There is a constant reference to the fear that the Developer will turn the condos into rental units. At present he can't legally do that.
From the Agreement FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE executed between the UNION COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY (SELLER) AND DORNOCH PLAINFIELD,LLC (PURCHASER) dated 4(? illegible)th day January 2007- the "7" is hand written over the "6" but not initialed-
Article 7 (a) Intended Purposes.Purchaser shall developed the property for the Intended Purposes (the Intended Purposes" or "Project"), for which the Property shall be deed-restricted. :
- (iv) The second, third,and fourth floors will contain twenty-one (21)two-bedroom condominium units on each floor , totaling sixty-three units. Each unit will have approximately 1,170 square feet of floor space. Other units will have have approximately 1,400 square feet of floor space. Some of the units will have balconies on the exterior.
Of course the agreement is with UCIA not the city, and the Agreement states that the covenants can only be changed by written agreement with the Purchaser (Dornoch) and the Seller (UCIA). This would imply that nether the City of Plainfield nor P & F Management LLC can alter the terms of the Agreement.
I hope there is a notarized copy of the Agreement on record because the copy I have has several errors. For instance the first page dates the making of the agreement on what appears to be the 4th of January 2007. yet it is signed and only one witnessed dated Dec. 21,2006.
Now that we have swept the rental question under the rug, what about the threat of chasing potential developers away? Again a bunch of balderdash (I am being polite). There have been many developers whose plans have been approved by the Planning Board since the 2006 assignment of redevelopment procurement to UCIA. The one positive is the Park Madison building which we have been told has not yet been issued a CO and is operating under a temporary these past few years. All the others have not materialized or the planers have disappeared.
The truth of the matter is that no developer is going to start any project until there is a reasonable expectation of economic success. And as Campbell remarked , once the direct connection into New York City becomes a near reality quality condo developers will appear because then there will be a market.
That brings me back to the "Tax Abatement" and getting the developer's chestnuts out of the fire. It will come up again Oct.5 at the Agenda Session at Hubbard School. As of today it is unacceptable. Before any consideration of even a markedly modified measure the following is needed;
- A true evaluation of the a workable selling price for the units.
- A realistic "common expenses". It is noteworthy that Mr, Campbell inferred that they were abnormally high . The condo owners will be responsible for 1.35 % each, the City for the Senior Center 13.96% and after the Veterans Center is deeded to the City, 14.98%. That money must come out of our tax dollars. The Center did not come for free.
- A specific time that ownership must be maintained.
- Guarantees that the unit will not be subleased. The individual condo owner will not be bound by the terms of the agreement.
- A very short term if any abatement.
- Wording so that the developer is not the recipient of the abatement.
That will take astute and dedicated political and civic leadership. Do we have and can we have it? That is the question.
I'm afraid that all of this effort to hold the elected officals in Plainfield accountable is going to go nowhere. Too many people in the town either don't care or they are held in check by the current political machine. Plainfield is doomed to remain at the static level of today probably for generations to come. The upward trend that prevailed in the town during the 90's has stalled and in fact may be regressing. Look at the plans for fixing the roads, 6 years on and now they will be looked at again. Look at the plans for improving the downtown business district, constantly being changed and updated but never being implemented. Look at what the PMUA has become, is anybody but those employed there happy. Most of all look at the caliber of those running the town, both elected and appointed. For the most part there all connected to the political machine that dominates all in the town and the slight fracture that has occurred with the 'new democrats' proved nothing more that a minor distraction to the machine. Lets be realistic and quit trying to sugar coat what is actually happening in this town, and lets not blame the State or the County or the bush administration or men from Mars, its our own doing and all the blame rests within the town.
ReplyDeleteOr, we can all vote Republican, yes I said REPUBLICAN, for mayor and assembly and stop this spiral. Once the venom is out of the city, we can start rebuilding by having people do something. The reason we go nowhere is because:
ReplyDelete1- No administrative vision or leadership
2- A council that is part time. Smart as they are, they have day jobs (most of them) and cannot spend the required time needed to straighten out the city
3- People who just don't care. I have not met one person who thinks Jerry Green is worth anything as an Assemblyman. So, how come it hasn't occurred to you yet to vote for someone else.
Vote for Pivnichny, Marks and Vastine in November. We know what we have, and it is pretty crummy. Let's see the possibilities of what others can bring.
Well Doc, it is kind of like the Plainfield Democratic Council's rule, ALL new employees MUST live in Plainfield, EXCEPT those we say do not have to.
ReplyDelete