Brett Kaiser:

The risk of students from Edison Lofts over-populating the school system has always been exaggerated by those in opposition to the project and also having no historical perspective or awareness of reality.

The largest rental property in West Orange is West Mill (across from St. Barnabas) with 750 moderate income units. There are less than 30 students enrolled in the public schools who live there.

Point in fact: Nothing impacts school populations to the degree that single-family detached housing does...and there was already more that enough of it, circa 1970, to domicile a school population that was larger than it is today.

Tom:

If you believe there are challenges along our eastern border why can't you embrace the wisdom of redefining it?

FYI...the price points forthe Edison Lofts will be higher than for comparable units at West Mill and I'm confident Prism will have no shortage of willing renters.

Tom:

What do you believe would be a suitable "buffer"...a wall and a moat?

Far more reasonable and achievable would be better maintained properties...which is just one of the things redevelopment will encourage.

DMZ, barbed wire, land mines? "Buffer". What a ridiculous notion.

Tom:

If rejuvenating a deteriorating neighborhood isn't sound public policy, what's your solution?

Concerned Citizen:

I've been hearing about "up the hill" and "down the hill" for 50 years and guess what?

The most affluent community in town (Llewellyn Park) is decidedly "down the hill."

If the suggestion is that Main Street is a lost cause, you'd be wrong.

Developer do what they have promised?
Where have you been?

Tom:

Duh...take a look at Organon and then tell me that Prism hasn't done precisely what they promised.

Does Prism have a track record with residential projects? I thought I read somewhere that it doesn't, but I can't remember where I read it.

Ryan:

Prism clearly has a track record of success; witness the Organon parcel and others detailed on their website:

http://www.prismpartners.net/index.html

It appears that the Parkway Lofts in Bloomfield is the only other residential project currently in development but, that's not to say the principles do not have residential experience and success in previous business associations, as their professional experience clearly pre-dates Prism's founding.

Alan Sanders:

My comment to Tom was in rebuttal to his suggestion that West Mill (on the Livingston border) is a different kettle of fish than Edison Lofts and that Livingston is far more preferable.

One of the differences IS that the rents at Edison will be higher for comparably sized units at West Mill.

Rental occupancy rates for the NYC metropolitan area are currently at 97% with plenty of demand and Prism's market studies suggest they'll get the price points they seek, at a complex along the Orange border, and with minimal impact by school children...and I agree.

My confidence in all of this is based on historical knowledge and perspective, our current experience as a community and, yes, Prism's independently commissioned market studies.

Thinking Prism can't rent a scant 300 units, in metropolitan NYC, to qualified people who can afford the rents and without them stacking kids into studio apartments like cord wood, is simply unfounded.

Sorry...eminent domain

Alan Sanders

One of the inferences of Tom's quip is that Livingston is seen as more upscale than Orange; ergo, the fact that Prism has every confidence in renting their units at rates higher than West Mill tends to negate his poo pooing of the project on that score.

One of Prism's major selling point for the building is the high-ceilinged, loft like design of the apartments...a feature they feel is much coveted and not available in any other property between the Hudson River and Morristown...a point stressed in their presentation. I don't think I need to tell you that many urban areas, formerly industrial, have been gentrified through upscale conversions of commercial to residential...and Prism has justifiable confidence in being able to do the same as a result.

There are zoning and occupancy restrictions (based on square footage/bedrooms/sex of the tenants, etc.), and lease restrictions that will preclude over-occupancy of rental apartments...far more stringent and enforceable in multiple unit dwellings than two-family homes, for instance. You won't find a studio apartment inhabited (legally) by more than one person and a one bedroom apartment occupied by more than two. There is also specific language prohibiting a parent of a different sex sharing a bedroom with a child, among other things.

Gary, not that I really doubt that the number of schoolkids here will be small, but do you have a source on those 'zoning and occupancy restrictions and lease restrictions' you mention? You say "there is specific language", e.g., but where is that language? And what makes you think such rules would be enforced? The incentives to enforcement seem pretty weak.

Ryan:

The "developer's agreement" is the primary governing document that obligates Prism to adhere to the most stringent law applicable (zoning, construction codes, IBC, DCA) and with regard to Certificates of Occupancy; one of which must be completed for each and every dwelling unit in the Township, at time of sale or lease.

See: http://www.westorange.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/44
There are also specific state guidelines, promulgated by DYFS (check with your foster parent case worker/coordinator), that detail what is considered suitable habitation for children and violating them can be grounds for their intervention.

Further, Prism clearly has the ability to specifically restrict the number of occupants in any unit via their lease and it is surely in their best interest to do so in order to maintain the property and limit its abuse...and that is a considerable incentive for a landlord.

Any "agreement" (the linked CCO) is only as good as the township's (or landlord's) ability/commitment to enforcing it. How frequently can an agent of WO or Prism inspect someone's private domicile or apartment to ensure that the occupancy is within the guidelines.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that these apartments will be stuffed with kids "stacked up like cordwood", but I wouldn't just dismiss someone's stated concern that it's a possibility.

Having read the township document linked above, I didn't see anything about occupancy rules - it more or less addresses CO and smoke detector locations. It there another document that sets out the township's occupancy allowances?

Alex Sohn:

There are any number of ways that Prism can secure their property and protect their interests: issuance of numbered, non-duplicable keys and/or electronic pass cards are just two off the top of my head.

Most modern apratment complexes are opting for the latter, though I can't say if that's Prism's plan.

It's a concern but, one that can be addressed both by contract and contraptions of one sort or another. If you're name isn't on the lease, you don't get a key and that makes living somewhere covertly kind of difficult.

The OP was asking about the existence of any zoning restriction on occupancy by size of apartments. Is there any such restriction written down somewhere?

How can we just trust that Prism will do anything in good faith after two downgrades on the Council's "vision" since the financial agreements were ratified?

Yes, shame of 4 of the 5 Council members for failing to make sure the language in the ordinances protected the township from this sort of thing, but I'm not surprised to see taxpayers expressing concern of what they were sold and what they'll eventually get.

"over what they were sold"

Alex Sohn:

As I first indicated, the "developer's agreement" require adherence to the most stingent and applicable codes/laws in effect and the Township follows those promulgated by the International Codes Council.

These essentially incorporate best practices concerning construction sciences, property maintenance and occupancy.

See: http://www.iccsafe.org/Store/Pages/Product.aspx?id=8750P12_PD-X-IC-P-2012-000010

I'd forward a link to the specifically relevant International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) but, there's a significant fee involved but, have a read at your own expense if you'd like. :-)

With all due respect:. I notice that most of the postings in this comment thread are from a single poster. What is his standing? What are his credentials? Does he work at 66 Main for the Legal department? For the Planning and Zoning department? I'm just curious if his opinions have any more merit than any taxpayer posting here.

The hyposcrisy of someone hiding behind a screen name questioning the "standing and credentials" of someone who isn't is manifest.

I apologize. No offense was intended - I was just wondering.

I'm willing to spend the "significant fee" of 33 bucks for a pdf of IPMC. I'm assuming that you've read it before linking to it here and that the information concerning occupancy limitations on the Edison Projects and will be contained therein. Is it available for perusal at the Planning and Zoning department for any interested parties who cannot afford, or do not with to expend, the fee involved?

"wish to expend" (pardon the typo)

Status Quo:

While I can't say to a certainty that the Planning & Development/Code Enforcement office uses hard copies of the IBC/IPMC code books or digital versions but, I'm reasonably certain that, either way, they can provide you with copies of the relevant sections you'd like to peruse.

You might also ask for copies of the corresponding pages of the developer's agreement, in order that you might connectthe dots.

Gary, I had an inkling that DYFS rules were part of what you were referencing. Those rules are exceedingly UNrestrictive, trust me. They basically allow stacking kids like cordwood. (OK that's a small exaggeration, but only a small one.)

Landlord rules and township ordinances are almost certain to be more restrictive, and thus operative.

I'm not so sure how the enforcement incentives would play out. From the landlord's point of view, you've got the desire to minimize wear and tear on your property vs. your desire to keep a rent-paying tenant in place rather than go kicking them out over something like this. Different landlords would weight these desires differently. Prism, with its big investment, maybe would favor the former as you say. With a lot of landlords, turning a blind eye is the norm, however, so long as the tenant is regular with the rent and not otherwise disruptive.

But regardless, it's hard to see this being a huge issue. It's specifically *school-age* kids that carry significant costs to the township. If you've got a studio apartment or a one-bedroom, you might sneak in an unauthorized baby or toddler but once they're school-aged, you're not staying there, I don't think. You're getting a bigger place. Unless we're talking really low-income tenants here, with no place else to go, but if that's the case then the cost of schoolkids is the least of our problems.

And Quo, why do you care about Gary's "standing" and "credentials"? People make strong, confident assertions here (often little more than bluster) all the time. The fact is you know far more about Gary's standing and credentials than, I dare say, about just about anyone else's.

If you get tired of reading Gary, there's a simple solution: Don't read him. Trust me, it can be done.

Ryan:

Do keep in mind, as well, that for any school aged child living in a rental unit and wishing to register for enrollment in the public schools, their guardian must provide not only a copy of their lease but, separate certification by the landlord attesting the child is an authorized resident...which must then be countersigned by the Tax Assessor, attesting to the property being a legal domicile.

That's a fair amount of control on the Township's part and does provide one of many mechanisms that reveal illegal dwellings and code violations.

As to this quote:

"If you get tired of reading Gary, there's a simple solution: Don't read him. Trust me, it can be done."

Is that to say you don't hang on my every word and comment?

I am crushed! :-)

Thank you. That information might help anyone with a keen interest to find the relevant documentation of agreements between Prism and the Township of West Orange through the Planning department.

http://bit.ly/QtGjbP is a link to documentation on the township's website concerning redevelopment.
Anybody who has an interest in revisiting the documents presented leading up to the Council's approval of the financial agreements (30 year tax abatement and $6.3M bond) can review them there. It's pretty dry reading but it may answer some questions. There is the 7-page Retail Marketing Study (prepared in October 2011 and updated in Februray 2012) linked at the bottom of the page.

You made a fair point about my certifications. To avoid any appearance of hypocrisy: my credentials in the legal, construction, or planning/zoning fields are non-existent.

My standing is as a township resident; then again, I'm not answering every concern and question posted here. I'm just reading and asking.

Now that I've shown you mine...

Thank you, Ryan. I don't believe we've ever met or conversed - you're uncanny ability to know what someone else knows about Mr. Englert is astounding.

If you know of a "/ignore <poster>" function here on the Patch that would magically make certain posts disappear from view, please let me know how it's activated. Something like that would make reading most comment threads on the Patch a helluva lot easier.

Give me a break, Status Quo. Are you telling me you're not the user "WOStatus Quo" on that other forum who's primary obsession in life appears to be all things Gary? The one who likes to link to these very Patch threads where a person with the same user name is sparring with him? I'm sorry. I don't believe you.

As for the "ignore" function, it may be activated by use of the scroll key. I am confident you're clever enough to figure it out.

Ryan:

I'm pretty sure that you and I have never met. I don't know what you think I might know about Mr. Englert but, I assure you, I don't know anything about what his certifications and/or credentials are or where he gets his information. I can only guess that he works for either Prism Partners or for the township in some capacity because he seems to know more about the Edison redevelopment projects than even the members of the Council.

He may be a valuable resource or he may just be some guy posting nonsense.

And, yes, I do know how to scroll but I'm asking about a "/ignore" function - having to scroll past so many overly-long posts is tedious and it breaks up the flow of the comments.

I don't understand why you've chosen to become so confrontational. I don't think that I've done or said anything here to you to warrant your wrath.

Status Quo:

OK, I'll play along for the moment; click on my name and it will take you to the profile I have published on The Patch.

As indicated therein, I work for the Township for 5 years and the state for another 5 and am now retired.

What positions I currently hold are voluntary and uncompensated.

I know what I know based on my professional and life experience and because I've been around a long time and pay attention.

In most cases, I'm egaging in a dialogue here and respond when people ask me a question...if you think the response is long, or boring, don't read it but, I generally make some sense.

Alan Sanders:

The market studies, student projections, etc., were shared during the public meetings last February-March and were posted on the Township's website.

I assume they are still there, though I haven't had the need to refer to them in a while having answered what questions I have some time ago.

And, yes, their pricing and projected student load do seem quite favorable and, by the way, the relevant studies presented were done by independent third parties in addition to whatever evaluations Prism did internally.

Steve Serebrenk:

Again, I believe the information is posted on the Township website (www.westorange.org); it was there for many months.

Tom:

Actually "we" (or at least the land we tread, under one name or another) has had the exact same proximity to New York City as when it was first settled by the Dutch in 1614...that's nearly five hundred years.

It's also precisely that proximity that has caused virtually all our population growth and development since.

So, like it or not, we "bank" on New York City each and every day...as more people from West Orange earn their living there than in any other location.

Susan Lenczyk:

What your are essentially doing is retracing ground long since covered over the last 50 years of mulling over what to do with the battery factory and how best to accomplish it.

First and foremost, please understand that most of the building has been vacant since the Edison plant closed in the early sixties; only the first two floors were ever occupied. It was never the ratable a commercial site of its size should have been and there was also insufficient parking if the building was ever fully occupied.

Manufacturing facilities of any size require transportation infrastructure to move raw materials in and finished product out and, as the property is not situated on a rail line (and none can been built to it) that would mean an inundation of tractor trailer rigs that Main Street can't sustain. Then too, the building is a 1900 design that does not lend itself modern manufacturing technologies.

The bottom line here is quite simple: In order to have done anything with the property, a developer with the requisite financial rescourses needed to be willing to invest in a given scheme.

Following an open competition and with all the variables and constraints fully known, professionals in the field submitted remarkably similar visions to develope the property as a mixed-use, commercial-residental project.

Prism's design and propsal bested the others and that's where we are today.

Will Rod:

That is categorically untrue as Prism commissioned, and submitted (in January), a new market study (based on it being converted to a rental property) last fall.

The only "taxpayer money" at stake is for improvements to the Township owned infrastructure and a dedicated funding source for the necessary bond is identified in the developer's agreement.

From the report in 2011: it appears the amenities and jitney were key elements in the study and revenue projections!

While the Edison Lofts location offers excellent access to major highways including Route
280, the Garden State Parkway, The NJ Turnpike and Route 10, many of the competitors studied are within walking distance to NJ Transit train service. Edison Lofts requires a short ride to the Orange and South Orange NJ Transit train stations, Newark Penn Station, and the NJ Transit Secaucus Transfer Station.
Edison Lofts lifestyle amenities will be superior or at parity to all competitor properties represented in this report.

Will Rod:

I don't think there's anything inconsistent with Prism's taking a "wait and see"posture concerning jitney service as it's need (or not) will be based on the demand (or lack thereof) by the tenants who actually occupy the building.

If that demand is such that they need to institute a service of their own, the equipment can be purchased, drivers hired and instituted in a matter of weeks.

Then too, the demand may only be such that Prism can partner with the Township's existing service (which begins and ends at the DPW garage around the corner)...whether short or long term and subsidize that operation to everyone's benefit.

The DPW jitney's arent filled to capacity on every run.

"Wait and see" on the jitney presents a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem--will commuters looking for easy access to NYC move into a building in the HOPES of a jitney popping up if enough residents move in with a similar demand and clammer for it? They won't--if they need easy access to NJT, and this development doesn't have it in place, they won't move in. It's one of the more ridiculous things Prism has said, and those who swallow it whole (or pretend to believe it to keep up appearances) reduce their own credibility.

The fact that Prism is taking away the jitney may indicate that they hope the town, desperate to attract affluent commuters who won't live there otherwise, will spring for yet one more thing that Prism won't have to pay for.

A more worrisome alternative is that Prism is already pretty sure that the likely market for this development won't be affluent commuters at all, and is just barely still pretending commuters are going to flock there as long as West Orange wishes to cling to this high-end commuter delusion.

Sue Freivald:

It might have escaped your notice but, the four, exisiting, Township run, jitney routes essentially cover only the lower half of the first ward, the second ward and St. Cloud.

Ergo, a far larger geographic portion of the Township (equally if not more afluent and surely populated with no small number of NYC commuters) does not enjoy the benefit of an intial link (jitney) to public transportation.

Did the lack of this amenity prevent these folks from putting down roots in the neighborhoods where they did?

Apparently not and it's entirely presumptuous to assume any such a thing would dissuade people from renting in the Edison Lofts either.

Tom:

Again, I challenge you to respond:

If rejuvenating a deteriorating neighborhood isn't sound public policy, what's your solution?

@Tom:
Tread lightly, my friend. I read the exchange from earlier (since deleted) where you posed a question in response to this "what's your solution" thing and GE took it very badly. Without the proper "historical perspective" you may have been puzzled by his reaction, but, suffice to say you hit a very raw nerve with that well known loaded question.. Next time, just ask if he's stopped kicking his dog.

Now that you've angered the great and powerful town expert on all things, you'll never get another moment's peace on the Patch.

Tom:

Listen to yourself...no clue, no cohesive thought, no alternative ideas and nothing but naysaying.

People willing to invest $250 Million in this project are confident of its success, while you, unable to put a cogent though together, are confident of its failure.

Excuse me but, I'll side with the former.

Tom:

Well, since you're obviously not invested in Xanadu, Edison Lofts or likely much of anything else, why don't you just sit back and see what happens?

If it all goes to hell, it won't be your money, will it?

So in other words Bank of America was no longer willing to invest in the project

Tom:

Have you been living under a rock the last few years and unable to read a newspaper?

Bank of America withdrew its financial commitment as it was way over-extended and took a $45 Billion federal bailout to remain solvent.

Brett Kaiser:

I think I responded to your inquiry (above) without anything approaching rancor and far from being argumentative...and I'm not trying to start a flame war.

My quip about kids "stacked like cord wood" was not directed towards you but, a general observation that the concern has been gratly overstated.

I believe Prism's studies indicated the possibility of somewhere between 17 and 26 school aged children being domiciled at Edison lofts and, given our documentable experience with other rental properties, I'd say that's a reasonable estimate and not something that will overburden the schools, in and of itself.

Look, we can do all the "what ifs" we'd like but, with new housing starts stagnant and the rental market strong, it surely appears that Edison Lofts will rent.

As to your home, I think the fact that these units are now rentals (as opposed to condos) is a plus for any homeowner as there will be that much less sales competition along what would have been the various price points.

Tom:

And how, pray tell, will "your town" go "to hell" when the Township has an absolute first lien on a newly renovated property?

We already have one foot in the rental market as administrators for three senior citizen complexes and the possibilities for Edison Lofts would be limitless...and Section 8 housing wouldn't be among the best options.

Clare Silvestri Krakoviak:

I wonder, is there a single redevelopment project, anywhere in New Jersey, wherein providing a jitney service was a precondition for its approval?

Is there any such precedent and is such a thing even legal?

All personal opinions aside, I also note that the Board (comprised of at least two architects) voted unanimously (9-0?) to approve the plan presented, with one (above) expressing the opinion that the changes were "minor."

Seems like Diaz does not think he will be renting to NYC commuters...
red flag...

Tom:

And why would you conclude that?

Taking a "wait and see" attitude is prudent, rather than taking on an expense (of likely $50K per year) that might not be the least bit necessary.

Common sense dictates that if only 5 or 10 resident would use such service, there are economies of scale that might enhance our existing jitney service...which terminates around the corner, by the way, at the DPW garage where the busses are stored.

The jitney service to the train station was one of the key features that the building would offer tenants who work in NYC. The jitney was supposed to make the building competitive with other buildings on bus lines, train lines, and the PATH system.

Without the jitney, there is really no reason for anyone who works in NYC to choose this location--- and as you recall from the town council meetings, we were told that this is an upscale development that would attract an upscale tenant.

They haven't started building, yet the developer is already going back on its promises, and they are already late in paying taxes.

Mark Meyerowitz:

The Township currently runs four jitney routes, two of which service the lower half of the first ward; an area primarily comprised of roughly 3,500 single-family, detached homes, most with driveways and garages and the cars to fill them

Can you really attest that there will be a definite demand and need for a dedicated jitney service for a single, 334 unit apartment building (also with available parking), 18-24 months before it is even ready for occupancy?

Clare Silvestri Krakoviak:

Last I looked, there was metered parking on Main Street, and in municipal lots along the Main Street corridor, and it is preferred by merchants to spur turnover and increase business. The same mindset doesn't seem unreasonable in Prism's facility either...nor does renting spaces to its residential tenants as some will want no spaces, some will want one, two or more.

By the way, isn't parking income factored into gross revenue when computing the PILOT?

As far as people behaving inappropriately in public, it happens to the best of us.

Clare: my notes do not show that the 90 spaces for the retail are going to cost any shopper $. Mr. Diaz despite banking his head on the podium seems to be a pretty
smart man. How many stores do you think he will rent if the patrons of those stores
have to pay for the parking? I am not that concerned about the parking, Again as
an architect and a planner i was more concerned w/the physical layout of the stores, and the movement of goods in and garbage out. The plans for the retail were a bit
to schematic for me in this regard.

Tom:

Is there a cogent thought to be found there?

Tom:

Sometimes.

Alan Sanders:

When Edison Lofts was slated to be condos, +/- 320 housing units at prices ranging somewhere between $150,000 (a studio?) and $ 1.5 Million (a penthouse?) would have come on line at some point in time.

That would have provided additional competition among existing homes for sale (at each price point) which some might think a detriment to selling their homes.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the more homes selling for let's say $350,000, the more difficult it might be for any one of them to sell, given a buyer in that price range has greater choices.

I don't think the availability of rental properties dissuades people from buying a homes; I think they're generally two different types of customers.

Yeah, I've got to agree with Gary on that -- for most people, you're either at a stage in your life where you want to own, or a stage in your life where you want to rent.

Brett - I think the issue is that if I'm paying top dollar for a rental property then I also want the "perk" of a jitney. Why should I drop $3k on an apartment and then have to pay extra to get packed into a cramped public bus? The jitney would simply be an added amenity to attract renters. And no, a mile isn't *that* far of a walk, but how about when it's pouring rain, snowing, 0 degrees out, 95 degrees out, etc. Then that 1-mile walk becomes a bit more complicated. Again, if I'm going to pay top dollar for an apartment these are not conditions I'd be willing to deal with.

Additionally, if I worked a job that meant getting home late at night, the area around the Orange train station is not somewhere I'd want to be walking home from late at night by myself. Especially if I'm carrying my laptop computer and other valuable items.

I take it you and your family do not live near the Orange border.
"Good fence make good neighbors"

Ken, that's more or less where I am, too. I think Prism played a little bait-and-switch with the council, painting a prettier picture than it ever intended to deliver. Now it's clearly trying to offload small items here and there, like the jitney. We need council to be vigilant in reponse to such maneuvers, probably more vigilant than it has been to date. All that said, from a revitalization perspective there's no question but that an inhabited structure there holds far greater potential than an empty concrete hulk. (Potential is not assurance, of course.) And obviously, as you say, the incentives for Prism are to charge rents as high as they can manage. I hope their market research bears out.

Mark Meyerowitz:

Start with a faulty premise and you'll wind up with a faulty conclusion every time.

The suggestion each apartment unit would require two parking spaces is, at best, highly speculative as some number of all of the units are just as likely to be occupied by a single adult...particularly the studios and 1 bedroom apartments.

Whether the spaces come with a fee, or not, common sense would dictate that Prism would (on paper) assign a single space to each studio and 1 bedroom unit and, very likely, two spaces to each 2 and 3 bedroom unit...then renting/assigning additional spaces on a first come, first served basis until all are exhausted.

I can't imagine any credible scenario under which they allocate two parking spots to some units and zero to others. And I know this is Jersey, but two-car families in studio apartments? Really? Maybe, but it seems far-fetched that there'd be many of these.

"Buffer zone" supplies -- crossbows, night vision goggles, etc.

Tom:

That's clearly an unknown as it can't be marketed or tenants solicited until an occupancy date is established and that won't happen until the building permits are issued and a construction schedule promulgated.

My guess, however, is that Prism will express a willingness to "build to suit" the right commercial tenants.

Gary Englert states;" My guess ,however, is that Prism will express a willingness to "build to suit" the right commercial tenants. Not long ago,I wrote,"People in favor of vouchers have said once vouchers are approved,the market will rapidly adjust to meet the demand" Englert wrote "Parochial school populations are half of what they were 40 years ago.The number of Catholic school closings is legion.Is there a private school in the area that has expanded classroom space in recent memory? Not that I'm aware of" Yet AGAIN, Englert has shown us the way! Let's get the voucher program started, and then let's reopen the closed private schools,or let's rent the 50% of unused space in the private schools that have been experiencing declining enrollments! Because of mold, children from Wilson Avenue School were bused to a private school in Harrison that had space available. St. Cecilia's in Englewood rented space to a private gym.If West Orange High thought trailers were more than o.k. for it's students, why would they not be o.k. for students using vouchers ? Remember,I also said vouchers would force public schools to compete for public dollars - improve, or go out of business. Prism has made countless changes and adjustments to it's original plans.Englert lauds them.Prism's not a threat to the public school monopoly. Vouchers are. Englert's done it again! He has solved the classroom - space - for - voucher - students question. How do you like those apples,Professor Irwin Corey?

john anthony prignano:

How your latest diatribe (concerning school vouchers) is in anyway germane to Edospn Lofts/downtown redevelopment is beyond me, but I fail to se where anything I've said on either subject (and repeated by you) is found wanting.

Prism has adjusted its plans due to market forces well beyond its or anyone else's control and has stayed the course toward completing its commitment to invest in West Orange and redevelop Main Street. Yes, they should be commended.

Rather than having stated I was adamantly opposed to vouchers, I simply pointed out the fundamental problem with them: where to send the students? Whether they be housed in temporary trailers or edifices made of concrete, mortar and steel, such infrastructure requires an initial, and in advance, capital investment that a voucher simply doesn't provide.

Think it through and comes up with a plan, john, rather than another repetitive rant that accomplished nothing.

Tom Here's a few lines I think you'll enjoy " My only fault is that I think I have none " "I've been wrong only once in my entire life . One time I thought I was wrong but I wasn't " Winston Churchill commenting on an egomaniac, " There but for the grace of God, goes God " And ; "Alot of people claim to know everything / And not only isn't it true, / But it's very irritating to those of us who do "

john anthony prignano:

Rarely, if ever, have I seen someone so self-effacingly describe the essence of precisely who they think they are.

Alan Sanders:

Prism was founded in 2002 by Gene Diaz (who already had an established reputation and track record in real estate development/management) and he was immediately joined by Ed Cohen (as co-principal), who even then already had 40 years real estate development/management experience.

Fairly extensive information is available on each of these men for those curious enough to look for it and both are educated, experienced and are well regarded in the field, so far as I can tell.

Tom:

Perhaps you should familarize yourself with the redevelopment zone and plans, which can be accessed through this link:

http://www.westorange.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/422

Once you've done that, perhaps you will surmise the issue with renting those unoccupied storefronts.

That link leads to a page that says "Server Application Unavailable". Is there a relevant portion of the document that you could quote or paraphase to help us surmise the reason as to why those storefronts remain unoccupied?

Status Quo:

Yes, there appears to be a technical problem with thee Township's website and I've notified the Mayor and PIO about it.

Any ETA on when it will be available from the guys in Manhattan, KS? If not, can you paraphrase the information that will help us surmise (or guess) why those stores are vacant (or, better still, just out-and-out tell us the reason).

Status Quo:

CVS Plaza is in the redevelopment zone and subject to demolition and a rebuild in a subsequent phase of the project.

Attracting quality tenants is, therefore, problematical for the short term.

Edison Lofts is only the first phase of the redevelopment of Main Street.

Gary:

Sorry - I meant ETA for the website coming up. I just checked the link and the website is up and running now. The plan seems to have been published in 2003 so I wonder how much has changed (skimming over it, it seems as if quite a lot has changed).

I'm glad you explained the 217 Main Street vacancies because it would have been hard to find the explanation quickly in a 100-page document. :-)

Quick note from the back-in-the-day department: The Council members in 2003 when the plan was published were Skarbnik (President), Giuditta, Keogh, McCartney, and Parisi.

Feb 16, 2011 ... Kevin Keogh was arraigned Wednesday (and pleaded not guilty)
Jun 21, 2012 ... Kevin Keogh, 46, a one-time West Orange Democratic councilman, admitted to separate counts of conspiracy and misconduct ...

THAT Keogh? He's looking at up to 5 years - I wonder if he'll get a break if he sings like a canary and brings down half of WO and all of the PVSC.

Ricky:

Clearly, you don't understand how the system works.

Keogh was arrested, indicted, entered a plea of not guilty then negotiated a plea, plead guilty with the prosecution requesting 5 years custodial sentence, to be imposed on September 27th,

House was cleaned at the PVSC without Keogh's help and, 6 years after leaving West Orange, he had nothing on anyone to give up...not that there ever was anything to begin with.

Yes, you're right. I don't know how the criminal justice system works since I've never been involved in anything that would have required me to cut a plea deal. Thank you for sharing your experience along those lines.

Alan Sanders:

Apparently, the Township website IS down: www.westorange.org

And, yes, though it's probably beyond Tom's ability to do so (based on the quality of his comments here) , I think an intelligent individual just might figure it out.

CVS Plaza is in the redevelopment zone and subject to demolition and a rebuild in a subsequent phase of the project.

Attracting quality tenants is, therefore, problematical for the short term.

Edison Lofts is only the first phase of the redevelopment of Main Street.

Tom:

Of course there is, as Prism would like to derive whatever income it could but, with most commercial tenants seeking minmum 5 year leases, with a five year renewal option, filling the space short term is problematical.

Prism hopes to be rebuilding there within that time.

badbul:

There was a state mandated requirement for each municipality to provide COAH units according to a prescribed forumula and the initial intent was for Prism to assist in fulfilling that commitment.

Subseqent court actions (brought elsewhere in NJ) have essentially suspended the requirement and whether or not COAH will survive and in what form has yet to be determined.

In any event, it has no bearing on the Edison Lofts whatsoever.

Steven Serenbrenik:

I didn't bring it up, badbul did (above); I just defined it using the proper nomenclature when advising it wasn't a concern at the moment.

Sheila Lefkowitz:

I wasn't at the Planning Board meeting to witness Mr. Diaz's show of frustration but, considering the rather vicious way he has been treated previously in public, and on various Internet message boards, I can certainly understand it as most all of us have our limits.

Glass houses: one rebuke even coming from a former council candidate who went ballistic at a kid's basketball game following a call she took exception to.

As I've previously stated here and elsewhere, Prism is not some group of robber barrons who have ridden into town to rape and pillage the community; they were INVITED to come here when willing to make an enormous financial investment and following an open public process wherein their vision for Main Street redevelopment bested two other remarkably similar proposals.

They have stayed the course through an economic upheaval unprecedented since the Great Depression and (whether ocassionally late or not) have paid something in excess of $2.4 million in property taxes on a parcel on which they have yet to make a dime...while simultaneously doing a stellar job rehabilitating the Organon campus.

There was paradigm shift in the global economy and Prism didn't cut and run.

The Planning Board (a body that includes at least two architects and others with signinifcant relevant experience) voted 9-0 to approve Prism's revised plans, which they have characterized as minor and we all should be more than comfortable with that.

Tom:

Duh...no; did you not understand the previous exchange on this subject?

Tom:

I already have a last name and don't need another.

You, on the other hand, are clearly deficient in a number of areas, some of which may be detailed as follows: no name, no stones, no clue.

Jerome Leslie Eben, AIA, PP:

In addition to redevelopment being a long and tedious process that most people simply don't understand and, as a result, continually revisit decisions long since made.They also fail to appreciate the competence and professionalism of those making these decisions.

Three architects, a landscape architect and an engineer sit on our Planning Board?

I'm willing to wager that we are the envy of most communities in having such professionals willing to volunteer their time, effort and expertise...and, whatever personal opinions one might have about any matter before them, they'd be hard pressed to truly question their collective judgment.

On that score, I have no reservations about the decision they made.

badbul:

What you quite clearly do not understand is that Edison Lofts is just Phase 1 of a much larger project.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the entire redevelopment zone at the following link:

http://www.westorange.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/422

The devevloper's agreement precludes Edison Lofts from becoming low income housing and the price points required for Prism to meet its obligations will insure that they will not.

Yours is one person's subjective opinion and the idea that Prism will not attract 334 eager and qualified tenants in a metropolitan area with a population of +/- 25 million is simply unfathomable.

Tom:

The hypocrisy and cowardice of someone hiding behind a screen name while calling anyone a puppet and/or alleging they're doing anyone else's bidding is mainfest.

Whoever is pulling your strings chose a puppet analagous to Pinocchio in every way.

Tommy No Nuts and the Naysaying Nitwits :-)

badbul:

Again, yours is a very subjective personal opinion of one individual.

The idea that 334 rental units on Main Street won't find willing renters in a metropolitan area of +/- 25 million is, quite simply, mathematically unsustainable.

Any redevelopment area had to take the first step toward its next life; witness the meat packing district in New York City (now among its most trendy) and the "Gold Coast" along the Hudson River.

"If you build it, they will come."

I for one could see that area easily turning the other direction and getting worse in the next 10 years. There is nothing to stop the area around there from stagnating and creeping closer to a Bloomfield-like place. Think about it. It's isolated. There is nothing to draw people there. One high end gated community which itself is an island will not be related to this project in any way. I doubt many residents of that area frequent the neighborhood where the battery factory is.

Ricky

I don't have a crystal ball but, having been around for fifty years, I've seen what doing nothing has resulted in and it is almost criminal: fifty years of wringing hands, bitching, moaning, complaining and doing nothing.

In another 50 year span, this country went from flying men in airplanes made of wood, wire and cloth that barely reach 100 mph to putting a man on the moon...and did that within the ten year challenge issued by John F. Kennedy.

I'm an optimist and fully believe West Orange can accomplish the far less daunting task of redeveloping Main Street within a decade, IF we get started and do it.

Portmanteau:

In order that you might comment and offer any opinions whatsoever, you really should review the history of this initiative, which is detailed in documents posted on the Townships website. This link will make it easier on you:

http://www.westorange.org/Search.aspx?SearchString=redevelopment

Again, this matter has been discussed, studied and talked about for 50, work in earnest done for the last 22 and real progress made over the last 10.

Do you think there was a feasibility study?

Yeah.

Portmanteau:

The information is there for the asking; please don't ask me to do the work for you.

I'm a tad tired of covering the same ground with an ever resolving cast of characters,

Yes, there is a process that has been scrupulously follwed with adjustments made along the way; witness the change from condos to rentals, the result of the 2008 global economic meltdown.

Read the documents available.

I just did.

From the "Retail Market Study" [ http://bit.ly/TzbPLM ], Phase 1 projected introductory monthly rents were as follows in October 2011:

35 Studios (590 SF - 820 SF) $1290 - $1625; 185 1-BR (810 SF-1157 SF) $1850 - $2000; 107 2-BR (1210 SF - 1310 SF) $2250 - $2260; 6 3-BR (1480 SF) $2999. That's a total of 333 units.

The rents are projected to increase, on average, 2%-3% per year. The projected rents assumed 1 free parking space included per unit and $75/month for each additional car.

We estimate Edison Lofts monthly absorption of 16 to 18 units, with 18 to 21 months to total lease-up.

In conclusion, with 333 units, Edison Lofts should target a lease-up rate of 25 to 30 units per months in the first six months after opening. This early momentum will be based on Edison Lofts superior value, location, and product.

All of the documents available to residents before the Council approved the financial aggreements can be read at [ http://bit.ly/QtGjbP ]. I'm not sure but I don't think anything has been added or deleted (as of today) since the approvals were voted on.

I don't know which of the documents available on the town website is the "feasability study".