Tuesday, July 21, 2009

WHO PAYS TAXES

Is Plainfield giving away the farm? What perks have been offered to all the so called developers who are only adding residential units and not income commercial property?

At last nights Council meeting a resolution was introduced on first reading granting P&L Management,LLC who seems to be a successor to developer "Dornoch Plainfield LLC," a 5 year tax abatement. Although the abatement is supposedly to apply only to the condos when sold,. The Tax abatement is supposedly to result in a 40% tax on the condo.

The impression received at the meeting was that the developer Dornoch was in effect given the property in exchange of including a Senior Center. Since the building has not yet received a Certificate of Occupancy , it is not considered a taxable asset.

When asked when it would be taxable as a building if the CO is delayed the opinion was that would be up to the tax assessor. That seems to be place an enormous amount of power in the hands of a manciple employee.

Also no one has opined as to the status Of The Senior Citizens Center. Can it be occupied if the Building itself has not received its CO? Can each unit reeive an individual CO if the Building itself does not have one? Since only 8(12%) of 63 condos have been sold when will the pruchasers be able to take possession. Do their sale contracts have an out clause? If no more condos rfae sold will the propety become rentals? If so will the "owners" have on out?

One more question, are the principles of "P&F Management" different from "Dornoch Plainfield, LLC.Is the change a real transfer or bookkeeping shenanigans?

The other action was an Resolution authorizing payments in lieu of taxes for the Cederbrook Apartments- a Senior Citizens supoposedly rent restricted, and directing the mayor and city clerk to execute a pilot agreement!

In 1976 when the building was opened a 47 years Pilot agreement was permitted to expire in 2023, the new one would expire in 2039 or an additional 16 years of not sharing the tax burden.

Are we permitting fly by night entrpreneurs to make money at the house owners expense.

Administration last week cancelled a special meeting which would have given anothe devloper $15 million for his project. Is there a pattern?

I find it hard to buy that all of this is for the good of Plainfield.


The other interesting non action was the Administration's request to withdraw Councilmatic Resolution 302-09 regarding the employment of James Mangin as CFO. No reason was given but h e had not met with the Council. Or has there been some other development? We certainly miss the presence of a financial officer. Per haps Mr. Mapp would be interested.

Missing from the meeting besides CN reporter Mark Spivey, was City Administrator Dashields leaving Corporation Counsel as the only Administrative Repreaentives.

6 comments:

  1. there will be a tax revolt in Plainfield if this sort of tax abatement favoritism by Burney and the mayor is allowed to be done for their pay to play developer and the UCIA. I pay my full share of taxes every year and they're trying to give a break to condo buyers with the threat that the building may become rentals? That's illegal. They SWORE that the building wouldn't become rentals. Since there is no commercial taxable property attached to this project, the only taxes we can get will come from taxpayers who buy the condos. My neighbors and I will be expecting the same abatement as anyone who buys one of these. What about buyers who buy condos in a different area? It sounds like there will be a major tax revolt. When I bought my house I didn't see a tax abatement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to play politics, Doc, but it is very interesting that in 2007 Jerry Green made hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling a property to the Union County Improvement Authority headed by Charlotte Defilippo for a development on St. Georges Ave. in Linden that ended up not happening. In Plainfield, the mayor and city council sold this building for $1 to the developer and the development authority is the UCIA. In just a few short months since the condos went for sale, they are now trying to give tax abatements to potential buyers. Given how long it takes to sell a property in this current climate, it doesn't make sense to think of this option yet. Burney and his wife own a real estate firm. Do they tell the homeowners they represent after 3 months of having the house on the market to consider renting? Of course not!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Before anyone thinks that there has been a real change in ownership of the Monarch Glen Fishman is the principle for Dornach and P&F Management LLC. `It would be speculative to consider taht the "ownership" change in the property could be for financial or legal reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that the administration, led by Mayor Robinson-Briggs, Administrator Dashield and Council Presidents all, as well as their should-have-known-better-because-he's-in-the-business ally Assemblyman Green, were all outmaneuvered by Glen Fishman, the developer of the Monarch property.

    First, he gets the property for $1.00 with the promise of a senior center. So far, not so bad, but since Green and Briggs, who are so easy to read, need those senior voters to retain their control, the center permanently commits them to supporting the Monarch project, lest it remain unfinished and therefore has no center. Advantage Fishman.

    If you've seen the endlessly looped stills of the senior center construction that run on Ch 74, you'll know that "Commitment Made, Commitment Defaulted On", would be a poor campaign slogan for Green and Briggs.

    Second, Fishman reads further, and sees in the council, and in the vocal citizenry, a fear of more rental units downtown (although I'm not really sure why, since even as rentals they would not be cheap) which leads to him asking for a buyer subsidy, to be paid for by the taxpayers, for the hard-to-sell condos. Check.

    I would be very surprised if Fishman does not have an endgame planned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The people of Plainfield had a choice. They once again voted for the incompetence and corruption of the Robinson-Briggs administration. I pray that the people of Plainfield wake up and get it. This proposal is an insult to all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do you know how each counciler individually voted? Did any of them vote against the abatement proposal?

    ReplyDelete