Township of Maplewood Considering Purchase of Parking Lot Behind Arturo's/Village Coffee

So Maplewood will potentially spend 2/3 of the net proceeds from the P.O. sale to purchase the parking area behind the Arturo's/Village Coffee buildings.  

I'm guessing this is related to the sewer line which still needs to be built for the developer of the P.O.

http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/index.aspx?nid=611

This was discussed at last evening's TC meeting.  The advantage of purchasing the property presently leased by the town from the various landowners is that the cost over time of purchase as opposed to leasing is apt to result in a long term cost saving and the town will be less susceptible to landowners not wanting to continue the lease arrangement and/or demanding a significant increase in cost for renewing existing leases.  The proposal needs further consideration but could be a win for the town. 

I'd love to see actual numbers from the Township rather than qualitative arguments.

yahooyahoo said:

I'd love to see actual numbers from the Township rather than qualitative arguments.

Ask for them.

I can almost guarantee they have not done the proper financial analysis for purchasing these lots.

Town just sent out an e-mail blast with the numbers.  Check out the town website for a copy of the appraisal information.

joan_crystal said:

Town just sent out an e-mail blast with the numbers.  

I expected this since the numbers should be pretty simple in this case.

If you have time to read the 70-page report and can summarize it in an objective post here that would be great.

Actually, yahooyahoo (Mr. Yahoo?  I'm not sure we're on a first-name basis) it's there in the link you posted.  Did you look at the report and decide it's inadequate?

#genuinelycurious

The numbers are simply appraised values of the lots they want to purchase. The 70 page report is there to support the appraisals.  That is all.

There is no financial analysis to support why Maplewood should do this.

joan_crystal said:

Town just sent out an e-mail blast with the numbers.  Check out the town website for a copy of the appraisal information.

True enough.  We would need to see what the annual cost would be from the bond if the town purchases the land, consider the length of the bond, and compare that against the annual cost of leasing (which we can assume likely will go up over time).  If the annual cost of the bond is not a multiple of what we pay to lease and/or if the purchase would pay for itself over a reasonable period of time, I agree with Joan that this could be a long-term win for the town.  I would expect that all of these figures will be presented before anything is finalized. 

I'll also add that I personally prefer to see the town buying land than selling it, but that's only partially relevant to this discussion.

yahooyahoo said:

The numbers are simply appraised values of the lots they want to purchase. 

There is no financial analysis to support why Maplewood should do this.

Would we then charge rent to the stores in the Village that use that for parking? Are those stores currently paying for that? Or is this just a big transfer of value to private parties? Where is the contact for the sewer lease?

tomdevon said:

True enough.  We would need to see what the annual cost would be from the bond if the town purchases the land, consider the length of the bond, and compare that against the annual cost of leasing (which we can assume likely will go up over time).  If the annual cost of the bond is not a multiple of what we pay to lease and/or if the purchase would pay for itself over a reasonable period of time, I agree with Joan that this could be a long-term win for the town.  I would expect that all of these figures will be presented before anything is finalized. 

I'll also add that I personally prefer to see the town buying land than selling it, but that's only partially relevant to this discussion.

Agreed.

RobinM2 said:

Would we then charge rent to the stores in the Village that use that for parking? Are those stores currently paying for that? Or is this just a big transfer of value to private parties? Where is the contact for the sewer lease?

Not understanding the "transfer to private parties" bit... this would be a transfer from private to public.

The Town currently leases the parking lot from the building owners.  The Town would purchase partial lots (only the portion that is parking) from the building owners.

I don't know if the businesses would need to compensate the Town once it owned the lots.

RobinM2 said:

Would we then charge rent to the stores in the Village that use that for parking? Are those stores currently paying for that? Or is this just a big transfer of value to private parties? Where is the contact for the sewer lease?

The town doesn't charge merchants for other municipal parking in the village area, so I don't see why they would do so for this lot.  

sac said:

The town doesn't charge merchants for other municipal parking in the village area, so I don't see why they would do so for this lot.  

This contemplates spending our money to provide parking for private businesses.  I do not want them to spend my tax dollars to help private businesses make money. Should we buy the parking lots next to the Burger King or the liquor store? No, of course not.  Sure we have some Muncipal lots around town, but this is a privately owned lot that is currently available for patrons to park and shop in the stores.  Why should we buy it when it is already available for parking? If there was a lot that is not currently used for parking, and buying it, would open more parking spots, maybe,  but this doesn't do that.  There is no net benefit to us for this transaction unless we charge the stores a fee to continue using the lot for parking.  It isn't our problem if the stores lack parking. Providing parking for your customers is the responsibility of a business.  This is just common sense or am I missing something?

I am pretty sure that the merchant allowed parking spots require paid permits.

RobinM2 said:

sac said:

The town doesn't charge merchants for other municipal parking in the village area, so I don't see why they would do so for this lot.  

This contemplates spending our money to provide parking for private businesses.  I do not want them to spend my tax dollars to help private businesses make money. Should we buy the parking lots next to the Burger King or the liquor store? No, of course not.  Sure we have some Muncipal lots around town, but this is a privately owned lot that is currently available for patrons to park and shop in the stores.  Why should we buy it when it is already available for parking? If there was a lot that is not currently used for parking, and buying it, would open more parking spots, maybe,  but this doesn't do that.  There is no net benefit to us for this transaction unless we charge the stores a fee to continue using the lot for parking.  It isn't our problem if the stores lack parking. Providing parking for your customers is the responsibility of a business.  This is just common sense or am I missing something?

The town currently leases the lots from the buildings so your tax dollars are already being used to provide the community , businesses and residents and those that spend their money in our town with free parking.  Owning the land seems preferable if financially it is viable.

Parking is not restricted to customers of the businesses behind which the spaces are located, unlike the Bank of America parking lot. This is public parking. It appears that the land is actually owned by the building owners and assume that at some point in the past the Township decided to lease the land to provide for general public parking.

The issue as with any individual regarding housing or even an automobile is whether it makes economic sense to buy rather than lease.

LOST said:

Parking is not restricted to customers of the businesses behind which the spaces are located, unlike the Bank of America parking lot. This is public parking. It appears that the land is actually owned by the building owners and assume that at some point in the past the Township decided to lease the land to provide for general public parking.

The issue as with any individual regarding housing or even an automobile is whether it makes economic sense to buy rather than lease.

Yes, lost said it better.  

mod said:

RobinM2 said:

sac said:

The town doesn't charge merchants for other municipal parking in the village area, so I don't see why they would do so for this lot.  

This contemplates spending our money to provide parking for private businesses.  I do not want them to spend my tax dollars to help private businesses make money. Should we buy the parking lots next to the Burger King or the liquor store? No, of course not.  Sure we have some Muncipal lots around town, but this is a privately owned lot that is currently available for patrons to park and shop in the stores.  Why should we buy it when it is already available for parking? If there was a lot that is not currently used for parking, and buying it, would open more parking spots, maybe,  but this doesn't do that.  There is no net benefit to us for this transaction unless we charge the stores a fee to continue using the lot for parking.  It isn't our problem if the stores lack parking. Providing parking for your customers is the responsibility of a business.  This is just common sense or am I missing something?

The town currently leases the lots from the buildings so your tax dollars are already being used to provide the community , businesses and residents and those that spend their money in our town with free parking.  Owning the land seems preferable if financially it is viable.

Exactly.

mod said:

LOST said:

Parking is not restricted to customers of the businesses behind which the spaces are located, unlike the Bank of America parking lot. This is public parking. It appears that the land is actually owned by the building owners and assume that at some point in the past the Township decided to lease the land to provide for general public parking.

The issue as with any individual regarding housing or even an automobile is whether it makes economic sense to buy rather than lease.

Yes, lost said it better.  

That, too.

So we spend 400K for the church building plus what- 250K to renovate it?  By the time that's paid for there is almost no profit from the PO.  We end up flipping the solid masonry building in a "premier location" (quoting Mr. Minno) in town for a little stick built building with less than 25% of the square footage of the PO.  Please explain this to me.

The income from the USPS was higher per year than the net gain from the sale. (and leasign the buidlign woudl have brought in more income than the development will)

And why do we need this church building?  What is the purpose? We already have the WC which is under-utilized and in need of lots of upgrades and renovation.  We shall we spend out money first?

Add to all of this 650K to purchase parking lots?  For the benefit of a developer to put through an 8" sewer pipe....that's where this all started.  Eminent Domain for the benefit of a private party?  Not so kosher.

And what are our taxes these days?...Someone has to pay for these bonds...you and me.

Is our mayor merely land banking in town?  What are the real long term goals for these lots?  More Transit Village?  It's time to put the cards on the table.  

This is the same pattern from the same people who flipped the Police station for the WC.  and the WC is drowning in renovation costs...2M slated with only about 55K per year income- a real success (not).  Should these people be allowed to do this all over again with this track record of poor judgement?

This is runaway spending when most of us are drowning in our tax bills.

Have at in and convince me that this is a good thing. Thanks.

OliveBee said:
This is runaway spending when most of us are drowning in our tax bills.

We have been leasing it for 40 years. Translation: Your tax bills have been paying for those parking spots for 40 years (without the town even owning them). Would leasing it for another 40 years be "runaway spending"? If this actually SAVES taxpayer money, would you still see it as "runaway spending"?

EricH said:

OliveBee said:
This is runaway spending when most of us are drowning in our tax bills.

We have been leasing it for 40 years. Translation: Your tax bills have been paying for those parking spots for 40 years (without the town even owning them). Would leasing it for another 40 years be "runaway spending"? If this actually SAVES taxpayer money, would you still see it as "runaway spending"?

While it may be true that it will save taxpayer money, I and others woudl like to see a financial analysis of this.  and while the leases of course cost us all, the expense of investing in the land is a huge investment for a town that is strapped and has some of the highest taxes in the land.  Prove to me that this is better and will not impact my taxes, or better, will reduce my taxes in the long run, and I may be on board.

And i woudl like to knwo the long term goal...will it remain a parking lot in perpetuity?  become a parking deck? or a another crappy Transit Village building.  Is this really land banking on the part of the TC?  The taxpayers and especially the property owners are owed that long term information and some guarantee of what will be in their back yards in future.

Then there is the purchase of the little church...what?   give me a "why".

...and yet without seeing the financial analysis or knowing even the slightest bit about whether it will actually cost taxpayers money or save taxpayers money... you call it "runaway spending" and accuse the mayor of being up to no good. Hmm.

the news stories I've read sound like one of the property owners is not being all that cooperative.  given the importance of parking in the village, does the township want to be at the whim of property owners when it comes time to renew leases on the property used for parking?  I'm in favor of the township owning the land, just so we can be sure it will be available in perpetuity for public parking.

EricH said:

...and yet without seeing the financial analysis or knowing even the slightest bit about whether it will actually cost taxpayers money or save taxpayers money... you call it "runaway spending" and accuse the mayor of being up to no good. Hmm.

Asking the reasons for all of this...even if this ads up.

And while this has been announced, I know for a fact that at least one property owner (maybe 2) have not even been notified, re the sewer alone or the whole property purchase.  So they are suppose  to just read it in the paper.  Shouldn't they be the first to be properly notified?

I cannot fathom the purchase of that little church...flipped basically for the profit on the PO sale...not an equivalent exchange at all.

The mayor and his gang do not have a great track record...witness the debacle of the WC...bought for 1M, needs estimated 2M in work. income 56K per year...add that up for me to make it work please.

And go back and review the financials of the Police Station/Station House deal....

and no accusations - just questions about goals...I believe the people of Maplewood need to know the long term goals in spending their money.

So again - convince me.  Give me some good reasons for all this flippin' flipping. and give me some (Village) facts.  Financials, goals, communication. and more.

.

OliveBee said:

 

This is the same pattern from the same people who flipped the Police station for the WC.  and the WC is drowning in renovation costs...2M slated with only about 55K per year income- a real success (not).  Should these people be allowed to do this all over again with this track record of poor judgement?

Stop right there.  At the time of the Police station project the TC consisted of Mayor Fred Profeta, Ian Grodman, David Huemer, Ken Pettis, and Kathy Leventhal.  NONE of these people are currently on the TC.  

Hey wait a minute, I wonder what two of those people are up to these days?