@ Adam Kraemer: The rules and regulations concerning redevelopment and appropriate tac abatements to encourage it has long been memorialized in state law.

The government and private sector working towards the public good is nothing new and I can provide countles examples should you need them to drive the point home.

You're beating the proverbial dead horse here and it's long since time to move on.

As to Prism being "politically connected" (whatever that means), do understand they were chosen to develope the property during an open, competitive process long before you landed in our little burg.

Yeah, move on, we wouldn't want people to focus on a sweetheart deal for another politically connected developer.

Is this property going to go on the regular tax rolls, or will the township be getting payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT)?

The property mentioned is Maple Avenue, which is approximately 3 miles from the heart of Downtown West Orange. No need to jump to such defensive posturing.

Seeing as Ms. Cumming appears to not know what area of town Maple Ave is located in prior to her defensive posturing, one would have to question how much she really knows about Wet Orange at all Mr. Geltzeiler.

Mr. Geltzeiler, yes I did choose my own name when I signed up for the Patch, and as a result of it being available and not in use by anyone else it was assigned to me.

Let us try to stay on topic and avoid accusations of stealing, and name calling which is clearly inappropriate for a civil discussion.

@ wohopeful: The significant difference between yourself and Mrs. Cumming, and at variance with the user name you purloined on this site, you aren't the least bit hopeful about anything in West Orange, as evidenced by your repetitive, anonymous naysaying at every opportunity.

Cynthia Cumming, however, is a stellar example of a community activist whose optimism and empathy pervades everything she does...and she does so with enough courage of conviction not to hide behind a psuedonym.

Mr. Englert, I would suggest again that we stay on topic here in the interest of having a civil dialogue and avoid the nasty name calling and ugly accusations which have become your trademark here and on various other township forums.

It is not productive to establishing informed discussions and certainly will not help your cause.

wohopeful, if you chose the moniker why did you lie and say it was assigned to you? totally discredits you on and off topic, Mrs Cumming taking pride in her neighborhood which Mr Kraemer referenced. It is Kraemer who discussed a street well away from the redevelopment area. Go address him, not Mrs Cumming who does more for this town and society than most.

Mr. Geltzeiler, I would suggest you stay on topic in the interest of having civil discourse.

If you re-read the comments, the location Mr. Kraemer referenced was approximately 3 miles from downtown West Orange. Ms. Cumming's taking umbrage with that is completely misplaced, most likely because like you she did not thoroughly read the comment and understand the points being made.

wohopeful, Mrs Cumming like myself thought he was referring to Maple St off of Harrison, which is close to downtown. Mr Kraemer want to redevelop his part of town which may have a dilapidated home or two, but is not need of redevelopment. As usual mr Kraemer is out for his self to financially proit and not like <rs cumming and for the greater good of the town. As for you Mr wohopeful I truly hope you seek me out at the Parade to finish our civil discourse.

Again, Mr. Geltzeiler I believe you are missing the point of the original post. If a developer finds a dilapidated property somewhere (in this case 17 Maple AVENUE) in our town which is in dire need of rehabilitation what incentives is the town offering to the developer to take over the property, restore it, and maximize its tax potential for the township? Nothing. However the administration seems to be bending over backwards to ensure Prism gets all sorts of incentives. Why the preferential treatment?

Please re-read the original post and then I'm sure we can have a civil discussion on the matter and not your uninformed opions and personal attacks.

Mr Wohopefuliam aware that the original post states thet Mr Kraemer wantsto buy a "rundown house" in an upperscalepartof town (that he lives in) and is asking fortownship money to help renovate it. As opposedto Prism whois willing to invest 250Million dollars to redevelop "section of town" that is desparte need of redevelopment. Prism want to profit from redevlopment to better our town Kraemer wants to profit of rehabbing a house in his neighborhood. Two different things, the house on Maple Ave is nothurting the whole towns property values and perception where the Edison property is. Mr kraemer has and always will be out for himself andnotthe greater good, and he will attempt to ride the backs of the good taxpaying citizens so he can makehis neighborhood better and send his kids to charter schools.

@ wohopeful:

You are mixing apples and oranges here: the purchase and rehabilitation of a single, free standing residential property is a far different kettle of fish than a redevelopment project.

Mr. Kraemer's hypothetical project does not require the proclamation of a redevelopment zone and an RFP process nor the investment of $250 Million to bring to fruition.

It also doesn't require the reconstruction of long existing, Township owned infrastructure to bring to fruition.

Further, you'd be hard pressed to find a vacant, even dilapidated, property anywhere in town that wasn't owned by a bank and upon which the property taxes weren't being paid which, in itself, provides little if any reason for the Township to involve itself.

--- This is a redevelopment project which, by its very nature, is supposed to be a public-private partnership...

I dont stipulate to it being a public / private project by its very nature. If I did, I would argue that the "public" portion comes in the form of (already present) tax abatements and accommodative zoning law changes.

--- The $6.3 Million in general obligation is the Township's very modest contribution...

I guess modest is a relative term, if the project is not successful; I think this works out to a cost of $550 per West Orange family. Another way to look at it is this - WO collects about $50 million (per yr) in property tax. If the Town had to repay the principal of the bonds - it would be akin to one year, 12% hike in property taxes. Not to mention the tax abatements which would remain in effect.

---The cost of the bonds will be paid (50-50) by a special tax assessment on the property and income from the PILOT; it will not come out of the taxpayer's pockets.

I thought it stands for "Payment In Lieu of Taxes"...which implies that these folks are not paying property taxes because they are paying interest instead. Meaning, the Prism residents are an additional "burden" on the Town's infrastructure and resources, but instead of covering it with their prop tax, they're paying off debt which the town issued to enhance the profitability of the project for Prism

@ ConcernedAbout07052:

The suggestion that "Prism (has) have to rely solely upon the good credit of West Orange" is absurd, given that they've already invested $60 Million into the project and will add another $190 Million to that by build out.

Also, your worst case scnario (which will never happen) suggest a 12% increase in local property taxes which is greatly inflated.

With +/- 18,000 taxable properties in town, a one-time assessment to retire $6.3 Million in bond would equal $350 per per property or a 3.5% increase...which, AGAIN, will never happen.

---The suggestion that "Prism (has) have to rely solely upon the good credit of West Orange" is absurd….

Will Prism go through with the project if WO (bond issuance) does NOT provide the financing?

If no – then it seems the deal does indeed hinge solely upon the WO bond financing.

If Yes – then why are we having this discussion; Prism can move forward without WO financing.

--- Also, your worst case scnario (which will never happen) suggest a 12% increase in local property taxes which is greatly inflated.

Be careful, “never” is a dangerous descriptor; especially when not accurate.

The 12% increase is based on the total property tax collected by the Town…roughly $50m. If an additional $6.3m were lopped onto this, then property tax would increase by a little more than 12%....and the Town would have collected $56.3m.

--- With +/- 18,000 taxable properties in town, a one-time assessment to retire $6.3 Million in bond would equal $350 per per property or a 3.5% increase...which, AGAIN, will never happen.

Is your personal guarantee the next line of defense after Prism? No offense to you sir, but it does not give me great comfort.

Wiki has the number of household in WO pegged at about 11,700 (the denominator). Maybe this doesn’t include the business (commercial) property taxes, which is why I also provided the more accurate 12% metric above.

@ ConcernedAbout07052:

Your numbers (total structures/properties) are off but. it's all immaterial as what you are suggesting is unlikely happen, even in the worst case scenario.

Not that it would ever happen but a $350 one-time assessement would equal a 3.5% tax increase on a property with an existing bill of 10%; a $500 assessement would be a 5% increase.

That said, and again should all else fail, I would think the Township would opt to pay down the bonds, out of the General Fund and over time, rather than via a special assessment, with minimal impact to anyone being the practical result.

"The next line of defense" after Prism would be the first lien the Township holds on the property; there can be no transfer of ownership without the bond debt being settled.

The 12% one-off tax increase is correct. For someone with a $10,000 annual property tax bill...it would increase by $1,200+.

I agree, it probably would not (in this worst case) be handled by a one time assessment and would be paid over time, but the end result is still the same....

An increase of $1,200 for every $10,000 or property tax paid. Ouch.

All this risk for what - To enhance the private developer's profitability? I "vote" no.

@ ConcernedAbout07052:

You, personally, aren't taking much of any risk at all and the idea behind it all isn't "to enhance the private developer's profitability."

The idea is to provide an anchor to our challenged Main Street corridior and rejuvenate it for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood and the Township at large.

Thankfully, there are only five votes that count here and yours doesn't happen to be one of them.

--- ...the rules, regulations and allowable incentives are detailed and memorialized in existing state law and the decisions you are voicing opposition to have long since been made.

I did not claim that the town issuing bonds (that is, using its credit line) to enhance the profitability of the project for a private developer is illegal, only that it may not be rational.

I call the rationality into questions because:

(a) WO is already considered a higher tax town - and no matter how you spin this, this project increases the tax burden and tax risk to the current townsfolk.

(b) This is a real estate project, and one could argue that the real estate market no longer supports the aggressive assumptions built into the projects financial projections.

(c) If the project were that attractive, to Prism, to other outside financiers - then Prism would NOT have to rely solely upon the good credit of West Orange.

My point about the public part of private/public partnerships consisting of tax abatements and accommodative zoning law changes was not addressed. Is this not enough?

--- The idea of individual property owners taking a personal hit as a result of this bonding is remote.

"Remote" is your opinion. Not everyone shares it. Even those that do might argue that "remote" is too much.

Ask yourself - Are you willing to risk a 12% increase in your property tax on ….Prism's assumptions being correct and the real estate market improving?

@ ConcernedAbout07052:

Again, this is a public-private partenrship and the general obligation bonds being proposed represent the Township's sole financial investment in upgrading the infrastructure it already owns (and is responsible to maintain, whether Prism is involved or not) and to subsidize the financing of what has been identified as "public" amenities.

Having put $60 Million into the project, with +/- $190 Million more anciticipated at build out, Prism's financial ability is neither a concern nor the point.

And yet again: the Township of West Orange invited and induced Prism to invest in West Orange with the reasonable expectation that it would partner with them: the bonds are the fulfillment of that expectation.

@ wohopeful:

As to updating the traffic study, while I have no problem with that being done, I also don't see the data changing greatly or having much of an impact on the decision making process.

The number of units, their size, the number of parking spaces, the number of residents projected and their economic demographic is unchanged from when the project was to be marketed as condos.

Accordingly, there's nothing to suggest there will be significantly more cars in and out of the sight, or more traffic on Main Street, than was previously project...albeit with the normal increases we've seen in the ensuing years.

It is, again, much ado about nothing.

@ ConcernedAbout07052: Not being a principal of Prism I can't answer the question as to whether they would proceed but, as a matter of fundamental fairness and toward encourgaging future investment in the Township, we are all best served if we keep the commitments previously made.

@ ConcernedAbout07052: The decision was made by the Township Council (circa 2003) when Prism was picked as the developer following a request for proposal (RFP) and design competition done in open public meetings.

The economic meltdown changed the financing picture to some degree and Prism would have proceeded a number of years ago if the Township agreed to bond a far larger amount with the inherent benefit being low financing costs.

While that proposal died on the table, Prism stayed the course and has secured the necessary financing to go ahead and the $6.3 Million in bonding is the Township's modest contributions...again, to upgrade what it already owns and is required to maintain (with no developer subsidy) throughout town.

@ Paul P: The hypsocrisy of your hiding behind a screen name while challenging me about where I live, or much of anything else, is manifest...so, good luck with that, Paulie!

That said, we get it: you're a 'Paulie come lately' to the redevelopment process which you neither understand nor accept.

Thankfully, the decision now rests with five people who've paid a tad more attention to it all and truly understand the issues at hand...and I am proud as punch that you aren't one of them.

@ Paul P:

"Quiz you?"

All that you've already evidenced that you neither know nor understand?

That would be pointless, since you've already demonstrated your ignorance.

Yes, Paulie, I'm a Legislative Aide to Assemblyman McKeon (for which I'm paid a whopping $1,000 a year) and, I assure you, it's a labor of love since I assist him primarily with resolving veterans' issues.

In any event, it's clearly not enough to sell my soul.

That said, I've lived in West Orange for 51 years...whether you think so or not...but, nothing coming from someon hiding behind a screen name is particularly credible to anyone with half a brain.

And, one more time...thankfully, the decision now rests with five people who've paid a tad more attention to it all and truly understand the issues at hand...and I am proud as punch that you aren't one of them.

@ john anthony prignano:

Unlike you, I have no problem, whatsoever, accurately identifying myself for who I am, where I've worked and what I was paid while doing the exemplary work I did in public service.

One need only look at my profile here on The Patch to ascertain most of that information as its freely given.

You?

Not so much.

I am no longer employed as the Director, Division of Veteran Services, New Jersey Department of Miitary and Veteran Affairs, as I left that position in March of 2010.

My annual salary had risen to $97,970 at the time.

Any website suggesting I am still emplyed there is in error.

As a Legislative Aide, for which I receive a small, annual stipend, I assist with veterans' issue and other legislative matters within my fields of expertise...period.

There is a Gary R. Englert listed as Legislature / Legislative General Assembly Members Staff Services Division Director Managerial - Unit -M at an annual salary of $97,970 current as of the fourth quarter 2011. What the Hell is going on ??

@ john anthony prignano:

It's simple, John Boy. either the website is wrong or you can't read.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, paid $97,970 as a Legislative Aide.

The web site says Gary R. Englert , Legislature/ Legislative General Assembly Members Staff Services Division Director Managerial -Unit - M at an annual salary of $97 ,970 . Englert states very clearly that he ended his employment with the Department of Veterans and Military Affairs in 2010 .He very clearly states he is currently a Legislative Aide to Assemblyman John Mckeon . This{ current as of the fourth quarter 2011 } name { Gary R. Englert }and job description refers to neither a Legislative Aide nor someone employed by the Department of Veterans and Military Affairs . It clearly states :Legislature/ Legislative General Assembly Staff Services Division DIRECTOR MANAGERIAL- Unit- M at an annual salary of $97,970. There are no references whatsoever about The Department of Veterans and Military Affairs, and no mention whatsoever about Legislative Aides . What the Hell is happening here ???

@ john anthony prignano: And your point would be what, John Boy?

@ Paul P:

Allegations of...

"a secret consortium of investors"

and

"construction companies and LLC'S owned by previous council members and their friends?"

Why all the mystery, Paulie?

If you've got something, why not share with the group and make your case?

@ Paul P: Clearly you need to work on your reading compensation; $97, 970 was the salary I received for the full-time, senior managerial position I held with the state for five years, at the Department of Military and Veteran Affairs.

I receive a small stipend as a Legislative Aide.

As to repeating myself, it's a necessary evil when dealing with slow learners like yourself.

@ Paul P:

So, you've got nothing...does that about cover it?

@ john anthony prignano:

My friends "gave me" nothing.

I was fully qualified , indeed more than qualified, for the two government positions I held and did an exemplary job in both.

You can call it whatever you wish but, I can document and prove otherwise.

None.

Prism is rehabilitating other housing units in the Township to satisfy any low income requirements accuring because of Edison Village,

@ Tom: Call Leigh Ann Zaolino at 973-066-2999 in the AM and she can tell you; she runs the program in Essex County.

@ Paul P: Sorry to disappoint you but, no, I bought Berkshire-Hathaway stock.

As to the rest of your rather specious allegations, put up or shut up.

If you can prove malfeasance, misfeasance or criminality, take your proofs to the Essex County Prosecutor's Office of State Attorney General and make your case.

I've done it and it works.

Absent you doing that, all you're doing is blowing smoke.

Let us conclude , as Charlie Sheen stated so eloquently; " Winning ! " tonight's battle of semantics by paraphrasing an old joke ; A politician asks someone " Would you be willing to repudiate and disavow everything you've ever believed in , in other words prostitute yourself , for $100,000 a year with benefits ? The man replies," That's quite a bit of money with benefits , plus the private sector's tanked , so yes , I would " The politician asks , " Would you do it for $1,000 a year ? The man yells ," WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM ?" The politician replies," We've already established what you are , now we're just arguing price " WINNING !

@ john anthony prignano: While I have no problem at all envisioning you in a Charlie Sheen like roid rage (as we've all seen it before, haven't we?) but, your complete lack of of documentable achievement in life suggests you should disabuse yourself of the idea that you're "WINNING" anything.

@ Adam Kraemer:

Well, like it or not, the redevelopment ball was out in motion decades before you landed here and a general consensus reached that private interests alone would not lend themselves to renovating the property...and 50 years of inaction pretty much proved the point.

Again, the idea is for Edison Village to serve as an anchor for a renaissance along the Main Street corridor with ancillary benefits accruing to the entire community.

The battery factory is not a single home that would or could be improved without government intervention.

@ Paul P:

Your lack of historical perspective is showing again as John McKeon did no such thing during his tenure; in fact, he did quite the opposite in mitigating the impact of development wherever possible.

FYI...the largest population of the West Orange Public Schools (+7,000 children) occurred circa 1970, long before the townhome/condo boom of the 1980s and 90s (before McKeon became Mayor, by the way), and that's a number we've yet to reach again.

Ergo, there was already sufficient housing in town to domicile that many students 40 years ago; proof positive that condos/townhomes, etc. do not impact school populations the way single-family, detached housing does.

@ Tom:

The information is posted on the Township website at www.westorange.org and the Market Study can be viewed here:

http://www.westorange.org/vertical/sites/%7B8A554F92-3545-4CD9-932E-F8D91F1C9B8B%7D/uploads/Retail_Market_Study_for_Edison_Lofts_Phase_1(1).pdf

@ Paul P: The relative cost of educating students (1970 vs 2012) is irrelevant; the topic was student population and domiciles available to house them in the Township.

Like it or not, Sparky, people are allowed to develop the land they own within the Master Plan adopted by the Township...and that includes single family homes on the relatively few vacant lots still available in town during McKeon's Administration (1998 and 2010).

The only way to keep that from happening is to buy the land and preserve it as open space and, sicne it costs considerable money to do so, is easier said than done.

Still, the McKeon Administration did that where and when possible and lessened the impact of development and obtained land/amenities for the public use in other instances; The Pointe at Crystal Lake and Bel Air, to name two.

I don't recall any variances being needed (though I could be wrong) for the homes buit along Old Indian Road (during that time) but, I do recall one of the builders being santioned for cutting down more trees than were deemed necessary...and that the same thing happened at the development on Highwood Road and Mountain Avenue.

So, please do go on as each time I challenge you, you fail to rise to the occassion as I'm sure you won't again.

Karen, I for one take issue with 'Wohopeful' and his nasty comments about me, and I would appreciate your blocking his account.