Prism pays approximately $300,000 to cure two notices of default on downtown redevelopment

Prism paid delinquent property taxes and redevelopment escrow account today, Friday, Dec. 7, appearing to cure two defaults that threatened its project in the downtown redevelopment area.

Prism Capital Partners paid its delinquent property taxes and redevelopment escrow account today, Friday, Dec. 7, according to an e-mail from Mayor Robert Parisi to the town council.

These payments, which were previously identified as amounting to more than $300,000, appear to cure two notices of default of the 2006 Redevelopment Agreement between Prism and the township. The agreement specifies Prism’s exclusive right to development in the downtown redevelopment area, including the Edison Battery Factory. Failure to cure the defaults would have allowed the township to end the agreement and Prism’s designation as the redeveloper.

On Nov. 14, the township sent Prism a notice of default for failure to pay $173,246 to an escrow account to cover town redevelopment expenses for the period ending July 1. Prism had until Dec. 11 to cure this default.

On Nov. 20, the township sent Prism a notice of default for failure to pay Nov. 1 quarterly property taxes of $123,944. With penalty interest, that amount was more than $135,000. Prism had until Dec. 26 to cure this default.

On October 26, the township sent Prism a letter demanding information on its obligation to notify the township of a material adverse change to its financial condition relating to the foreclosure proceeding on Prism’s Barton Press property in the redevelopment area. The action commenced in December 2012, but was not disclosed to the township. The letter also asked about any other legal actions and requested financial information. Prism had 10 business days to comply, but had not provided information as of the Dec. 4 council meeting. The mayor’s brief e-mail did not address this issue.

Joe Krakoviak is a West Orange Township Councilman, since 2010. He can be reached at jkrakoviak@westorange.org. A former financial journalist, in his spare time he’s a business communications consultant.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Paul P December 14, 2012 at 03:22 PM
"Ill-informed, libelous innuendo? " http://www.njeminentdomain.com/WJW_ICLE_10-15-07_Eminent%20Domain%20Princeton_Ethics.pdf page 6
Gary Englert December 14, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Paul P: William J. Ward, Esq.'s self-promoting piece on ethics and redevelopment has absolutely no standing as a published, judicial opinion and is based on a number of fundamentally flawed premises, not the least of which is: "However, Trenk, as municipal attorney, was overseeing the town’s redevelopment plans..." That is now, and always has been, fundamentally incorrect as the Township has retained independent counsel (McManimon & Scotland, L.L.C.) since the onset of the intitiative. Accordingly, Mr. Trenk is not now, and never has been "overseeing the town’s redevelopment plans." The simple fact of the matter remains that an investment group (of which Mr. Trenk was a member) submitted the highest offer received, in sealed bid process open to the public, and purchased the subject property. Ergo, neither he, nor anyone else, received any special consideration as a result of his service as Municipal Attorney...and he should not be pilloried for making an investment in the community in which he liives and serves. That group then renovated/rehabilitated the empty building (347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue), occupied/leased it to capacity and returned it to full tapaying status before any other parcel on the former Organon site. If that was somehow bad for West Orange...or its taxpayers...I fail to see why or how.
john anthony prignano December 14, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Township Attorney Richard Trenk was the subject of an investigation when it was discovered he was one of a group of investors who had entered into an agreement to purchase an office building owned by Organon and adjacent to its main site. Organon has been part of the Redevelopment Zone.Retired Justice Gary Stein, in a 53 page report, released on January 30 {2008 } , found that Trenk's interest violated " prudence, caution, and good judgement . " Question; Why was the Organon site part of the Redevelopment Zone ? Isn't that called " spot zoning " ? Why wasn't the defunct Mount Fuji restaurant and other failed or stressed businesses in the immediate area included ? Also, let's accept the fact that the Township has retained independent counsel. WHY isn't Trenk,or Ken Kayser, for that matter, completely uninvolved in the redevelopment process? Richard Trenk is extremely knowledgeable on real estate issues. Would his involvement be a conflict of interests, or perhaps give the appearance of one? And regarding Kayser? Same situation? West Orange pays a FULL- TIME Municipal Attorney, and a Deputy Municipal Attorney... for what? There are SEVERAL attorneys advising the Mayor and Council on the petition drive.They are not to be confused with the Clerk's attorney { possible conflict of interest between the Mayor , Council and Clerk??? } $100,000 was spent on the Sayers - Abbott defense team. There's MacManimon and Scotland LLC........Give your friends MONEY !
john anthony prignano December 14, 2012 at 09:08 PM
P.S. Richard Trenk was VERY involved in the ATTEMPTED redevelopment of the former Gate House property. { Why wasn't that property included in the Redevelopment Zone? } Again, why isn't he at least somewhat involved in the Prism development? He was initially - Mckeon and Trenk went around the neighborhood talking to residents about the redevelopment process. Who was the attorney {s} who got rid of the of the rent - paying commercial tenants in the Battery Building?
john anthony prignano December 14, 2012 at 09:51 PM
West Orange { Township } paid Justice Stein $50,000 to render an opinion on the Township Attorney ?? There's that cliche about arbitrators and consultants and fact finders ad infinitum .... "If you want more work, don't bite the hand that feeds you" .The question is " What faith can the public have in the process?" Answer; " None "


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »