Gleason's
wow - 40 year - that is pretty crazy. What have the terms been with other recent projects?
jamie said:
wow - 40 year - that is pretty crazy. What have the terms been with other recent projects?
My bad. It was "only" a 30-year abatement.
No follow-up in the Village Green after the TC “tabled” the resolution.
It feels like local journalism is not what it used to be.
mrincredible said:
No follow-up in the Village Green after the TC “tabled” the resolution.
It feels like local journalism is not what it used to be.
The Village Green has been pretty busy covering the Board of Education and other issues. There's a lot going on in SOMA.
Make sure you subscribe so they can hire more journalists!
EBennett said:
The Village Green has been pretty busy covering the Board of Education and other issues. There's a lot going on in SOMA.
Make sure you subscribe so they can hire more journalists!
I am a proud subscriber.
I don’t blame VG for not being able to cover everything. It’s a bigger problem than that.
Maplewood loves to give the maximum allowable abatements, even to developers that don't need them.
Our town has very weak negotiating skills.
yahooyahoo said:
Maplewood loves to give the maximum allowable abatements, even to developers that don't need them.
Our town has very weak negotiating skills.
And you come to that opinion: "Our town has very weak negotiating skills" based on what??? You do this crap and don't even give your real name. Sheesh. This is insulting and by the way I am not associated the township but respect the service that the employees provide until proven wrongly.
Wendy Lauter
Gleasons is a brown site. Reason given for the PILOT is the expense of remediation which is considerable.
I wonder if the township has a 30 year forward calendar to remind the next generation to cancel the giveaway/PILOT? I kind of doubt they plan that far ahead.
joan_crystal said:
Gleasons is a brown site. Reason given for the PILOT is the expense of remediation which is considerable.
Again, the PILOT was discussed, but my recollection is that it was tabled and I don't remember seeing it being revisited. Maybe I missed additional coverage.
PS. LOVE the job VG does. This isn't on them.
joan_crystal said:
Gleasons is a brown site. Reason given for the PILOT is the expense of remediation which is considerable.
So they just won't remediate the reason it's a brown site? Just build over it? and then let people live over it?
Honestly, I haven't been able to keep track of all the building proposals in town -- and going to meetings about them was just bad for my blood pressure.
I suppose they may even build over what should be an historical site in Maplewood -- the Columbia HS Parking lot (next to Gleason's) was the birthplace of Ultimate Frisbee. At least the Frisbee team has commemorated the fact by donating lovely benches in Memorial Park -- where they must practice because it's too dangerous to be played on school grounds. Someday it will be an Olympic Sport -- I believe it's still on the list.
Juniemoon said:
So they just won't remediate the reason it's a brown site? Just build over it? and then let people live over it?
Honestly, I haven't been able to keep track of all the building proposals in town -- and going to meetings about them was just bad for my blood pressure.
I suppose they may even build over what should be an historical site in Maplewood -- the Columbia HS Parking lot (next to Gleason's) was the birthplace of Ultimate Frisbee. At least the Frisbee team has commemorated the fact by donating lovely benches in Memorial Park -- where they must practice because it's too dangerous to be played on school grounds. Someday it will be an Olympic Sport -- I believe it's still on the list.
No, the implication is that because of the high cost of remediation, which WILL be done, or already has, the developer is being given the maximum allowable tax abatement.
Juniemoon said:
So they just won't remediate the reason it's a brown site? Just build over it? and then let people live over it?
Honestly, I haven't been able to keep track of all the building proposals in town -- and going to meetings about them was just bad for my blood pressure.
I suppose they may even build over what should be an historical site in Maplewood -- the Columbia HS Parking lot (next to Gleason's) was the birthplace of Ultimate Frisbee. At least the Frisbee team has commemorated the fact by donating lovely benches in Memorial Park -- where they must practice because it's too dangerous to be played on school grounds. Someday it will be an Olympic Sport -- I believe it's still on the list.
The lot which has become a shrine to Ultimate is the student parking lot across from Gleasons, not the teachers parking lot which is adjacent to Gleasons.
Re: the "brown site." I don't recall a D.E,P. sign on the property. Nor any excavation equipment. Does the building department have a copy of a "No Further Action" letter?
I would guess that remediation of ground contamination would require digging to the water table and removal of contaminated soil... Similar to what was done when people had soil contamination from leaking oil tanks. If this was done, no problem.
When this happened on our property, the tank was removed. A town inspector came and certified the ground as being "clean." If any or all o this was done at the Gleason property, no problem.
The Gleason site is in a floodplain and the developer is asking for some serious concessions in their development plan. The building will be way too close to the Rahway River. Parking will be on the ground level. You couldn't pay me to park there during a rainstorm.
Plus the Town has said nothing about updating the infrastructure in the Valley/Parker intersection. It has to be one of the worst intersections in Maplewood in terms of traffic flow.
drift:
juniemoon says, of the CHS ultimate teams: "Memorial Park -- where they must practice because it's too dangerous to be played on school grounds"
It's my understanding (which may be dated) that the frisbee teams choose not to affiliate with the school because (1) frisbee isn't on the official state list of sports (but could be a club) and/or (2) they would not be able to participate in out-of-state games/tournaments and/or (3) they're not interested in that much official control/supervision. imo, it's certainly no more dangerous than football or basketball.
There is quite a body of evidence from research done on injuries, sustained in ultimate frisbee. There doesn’t seem to be any lack of potential injuries, which isn’t surprising given the lack of protective equipment required.
Presumably, any questions regarding this construction site would be answerable with a trip to Town hall, or perhaps a phone call or email or letter. I understand, however, most people don’t have the time on their hands.
Someone could also go through the posted minutes for township committee meetings. Again, a time consuming endeavor.
more frisbee drift (sorry, i'll make this the last)
Interesting that they've studied frisbee-related injuries, thanks. What i saw over 10 years or so were (was?) a number of knee/ankle/foot injuries (due to cleats), a couple of collisions resulting in blood (my kid got a broken nose diving into someone's knee), abrasions from laying out, and one broken kneecap due to playing too near a concrete slab (this one might have been avoided with adult supervision, then again maybe not). Mostly, though, everybody walked on and walked off, just one ER trip for a few stitches and one for the nose.
Great game, though, enjoyable to watch, super exercise, and a kind of learning experience you don't always get from h.s. sports, given player-refereed games, player-led practices, and volunteer coach.
end drift, i promise
joan_crystal said:
The lot which has become a shrine to Ultimate is the student parking lot across from Gleasons, not the teachers parking lot which is adjacent to Gleasons.
The things you learn on MOL! Where would we be without it?
And I guess I misinterpreted the comment about the PILOT. It sounds like it's so large BECAUSE they will go in and remediate it. Let's hope so.
Having sat in numerous brownfield meetings with county level projects (not Essex) with NJ DEP and EPA reps in the room (as a PR rep for a county's brownfield board) and writing press releases about the process, one thing I have learned is that remediation is a long, expensive process requiring numerous inspection milestones to be met. Often there are surprises along the way, too. Risks for any developer. People who will live there will support local businesses. I'm not for all PILOTs, but this one makes sense.
dave said:
Having sat in numerous brownfield meetings with county level projects (not Essex) with NJ DEP and EPA reps in the room (as a PR rep for a county's brownfield board) and writing press releases about the process, one thing I have learned is that remediation is a long, expensive process requiring numerous inspection milestones to be met. Often there are surprises along the way, too. Risks for any developer. People who will live there will support local businesses. I'm not for all PILOTs, but this one makes sense.
My point is less about whether or not it makes sense and, well, what happened? The TC was gonna muscle the PILOT through and then, when folks asked some questions, they just folded their cards? I don't get it.
I'm also curious about what sort of remediation Gleason's was asked (if any) to perform. NJ has laws pertaining to selling potentially hazardous waste sites.
It's likely there's Perchloroethylene (PERC) in the grounds under and around the site given Gleason's pretty much handled all the dry cleaning for all shops in a 5 square mile radius of it. The TC would be giving up its role as a fiduciary for residents if it did not to have a report from NJ DEP before making the deal, so I agree that would be "folding their cards" as you put it.
Soul,
Developers are not only subject to risk, but it is fundamental to their business. It appears that the site was sold "as is". You're not a competent developer if you cannot see what is plausible. It is the risk you assume for being an entrepreneur. Passing this risk off to our town's taxpayers is crazy and immoral. And I for one object to paying for one more developer's folly.
Got it now?
mrmaplewood said:
Soul,
Developers are not only subject to risk, but it is fundamental to their business. It appears that the site was sold "as is". You're not a competent developer if you cannot see what is plausible. It is the risk you assume for being an entrepreneur. Passing this risk off to our town's taxpayers is crazy and immoral. And I for one object to paying for one more developer's folly.
Got it now?
I never said I thought passing the risk/cost on to anyone was appropriate. I was merely questioning why the abatement was a "thing" that, poof, went away when there was a little pushback as if it never happened. I am also suggesting that, no, you don't sell possibly environmentally hazardous sites "as is". As I mentioned to a member of the TC: The New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) provides for mandatory cleanup of industrial and some commercial sites when they are closed, sold, or otherwise change ownership. Did Gleason's not have to do any sort of clean-up? I'd also add that, yes, most savvy developers will do their due diligence BEFORE they buy the property.
Do you get it now?
I can't imagine the owner of Gleason's was able to pass all liability to the developer.
This deserves some research....
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I apologized if I missed a thread/post along the way. I noticed that construction is full-steam ahead at Gleason's, but I had not seen any further discussion about the proposed 40 YEAR tax abatement. Did I miss something? Did cooler heads prevail?
What happened?