The parking lot, which sits behind the buildings that run from Village Coffee to Arturo’s, is currently leased to the Township under a contract that ends next month and allows the property owners to receive a combined $11,000 tax abatement.
The Township has sought to buy the parking lot, which will be used for a new sewer line deemed necessary to handle the increased output from the new housing/retail project set to be constructed on the post office site this year. The new development will be a three-story building with 20 apartments and five retail shops.
“I have gotten information from six of the seven property owners,” Township Attorney Roger Desiderio told the TC at last week’s meeting. “No one has objected to the concept, their concern is that they want to make sure that that portion that they presently have behind the property is preserved.”
The TC then directed Desiderio to prepare a bond ordinance to be considered at the next TC meeting on March 1, and a public hearing on the bonding for March 15.
No exact cost for the purchase was revealed, but a recent property assessment of the land determined it was worth more than $600,000.
17 comments:
I don't think they're buying it for the sewer line. They're buying it to own it for parking. The fact that the sewer line's going to go through it is incidental.
And we already gave away a parking space/truck loading area instead of expecting the developer to provide one on site. Oh and we are chopping off a piece of Ricalton Green to do this for the developer. WTF?
And more importantly we sold our land to the developer and now are asking that developer to provide an easement to us for parking.
So now we need to buy parking? for what- for the benefit of the developer? for an 8" sewer line?
Follow all of this illogic - This is so back-assed and poor planning by the town officials. and a lack of sense in terms of finances. In the end we will have given away our land, in fact paid the developer to buy it. Again WTF?
The parking lot is already off the tax rolls. The Township has been renting it for decades, for an amount equal to the taxes on it.
Not incidental at all- this was planned long ago to capture and guarantee parking for the developer of the PO site. All intertwined with the entire convoluted enterprise, including the sewers. This propaganda is being broadcast to the public as incidental by the TC and their attorney who stated as such on the record last week...was a show IMHO. well rehearsed. See the video of the last TC meeting (very end lawyer's report) and see.
Oh and btw, the merchants and restaurateurs who are continuously affected by the broken Maplewood Ave sewer line are being left out in the cold with sewage seeping from the public sewer into their basements. This so far has not been indicated to be fixed- event tho that was the intention at the outset of this project.
I disagree with you, and I will say that your statement that the sewer isn't going to be fixed is simply not true.
Please show us how you know that so as to be so emphatic...no one in town, neither residents or merchants or restaurant owners have been informed
So why "coincidentally" has this issue arisen now after decades of no issue with anyone...and extremely cheap rent...so they want an increase?...well they should get one, especially with the reval looming...but the bonded purchase is equivalent to about 75 years of such lease payments....follow the illogic.
75 years?! I don't think so.
I thought the whole reason the building had to be demolished is because the Sewer line needed repair... Now they arent repairing the one that is there, that was the reason the RFP stated the building had to go... This doesn't make sense... So if they aren't fixing the sewer and just adding strain to it, how is that going to help the town? It's known the village has sewage issues, if the developer isn't doing the one thing it's supposed to do to fulfill the reason why the land had to be sold and then the town in turn has to spend EVEN MORE to eventually fix the sewer issues that are there now as well as the ones that will be added from the extra strain... Tell us again how this helps the town? And the original document from the assessment is from what 2 years ago? So they have been talking about it for at least 2 yeas... Strangely enough just when JMF came aboard, coincidence I think not... Stop defending this outrageous situation. Unless you have facts to prove otherwise I'm looking at what has been put out by the TC themselves and coming to this conclusion.
You are right Jerry if no interest on the bond then it will take aprox 55 years to pay of so no not 75... But depending on the interest it would be longer but I wouldn't be surprised if the way this TC committee seems to make fiscal decisions, they will probably take some hard money from JMF at something ridiculous like 25%interest so it would take more than 750,000 to pay off the note. Doesn't seem like we are making fiscally sound decisions from looking at the numbers
Nothing anyone says will persuade you, so I guess you will just have to wait and see.
Oh, and there is simply no such thing as a 55 year bond, that is just a ridiculous statement.
Yes the numbers being used are not necessarily a bond period. But if you calculate the overall cost of a bond with the interest, and try to figure out how many year's worth of leasing that could be...i.e. point of payback, it is a minimum of 65-75 years, dependent on terms of bond.
So what's the really good reason for indebting the taxpayers for this? There has been no problem with these lots in the decades of leasing from the owners. No good reason has been presented, short of it being a bonus for the developer. Why are we buying these for the developer's benefit? so he can tell his prospective retail tenants that there is plenty of guaranteed parking for their stores? Another giveaway at the citizens' expense? WTF?
So you are saying that the cost of buying it is equal to 65-75 years of lease payments? I simply cannot believe that.
Would be good to see an assessment of the anticipated finances and a comparison with long term leasing (another few decades) before we spend the money on setting up a bond and all of that, paying the professionals to do this.
Ask the people of Maplewood what the want to do. At this time, with such high taxes,,,not enough money for schools, etc., can't this wait...what's the big hurry?
Buy baby buy. Build baby build. Tax baby tax.
Hilarious...not. Are you stating that the TC wants to buy the parking lots to then build on them and collect more taxes? Buy, build, tax...?
That's quite a large scale plan you have reflected.
Runaway spending spree - this has to stop.
Post a Comment