@ harry:

Rarely have I seen a rant so absent of any basis in fact.

Any time you'd like to take a post Midnight stroll through the Valley, I'd be proud as punch to escort you and, though my Airborne Ranger days are 40 years past, I can assure you that neither body armor nor sidearms will be necessary.

@ Joe Krakoviak:

This is all a moot point and either an exercise in sour grapes or re-election campaigning as the case might be.

Whatever concerns you had could/should have been addressed at your sub-committee meetings and prior to your agreeing to bring the matter before the Council.

As I recall, you were part of the (initial) 5-0 vote to do just that.

Clearly, your colleagues don't share your concerns and feel the "risks" you're focusing on are manageable and well worth taking.

You obviously couldn't make a case to them and trying to do so here is simply pointless and serves no useful purpose...unless you're planning to put your re-election campaign on hold and join Rosary Morelli's threatened petition drive.

I think that it's a *good* thing that he does! He's a communicator. He's aware of modern media/technology. He shares information.

(I notice that you don't refute any of his facts, but just make a statement about what's "appropriate" or "becoming"!)

@ Raymond Helfrich:

I don't object to the Councilman posting his thoughts wherever he wishes, however, the single salient point is that he didn't/couldn't effectively communicate his thoughts and concerns to those who counted: his colleagues on the Council.

Ergo, this is an exercise in futility.

Nah. I disagree with Joe on all of this, but I'd much rather see council members and candidates discussing these things in forums like this than not doing so for fear of seeming "inappropriate."

@ barry_geltzeiler:

It's sort of analagous to a parent disagreeing with a ref or coach's call at a kid's basketball game and having to be dragged out of the gym because you're making such a spectacle of yourself.

@Gary Englert the fact that Joe Krak is the ONLY elected official in town who posts on the boards and forums speaks volumes about whom he is in my mind, as for making a spectacle of oneself at a kids rec league basketball game also speaks volumes about the character of that "certain" coach. But it takes all kinds which why we have an election.

I think that it adds to the brief article immensely--and better to have the Council members posting here or other places giving their take--their supporters do anyway, better to get it directly from them instead of having the likes of Gary posting on behalf of Council members who can pretend the obnoxious (and usually inaccurate) message isn't theirs.

@ HankT:

The thoughts and opinions I express (here or anywhere else) are my own and not done in concert or consultation with anyone else.

Unlike you, there's also enough courage of conviction behind them that I don't cower behind a screen name while offering them.

If anything I've said is inaccurate, you need only prove it to be so for me to offer an appropriate retraction; give it your best shot.

While Mr. Gelzeiler believes Councilman Krakoviak's posting on-line, I do not...though do believe there's little point in his continuing to make a case here when he was ineffective in doing so where it might have counted for something.

What i believe is there should be a social media policy adopted by the town council as to what and when things can be posted by their elected officials. Since there is no policy it is inapropriate for any member to post. He should have articulated his information to Sal Anderton during the 18 months of sub committee meetings. but instead he blind sided Anderton at the meeting and then is preaching over the boards to his followers.
It reeks of pandering to the town as he desperately tries to get votes. To quote Sal Anderton concerning Joe Krak, "disingenuous"...

@ barry_geltzeiler:

I think we have to agree to disagrees on this one; I'm disinclined to restrict anyone's freedom of speech and Councilmen are no exception.

Clearly, any one of them is speaking for themselves whenever they do...whether it be from the dais, in a media interview, on social media or an op-ed piece...and I don't think they should be prohibited from doing so.

The only danger being that someone might misconstrue that their opinion is, in fact, Township policy or law, when neither may the case or the Councilman's intent.

Clearly, too, only the Mayor or his designee can speak on behalf of the Administration.

Both, unfortunately, are nuance that many people don't understand and never will.

That said, I agree that, in this instance, Mr. Krakoviak is preaching to his faithful when he should be putting a sock on it and singing the project's praises for the greater good.

It's not refuting nonsense--it's trying to hide the fact that we likely gave away the store and there are questions that weren't answered and no other Council members thought to ask. 50 years and decades and that sort of talk it hides the fact that this deal is new, and gives away as much as they can to Prism and will cost us now before there's anything built or any revenue coming in. Your posts lack meat, they're all slogans and lines to hide the fact that four Council members didn't ask good questions and probably weren't going to consider any questions or answers before voting yes anyway. It was a done deal before anyone asked a single question, and we should know that's how four of our Council members function before we re-elect them.

@ HankT:

Absent from your rabid defense of Mr. Krakoviak's lone vote in opposition to moving redevelopment forward is any acknowledgement of the fact that he sat on the sub-committee (for 18 months) that reviewed the proposals and crafted the legislation.

He also voted (initially) to bring the matter before the Council to begin with.

It was incumbent upon him to address and resolve whatever concerns he had while a member of that committee and before allowing the matter to be brought before the entire Council.

There's no lack of meat there, those are facts and, having monitored this matter for 50 years...and the earnest discussions held over the last ten...I am more than satisfied that the right questions have been asked and reasonable answers have been obtained; all of which had pretty much been accomplished and done to death, prior to the last 30 days.

A "done deal" doesn't take fifty years to bring to fruition.

With deference to what Pete J is indicating. Speculating in the real-estate market can be a good thing and can improve comuniteis. I hope it works I hope the gamble pays off. However, speculating in real-estate should be with non public funds that could be lost or could make it big. Gambling and real-estate market should not be done with public funds. If you don't believe me on this please look at Fredi Mac & Fannie May

The ensuing years saw a significant decrease in that student population, so much so that schools were sold off or leased (circa 1985) to reduce expenses. The townhome and condo boom of the 1980s and 1990s did little to increase the number of students. We have seen increases over the last decade but, have yet to reach the peak numbers seen circa 1970.

What was the reason for our burgeoning school population?

Well, it wasn't townhomes, condos or rental properties; it was the turnover of single family, detached housing.

We are in the midst of the peak mortality years of the WWII generation that truly built and expanded this town and those who've remained here have long been empty nesters. As they pass on, there home are being acquired by couples with children.

Then too, the WWII generation's children (the "Baby Boomers") have no reached, or will shortly be reaching, retirement age. Those born of this generation (1945 - 65) are now 47 to 67 years of age and have also become/are becming "empty nesters" and some portion of their homes will soon domicile younger families with children.

The risk of overwhelming our schools with student has long been there and that small possibility associated with Edison Village simply pales in comparison.

@Gary Englert:

You wrote: "...having monitored this matter for 50 years....I am more than satisfied", and then go on to say in a later post: "I graduated from West Orange High School in 1969"

So ... you began monitoring the Edison Battery Factory saga when you were in elementary school? How precocious!! Were you monitoring the redevelopment for Mayor Sheeran? That was the year of the big centennial celebration and 3 years before the battery factory closed.

@ Alex Sohn: Precocious or not, I've had an interest in civics and politics (aviation as well) since childhood and, yes, have monitored the battery factory saga through the last five decaded.

By the way, the first political campaign I ever worked on was Joe Minish's first run for the house in 1962.

In 1966, I worked on Jim Sheeran's bid for a third term that he lost to Lou Falcone; Jim remained a close friend until his death a few years ago..

So, believe it or not, I have been around and involved that long.

Mac, nobody wanted the property in jersey City back in the 80"s and scoffed at the idea of redevelopment just like West Orange. But redevelopers with VISION took a risk and now everybody can see it was a slam dunk. This is why you are not a redeveloper, you have no vision or cash to pull off the project. So you should remain a professional at your career and trust the redevelopment professional at thiers.

Hey Tom G., Just want to clarify, I don’t assume the project will be successful. I do believe it has a good shot at it.

Re your comment about Hoboken... the Hoboken of years ago is actually a decent, but not exact, comparison. That many don’t realize this is a testament to how far the city has come and is an example of what is called "Hindsight Bias" in Psychology. (Success is remarkably easy to predict after it happens!) With the crime and corruption of the day success in Hoboken was anything but certain.

I am of the opinion that our town actually has a huge amount going for it and, when compared to the Hoboken of old, could be described as being in a better place.

Finally, now that it has been approved I would hope that everyone would come together as a community so that it has a decent chance of being a success.

@ Will Rod:

Clearly, you are somewhat ignorant of the protocols at play here and the way the Council operates.

Mr. Krakoviak and Mr. Anderton sat as members of a Council appointed sub-committee to work with the administration, the Township's professional staff and consultants to formulate the best plan possible to move redevelopment forward. Thiis included the drafting of the ordinances voted on Tuesday night.

This process went on for 18 months and it was incumbent upon Mr. Krakoviak to address his questions and concerns, during that time, while the agreement was being constructed and the documents drawn.

The man allowed the matter to be released from committee and voted to bring the matter before the Council for the voting that culminated last Tueday night.

What does that say to the public?

Simply this: Councilman Krakoviak believed this was the best plan possible and that his concerns and questions had been reasonably answered during the committee deliberations he was involved in for the preceeding 18 months.

If that was not the case the why, pray tell, did he vote to introduce the ordinances?

That is why Mr. Anderton characterized his colleague as "disingenuous."

(To be continued...)

I do not represent the Council. I am a private citizen who long involved in community affairs and who has been paying attention to this matter for 50 years.

So far as the studies I referenced, feel free to do an Internet search as general information on the subject (housing type's impact on school populations) is readily available, with that specific to West Orange available through our Planning and Development Department at Township Hall.

These aren't assertions I've made up.

Mac:

Perhaps you should revisit that market study as the portion you refer to was a candid, point by point comparison with comparable rental properties within a 5 mile/15 minute distance of Edison Village.

In some respects Edison village was deemed Superior to these proprerties, in some respects Inferior and in others there was Parity; the point being that each is somewhat different and Edison Village will indeed be unique.

Perhaps the most salient points that Diaz made were as follows:

1. The vast majority of the tenants the project will likely attract already live within 5 miles/15 minutes of the property, and...

2. Between here and the Hudson River there is nothing else comparable, whereas one must go 19 miles further west (Morristown) to find rental properties with similar amenities, and...

3. Demand for rentals are increasing with current occupancy rates of 97% across the board in North Jersey.

No, we're not Hoboken but, it's simply not going to be a heavy lift to rent 333 newly renovated rental units located 12 miles from NYC either...and people with far, far more to lose than any of us are betting that it won't be.

@ Raymond Helfrich:

At Mr. Guarino's Campaign Kickoff Event last night, he publicly stated he was in favor of redevelopment and would have voted for the proposal had he been a member of the Council.

As to Mr. Rodriguez's position, his comments are so rambling and disjointed that, if he has a position (other than being generally opposed to the redevelopment proposal as currently constructed) he hasn't articulated it well enough for anyone to understand what it is.

@ Raymond Helfrich:

In the immortal words of Bachrach & David via Dusty Springfield:

"Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin' Plannin' and dreamin' ..." simply will not make it so and you're bemoaning issues that were examined, conclusions reached and decisions made nearly a decade ago...following 50 years of "Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin' Plannin' and dreamin' ..."

People need to understand that the Township issued a request for proposals to redevelope the site and those expressing any interest all agreed upon one fundamental point: what worked for the site (and what they were willing to invest in) was a mixed use (residential-commercial) project.

Only once the concept was approved and Prism's design proposal selected did they acquire the property...at the Township's invitation and urging...toward redeveloping the property with an acceptable plan.

Clearly they can't do what they want with it, or they wouldn't have to come before the Council and planning board! And they aren't just doing what they want--they are asking the town to give them incentives that give them more of a buffer while taking WO's buffer to possibly less than nothing--no one even knows how much the town's added expenses will be.

cb:

Do you understand how little financial "risk" you are personally actually under here?

While the possibility is really quite remote (given the substantial investment Prism and it's investors will have in the site), in the worst case scenario (Prism going belly up, the property not being re-sold and not a penny of income accruing to the Township), the increase to your personal property tax bill would be no more than $24 a year.

Understand that these General Obligation bonds are financed over 30 years,

If the Township opted to retire this debt based on a one-time assessment to all property owners, $350 per property (+/-18,000) would do the trick.

The Township bonds all the time for a whole host of things without a dedicated source of income to repay the debt; that's what make this proposal unique and advantageous.

Lastly, please do understand that the Township invited and encouraged Prism to come here and purchase the Edison site for the sole purpose of redeveloping it.

This is now, and was always supposed to be, a public-private partnership.

They already own the property. You can feel the way you want, but the real thing the town stands to lose is a developer willing to revitalize the downtown area. I am glad Prism wants to invest in West Orange, and I suspect that they don't plan on failing.

@ Peter Shea:

While I thank you for your acknowledgement of my service to state and nation, I can assure you that I'm has honest a broker as your're likely to find concerning the Edison Redevelopment Project.

Why?

Because I do not personally stand to gain a thing from the project's success, or very much of anything to lose in the unlikely event it becomes a failure.

Neither, by the way, does John McKeon, nor anyone else holding local office, past or present, to my knowledge.

Yes, I am a Legislative Aide for the 27th District, and provide assistance on matters within my fields of expertise, veteran and military issues among them.

Largely voluntary, I receive a very modest annual stipend that doesn't even reimburse me for my out of pocket expenses; not a salary or living wage by any stretch of the imagination.

Accordingly, your suggestion that I am being paid to voice my opinions (which are neither coordinated nor orchestrated with anyone) is without any basis in documentable fact.

Further, while my documentable success and expertise in successfully running local political campaigns is a given, I've never been paid a dime for doing so and, though worth every penny anyone might wish to send in my direction, my amateur status remains fully intact.

(To be continued...)

John Mckeon AND Richard Codey are documented liars . Now, { Current as of the fourth quarter 2011 } who is this Gary R. Englert , Legislature / Legislative General Assembly Members, Staff Services, Division Director Managerial Unit M at a salary of $97,970 ? Is this the very,very prolific letter writer on Patch ? Is that yet ANOTHER no- show job as a reward for total syncophancy and utterly blind loyalty ? And , does anyone think that Prism would invest such a great deal of time and effort AND $60,000,0000 on only the CHANCE that their project would be approved ? Done deal , fait accompli

@ john anthony prignano (twice failed candidate for mayor '94 & '98):

The salary you are noting (above) is for the position of Director, Division of Veteran Services, NJDMAVA (not a no-show job, by the way), that I left in March 2010.

Any information you have, or are disseminating, to suggest I currently draw such compensation (or have since 3/10) is wholly inaccurate.

@ john anthony prignano::

Would you care to share your resume with the group?

Any truth to the story you were dismissed by the US Postal Service?

Or that the gym you then owned went bankrupt?

That your unrelenting rage over the last 20 years is a result of using steroids?

That your "career" since has been as a "Mr. Mom" while your wife actually earns the family living?

Of course we do know that you're a two-time loser in your attempts to gain public office so, if you're "winning" anything it isn't apparent to much of anyone.

By the way, the subject is redevelopment and this is not a forum for your incessant personal attacks on people you barely know.

@ john anthony prignano:

Repetitive personal attacks (without basis in fact) against long past political opponents is far from an expose; it's just sour grapes.

It's also not germane to a discussion of redevelopment.

@ Sheila -The best way to let your elected officials know that you think the bond ordinacne and public funding of realestate deal is not in the best intrest of the community is in how you vote in May 2012 for township council. Three council seats are up the voters can put in people who might repeal this and the voters can put in people wiho would never do this sort of thing again. If council members get in with only 25% or so of the voting public in town voting as they have historically then they will think no one is watching and do this sort of thing.

Perhaps "this sort of thing" means voting on something without having all the facts. Voting even though they don't have the answers to important questions--like whether WO's costs will even be covered by the PILOT, or what those costs will be at all.

The proper response to hearing uncomfortable questions about the financial details is NOT an attitude of gee, I haven't heard these before so I'm going to vote yes anyway, but to say, gee, I don't know the answers to these concerns, so I shouldn't vote yes--let's stop and look at this more closely and come back to this, possibly with some changes. How could anyone would vote yes on something when they don't even know how much it's going to cost or if the revenue will cover those costs or what the COAH obligation will be or what major future transactions involved will entail?

When basic, factual, objective questions are treated with hostility, and are even seen as treasonous (not just with redevelopment but with any topic at all) something is very wrong.

@ Sue Freivald:

What you're feeling isn't what others regard as treasonous but, simply that you're ill-informed as opposed to those of us who've followed this entire saga for decades longer than you.

Development of the site...in any way, shape or manner...could not be done without a public-private partnership...and the plan currently in place was chosen following a laborious process; it is what has been approved though all existing protocols and that which developers are willing to fund.

Paralysis by analysis is no way to govern.

Sue, I was asking Adam to respond. Unless you are speaking on his behalf, I would rather see what he has to say so I know how to respond. ;)

Still, redevelopment is a complicated process and missing from the most recent debate is a summary of things decided years ago for reasons that color the entire project.

Why formal redevelopment and tax incentives are necessary here is because the parcel is not conducive for fully private investment without them.

Like it or not, the battery factory has historic significance as status by both the state and federal governments.

Second, the building itself is made of Edison's own design and using his proprietary formula for concrete and will likely outlast the pyramids of Egypt; if it could be demolished (and it can't, see preceding point) the cost would be extraordinary and prohibitive.

Last, because the property was an industrial site long before environmental concerns where on anyone's radar screen, the property required substantial site remediation (already accomplished)overseen by the DEP.

What all of this means is that redeveloping this property will require an investment of +/- $112 Million to construct a complex that will have an assessed value of $80 Million.

Can anyone get a (legitimate) mortgage on a home equal to 40% more than its value?

No, and investors aren't lining up to back such a project without some incentive that makes it palatable and that incentive is the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) Program and willingness to assist with providing advantageous financing of $6.3 Million (the bond) for infrastructure and public amenities.