A followup on the missing legal notice in the CN, If it were to have been published in the Saturday CN or 2 calender days the Courier would have had to receive it by 4:30 PM Thursday. The same dead line would have applied to a Sunday -1 day before the meeting date-publication. To have been 2 legal days before the meeting (I don't understand how the day of the meeting can be construed as "before") the Courier would have had to receive it on Tuesday!
Is there not something odoriferous about the timing of the notice? Shades of Roselle.
As to the projects themselves. Except for proposed 2nd Street large building the others are small adaptations of commercial structures with addition floors. Non provide adequate parking spaces, the assumption being that public lots or the street will have to be used if the residents own cars.
I have questions about fire codes in multiple dwellings. There have been too many disasterous fires in the garden apartments that have been built in the last few years. The "Monarch's" construction is wood. What will prevent a fire in one condo from involving the whole building? Are the proposed buildings fire traps?
To accept the premise that these condos will be attractive to commuters who have no private transportation is the height of asininity. What area attractions, stores or restaurants, are there that would be conducive to generification, which would be the only option to maintain a workable tax base. I doubt if any moderate middle class couple would find the site attractive.
Moreover, what are the attractive tax abatements that have been granted to the developer? When the planning board and Council approved of the developer's plans where there any time constraints before his rights had to be abrogated?
Another disturbing question is the timing for this resolution. Why the urgency? Did the opportunity for the grant just become available without time for communities to produce a viable project? Or was there a missed early period for the application? Will we get answers?
There are too many unanswered and still unasked questions about the entire deal. If the Council accepts it as the only way stimulus money is going to come to Plainfield, they are defrauding Obama's concepts.
While I am questioning Plainfield's administration's motives and ethics, the lead article in Sundays Courier about a Task Force to investigate tenants complaints is amazing. The mayor is quoted as saying that the administration was unaware of any problems with the Connolly properties. Who is working at city hall? There were never any complaints that were investigated? Was there a mechanism for police officers who would serendipitously notice a violation for reporting it? If so was there ever a follow up? Mayor the buck stops on your desk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TECHNICALLY DOC, BEING THAT MONDAY WAS ALREADY A PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED AGENDA FIXING SESSION, A "SPECIAL" MEETING ISN'T EVEN NECESSARY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION.
ReplyDeleteIN MANY MUNICIPALITIES SUCH AS TRENTON, THEY MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS THEN THEY HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE RESOLUTIONS THE SAME NIGHT, THUS ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR A SEPARATE VOTING SESSION MEETING.
AS SUCH, GIVEN THAT MONDAY'S MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE AMENDED ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ADOPTED SOMETIME IN MARCH, NOTHING WOULD PROHIBIT THE CHAIR TO OFFER A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION.
ALSO, NOTHING IN THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW CITED IN N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 ELIMINATES SATURDAY OR SUNDAY FROM THE 48HR NOTICE. IN FACT A MEETING NEED NOT EVEN BE PUBLISHED AS LONG AS IT IS FILED WITH TWO OFFICIAL NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY AT LEAST 48HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Granted anything can be "legal" in politics. That is the rule. I question the ethics involved. If there is a reason that normal procedures were not followed, there has to be something hidden from public knowledge.
ReplyDeleteNew Jersey has a reputation for corruption in politics. Only public outrage will reduce it.
IS DROPPING THE BALL A GOOD ENOUGH MOTIVE!
ReplyDeleteTHIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IF THERE WERE MORE THAN 1 VOTING SESSION A MONTH.
Doc, (sending again--problem with computer)
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the administration would find it necessary to call a "special" meeting on this resolution? What is the rush? Regarding the timing of the meeting and the notice requirements, I agree with you that this is about the ethics of scheduling without really giving the public an opportunity to know what is going on. I think the best thing that could happen is for the council to table the item and revisit it at another time. It is irresponsible to continually rush resolutions onto an agenda to be votd on without thoughtful deliberation by the council. As I have asked in other comments, and which I will repeat here, how can our city handle the additional public safety requirements of potential renters for 180 more units? What about the additional burden on the school system? What about the lack of a hospital? Why doesn't the administration bring Corzine to Plainfield, get him to reopen Muhlenberg RMC, bring back all the jobs we lost, and then think about building more housing? Who said that Plainfield needs more housing, anyway? With the loss of the hospital, are more renters even going to be moving INTO town? What is the current vacancy rate for the already existing housing? How will more rental units help with the tax base? The administration did nothing about the current slumlord scandal at Connolly until the newspapers got hold of it, and they expect us to let them sign on to another 180 units whose potential problems they will then ignore. What renter would even want to come here? How can this council, some of whose members voted to rescind the Safe Homes Initiative passed under the McWilliams administration while Adrian Mapp was council president, even THINK about adding housing in the absence of such an ordinance? The renters who live here now must feel safe and protected first, before we think about bringing in more renters. My fear is that this project will not benefit our city. A true cost/benefit analysis is called for here, not yet another rushed, "special" meeting.
Rebecca
Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteGive it up. Adrian Mapp lost miserably. The race is over. Come back four years from now. For now, Mapp lost.
Now rather then whining, and whining, present some real solutions. Easy to whine. Seems that is what the "new" is in the New Dems. They whine. On and on.
Mapp? One mention of Mapp is whining? The focus of the comment was on the Safe Homes Initiative, not on Mapp. However, perhaps with him back on the council this ordinance can come back. It should never have been repealed except that Green and the landlords didn't like it. the point I think was about the increased tax burden and fire, police, hospital and school burden by building all these rental units. If Green has the juice he keeps saying he has, he would be able to use his influence to get the hospital reopened. Plainfield has enough apartments already. Why develop this commercial parcel of land for residential use when it came in dead last in foreclosure rates? The city clearly can't support additional residents, since the services are already poor.
ReplyDeleteThis is why majority of NJ's municipalities are booming with redevelopment and Plainfield's downtown looks like shyte! Its embarrasing!
ReplyDeleteAll we do is bicker and argue and nothing ever gets done! Rebecca, your attitude and your hair do are both played out!
Enough personal bickering. I will not publish any more anonymous personal remarks aimed at an individual, and will remove this AM those that are offensive.
ReplyDeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteUntil such time as the CLIPS page includes my Blog link (in progress), would you consider publishing the link here as a means for me to address "Jerry's Blog".
http://bovastine.wordpress.com/
I would apptreciate your help in providing a fair and balanced opportunity.
Thank You...Bo