POTPOURRI RETURNS

Perhaps I should have all of my family here more frequently. I do wish they could come often since it has been at least 8 years since all where here at one time. But maybe more on this subject another time.

Coincidentally, during my hiatus the remaining two Councilor blogers posted multi page documents. All are appreciated, and I am taking this opportunity to comment on all except Counciman Mapp's. I intend to make further commentary on the developers who have projects, both active and projective, in Plainfield as well as not only my opinion but some from those who have commented on the various blogs.

To start with Council Chairman Burney's opening statement; "I will be honest. I was surprised at the strong sentiment against the abatement for the development project. A project I believe we all want to succeed." troubles me that he would seem to be so out of touch with the community to consider that only a few maverick blogers would oppose the wisdom of the City Fathers (and Mothers?).

I was also disturbed by an apparent attempt similar to JG's to place the blame on Plainfield's fiscal and economic problems upon George Bush. Possibly he should take heed of his own statement "The colossal failure of the Bush administration was how they willingly ignored (boldface mine) any information that contradicted their pre-set beliefs that Sadaam Hussain was responsible for 9-11 and that he harbored WMDs." and apply it to his own watch.

I do believe that Councilor Burney wants to do the best for our city. However, some one will have to prove to me whether bailing an entrepreneurial developer out of a bad risk benefits the people of Plainfield or the investor. "Failure is not an option" Buney quotes as a reason we must consider protecting the developer's investment. Every time we ourselves have made a business decision or an investment we have run the risk of failure and no one has even offered to bail us out. So that part of his brief is immaterial.

There is no guarantee that the investors will not turn unsold units into rentals. That is happening daily. The proposed ordinance, which may have certain legal problems, is written to an entity referred to as P & L Management LLC. Nowheres are individual condominiums specified. I would read this as written to apply to the whole building once the delayed Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Moreover until that date the Senior Center remains a figment of imagination despite the preprimary dedication ceremony.

At least Councilor's Burney's three postings generated multiple comments. For some reason Councilor Storch's seemed to have fallen upon blind eyes. His opening statement is clear and to the point: "Generally speaking Plainfield should not be categorically for or against tax abatements. Each situation should be carefully analyzed for benefits and disadvantages to Plainfield. The best tax abatement is a wise investment of taxpayer resources for current gain and increasing future benefits. The worst is an ill conceived special interest benefit that saps resources from our city. The two tax abatement proposals on the July City Council agenda are somewhere in the middle."

He is also talking about the PILOT grant to purchasers of the 33 year old Cedarbrook Senior Apartments. This is again an investor purchasing a profitable item and asking Plainfield tax payers to help him make a bigger profit. The alternative being an implied but not stated threat to not make necessary upgrades in the present units. "The tower in question is for senior citizens and with proper maintenance such an apartment building has good prospects for staying a good neighbor." (Councilor Storch's blog)

He does a very acceptable analysis of the Monarch request, and I hope that he will share what information he receives with us prior to his final action. I do appreciate his elicited thought processes.

Finally Councilwoman McWilliams, has written two interesting posts. She too seems to b e unable to come to any decision due to a lack of sufficient data. That is as it should be.

McWilliams wrote a most important line in the opening of her second post: "Plainfield’s leadership team needs to set a clear vision for economic development. We also must set policies surrounding the use of development incentives (such as tax abatements)." Until that is done there should be no abatements or commitments to any developer. We will get back to this in another posting.

McWilliams has also posted a series of items she needs information on, I hope she too will share her information with us.

I intend to;(a) present some public facts about the developer, (b) refer to previous blogs by others on this issue subsequently.