Downtown West's Sears project gets under way

Work recently began on the renovation of the old Sears building.

 

Front Street Realty LLC has begun work on the old Plainfield Sears store at the corner of West Front Street and Central Avenue which will transform it into mixed use retail, apartments and professional offices.

Sear's retail store was located on this corner from the 1930s until it was relocated to the current Route 22 location in Watchung -- responding to the car-driven culture of the postwar era. (Is online shopping now turning these monster stores into real estate albatrosses?) The Sears store itself was built on land previously occupied by the First Baptist Church, which merged with the Park Avenue Baptist Church after a fire destroyed the Front Street building, to form First-Park Baptist Church, located at the corner of West 7th Street and Central Avenue.

The site was originally occupied by the First Baptist Church.

Parking is a complicated issue.

The plans approved by the Zoning Board this past December included a new addition on the currently vacant lot next to the building. The complex will house three retail spaces facing West Front Street, four professional office spaces facing Grove Street and a total of eight spacious apartments on the upper floors of the two buildings.

It is exciting to see this more modestly-scaled project get under way since the developer is not looking to the state for large loans or the city for tax abatements (as is the case with the Cretella projects -- which is not a knock against them, but just means they take longer to get started...and finished).

As you will see from my earlier post (here), the project does come with its rough edges -- primarily parking, in my opinion. Let's hope those are worked out positively as the process moves along.

Who knows, perhaps the city will even do something about the execrable condition of Lot 9.

A 'ghost' sign indicating 'Sears, Roebuck and Co., Retail Store'
can still be seen on the western exterior of the old Sears building.

---

• Plainfield Today"  "Plainfield Sears project will bring new life to Downtown West"

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

The Armory: Opportunity or Flim-Flam?

Opportunity...or flim-flam?

[And Jesus said to them] ...which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

-- Luke 14: 28-30 [King James Version]

Plainfielders once again are finding the Armory at the center of jostling by Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, Assemblyman Jerry Green and others, with the suggestion there is an opportunity which must be seized now ere it is lost.

The latest dust-up, in which Assemblyman Green attacks Councilor Williams as being 'clueless' (see here), centers around whether or not the City will be on the hook if it is party to the deal being proposed by READS. Green claims Williams is misinforming the public, but avoids the crucial question: If READS is an economically viable operation, why does it have to 'partner' with the City at all?

Assemblyman Green was pursuing an Armory project when Al McWilliams was mayor and it was fraught then (as it is still) with questions concerning a fair price, and the cost of remediating and renovating the building for another use (I reviewed the history and issues with the building in 2008, see here).

Back in the late 1990s, when I was part of the AT&T-funded New Audiences for Plainfield project, a cultural inventory, assessment and plan were developed for the community under the leadership of consultant Andrea Olin-Gomes. That project included an assessment of the Armory as a potential cultural facility. At that time, Ms. Olin-Gomes felt it had enormous cost disadvantages (estimating $3-5 million 1996 dollars to bring it up to snuff) as well as nearly incurable site liabilities (limited parking and being in a residential neighborhood) which made it compare poorly against a venue such as the Strand Theater.

Mayor Robinson-Briggs has offered nothing but 'gush' about the building's usability as either a charter school or a cultural facility, and certainly has not convened a task force to judge the merits of the idea.

Assemblyman Green also seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In January, he and the Mayor were both were cited in a Courier article as advocating for the combined charter school/cultural facility use (see here). I challenged it at the time (see here) as harebrained on several grounds: the notion that it would be 'cost-free to the taxpayers', and with questions about both the proposed developer and the charter school.

At the Plainfield Democratic City Committee meeting on March 11, Assemblyman Green completely reversed himself. After giving Mayor Robinson-Briggs the floor, which she took as an opportunity to plump for the Armory project, Chairman Green then quietly slipped her the shiv, saying that he had spoken with Council President McWilliams and had been assured the Council was not in favor of any CITY INVOLVEMENT in an Armory project and that he was not pushing for the Mayor's proposal (see my post here).

Bernice Paglia, writing at Plaintalker II has weighed in two days in a row on the matter (see here, and here). Bernice cites chapter and verse about why it is wise to proceed with caution and with full public disclosure.

Tony Rucker also writes about the Armory project today (see here), urging its use as a 'resource for the community'. Unfortunately, he is long on froth and short on critical analysis -- in addition to totally avoiding the 'little stuff' of the hard issue of costs and being fiscally responsible.

Meanwhile, the unnamed charter school (it is actually the Barack Obama Green Charter High School) is not waiting on the kindness of all these strangers -- it has negotiated a lease of the District's Lincoln School property on Berckman Street for an eyepopping rate better than any other charter school in the city (see my post here).

As for Jerry, Sharon and Tony Rucker, I'm sorry but I'm siding with Jesus.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Update on Dornoch/Monarch issues

News of the Plainfield Senior Center/Monarch condos developer Glen Fishman's woes in Rahway (see here and here), led me to check up on outstanding issues with the project at 400 East Front Street.

Fishman, who is reckoned to have invested $9 million in buying up numerous downtown Rahway properties, made an unusual appearance at Rahway's redevelopment agency's January 5th meeting.

He took the opportunity to update them on his Rahway projects and the news was mixed (renting his retail spaces) to bad (the Savoy development). One item that caught my eye was his reported statement that 'condos can't be built when they're selling for $150,000 a unit' -- which I was arguing was a more likely market-rate figure for Plainfield's Monarch units nearly two years ago.

This past December, I went over the outstanding issues (see here): a parking plan, the 'roof garden', the Veteran's Center and the rooftop solar panels.

Aerial view, December 2010. Neither solar panels nor rooftop landscaping.

As of today, though the City has halted towing of cars from the covered parking area, a parking plan has not been worked out with the Planning Board.

The 'roof garden' seems to be the subject of a 'bait-and-switch' maneuver by Fishman/Dornoch/P&F Management.

It seems that despite the promotion to the Planning Board and the community, the actual construction of the roof deck will not permit the weight loads needed for the originally proposed landscaping. The resolution has been for Fishman/Dornoch/P&F Management to propose seasonal planters and outdoor furniture, which is to be stored in the Senior Center basement (presuming the Director agrees?). Can you say 'tacky'?

The Veteran's Center would require an agreement to cancel or void a provision of the developer's agreement that provides the space is to remain a sales space for the condos until the units are sold off. Despite the efforts of local real estate powerhouses ERA Reed Realty and Sleepy Hollow Realtors, fewer than one third of the units have been sold and closed and an even smaller percentage is actually occupied (leading one to conclude there are speculators buying units for rental).

Lastly, the rooftop solar panels (see Section 7. (a)(viii)).

From the developer's agreement, the solar panel section.

The Robinson-Briggs administration simply ignores any discussion of this provision in the developer's agreement.

What's with that?

Has Fishman/Dornoch/P&F begged off? If so, to whom? The Planning Board? The Robinson-Briggs administration? To Ms. DeFilippo and the Union County Improvement Authority?

As usual, we are still left with unresolved questions.

---

• Rahway Rising --
• "Dornoch 'dead in the water' on The Savoy"
• "Dornoch updates agency on retail properties"
  
• Plainfield Today: "Senior Center: More on developer's to-do list" | All coverage here.
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Plainfield Sears project will bring new life to Downtown West

The proposal is for mixed-use development at West Front and Grove Streets.

A proposal to develop the old Plainfield Sears store into mixed use retail, apartments professional offices advanced with the Zoning Board of Adjustment's blessing last night -- with conditions, of course.

With a new addition on the currently vacant lot next to the building at the corner of West Front and  Grove Streets, the newly configured complex will house three retail spaces facing West Front Street, four professional office spaces facing Grove Street and a total of eight spacious apartments on the upper floors of the two buildings.

Coming back to the board with substantial changes to the design of the project, Front Street Realty LLC, the developer was able to make several improvements that at the same time eliminated variances previously requested, not the least significant of which were reconfiguring parking to avoid a side yard variance and widening the driveway to avoid another variance request.

Board chairperson Scott Belin seemed puzzled at the planning expert's insistence that the 1,200 square foot 'units' were small. When Belin asked if the square footage wasn't really rather large for 'an apartment', he got pushback that on the contrary they were small for 'units'.

Eventually, this semantic quibble kind of petered out, with Belin (and myself -- having once lived in a 700 square foot Brooklyn apartment) holding out for his interpretation that the spaces were really quite large, considering.

The project, coming as it does while the City Council has begun but not yet completed an ordinance rezoning the area from R-5 (one- and two-family residences) to MU (mixed use retail and residential), put the proceedings into a kind of Catch-22 scenario.

For instance, the project simply wouldn't qualify in an R-5 zone, so everyone is proceeding on the basis of the zoning change. Right. Then talk turns to storefront signage, for which the current R-5 has no regulation. But the expected new MU does. However, we are not there yet. Well, we will be, so let's talk about it. The developer wants to put the signage in line with a horizontal band across the new construction above the first floor shop windows that will match up with an existing band across the front of the former Sears store. But it will be higher than the regulations under the MU zoning change will allow. Variance needed? Hmmm.

Aside from this minor hiccup, everything proceeded smoothly despite the zoning gear shift under way.

PARKING A MULTI-FACETED ISSUE

Parking is a complex, multi-faceted issue -- both for this project and others being considered in the vicinity of the city's Lot 9.

According to Planning Director Bill Nierstedt last night, 42 parking spaces are needed for the project.

Nine on-site spaces for tenants of the apartment units are provided for in the plans.

The discussion then shifted to the city-owned Lot 9 cater-cornered from the Sears building.

Talk was of ten permit spaces being 'bought' for the needs of the retail shops' employees.

And the remainder was discussed as being metered spaces for use of the customers and clients of the retail shops and the professional offices.

All this seemed a little vague to me, and I think there needs to be some concentrated study on the matter of parking -- especially given interest in the general area.

Here are some caveats --

• On-street parking --
  
• Someone needs to come downtown during business hours and see what the REAL conditions are;
• Front Street spaces are taken up all day long;
• No parking is allowed on the West side of Grove Street along the building
  
  
• Lot 9 parking
• Meters: The only metered spaces I am aware of are in the portion of the lot outside the Pueblo Viejo bar;
• Permit parking: signage in Lot 9 is a little vague, to say the least;
• Stores facing Front Street regularly use the space immediately behind their premises and loading zones and for employee parking;
• A church near the 2nd Street end of the lot uses quite a few spaces several nights per week as well as on weekends;
• Residents in area apartments use the lot overnight for parking their vehicles;
• Weekend nights, crowds from Pueblo Viejo and El Palacio pack the lot to its limit, as DPW superintendent John Louise testified in the recent budget hearings.

Then there is the matter of the CONDITION of the lot itself. The city should be embarrassed to even think of charging permit fees for parking there, considering the general condition after a long period of neglect (decades?).

There are potholes; the portion of the lot alongside Pueblo Viejo is so rutted one's fillings can be jarred loose driving through it. In addition, it floods during heavy rains owing to faulty stormwater drainage provisions.

Successfully implementing any arrangement agreed upon with this developer (or others) should require the City to come up with a plan for improving the condition, marking, signage and meters for the entirety of Lot 9. As well as provision to enforce regulations on the newly monitored uses.

Given the interest expressed in the area by others -- a church at West 2nd and Central and a proposal for condos between Madison Avenue and the rear of Lot 9 -- the Robinson-Briggs administration would be well-advised to keep tabs on what is being offered/allowed for new area uses and what the City needs to do to meet some level of decent provision of parking that would justify demanding permit fees or meter coins.

Lastly, my only gridge -- and it has to do with the way the developer's team talked about building rather than the project itself.

All night, the board and the public had to hear talk of 'this light industrial building' and how it's (now-abandoned) current use as a 'light industrial building' did not fit the character of the neighborhood, etc., etc.

I got a headache.

When the public was allowed to comment, I offered that in fact the 'light industrial' use was an aberration in the scheme of things and that the building was originally designed and built as Sears, Roebuck & Co.'s Plainfield retail store, a use to which the building was put for decades before Sears built its spanking new monster store on Route 22 in Watchung some 50-or-so years ago. (In fact, a 'ghost' image of a 1930s advertising sign saying 'Sears, Roebuck & Co., Retail Store' can still be seen from Front Street on the building's west-facing wall.)

The Sears store was built on the site of First Baptist Church after it burned down.

(The Sears retail store itself was built on the premises of the First Baptist Church, which moved after burning down and merged with the former Park Avenue Baptist Church which had been at the corner of Park and Prospect Avenues to form the current First-Park Baptist Church at West 7th and Central Avenue.)

My PR bones were crying out that a far better tale to tell than REPURPOSING a 'light industrial' building was the one of RESTORING a Plainfield landmark to an earlier and prouder use, more becoming to the needs of today's Downtown West's burgeoning retail activity.

After I vented, board member Liz Urquhart said she had brought the Sears connection up at an earlier meeting, and chairperson Belin recalled being taken to the store as a youngster.

After board members each offered their opinions on the project, a unanimous vote was given to move it forward.

In times as economically perilous as these, I am cheered by an investor coming forward with a relatively modest project which he is prepared to undertake immediately and which will definitely architecturally enhance the neighborhood, add value to its retail experience (the anchor tenant will be a pharmacy), and bring more people into the Downtown West shopping area.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

On to the ground-breaking!

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Muhlenberg developer not on Planning Board agenda tonight

Solaris would like to sell off the Muhlenberg Hospital site.

Despite laying the ground for a presentation by a proposed developer of the Muhlenberg campus property at its October 21st meeting (see here), the developer will NOT appear before the Planning Board tonight, I am told.

Chairperson Ken Robertson and board member Ron Scott Bey had filled in other Planning Board members at the October meeting on informal talks between the developer's team, city staff and themselves, suggesting that the Board set aside time (I think I recall Mr. Scott Bey saying 'fifteen minutes') at its December 2nd meeting (tonight).

It was emphasized at the time that talks were in a very preliminary state, and that there was no letter of intent between the developer and Solaris Health System, owner of the former Muhlenberg Hospital site, a condition Mayor Robinson-Briggs (or at least her advisors) wanted before publicly moving ahead with any talks.

Is this a sputtering start, or just another balloon out of which the air has been let?**

Only time will tell.


**You do remember what Winston Churchill said about ending a sentence with a preposition, don't you?

---

• Plainfield Today:  "Developer interested in Muhlenberg will present to Planning Board"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Developer interested in Muhlenberg will present to Planning Board

A developer is interested in the 14-acre Muhlenberg campus.

Between mid-afternoon yesterday and last night's Plainfield Planning Board meeting, there was a change in the agenda: the addition of a discussion of Muhlenberg under 'new business'.

Chairman Ken Robertson and board member Ron Scott Bey filled in other Planning Board members on a meeting last week between the developer's team, city staff and themselves.

Lacking a formal letter of intent from Solaris declaring an interest in selling the shuttered acute-care hospital, Robertson emphasized that the discussions are in a very preliminary stage.

The mayor's hesitancy to move forward without such a formal indication of interest is uncharacteristically wise of the Robinson-Briggs administration, given that a mishandling of Muhlenberg could be a political third rail for the mayor and her mentor, Assemblyman Jerry Green.

According to Robertson, 'everything is on the table' from the developer's point of view -- including possible use as an assisted care facility with a nursing home component, residential apartments, a wellness center and/or an adult daycare center. These were given just as examples of the range of possibilities on the table, and Robertson noted the developer was also exploring whether the Summit Medical Group would be interested in using part of the facility.

Board member Ron Scott Bey outlined three concerns he saw for any proposed development --

• Apartments -- fewer would be better;
  
  
• A medical model should be used everywhere possible; and
  
  
• Parking issues would need to be addressed

Board attorney Michele Donato opined that given the size and complexity of the project -- the Muhlenberg campus is about 14 acres -- it would be better if there were to be a project if it were overseen by the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

There was agreement among Board members to invite the putative developer and his team to make a 30-minute presentation at the Board's December 2 meeting.

Scott Bey was emphatic that the group be told to have their act together and to keep it to the time allotted.

Chairman Robertson also noted there would be a necessity of a meeting for the public to weigh in at a later date.

The fate of the Muhlenberg campus is a danger zone for elected officials, since there is widespread feeling in Plainfield and the surrounding communities that they more or less accepted the hospital's closure as a fait accompli back in 2008.

Muhlenberg's closure meant the loss of jobs for many unskilled and low-level employees among its 1,100 employees; many of these have been unable to find full-time or equivalent employment ever since.

Among the issues that will have to be addressed, should the process be moved forward with a formal letter of intent from Solaris, would be the fate of the Satellite Emergency Department (SED), responsibility for which Solaris is only committed to into 2013.

Other concerns the community has raised with Solaris in the past include the matter of an ambulance for the community and whether it should be supplied to the Plainfield Rescue Squad in some sort of arrangement, as well as the fate of the Muhlenberg Foundation about which there are great anxieties that monies given for Plainfield needs should not be siphoned off by Solaris to JFK.

And I would like to add one more, now that it seems there may be a real possibility of development: Centennial Hall. I think this excellent meeting facility, which can be isolated from the main buildings, should be made permanently available to the Plainfield community as a public meeting space as part of any deal that is worked out.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

PNC property project: Parking, PILOT present problems

Parking for retail customers is one of problems development faces.

On Monday, Plainfield's City Council tabled the two resolutions dealing with Frank Cretella's proposed mixed use residential-retail development on West 2nd Street property currently owned by PNC bank.

Those were 343-10) to execute a 'global agreement' designating Cretella's Landmark Developers LLC developer for the 'North Avenue extension (PNC)' of the original redevelopment plan and 344-10) to authorize a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement for the project.

Before the items were tabled, Councilor Storch, who is Council liaison to the Planning Board, warned the Council and the Robinson-Briggs administration that UNRESOLVED PARKING ISSUES could endanger the success of the project.

Cretella is slated to appear before the Planning Board tonight for final site plan approval on the project.

PARKING

Storch pointed out that the Cretella proposal does not include enough parking for the retail establishments that will occupy the first floor facing West 2nd Street (not to mention the proposed rooftop nightclub previously discussed by Plainfield Today, see here), and that the Robinson-Briggs administration needs to resolve the outstanding PARKING issue with the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) over use by the public of the parking deck situated at West 2nd Street and Madison Avenue.

The original developer's agreement between the City and the UCIA called for public use of the deck under certain conditions -- as well as many other unresolved items, including the PILOT covering the County Office Building -- all of which I have written about extensively (see notes at end of this story).

Unfortunately for Cretella and Plainfield taxpayers, the Robinson-Briggs administration has yet -- after nearly five years -- to resolve a single outstanding issue from the punchlist with the UCIA project. The failure to resolve the PILOT issue alone has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.

PILOT

The PILOT resolution (344-10) was tabled because the Robinson-Briggs administration had failed to include 'sunset' language that would limit the entire life of the PILOT agreement to thirty years and no more, no matter how many times the property may change hands.

Despite having expressly asked for the clarified language, the Council found it had not been included in the resolution. Councilor Mapp underscored the point by noting that the new owner of 1272 Park Avenue had gotten approval for a further 30-year extension of the PILOT on that property in complete contradiction of the spirit, if not the letter, of the original PILOT agreement.

PILOT agreements are a vexing matter for municipal governing bodies throughout New Jersey. They present a 'damned if you, damned if you don't' scenario because the state requires them as a precondition for its underwriting development costs, thus tying a governing body's hands.

Should the governing body have the chutzpah to refuse the PILOT, it faces the wrath of taxpayers because projects will not go forward; unbuilt projects mean that NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER accrues to the taxpayers.

It is unfortunate that many taxpayers misunderstand the real advantages -- and disadvantages -- of PILOT agreements.

The advantage is that the ENTIRETY of the payments go to the city coffers, and in many cases those amounts can ACTUALLY EXCEED the revenue to the city if the property were paying regular taxes.

The disadvantage is that NOTHING GOES TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. In the case of age-restricted residences (such as 1272 Park Avenue), the exemption is less bothersome since there are (theoretically) NO CHILDREN using the school system.

When the project includes units that could house children using the school system (as in the Horizons project), other taxpayers are truly disadvantaged by having to pick up the share of school costs represented by those using the system but not contributing to it.

This is among other negatives of PILOT agreements as illustrated in the recent report by the NJ comptroller's office (see here, PDF).

Until the state cleans up the issues with the use of PILOTs (are you reading this, Gov. Christie!), there is little local governing bodies can do -- except, of course, to turn down development. Given the sad state of city coffers, who would contemplate that?

In the meantime, the Council -- at the prodding of Councilors Mapp and Storch -- seems intent to put a lid on the abuses by guaranteeing Plainfield's PILOT agreements will be for thirty years and no more. Period.

That is probably the best that can be hoped for.

Now, if we can just get the Robinson-Briggs administration to cooperate...

---

PLANNING BOARD

West 2nd Street Commons is on the agenda.

Tonight, 8:00 PM

City Hall Library

---

• Plainfield Today on UCIA issues --
• July 11, 2006:  "Development: Where the rubber meets the road (Parking)"
  
• October 10, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (Unresolved Issues)"
• October 11, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (The PILOT)"
• October 13, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA: 13 for the 13th (Photo Essay)"

• NJ Comptroller:  "Municipal Tax Abatements" (PDF)
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Will rooftop nightclub on PNC Bank be visible from street?

Roofline of the old United National Bank, seen from Los Faraones nightclub.

Will the nightclub be visible from the street?

That is the question that seemed to concern Historic Preservation Commission members a good deal at last week's meeting where developer Frank Cretella made a presentation on his plans for the PNC building (known to locals as the United National Bank), a property at Park Avenue and West Second Street that is in the North Avenue Historic District.

There was also talk -- somewhat less -- concerning the proposed move of the 19th-century commercial building on the bank's parking lot, which was used by UNB as its 'Community Education Center', but since has been deglamorized to a records depository.

Much of the talk concerned whether the nightclub -- which will be 12 feet in height, sited on the left edge of the roof and set back from the Park Avenue side by 37 feet -- will be visible from the street.

It's a logical question, but one that Cretella's team had not been prepared to answer with any schematics.

I took some photos, and it seems to me that it is not likely to be visible from any approach, with the possible exception of standing directly in front of Los Faraones, a nightclub occupying another of Plainfield's historic bank premises (though this one is not protected by any historic designation, and you can tell the difference). 

Here are views of the old UNB building from several perspectives about which the HPC had questions --

The existing HVAC seems to be taller than the proposed nightclub.

View of the UNB/PNC building from Al McWilliams Plaza.

The roofline from Park Avenue, near Second Street.

Directly across from the bank at the Second Street corner.

The UNB/PNC building, as seen from North Avenue at Park Avenue.

There were also questions about the view
of the bank's roof from North Avenue. And the answer is.....?

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Development: Interactive, historical maps for Plainfield area

So, OK, the headline is slightly misleading. These great interactive maps are for the whole of New Jersey, including Plainfield.

They come from a link in yesterday's NYTimes story about New Jersey's 'last million acres', which I finally got time to read last night (see here).

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last thirty years, you know that SPRAWL has been the dominant New Jersey story for years.

Even mostly-built-up Plainfield has not escaped. Literally hundreds of units of housing -- from condos and townhomes to the luxury offerings of Hovnanian off Woodland Avenue above Muhlenberg Hospital -- have risen over the past couple of decades, proving that change is everywhere, Plainfield included.

Left hand pane shows point selected, right pane shows aerial view
in slideshow of several historical photos.

Not only that, more is on the way, or at least proposed to be on the way.

Whether you are concerned about what the complete 'building out' of New Jersey may mean for our future quality of life, or if you are just curious to get a historical perspective on development in our area, you will want to check out these interactive maps.

The project (see website here) is a project of Rowan University's geospatial labs and Rutgers.

In addition to the interactive maps (here), there is a downloadable report (here, PDF) on the study.

The maps have two panes -- the left-hand map preview, and a right-hand view of the subject area with several historical aerial views.

Simply zoom in on the left hand map to the detail you are interested in and click to center the view. The right hand window will reflect the location you clicked. You can click to re-center as often as you like, and it accepts the tiniest of moves. If you are interested in an area that is 'off screen' simply drag the map when a hand shape appears in any direction you like. (It's a hybrid of Google maps and historical aerial views from Bing.)

There is also a feedback mechanism (see here) for you to offer more information, corrections, or to report problems with the data.

Map geeks, on your mark!

Go!

---

• New York Times:  "New Jersey: Down to its last million acres"
• Rowan University:  "Changing landscapes in the Garden State"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monarch condos: A reader raises issues

Monarch condo sales -- and sign -- have been whiplashed.

A Plainfield Today story from last week (see here) generated a sidebar discussion on the Monarch condo situation that is worth bringing to the fore.

One commenter's suggestion that new South Avenue development reflected a 'build it please-we-hope and they will come' mindset, it provoked a comment in defense of the Monarch project.

My suggestion that owning rather than renting was a better way to go prompted this long and thoughtful comment (perhaps from a real estate insider) which I am reprinting in full --

Dan, this is a response to your comments on the rental approach: I agree with you that when someone purchases a property he or she is making a direct investment. I would also agree that the direct investment is most likely a superior investment than a person investing indirectly through rental.

You are correct in stating the agreement was for a condo development. I think we need to consider the Monarch’s best use of the property based on the current economic reality.

Due to the size of the property (60+ units) it will be very difficult for the owners of the property to dispose of units as condos even with FHA financing because of FHA’s presale requirements which have been reduced to 51% from about 70%. As such before anyone can take possession of a unit in the property, the property owner must have contracts for 51% of the units. That can be extremely difficult in this market.

I still contend that quality rentals can be good for a community because there is a strong likelihood that the renter in a true market rate rental will ultimately become a property owner in the city eventually. Plainfield’s problems with rental properties are not necessarily due to the properties being rentals, instead the issues with rental properties in Plainfield are due to a failure of this administration and past administration to seriously enforce the code by addressing overcrowding which leads to potentially higher risks of injuries for firemen and of course a higher probability of deaths due to fires plus other increases in crime due to higher incidents of domestic violence , rapes and incest.

A true capitalist will seek the option that leads to the highest profitability at the lowest possible risk.

We need a solution to the Monarch’s issues and the party that is most likely to lose if we do not arrive at one soon is the Plainfield tax payer. The Monarch’s owners have already made a significant profit on this transaction through general contractors’ profitability, lower interest rates for construction financing through HMFA’s insurance, a non-recourse loan and of course a developer fee on each unit in the building that was probably worth about 20K per unit.

Let's take a closer look --

WHAT'S THE STATUS OF SALES?

The Tax Assessor's office tells me there are just THREE sales recorded with the County, hence subject to tax assessment. The highest sales figure is in the upper $240s. Each unit is assessed separately, based on its sales price, size and amenities; the assessment including the unit's share of the condominium's common spaces.

This is not terribly encouraging, considering the units have been offered to the public for over a year now. Whether that is just because of the weak market, because of the location on the fringes of downtown, or because there are many condo options in the same price range in other communities may never be known.

A driveby on Wednesday evening found two cars in the parking lot and lights on in two third-floor units, one facing Bank of America and the other facing the rooftop 'garden'.

Though the units are being marketed by two of Plainfield powerhouse real estate firms (ERA Reed and Sleepy Hollow Realtors), the softness of sales and time-on-market still indicates the units are overpriced for current market conditions.

But does that mean there's trouble afoot?

RENT VS. BUY: WHAT'S AT STAKE?

The reader holds that renting the remaining units is a viable option for several reasons, including difficulties in buyers obtaining loans, and the assertion that 'the renter in a true market rate rental will ultimately become a property owner in the city eventually'.

Buyers getting loan approvals has become a problem throughout the real estate market -- and not just in Plainfield. We are returning to an old-fashioned, reality-based lending market: you must have a real job with a verifiable income, a real down payment, and qualify for the loan on old-fashioned income ratios. Making the adjustment from NINJA (no income, no job or asset verification) loans to this more traditional reality will take time, but we will get there.

I do not know of any studies that show these 'quality' renters will be likely to buy in the community, or that even if they do it will be the unit which they have rented.

In fact, the experience with the Meadowbrook Village condos further down East Front Street argues against it. In that situation, the developer went belly up with only about 25% of the units sold (in the late 1980s). Subsequently, the balance became mostly rentals. The value of the owner-occupied units plunged, only recently returning to near the dollar values of the original sales (but of course those were in 1988 dollars, and these are 2010 dollars -- hardly worth the same).

Besides that, I learned from the Tax Assessor's office that many units in Meadowbrook Village have been bought by NONPROFITS and are used to house various clienteles. You know what that means -- those units have been removed from the tax rolls. Not exactly a prospect one wants to see replicated at the Monarch.

As for the reader's assertion that the problems with Plainfield rentals have to do with failing to address overcrowding (but leading to incest? Really??!!), there is some truth to that -- a topic on which I have harped from time to time.

That being said, however, there is no guarantee that allowing The Monarch to become rentals would not mean its becoming subject to the same overcrowding pressures (which are, after all, just an expression of the drive to maximize profit).

The point of The Monarch's being developed as MARKET-RATE, OWNER-OCCUPIED CONDOS was to prove that Plainfield was capable of standing on its own two feet in the condo market, competing with other communities for these attractive buyers and using this project as a wedge to leverage transit-oriented, mixed-use development that would enliven its downtown scene.

Succumbing to becoming a rental means the failure of that attempt. Another loss for Plainfield.

RENT VS. BUY: WHOSE DECISION IS IT?

In some ways, the conversation about whether The Monarch units should be rentals is beside the point, because the ultimate deciders in that regard seem to be the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) and the developer (Dornoch/P&F/Fishman).

That is a decision about which we can confidently expect NOT to be consulted.

WILL PLAINFIELD TAXPAYERS LOSE?

Will Plainfield taxpayers lose if the situation is not remedied quickly?

Yes and no, it seems.

The Senior Center appears to be the City's regardless of what happens to the developer. That could be considered a plus.

Will the tax rolls see the full benefit of the condo units coming online? Not for a while, unless a) the market improves, or b) the prices are reduced.

If it were to become a rental property -- that is with the DEVELOPER owning and renting it -- the taxpayers would have the benefit of a substantial ratable coming onstream, but there would be the conterbalancing negative that increasing tax assessments on the condos, presumed usually to increase as they turn over again and again, would be denied in favor of a one-time, lump-sum assessment.

The reader is right, though, that the developer has already made a tidy bundle off the deal -- even if it goes belly up and the lender seizes the asset (it's only recourse under a non-recourse loan).

The one point the reader fails to mention where the developer has benefited is the outright gift of the property by Mayor Robinson-Briggs to the UCIA and thence to the developer for the majestic sum of ... $1.

Maybe the taxpayers have been the losers from the beginning?

---

• Plainfield Today: "New South Avenue businesses focus of lively meeting"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Can PMUA space costs be reduced?

2006 plan KO'ed planned PMUA moves.

Plainfield resident and DumpPMUA activist Bill Kruse has a letter in today's Courier concerning the PMUA's space costs and citizen proposals for cost savings (see letter here).

The fact is that Mayor Robinson-Briggs' muddled redevelopment plans upended the PMUA's carefully crafted and implemented strategy for dealing with just these issues way back in 2006.

While it is commendable that citizens are pointing out less expensive alternatives to the PMUA (would it be of interest to know who the landlord is that is benefiting from the current arrangement?), perhaps it is time to revisit the PMUA's ORIGINAL PLANS and see whether there is anything that can be salvaged from them (for background, see my 2006 posts on the situation here, and here).

PMUA plans were completely run off the rails by the overly swift (some have even said 'illegal') creation of the East 3rd Street/Richmond Street/Cottage Place Redevelopment Area, handcrafted to suit the needs of the Capodagli Property Company of Pompton Plains (see here, with links to Bernice's prior coverage of the Capodagli application.

Could the PMUA get back on track with its strategic plan of consolidating its administrative operations in a new facility in the Cottage Place area?

Yes, but.

To ensure the viability of the PMUA's plans, the redevelopment area designation would have to be rescinded. Could it be? It's within the Council's purview to do so. Will it? The question hasn't even been addressed.

Meanwhile, should the PMUA consider buying larger quarters elsewhere and relocating?

That option ought to be on the table.

And, while we're at it, there should be a discussion about whether any new headquarters should be located downtown or elsewhere.

My personal opinion is that the City should formally adopt the attitude that attracting workers to the downtown area is a positive goal and work to help the PMUA secure adequate facilities downtown.

---

• Courier: "PMUA needs new, cheaper offices" -- Letter, William Kruse.
  
• Plainfield Today --
• August 24, 2006: "Problems with the Cottage Place study area"
• September 27, 2006: "Westward ho! for the PMUA?"
• October 26, 2006: "Development as Russian roulette?"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Park Avenue subsidence: Reminder of unfinished UCIA checklist

Park Avenue begins to subside after UCIA fails to rebuild street.

Plainfield's Park Avenue between Front and Second Streets is sinking. Again.

The UCIA was supposed to reconstruct the street as part of the Park-Madison project which included constructing the new County office building, parking deck and retail buildings along West Front Street.

Emergency repairs had been done in the first term of the late Mayor Al McWilliams using some available funds. But it was acknowledged at the time that the repairs were temporary and not permanent, owing to the limited funds; only making Park Avenue safe to use until the street would subside again at some future point.

Where does the problem come from?

Back in the early 1960s, as part of the 'urban renewal' program that saw the shops, theaters and churches of the Park-Madison block razed, the awkward dog-leg intersections of Park Avenue and Front and Somerset Streets was reconfigured to remove the need for traffic-clogging double red lights.

At the time, the buildings were simply knocked down and the rubble bulldozed level and covered with fill. For years, the vacant lot was used primarily as a municipal parking lot. Under Mayor Harold Mitchell, the site was spiffed up with landscaping, a gazebo and benches, giving it a park-like air which lasted until the UCIA project.

All the while, the rubble on which the 'new' Park Avenue section was built continued to shift as air pockets collapsed, eventually leading to the emergency precipitating the stopgap repair measures.

This vintage photo shows the dog-leg intersection at Park and Front.

As Plainfield Today pointed out in a series of three previous stories (see links at bottom of this post), reconstruction of the roadbed by the UCIA was one of several checklist items from the Park-Madison development that remain uncompleted.

Here is the list (items that have since been completed are identified by text with a strikethrough) --

• Park Avenue Reconstruction -- Not even begun, though the City already paid for it.
• Relocation of the Park Jewelers Clock to the Plaza -- This is the famous clock from 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn'.
• Plaza Repairs (NOTE: Some have been made, but this is an ongoing problem) -- The decorative fake brick oval surrounding the center of the Plaza is ALREADY cracked in many places.
• Streetscape -- There is a dispute over the failure to plant the Liberty Elms originally specified.
• Use of the Plaza -- Who will issue permits for events on the Plaza, the City or the County?
• Parking Meters -- The City was supposed to gather revenue from meters in the parking lot; none installed.
• Parking Deck -- Citizen parking in deck on evenings, weekends is supposed to be allowed.
• Dumpsters -- Screening dumpsters from public view has not been implemented.

Of the eight items, only two (minor ones at that) have been addressed.

Also note that there are questions about whether the project is still functioning under a 'temporary' Certificate of Compliance, and whether Plainfield is getting shafted on the formulation for the annual PILOT payments.

Time for Mayor Robinson-Briggs to revisit the unresolved issues?

Yes, hopefully before a sinkhole swallows up someone driving down Park Avenue.

---

• Plainfield Today --
• October 10, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (Park-Madison)"
• October 11, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (Park-Madison: The PILOT)"
• October 13, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA: 13 for the 13th"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.