Proposed development 479 Valley Street

FilmCarp said:

I really wish that everyone here who is talking about pilots would friend Sheena on facebook and watch her video.  It explains a lot.  One function of a PILOT is to give the town much more say in what a developer does.  I agree that they are not always appropriate, and I have no idea if this developer will apply for one, but there is more involved than people here understand, and I would butcher the explanation.  Watch the video.

I watched the video.  Sheena is a 180 degree turnaround from the previous village president, but as an officer of South Orange I expect she will have no involvement in a project in Maplewood.  Pilots tend to take money away from our shared school district and divert it to the individual township (SO or MW) that granted the pilot.  It is my opinion that there has been a sort of tit-for-tat of PILOT grants in an effort to even the field so it is that much more difficult to resist making these concessions. 

I'm also dubious of the broken-record pronouncements that all this development will not burden our school system with additional students.  There is a new normal, dynamics are changing and I don't think we can accurately predict housing patterns in the long term.  Time will of course tell.  

qrysdonnell said:

The gist of it seems to be that the PILOTs are what gives a town real leverage to negotiate significant changes with the developer. Without the PILOT developers could do whatever they want within code. So REALLY if one is the sort of person that wants a say in the project then you should be in favor of PILOTs - because without it there isn't any leverage. Pretty much every thing everyone likes to gripe about can only be controlled with the leverage that a PILOT gives. So the uptight people that complain about PILOTs should actually be in favor of them. Up is down. Inside is out. Cats and dogs living together... mass hysteria!

I am against PILOTS but do not consider myself 'uptight' as you mention.  I see them as a transfer of wealth from the public to developers.  

Sheena has been adamant that these new developments add few, if any, children to our school system.  I disagree with this assessment.  Just ask the folks in Millburn how many students are in the apartment complexes along Millburn Ave.

Red_Barchetta said:

FilmCarp said:

I really wish that everyone here who is talking about pilots would friend Sheena on facebook and watch her video.  It explains a lot.  One function of a PILOT is to give the town much more say in what a developer does.  I agree that they are not always appropriate, and I have no idea if this developer will apply for one, but there is more involved than people here understand, and I would butcher the explanation.  Watch the video.

I watched the video.  Sheena is a 180 degree turnaround from the previous village president, but as an officer of South Orange I expect she will have no involvement in a project in Maplewood.  Pilots tend to take money away from our shared school district and divert it to the individual township (SO or MW) that granted the pilot.  It is my opinion that there has been a sort of tit-for-tat of PILOT grants in an effort to even the field so it is that much more difficult to resist making these concessions. 




I'm also dubious of the broken-record pronouncements that all this development will not burden our school system with additional students.  There is a new normal, dynamics are changing and I don't think we can accurately predict housing patterns in the long term.  Time will of course tell.  

Has that part of Valley St. in Maplewood been designated an area in need of redevelopment?  Only developments in a redevelopment area can receive a 30-year PILOT. 

If not, has it been designated an area in need of rehabilitation, in which case it could receive a 5-year PILOT, but the revenues are apportioned the same as normal taxes.  

eta - If neither, it would pay normal taxes. 

Back in the day the older apartments in Millburn yahooyahoo refers to were built they actually build 3 bedroom apartments. Now (often with the carrot of a PILOT as discussed) towns try hard to limit any apartments to one bedroom, with maybe a small number of two specifically to limit the number of children.

But referring to Millburn I would hate to be a student who lives in an apartment. The awful disdain shown to them by others must be really tough to deal with.

Gilgul said:

But referring to Millburn I would hate to be a student who lives in an apartment. The awful disdain shown to them by others must be really tough to deal with.

It depends on where you were beforehand. The apartment could be a big improvement, even living with the disdain. I bet a lot of the families living there see it as a move upward.

Tom_Reingold said:

Gilgul said:

But referring to Millburn I would hate to be a student who lives in an apartment. The awful disdain shown to them by others must be really tough to deal with.

It depends on where you were beforehand. The apartment could be a big improvement, even living with the disdain. I bet a lot of the families living there see it as a move upward.

I believe gilgul was being sarcastic, Tom.

Oops. I was born with a defective joke detector.

Actually not. For instance when the district needed to be rezoned to balance capacity there was a vocal contingent who said that anyone who owned a home should not have their kids need to move schools but rather all movement should be placed upon rental complexes. And families of children who rent are far more likely to face residency complaints.

Students live in the Maplewood Plaza Condominiums across the street from CHS.

Someone asked what the issue was with apartments.  The problem is population density.  With apartments, that number goes up, even if they are childless singles or couples.  The more apartments, the more people living per square mile.  Some will walk, or take public transportation, but many will own and use cars. As someone else above mentioned, traffic is increasing yearly.  Just the other day my husband and I tried to run a quick errand.  Looking at google maps it should have taken us 20 minutes to get to the garden center, it took us 45 minutes.  As the population density increases, so does traffic, and not just during rush hour either. 

Those same people will shop close to home at least some, helping fill our empty storefronts.

No PILOT for that lot.

And Milburn is not Maplewood.  It has been documented, not just said, that the new apartments add few if any children to the student load in the district.

Some people just like to say "no"

max_weisenfeld said:

No PILOT for that lot.

And Milburn is not Maplewood.  It has been documented, not just said, that the new apartments add few if any children to the student load in the district.

Some people just like to say "no"

I'm not against new people moving here even if they do bring children.  What I oppose vehemently is using the proposition that these new developments do not bring children as a justification for granting a PILOT or any other abatement.  Noone can say who will be living in these buildings 10, 15, or 20 years from now.  If a development cannot succeed on its' own within the existing building codes and financial market, it should not get built.  

But there is no PILOT, so no justification is needed.

Are there plans posted anywhere, Max?

As far as school-aged children, I would wager there are more than 25-30 living at Maplewood plaza condos.

max_weisenfeld said:

But there is no PILOT, so no justification is needed.

@spontaneous, if you made it more walkable, at least in the dense areas, the impact on vehicular traffic wouldn't be bad, and people who previously drove might enjoy the increase in walking. Everyone benefits.

My impression of the apartments on Millburn Ave. is that the child density, if you will, is much lower than than that of the houses.   There are kids here and there but its mostly young adults and childless seniors.

Maplewood condos have a number of kids in the building (and a teacher). The building has a lot of 2 and 3 bedroom units. Many of the families with kids (but not all) are single parent families (divorced/separated) who have lived in the District for a long time and have a condo as it is less expensive than a house. Some units are rentals as the condo owner fixes up the unit and rents it out. 

The impact on the District is minimal as for most families it is owning the unit rather than renting.

Also the building was built in the 1960s/ early 1970s.

Tom_Reingold said:

@spontaneous, if you made it more walkable, at least in the dense areas, the impact on vehicular traffic wouldn't be bad, and people who previously drove might enjoy the increase in walking. Everyone benefits.

But the area isn't easily walkable, and public transportation in this area sucks unless you're commuting to work in NYC.  Even then it sucks, just not as bad as trying to get to other areas.  For example, years ago I toyed with the idea of using public transportation to commute to work.  It would have taken me over an hour and a half, and involved three separate buses. All of a sudden sitting in traffic for 45 minutes didn't seem so bad after all. 

Right now walkability and public transportation in this area is lacking, adding to the population density under current conditions will only make traffic worse. 

I agree it's not sufficiently walkable. My point is that if you made it better, it would be, well, better. It can be done, and I think it's a worthy cause. You may remember I was a bike activist in Maplewood, and I got the ball rolling with a bit of bike infrastructure. Others started things like "walking trains" to school for elementary school kids. More can be done.

I think an effort to make things more drivable would be misguided, not that you have advocated for it. As someone else -- I can't remember who -- said, adding lanes to improve traffic is like addressing obesity by loosening your belt.

The Valley corridor is actually a great place for development because the length is walkable to at least one and may two downtowns and train stations. 

Gilgul said:

The Valley corridor is actually a great place for development because the length is walkable to at least one and may two downtowns and train stations. 

There are a lot of areas that would fit that description. The worry is how much development, especially when you live right next to it. It's not NIMBY--we are used to a lot of stuff in our backyard--it's a matter of how much stuff in my backyard?

Do you live off Valley?

I live ON Valley

No. But I drive down it regularly  

Actually my biggest concern is the train. I am no longer a regular commuter but it is already over capacity and there is so much development from Maplewood east geared for train commuters. We could have a collapse from over capacity use. 

The collapse is already happening.

We ain't seen nothing yet. Just a small harbinger of what's to come if something drastic is not done. 

I keep wondering if I should sell my house now rather than in a few years like I intended. 

When I was on the BOE I asked how many students lived at the Maplewood Plaza and it was nowhere near 25-30.  The number is not even half of the lower range of this estimate. 

Maplewood Plaza had more children than most other apartments in SOMA, but there are several apartment buildings in SOMA that have 0-4 children living in them.

bets said:

Are there plans posted anywhere, Max?

As far as school-aged children, I would wager there are more than 25-30 living at Maplewood plaza condos.

max_weisenfeld said:

But there is no PILOT, so no justification is needed.