VISIONING PLAINFIELD: A landscape of hope and glory

Residents helped plan a future around Plainfield's rail line.

Plainfielders took a big step toward taking their future into their own hands at the Visioning Plainfield Charrette Saturday.

It was a perfect day: sunny and bright, with bracing air and a cerulean sky, a heavenly California-type day that puts spring in your step. And a vision of a landscape of hope and glory (once again) for Plainfield in your imagination. (See my slideshow of the event at the end of this post.)

The crowd of seventy or so, mostly Plainfield residents, business folks and planning officials, mixed easily with the NJIT grad students for whom this was also a day of excitement as part of their hands-on training.

With Darius Sollohub, NJIT's Director of Infrastructure Planning, acting as emcee, the students got the day off to a start with a great PowerPoint presentation (where the script explained the unfolding diagrams and illustrations, but was not shown on the screen -- take note, all you amateurs out there!)

Congratulations should be given to Councilors Storch and Burney, who pushed for this planning process against considerable skepticism from some of their fellow councilors and an initially hostile reaction from Mayor Robinson-Briggs' then-director of PWUD, Jennifer Wenson-Maier. I think the turnout and level of participation vindicate their leadership on this question.

Councilor Storch has posted his assessment of the charrette (see here). The complete presentation has been put on YouTube by the good folks at NJIT. You can start with the overview video (see here), and check the other sections listed in the right hand column of the page -- or visit Councilor Burney's blog where a link to each section is listed (see here).

Mayor Robinson-Briggs and Assemblyman Jerry Green were both present. Robinson-Briggs exercised her one real gift in welcoming the attendees and expressing hope for the process' outcome.

Assemblyman Green focused on the housing portion of the planning process, letting it be known that Plainfield is considered to be compliant with its affordable housing obligations, and reiterated his oft-stated theme that Section 8 housing is a big problem for Plainfield and that Section 8 must go.

After the overview presentation, punctuated with a Q&A session, participants were encouraged to join in discussing issues and opportunities for six areas identified along the Raritan Valley rail corridor from Clinton Avenue in the West to Netherwood Station and South Avenue in the East. Each area was provided with a table with aerial map, zoning overviews and tracing paper and markers to develop ideas for development opportunities.

Following a lunch break each table was given time to report on its activities to the group as a whole.

(Those who are aware the City is forbidden to supply food for events per the Memorandum of Understanding Mayor Robinson-Briggs entered into with the state on January 15 as a condition for receiving this year's extraordinary aid will be pleased to know that Assistant Economic Development Director Jacques Howard used his charms to get local businesses to donuts the refreshments, which included morning coffee and donuts and a hearty lunch from KFC.)

The afternoon concluded with a summary of the day's work and an outline of next steps (you can see the Visioning process' committee membership and proposed timeline here).

While the many transportation possibilities for the area were exciting (including a possible cross-county rail link, and an eventual one-seat ride to Manhattan), I did note that the one transportation idea that was RED-HOT when I moved to Plainfield has disappeared entirely from the vocabulary of possibilities: the extension of PATH to Plainfield.

At the time I moved here, I still worked in mid-town Manhattan and a PATH ride from Plainfield to 34th Street/Penn Station would have been a gift from heaven.

That proposal failed.

Times, hopefully, have changed.

And will change some more with a successful Visioning Plainfield study.

(NOTE: Clicking anywhere on the slide show below will open it in a separate window, where you can choose to view it FULL SCREEN for better details.)

---

• NJIT: "Plainfield Visioning Presentation: Overview" -- With links to other sections.
• Councilor Burney: "Plainfield Visioning: YouTube links"
• Councilor Storch: "Visioning Charrette a success"
• Visioning Process: "Committee membership and study timeline"
• Plainfield Today: "VISIONING Plainfield Slideshow"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

The place to be today: PLAINFIELD VISIONING Workshop

The vision for Plainfield's future is in your hands today.

The long-awaited planning process for a transit-oriented future for Plainfield development kicks off today with an all-day workshop (fancy word, charrette) beginning at 9:00 AM at Washington Community School.

On hand will be local officials (including Councilors Storch and Burney, whose brain child this project is), Rutgers and NJIT profs (who hold the consulting contract) and -- if you come -- loads of community residents and business people.

As Councilor Burney outlined at Thursday's Ward 2 town hall, this is the leading edge of a process which, if successful, will develop a plan that could be defined within the next year and adopted soon thereafter by the Council and Administration.

The only guarantee you will have of having a say in the final outcome is to take part.

Get my drift?

---

PLAINFIELD VISIONING WORKSHOP

9 AM - 3 PM Today

Washington Community School
427 Darrow Avenue
(Parking available in the Spooner Avenue lot.)

Residents and business owners are invited to join with local officials
and a team of Rutgers and NJIT faculty and students
in re-imagining Plainfield's future
with a focus on the Main and Netherwood Stations
and the Western rail corridor
FREE
Lunch provided

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

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

Council discusses troublesome South Avenue zoning changes tonight

View Larger Map

Note: Click on a colored area to see some of the proposed changes.
Mapping required giving each segment a unique name (West, Center, East),
which is not part of the zoning proposal language.

Plainfield's City Council will take up proposed zoning changes this evening, designed to designate a 'transit-oriented development' (TOD) area bracketing the Netherwood train station between South Avenue and the railroad. On the west, the zone would start with the property line bounding the City Yard (which is NOT included) and extend eastward to include the KFC property just past the point where Pacific Street enters South Avenue.

The map above is an approximation based on the official documents. Clicking on any one of the colored segments brings up a memo box with SOME of the changes the proposal will make (with the current requirements in parentheses).

Why is it troublesome?

It is troublesome because it gives the game away before it is even played.

The heart and soul of development is the negotiation of the conditions between the parties: the City and the developer.

Proposals like the one that will be discussed tonight do the community a disservice by giving up all the points on which the City could negotiate and setting the stage for developers to make even more intrusive or unpalatable stipulations ... 'or we'll walk'.

I am not opposed to 'transit-oriented development' (TOD) in principle, and this proposal actually makes much more sense than previous ones backed by the Robinson-Briggs administration which didn't meet the minimum specification in terms of distance to a train station. Who says people can't learn from experience?

(The earlier South Avenue project on the Carfaro property was denied by the zoning board; the Capodagli proposal for the currrent PMUA property on the north side of the railroad has since collapsed -- it never met the requirements for distance from a train station.)

In fact, the conditions proposed in the zoning changes might actually be (at least mostly -- I am eternally suspicious of providing insufficient parking) ones that the City would be willing to arrive at AFTER A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION WITH A DEVELOPER.

One also has to ask 'why now'?

Market conditions are not particularly conducive to mixed-use residential/commercial projects at this time. The New York Times yesterday provided an overview of a number of high-profile New Jersey development projects, including the Esperanza at Asbury Park, that have stumbled (see more here). In Cranford, the upscale TOD Cranford Crossing is having difficulty get all its units sold.

Closer to home, Dornoch's project for a combination Senior Center and condos ('they'll be just as nice as Cranford Crossing,' Assemblyman Green once told the Seniors at a meeting I attended) has ground almost to a halt -- as even Mayor Robinson-Briggs admitted. There is no sales trailer on the vacant city-owned lot the Council agreed to let Dornoch use, and all the talk now is of the units being rentals instead of sales. Just what we need, more renters and fewer taxpayers. What a comedown that would be after all the promises made by the Assemblyman and Robinson-Briggs!

If, as rumored, Commerce Bank (and its new owner, Toronto Dominion Bancorp) were to move forward in developing the G.O. Keller property at South and Leland, the question would still remain about whether and when the market for CONDOS as opposed to rentals will recover. Especially after you digest the news about mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coming out today.

Is the Administration anxious to make the zoning change now because it feels the Council may have more spine after new members take their seats next January?

Development has a lot in common with poker -- including bluffing, calling and winning the pot.

A poker player would never show you his hand.

Adopting the proposed zoning changes for a Netherwood TOD would be the equivalent of a poker player laying all their cards face up on the table.

Would you want such a player gambling with YOUR chips?

---

• City Council meets for its agenda-setting session at 7:30 tonight, City Hall Library, 515 Watchung Avenue. The public may comment. All are welcome.

-- Dan Damon

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

Dottie G. on importance of tonight's budget hearing

In an email late last evening to her Plainfield readers, activist Dottie Gutenkauf urged concerned residents and taxpayers to come out to this evening's City Council budget hearing and voice their support for full funding of the DPWUD's Planning Division.

I am reprinting the email below --

The U.S. Bill of Rights took effect on the 15th day of December in 1791. ... Many of us will exercise our rights to freedom of speech and assembly in the City Hall Library beginning at 7:30 pm on Monday, December 17, when the City Council has scheduled a special meeting which will include its public hearing on the administration's proposed budget.

The most pressing problem in the budget proposal lies in the Department of Public Works and Urban Development, where the director, Jennifer Wenson Maier, wants to lay off the part-time Principal Planner, a Plainfield resident and a certified Landscape Architect with experience and expertise in many other areas relating to planning, historic preservation, and urban development. This would be a serious blow to Plainfield, and I hope you will join me in urging the City Council to amend the proposed budget to restore that position and to provide additional professional staff for the Planning Division as well.

Ms. Wenson Maier told the Council at a recent budget meeting that she wanted many of the functions now being performed by the staffer she wants to get rid of to be done by Remington & Vernick, the South Jersey engineering firm, and that there would be no extra cost to the City--a claim I found totally absurd. She also stated that the rest of that staffer's functions would be distributed among other City employees. More recently, City administrator Mark Dashield stated both privately and publicly that none of those functions would be outsourced, with the possible exception of matters involving landscape architecture--that instead, they would be "redistributed," presumably within the PW&UD Department. Although I would very much like to take this option seriously, in my opinion it is simply not realistic. None of the divisions within PW&UD are overstaffed, and piling additional responsibilities on people with an already demanding workload will simply make matters more difficult and create unnecessary and unproductive delays.

Effective city planning requires not only competence and professionalism, but also knowledge of and dedication to the community being served. The current Planning Division staff exemplifies all of those necessary characteristics, and its workload is continuing to increase--especially now, as more areas are being considered for redevelopment. Reducing staff at the same time that the demand for services is increasing is a formula for disaster. The Planning Division's need for adequate staffing has been recognized by our Planning Board and by the Historic Preservation Commission, both of which recently went on record unanimously opposing the proposed layoff.

I agree with them completely: cutting the Planning Division staff would be absolutely the wrong decision, and it's a proposal the Council should unanimously reject for the good of our City.

I urge you to attend the Council meeting on Monday in the City Hall Library and join me in making our voices heard. I hope to see you there.

Dottie joins myself, Bernice and Maria in underscoring the importance of this meeting and of the city keeping an independent, responsive and cost-efficient planning capacity.

See you tonight at the City Hall Library, 7: 30 PM!

---

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Council needs your input Monday on Planning Division funding

Plainfielders should make no mistake about it: the Robinson-Briggs administration is out to gut the Planning Division.

Though the Council has indicated it intends to fund the Division as it stands, City Administrator Mark Dashield insisted -- as Bernice reported in the Plaintalker yesterday (see more here) -- that the administration still wants to cut staff and outsource planning responsibilities.

Citizens have a last chance to speak out against this dangerous idea at Monday evening's City Council budget hearing by voicing support for the Council's funding proposal. (The meeting is 7:30 PM, in the City Hall Library.)

The attempt by the Administration is a further extension of the warfare it has waged unabatedly since DPWUD Director Jenny Wenson Maier took up her position in January 2006.

What is at stake is having an independent, professional staff whose only interest is serving the PLANNING NEEDS AND INTERESTS of the community, its taxpayers and residents.

Planning Board member (and former city councilor) Donna Vose has written persuasively (see here) of the inability of even the best-intentioned outsourced planning consultant to understand and be responsive to the CULTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. And the danger that such ill-considered planning advice would set future agendas in stone.

I wrote in early November of two other concerns: the COSTS associated with outsourcing, and the potential for CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (read more here).

In considering costs, reflect on this: George Stevenson, the Remington & Vernick engineer foisted on the Planning Board as its 'consultant', drives up from south Jersey twice monthly for the board's meetings. On one of those trips, he stays overnight at a hotel -- courtesy of you the taxpayer -- so that he can be here for a morning top-level staff meeting.

You didn't know? And why is HE involved in top-level staff meetings? After all, he's just a consultant, right?

Which leads to my second point, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

How can the community be best served if it cannot guarantee that conflicts of interest are avoided?

Case in point: last week's Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Stevenson, the consultant, was to take the Planning Board over the reduced 'Netherwood' redevelopment plan and point out -- for the record -- all the reasons that the area qualified as 'in need of redevelopment'.

Mr. Stevenson has stubbed his toe in this department before. Repeatedly.

(This is the same consultant who prepared Paulsboro's waterfront redevelopment plan, which was overturned by the New Jersey Supreme Court with some pretty sharp language -- see more here and here.)

Evidently not wishing to leave anything to chance, the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) sent along one of its attorneys, Ed Boccher, to manage the presentation.

Mr. Boccher is much more skilled at this -- even doing a bit of 'warm and fuzzy' by dragging the late urban planning guru Jane Jacobs into the conversation. (I am not sure she would have appreciated it if she knew what the proposal was all about.)

Mr. Boccher is an agent for the UCIA, with which the city has an interlocal services agreement for redevelopment.

Since the agency and the city are in a contractual relationship and the UCIA is involved in other matters and with other principals whose interests may not coincide with those of the city of Plainfield, a potential for conflict of interest results.

Now, THERE IS A PLACE FOR OUTSOURCING -- under the CONTROL of the Planning Division. When the Planning Division, in its considered, professional opinion, feels that an outside professional hired under the direction and supervision of the Planning Division could assist the Division in executing its responsibilities faithfully, it should be free to do so. Or not, as it sees fit.

This attempt by the Administration to reduce the Planning Division's staff is just another try by the camel to get its nose under the tent.

It is the Council, the Administration has been reminded, that sets the budget. And councilors are particularly sensitive to public input as it is the public who elects them (Councilors Gibson and Davis are up for election next year).

You can help by coming out Monday evening and voicing support for the Council's intent to leave the Division fully funded.

---

• Donna Vose: "First drafts control agendas" -- Guest column in the Plaintalker.
• Plaintalker: "Council Frames Budget Cuts"
  
• Plainfield Today: "Outsourcing Planning: This Way Be Dragons"
  

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

A resident's letter to Plainfield Council and Mayor on Planning Division concerns

Olive Lynch, Plainfield resident, taxpayer, and soon-to-be innkeeper of Plainfield's newest Bed-and-Breakfast The Coriell Mansion, penned a letter to Mayor Robinson-Briggs and the City Council expressing her concerns over Jenny Wenson Maier's stewardship of the Department of Public Works and Urban Development, in particular the Planning Division.

The letter addresses the concerns in the minds of many residents. Iam reprinting the letter in its entirety below. Please feel free to add your comments and any particular incidents known to you to help focus our elected officials on this matter. (NOTE: Bracketed matter is added by me for clarification) -- Dan

---

Dear Councilmembers and Mayor Robinson-Briggs:

I believe we are facing a serious issue with the [Department of Public Works and Urban Development's] Planning [Divison].

1. I totally disagree and find it irresponsible and an unfounded recommendation to give the role of city Planner, which is currently held by a extremely well-qualified Plainfield citizen employee, to an outside consulting firm.

a. Any time you get a consultant, they bill by the hour. I'm not sure of the hourly rate of the proposed firm, but even conservatively billing at $125/hr, the math does not work in a time when the city is facing cutbacks. 20 hrs x 125/hr = 2500. 52 weeks x 2500 = 130,000. Weigh this against the current expenditure for this position of $30,000 for a 20 hour a week position. It isn't a sound fiscal decision. Let's say the consulting company only works 10/hrs a week. 10 x 125/hr = 1250 x 52 weeks = 65,000

In essence, the city would paying more for getting less.

b. The claim that the remaining tasks would be "made up" by the Planning department staff. This is, again, appears to be a misguided recommendation.

Since I have served on the zoning board of adjustment for a period of time and actively been working on my own project, I am well aware that the Planning Office is understaffed. It has been understaffed for some time, and a real credit to the professionals working in the office that they handle such an immense workload. To take someone away, then demand more from an already overloaded staff is not good planning or leadership.

c. The Planning Department is a VERY important department to the health and growth of the city of Plainfield. I, and many other citizens in Plainfield are very concerned that outside, non-resident individuals do not necessary have the same agenda as would a citizen. The fact that the Planner position is currently held by an extremely qualified individual (overqualified in fact), it seems, again, a lack of planning and judgment on the part of the administration to cut this Plainfield citizen and replace the position with an outside firm that has no investment, no "skin" in the game.

d. We need redevelopment and development in Plainfield ... but not at any cost. Ms. Wenson Maier and the developers eager to make a buck will not have to live with some of the ill-conceived redevelopment plans. I, and other citizens LIVING here in Plainfield with have to live with it. Many are concerned that the Historic Commission is being left out of the decision-making process, especially for redevelopment in historic districts.

2. My other great concern is over the state of the lights for the Park and Ninth Ave historic district project. A grant was written and funds received from a grant, for the purchase and installation of these lights. The Historic Commission approved the work with 4 historic lights. Therefore, the 4 lights must be installed. It is now my understanding that the funds for these lights was spent on something else.

If this is the case, then we have an extremely serious problem with the [Director of Public Works and Urban Development's] decision-making as well as integrity.

a. I believe it is not correct to take funds derived from a grant for a specific project and spend the money on something else. I don't know the details of the grant award, but usually the funds must be used specifically for the purpose stated in the grant. To do something else could well be illegal.

If the funds were, indeed, spent on something else ... what was the other project? Was the granting organization notified?

b. Maria Pellum repeatedly has asked about the status of the light installation from the [Director of Public Works and Urban Development] ... and has been given the run-around.

As an aside, in my own experience, I have NEVER been able to reach the [Director of Public Works and Urban Development]. One week I called 4 times a day, at different times. I was told she was always at a meeting, or out. I never received a phone call back ... ever. This to my mind, is extremely poor customer service. Other citizens have had this experience as well. At this point, anyone you ask does not have a good impression and has serious doubts about our current [Director of Public Works and Urban Development]. Many people believe for one person to be responsible for many departments, being Rahway city council head, and having a private practice ..... is a recipe for something not to be done well, serious conflict of interest, or Plainfield business dealt with as well as the citizens of Plainfield deserve. Plainfield, frankly, deserves someone who is focused solely on PLAINFIELD ... not juggling private business phone calls constantly during Plainfield business hours.

It is very disturbing that the [Director of Public Works and Urban Development] would decide to spend funds allocated for a historic district project on something else. Enhancement and preservation of our historic districts is something I believe very important to the continued growth and appeal of the city to new property buyers and businesses. Why spend the funds on something else? This does not seem consistent with the city's best interests and the desires of many citizens in Plainfield, not to mention the possible malfeasance and legal ramifications.

I personally believe the time has come to evaluate the performance of this individual in all her roles in the city. I would be very interested to know the hours she is in the office (is this tracked?), the hours she has billed in her personal business and on what days, the hours she attends [to] Rahway city business ... and bottom line ... what has she accomplished for the city during her period of hire? Is morale good in all the departments? Are things more efficient (many of us find the shuffling of offices very inefficient)? From the reports I have heard, this individual does not have good people or managerial skills. This, I believe, is critical ... especially for someone leading so many important city departments. Given all the fraud and double-dipping that has been uncovered by the state by officeholders and city/state employees, I believe we citizens need to start demanding a REAL accounting for how city funds are spent and the expected city employee performance ... including that of our administrators.

Please address these concerns right away. I plan to investigate the matter of the [street lamps] thoroughly on my own. I will be following up with each of you.

I thank for your continued hard work and concern for our great city!

Olive Lynch

PS. This email is of my authorship and expressing my individual concerns. However, I am taking the liberty to copy various citizens of Plainfield who I believe would have an interest in the discussion of these issues, your response and the issue resolution.

---

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Outsourcing Plainfield's planning: Here there be dragons

Hic sunt dracones (Here be dragons).

The subject of outsourcing planning activities -- rumored almost since the outset of the Green/Robinson-Briggs administration -- finally surfaced at this week's City Council budget hearing (see more here).

This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and there are two things to keep in mind: COST and CONFLICTS.

COST

While the Green/Robinson-Briggs administration is arguing that the city's Haddonfield-based engineering firm, Remington & Vernick, can do the work AT NO EXTRA COST, one would be a fool to believe it.

First, hours will NOT be billed at the firm's lowest rate -- you can bet on it. Second, there will be SURPRISE PADDING you won't know about until you've been zinged. For instance: Do you know that R&V's staffer assigned to the Plainfield planning process, George Stevenson, has to stay overnight on one of his two monthly schleps to Plainfield, for a meeting with Administration biggies the next morning? At a hotel? At taxpayer expense?

And then, there's the lawyers. Those hourly rates will include R&V's overhead for counsel related to their planning and engineering activities. 'Cost of doing business', you know.

Another example: Plainfield's corporation counsel work was outsourced under Mayor Mark Fury to the Wiener Lesniak firm. When Al McWilliams came into office in January, 1998, the city was involved in a messy dispute with the firm over $800,000 in billings the city was disputing. And that was only the money they were claiming, not the money they had been paid in the course of four years.

No wonder McWilliams brought the corporation counsel's work in-house, where it has remaind -- except for special expertise -- to this day.

CONFLICTS

The potential conflicts of interest with R&V working both for the city and its redevelopment agency, the Union County Improvement Authority, have already been raised elsewhere, especially by Councilor Storch back in August.

Not only are there potential conflicts, there is the potential for double-billing for the same work.

The Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority is currently coming under increasing scrutiny for planning to outsource its operations -- with a lot of arrows pointing toward questions of how the Wiener-Lesniak firm benefits.

As the old mapmakers used to say when marking out areas about which little was known: 'Hic sunt dracones' -- 'Here there be dragons'.

Except that, in Plainfield's case, we KNOW what lurks in these outlying areas.

Danger! Costs! Conflicts!

---

Previous Plainfield Today posts --

• "Storch provokes substantive discussion at Council" (8/23/2007) -- Conflicts of interest raised.
• "Gold in them thar buildings" (05/04/2007) -- Some background on Remington & Vernick.
• "McGee bombs at Council" (10/19/2006) -- The East 3rd/Richmond St. Plan.
• "Development as Russian Roulette?" (10/26/2006) -- Questions as market turns down.

-- Dan Damon

Redevelopment: Newark's Mulberry Street lesson for Plainfield

Renovated Hetfield Building is an example of improvements
made by property owners in the North Avenue Historic District.

Plainfield property owners concerned about the city's redevelopment moves will find Newark's Mulberry Street case full of interesting details.

Friday's Ledger reported on Superior Court justice Marie P. Simonelli's ruling against the city's redeveloment plan for the area --

A Superior Court judge [said] the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment.
...
In the Newark case, Judge Marie P. Simonelli said the city cannot designate the 14-acre Mulberry Street area "blighted" simply because the property could be used for better purposes. Property owners fought the designation, saying the area was still thriving and that they did not want their land to be seized through eminent domain.

"The court finds that the city declared the entire Mulberry Street area as an area in need of redevelopment solely because it is not properly utilized and fully productive," Simonelli said in her decision. "Under the Gallenthin [Paulsboro] holding, this declaration does not meet the constitutional requirement of blight and must be invalidated and set aside." [Emphasis added.]

The ruling is a setback in the plan to build 2,000 condos in downtown Newark.

The nub of Simonelli's ruling appears to be in the lack of negotiations with property owners --

Plans called for the Newark Redevelopment Corp. to negotiate with property owners for their land. If negotiations failed, the developers planned to ask the city to use its condemnation powers to seize those properties.

According to Simonelli's ruling, there is no evidence any negotiations took place.

Instead, she said, the city pursued an investigation into declaring the area in need of redevelopment, paving the way for condemnation.

In light of the Supreme Court's recent 'Paulsboro ruling' (more info here -- PDF file), those concerned with Plainfield's redevelopment plans -- the North Avenue Historic District, East 3rd /Richmond /Cottage Place, and the proposed Netherwood Area plan -- may find the City's case is shaky if it cannot prove in a court of law either that empirical evidence is cited or that good-faith negotiations were conducted with the property owners by a developer before a City declaration sets the eminent domain process in motion.

Judge Simonelli also noted the cozy relationship between the developers and elected officials --

In her decision, Simonelli leveled stinging criticism at the snug relationship between developers and officials in the city. Attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with Wishnia and Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when they were making critical decisions about the project, according to the plaintiffs.

"There is evidence in the present case that the Mulberry Street Redevelopment project and NRC's role as its developer was "a done deal," a fait accompli, before the required statutory redevelopment process began," Simonelli said.

In Plainfield, the political relationships may not be so direct as in Newark. I don't suspect that contributions have been made directly to councilor campaign accounts. It is far more likely that prospective developers have donated to those to whom Assemblyman Green is beholden for the financial assistance he got in Mayor Robinson-Briggs' mayoral campaign -- the most expensive ever in the city's history.

In that case, contributions of developers would much more likely have been made to the Union County Dems (whose chair is, coincidentally, executive director of the Union County Improvement Authority, Plainfield's designated redevelopment agency) or to George Norcross proxies in South Jersey who 'wheeled' the money to Robinson-Briggs in the first place in 2005.

---

Ledger - 7/20/2007: "Judge rules city failed to prove that Mulberry Street site is 'blighted'" -- archived here.

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Planning & Development: A Tale of Two Cities

Today's Courier carried an interesting story on how North Plainfield's leadership is planning to involve residents in the process.

I immediately thought of those 'compare-and-contrast' questions we all so hated in high school. Except this time, it is a truly enlightening exercise -- comparing the approaches of Plainfield and North Plainfield.

Like twins joined at the hip, the two communities share a boundary -- the Green Brook -- and function pretty much as an economic entity, far as I can tell.

But the way the two towns are approaching their futures strikes me as markedly different.

In the Courier piece, North Plainfield officials --

• Paint an overview of what's going on;
• Solicit public participation -- and 'court new people';
• Involve the business community.

By contrast, in Plainfield --

• Who knows there is a development forum scheduled for Wednesday evening unless they read the blogs?
• The working style is top-down and command-oriented; public participation is not really sought out;
• The business community? One reason for Wednesday's meeting is that the light manufacturing businesses -- an important element -- were left out completely in the Mayor's transit-obsessed development plans.

Will Wednesday's meeting truly be a forum where business people -- especially those who showed up at last month's Council meeting -- will get a chance to air their concerns and get some straight answers to their questions?

Or will it be another highly-scripted, Rove-ish production number, all meringue and no substance?

You might want to check it out.

---

Community Forum on Economic Development/Redevelopment

Wednesday, June 27
7 PM

Hosted by Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs

Washington Community School
427 Darrow Avenue
Parking in Spooner Avenue lot and on street

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Redevelopment victims challenge Administration

Failure to take care of 'the vision thing' kicked the Administration of Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs in the butt at Wednesday night's Council meeting.

Not having a plan to support the business community -- which after all pays a significant share of the taxes and employs thousands of Plainfielders -- was sure to catch up to the Mayor sooner or later.

Turns out to be sooner.

The issue: Redevelopment.

The victims: Business owners who see their life's work and investment threatened without any advance warning.

The culprit: The Administration's obsession with developer-driven 'transit-oriented' projects which call only for residential and retail and ignore completely the needs of the light industrial and services sector.

One speaker was incredulous that the Administration would contemplate -- as a policy -- increasing the already overwhelming share (apx 82%) of the tax receipts covered by homeowners EVEN MORE.

City Administrator Marc Dashield tried gamely to front for the Mayor -- who was absent -- by saying that she was preparing a policy statement on the proposed Netherwood area study and would make it available.

Why wasn't a policy like that suggested already worked out? Why wasn't it available at the meeting?

How is the Administration going to convey it to anyone? The Administration's public relations personnel do not send press releases to the media. These issues are not discussed in materials mailed out to residents. The website is still broken -- since October! The cable channel functions basically as the Mayor's personal MySpace site.

So how will the business owners and the public at large be told of the Mayor's policy?

Council members appeared taken aback by the intensity of the business owners' concerns. Some Councilors showed they misunderstand the issue at hand by pointing to the RETAIL component of transit-oriented development. These were not retailers.

One offered the cold comfort of ATT-speak: "Change is always unsettling" (an eerie echo of former Administrator Carlton McGee's comment when business owner Larry Thul protested the East 3rd and Richmond Street redevelopment area).

At the beginning of comments on the resolution proposing a study, Councilor Storch asked that the Council place a moratorium on "sending studies to the Planning Board after tonight."

That is certainly a good idea, and would give the Robinson-Briggs Administration time to try and get its act together. If it wants to. If it can.

---

NOTES ABOUT THE MEETING

Nancy Piwowar pointed out that the TITLES by which resolutions are summed up and identified in the agenda are non-informative at the least and misleading at the worst. Example:

R 195-07. Resolution authorizing approval of transfers between the FY2007 appropriations of the General Fund of the City of Plainfield - $208,000.00 - Comptroller

This was posted as a CONSENT item, meaning there would be no discussion on it. Councilor Storch exercised his prerogative in having it removed from the consent agenda. He then asked the Administration what the transfer was for. That was the point at which the public learned that it was to cover salaries for public information personnel whose layoffs are taking place after the date originally planned on by the Administration. Left unexplained was where the money was coming from. Is there some other area now being shortchanged by $208,000? Or is there a 'slush fund' somewhere?

Problems also arose because of people who are not accustomed to speaking at Council meetings: some failed to give their name and address before beginning, many addressed their questions to the Administration instead of the Council president, some attempted to engage in back-and-forth, and one experienced speaker abused not only the time limit, but the entire process by making an omnibus speech, which would have been appropriate at another point in the meeting, but not where it was made. Would it help to explain the rules at the beginning of the comments section -- and to enforce them?

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/

Development: The Vision Thing

Some say George H.W. Bush lost the presidency to Bill Clinton because he disdained 'the vision thing'.

Plainfield should only be so lucky.

I am very conflicted about the turn development seems to be taking in Plainfield, and it is exactly over 'the vision thing' and the fact that a lack of it doesn't seem to be slowing anything down.

No one wants to be against development, but I would wager no one really wants 'dumb' development either -- projects that erupt haphazardly, without an overarching vision or goal. Projects that doom Plainfield to the future consequences of thoughtless actions in the present.

The image that comes to mind in the present situation is those annoying 'earlybirds' who show up at house sales, running through the house, tagging everything they want 'sold' and essentially creaming the best stuff for themselves.

Plainfield's development, as it is now unfolding, is developer-driven, and it is beginning to resemble those house sale earlybirds.

It's no secret that I don't think much of giving the Dornoch crew the land on East Front Street for $1.

Or of the jerry-built 'redevelopment' area in the block at East Third and Richmond that the PMUA has targeted for its headquarters complex.

Now we have an incipient flap over condos and parking at West Second Street and Madison Avenue, and worries about the fate of the historic United National Bank building at Second and Park.

But these issues are NOT the problem, they are SYMPTOMS of the problem -- and that problem is partly that, under this Administration, we have not engaged in a REAL community-wide discussion about what kind of vision Plainfielders have of our future and how we want to proceed.

It is also that the officials of two of the three legs of the development 'stool' who are charged with guarding the community's best long-term interests -- the Council and the Planning Board -- are defenceless, with the Administration having abdicated its responsibility to govern in the larger, long-term interest of the community.

Under the banner of 'Unity in the Community', the Administration has handed off essential decision-making to others, especially the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA).

One immediate consequence?

When the Council wanted to hire Joe Mariziti, without doubt New Jersey's most respected planning and development expert, to give them the benefit of his hard-won experience and insights, the matter was quashed. Word is that the order to kill Mariziti's nomination came from King Street.

Instead, we are left with only the current consultant, whom more and more are finding disappointing to say the least.


WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

Witold Rybczynski, the architect and observer of community development, was recently interviewed on WNYC. He said there is good development and bad development, and that good development is dependent on the well-informed decisions of local policy makers -- meaning planning boards, councils, and administrations. (You can listen to the interview here.)

So, one thing to do is to equip the decision makers -- at least the City Council and the Planning Board -- with knowledge about how developers work, how and why they might be less than candid with decision makers (for instance, about the mystery of their profit margins), and how to deal with them effectively. Bringing the Administration along may have to wait until there is a new mayor, one not hobbled by enormous pay-to-play obligations.

Another thing to do is to mobilize the citizenry. A broad-based, non-partisan alliance of residents' organizations and community activists could spearhead a true grassroots drive to watch out for Plainfield's future.

I cut my teeth on Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Though one can take issue with some of her extreme positions, her emphasis on community input, the concept of 'livable districts', and the need for a creative blending of architecture, diversity and a lively street life are at the heart of successful development in cities large and small across the country.

Why not Plainfield?

---

WNYC: Interview with Witold Rybczynski: "Development and Construction"
Amazon: Jane Jacobs: "The Death and Life of Great American Cities"

-- Dan Damon

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

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/