Plainfield residents will have TWO opportunities tonight to speak to the proposed tax abatement for the Monarch condos which is expected to have its second and final reading of the ordinance at the Council business meeting.
Councilor Adrian Mapp has done an invaluable service by posting City Administrator Marc Dashield's responses to residents' questions that Mapp submitted to him back in August (see here).
I have posted the Monarch condos DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT and TAX ABATEMENT IMPACT online as source documents to help you get to the bottom of the true costs to Plainfield taxpayers and the accuracy of Dashield's responses to Councilor Mapp (see here).
You may also want to check Bernice's Plaintalker for an overview of the issues involved (see here) and Olddoc's Potpourri, for his take on Dashield's 'truthiness' (see here).
Checking some of Dashield's replies to Mapp's questions makes one wonder about the competence of what passes for 'administration' at City Hall. Consider the following --
Veterans' CenterWhen Dashield first pitched the abatement idea to the Council, it was as an incentive to THE BUYERS OF THE CONDOS to ENCOURAGE SALES. In his reponses to Mapp, he now says (answering question 11) that 'the need for the abatement is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENIOR CENTER', which appears to be a classic 'bait and switch' maneuver.
Dashield responds to question 3 by saying '...the Veterans Center space is not connected to all the units being sold...'
The Developer's Agreement addresses this issue in two places: Section 7. (a) (iii) says the veterans area shall be used as a sales model until all units are sold (page 4), and Section 8. (b), which provides that upon sale of ALL the condo units, the developer shall convey 'a fee simple interest' in the Veterans Center to the City for $1 (page 8).
The plain language of the agreement seems to contradict Dashield's assertions.
Fate of the Senior Center
Does the City lose the Senior Center if the developer goes belly up? In his answer to Mapp's question 4, he seems to imply it by saying '...the failure of this project would affect service delivery to the senior community...'
Yet in the Developer's Agreement, Section 9 (b) says that 'upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Senior Citizens Center, ANY HOLDER OF A MORTGAGE OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCE OR LIEN UPON THE PROPERTY in accordance with this Agreement shall execute a WRITTEN RELEASE OF THE SENIOR CENTER in recordable form' (page 9, emphasis mine). Does this mean the Senior Center is safe, whatever happens to the developer?
Add to this the fact that EVEN IF THE ABATEMENT IS GRANTED, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN BOOSTING SALES.
Weren't we taught in school that in capitalist economies like those of the United States, prices are set by the market -- that is, what a willing, ready and able Buyer is willing to offer to a ready, willing and able Seller? Does that mean the city is proposing to abandon strict capitalist doctrine and bail out the project by getting the taxpayers to foot the bill for the developer?
Is the Seller (Dornoch/P&F/whatever) UNWILLING or UNABLE to meet the real possibility that even it's much-lowered prices are still too high for the market conditions that exist today?
In any event, the Council is facing a difficult decision tonight, upon which much hangs.
Even if the abatement is granted, is there any assurance TRUE MARKET-RATE CONDO DEVELOPMENT will take off in Plainfield?
The Administration has already let the cat out of the bag on that question by proposing that the development being considered for the PNC (United National) parking lot on West 2nd Street would be financed as AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Condos, not!
Annoying postcript: The Robinson-Briggs administration has not made any mention of the rooftop solar panels required by Section 7 (a) of the agreement (page 4). Are they there? If not, why not and what is the 'cure'?
Tonight | 8:00 PM
City Council Chambers/Courthouse
Watchung Avenue and East 4th Street
The Public may speak at beginning and end of meeting
as well as during the hearing on the tax abatement ordinance.
- Mapp: "Monarch tax abatement questions: Some answers"
- Plainfield Today: "Monarch Condo docs: Developer's Agreement; Abatement impact"
- Plaintalker: "Monarch issues continue"
- Doc's Potpourri: "Monarch status and Dashield's reply"
Posts
1 comments:
I think Dashield is misleading us. I just read what the administration said in response to the questions, and he COMPLETELY AVOIDS some of the questions! This is his new version of "I'll get back to you" I guess. This evasiveness is unconscionable. There is no way that the city council will grant this abatement. I know for a fact that Burney, Mapp, McWilliams and Storch still have a ton of questions. I don't know where Carter stands on this. The development is in her ward so I imagine she has heard an earful. It remains to be seen whether she will listen to her constituents. Reid seems to be in lockstep with the administration, and Simmons is a lame duck. He should say no. eThe tax burden will certain fall disproportionately HARDER on the 4th ward property owners, which is his ward, and part of Carter's as well. We will see if they put fairness above fealty to the mayor and Jerry Green, who both refuse to discuss why this developer deserves this.
Post a Comment