newer fire trucks than Chatham Borough has – or can provide anytime soon, according to longtime, respected Borough resident Robert Penn, a former captain in the Bloomfield Fire Department who worked in the fire service for 44 years and has taught classes in Building Construction and Advanced Firefighting Tactics and Strategy. (Go to minute 37:46 in the following video:0)
In the event of a real fire at the River Road development, our volunteers would have to wait for help from surrounding towns.
The problem isn’t new or partisan. It dates back at least a decade, when the other political party controlled the Council. It will take years to get the necessary equipment.
Popular Borough Council Member Len Resto is working on getting the fire trucks we need. It will cost a bundle. The Council should use our PILOT money for tax relief and fire trucks, not for gifts. Certainly not without the informed consent of Chatham residents.
That the Council would even consider giving away our PILOT money without our consent is mind boggling. It’s a great example of what can happen when we don’t hold our elected representatives accountable for their decisions.
If the Council explains the situation, and residents vote to give away our PILOT money anyway, that’s their choice. But residents are entitled to know what’s at stake before any decisions are made.
The Chatham Borough Council is drooling over the prospect of getting millions in PILOT revenue from the massive, 259-unit rental housing project under construction on River Road.
Those PILOT revenues rightfully belong to the taxpayers of Chatham Borough.
Our Borough Council should use the taxpayers’ PILOT money to lighten our tax burden, not to wield more power.
If the River Road project were subject to regular property taxes, it would increase the Borough’s tax base, possibly reducing our property taxes.
But the BOE wouldn’t get any of that additional tax revenue – not unless the taxpayers voted to give it to them.
That’s exactly what the Council should do with the PILOT payments.
Instead, the Borough Council is negotiating to allocate some of the PILOT money outside normal channels and without public scrutiny or consent.
That prospect doesn’t sit well with longtime Borough resident Bill Heap, a respected Planning Board member and successful businessman.
But so far, the Council seems bent on simply divvying up the taxpayers’ PILOT money in the back room and without public scrutiny.
For instance, they’re prepared to hand over some of the taxpayers’ PILOT money to the School Board.
That would be bad for Chatham Borough and for the School Board.
It would deprive the Borough of funds it needs to meet absolute necessities, like new fire apparatus.
Gifting Borough funds to the School District could leave the School Board beholden to the Council and ensnare our schools in party politics.
Our School Board shouldn’t put itself in that position. The School Board already has ways to get all the money it needs.
Even with declining enrollment, the School Board automatically gets 102% of last year’s budget, plus whatever it takes to meet certain other expenses.
With school parents making up the biggest voting block, the School Board can raise additional funds simply asking the taxpayers to vote on that by the normal, aboveboard process of referendum or second question.
Here’s how Bill Heap explained the issue at the December 12 School Board meeting, at minutes 2:27:29 and 2:50:20:
You think that simply giving PILOT payments to the Board of Ed might reduce our property taxes? No. It wouldn’t reduce our taxes at all.
The Board of Ed would get the PILOT money ON TOP of AT LEAST 102% of last year’s school budget, to which they’re entitled by law.
What’s more, at least half of any PILOT funds given to the schools would, in effect, benefit nearby Chatham Township, though it bears none of the burdens associated with the River Road project.
Bill Heap’s argument against allocating PILOT money to the Chatham schools without public consent has the support of Stewart Carr, a civic-minded, longtime Township resident and registered municipal advisor.
Mr. Carr has urged the Board of Ed to “take the high road and not ask the municipality for extra [PILOT] money, but rather ask the taxpayers directly for that money.”
Check out this clip from the Feb 6 meeting of the BOE, at minute 1:26:31
Chathamites who are in-the-know agree that the Borough Council should not spend the PILOT money without the approval of residents:
Do you approve of the Council’s plans to divvy up the PILOT money without consulting the public?
Would you prefer that the Borough Council let us decide how to use our money – or simply use it to reduce taxes?
Don’t wait until it’s a done deal!
Come to the Borough Council meetings on Feb. 13, and Feb. 27, 2023 at 7:30 PM, Borough Hall, upper level, 54 Fairmount Avenue.
Alert: this Monday 2/27, the Borough Council will vote on a new site plan that dropped on Friday, adding a surprise third floor to the 2-story project our Council revealed in December, as shown below.
Don’t miss this chance to see and comment before it’s too late to make a difference.
Come to the Council meeting this Monday 2/27, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
At last we have some idea what the new apartment house on Bowers Lane might look like:
This is the view from the railroad embankment, alongside which there will be space for at least 17 cars. The short end of the L-shaped building runs along Bowers Lane. We have yet to see the sides that will be visible from the streets and public parking lot.This is a similar design, but with flatter dormers and a bit more trim
Here’s a glimpse of the proposed floor plan presented by Bergen County’s United Way and Z Plus architects at a public meeting conducted by Borough Planner Kendra Lelie:
Tha is the proposed floor plan for the lower level, which includes seven family apartments and a community room with a prep kitchen.
The proposed upper level has eight family apartments, including two three bedroom units.
Of course, that design is only the first step. Our Planner has promised a collaborative decision-making process known as a “charette.”
What will the place look like from Bowers Lane, or from Post Office Plaza?
Will the route along the south side of the Annex (from our public parking lot to Bowers Lane) still be a road, or only an alley?
Maybe the windows on the first floor should be a little higher so the headlights in the parking lot don’t annoy residents? Or might tall bushes suffice?
Will there be a sidewalk between the parking lot and the building?
Will the requisite electric charging station take up one of the scarce 17 parking spaces? Will non-residents be allowed to use it?
Where will the new residents park their bikes, scooters, and strollers?
Yesterday morning, after three tense public hearings, Morris County Superior Court Judge Stephan Hansbury soundly rejected the Kushners’ brazen attempt to cram an unpopular 100-rental unit project on mostly public land behind our Main Street Post Office.
That decision frees Chatham Borough to meet part of its affordable housing requirements by building a 15-unit apartment house there, as our Mayor & Council voted on May 2.
For a quick summary, watch the video of Mayor Kobylarz’s comments in this Tap story:
For details, check out the records at e-courts, culminating in this final court order finding Chatham in compliance with its affordable housing obligations through September 29, 2026:
Will the Kushners accept that outcome and let Chatham build some affordable housing at Post Office Plaza, or will they continue to sue, appeal, and otherwise try to block progress? Stay tuned here and at this FB group:
