Rutgers Study on Number of School-Aged Children Living in Apartments

I would like to see accessory dwelling units (granny flats) for rent allowed in owner-occupied houses. That would:

(1) Increase the housing supply in a low-impact way. An additional one-bedroom apartment per block, for example, would generate little additional traffic and few kids in schools.

(2) Provide income to seniors.

(3) Provide mid-level rental housing for people who can't afford the luxury complexes.

As Joan mentioned, it's nice that we're looking out for seniors, but we also need to think of our kids. How many people on this thread have kids in their twenties, and how many of those kids can afford to live in M/SO? 

shoshannah said:

erins said:

When I see school-aged children walk out of apartment buildings around town, it's hard to believe theoretical data that says otherwise.

 How do you know those "apartment buildings" are not condos?  We have a lot of condos/townhouses in these towns that "look" like apartments.

 "Apartments" and "condos" are not mutually exclusive. A condominium is simply a form of ownership.  An apartment, townhouse, duplex (or semi-attached house, as we call it in NYC), and single detached house are a forms of housing—irrespective of their form of ownership. Any of them can be condos.  So "looking like" an apartment doesn't mean anything. It's an apartment. It may also be owned as a condo unit. Or it may be a rental unit. 

 Also, kids can go in them without living in them. My mother-in-law moved to a condo in town and our kid gets picked up by her at least once a week, most often twice during the week. And we're probably over there once most weekends.  I've seen other kids there that were visiting grandparents as well but I don't think I've seen any that lived there.

She had been at Gaslight Commons for a year earlier and you saw a few more kids that lived there, but most of them were pre-K, and most of those were there on short leases while their families looked for more permanent accommodations.

So as someone that has actually been inside these places some over the past few years, I can say I've seen no reason to think any substantial amount of kids are in them.

max_weisenfeld said:
A 182-unit assisted living facility with adult day care is coming to the Hilton neighborhood in Maplewood, replacing currently vacant lots. The site plan was approved by the Maplewood Planning Board in May (see a transcription of the meeting below, as well as the Township’s engineering report on the proposed project). The development will be 50% affordable housing: a combination of Medicaid (91) and private pay (91) residents. The developer will be seeking a tax abatement in the former of a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes). Said Mayor Vic DeLuca, “A PILOT will be requested. The low margin for an affordable assisted living facility will require municipal financial assistance. Affordable assisted living is sorely needed.”

More at:

https://villagegreennj.com/towns/maplewood/assisted-living-facility-adult-day-care-coming-to-hilton-neighborhood-in-maplewood/

 Bravo......a new building that truly deserves a PILOT

Also So Orange is planning a new multi unit building in the old Blockbuster location.  It will have 11 units set aside for low income tenants with the balance to rent at market rates.

The problem with these discussions is that they always attribute the appropriateness/fairness of PILOTs to the largely irrelevant question of whether or not these projects contribute significant numbers of school age children to the district.  Since PILOTs are structured to pay nothing to the school district, the argument goes, the granting of PILOTs should be OK if there is no significant additional student enrollment due to these developments.  It's an irrelevant discussion because if these projects can pay no school tax based on the fact that they have few school age children, then it would stand to reason that any single family home with no school age children should also be exempt from school taxes.  That would be impossible, and everyone knows it, but it punches a big hole in the main argument that justifies PILOTs.  

In reality, PILOTs were created by state law, which allows them in certain situations.  The justification for the law was to encourage redevelopment and building in areas that might not otherwise draw the interest of developers.  What happened is that in order to compete for projects, municipalities are left with no negotiating power, the developers and their financial backers choosing only to build in towns where they can get the maximum PILOT.  Effectively, the PILOTs have turned into a huge pass-through of cash from local taxpayers to developers and their financial backers, as well as a way for former Abbott districts to hide their most valuable real estate from the state school funding formulas while collecting extra cash for municipal operations.  

Because PILOTs are statutory and every municipality plays by the same rules, this will not be fixed on a local level.  No municipality is going to unilaterally begin playing hardball with developers and denying PILOTs where they are legally allowed to exist.  It would be useless to do so.  The developer will just move on to a more accommodating town.  This needs to be fixed at the state level.  

Rob_Sandow said:

In reality, PILOTs were created by state law, which allows them in certain situations.  The justification for the law was to encourage redevelopment and building in areas that might not otherwise draw the interest of developers.  What happened is that in order to compete for projects, municipalities are left with no negotiating power, the developers and their financial backers choosing only to build in towns where they can get the maximum PILOT.  Effectively, the PILOTs have turned into a huge pass-through of cash from local taxpayers to developers and their financial backers, as well as a way for former Abbott districts to hide their most valuable real estate from the state school funding formulas while collecting extra cash for municipal operations.  

Because PILOTs are statutory and every municipality plays by the same rules, this will not be fixed on a local level.  No municipality is going to unilaterally begin playing hardball with developers and denying PILOTs where they are legally allowed to exist.  It would be useless to do so.  The developer will just move on to a more accommodating town.  This needs to be fixed at the state level.  

The paradox of NJ development is that we have among the highest rents in the country, and yet our town (meaning South Orange) and many others still have large swaths of underused, obsolete, and even completely vacant property despite their willingness to give out tax abatements.  Based on the non-rush to develop downtown South Orange, other suburbs, and cities away from the Gold Coast, I think that developers aren't always bluffing when they say that a project won't "pencil" unless they get a tax break.  

I don't think that towns always grant a PILOT just to facilitate any development either.  Sometimes they give a PILOT so that a development meets a certain design standard or as a way to "pay" for parking that the development provides.  Sometimes a PILOT is given to induce affordable housing construction.  

Sometimes a PILOT isn't even a reduction in fees either and the PILOT payment will be just as high as ordinary taxes would have been, but with 95% of that money going to the municipality. Montclair and Jersey City are explicit that they structure PILOTs to channel money away from the county and towards the municipality.

The incentive developers get from the ability to charge high rents is negated by the country's highest property tax rates, above-average construction costs, and costly affordable housing set-asides.  

I agree with Rob_Sandow that a state solution is needed.  Fortunately Steve Sweeney is working on a bill that would divide PILOT fees the same way regular taxes are apportioned.  However, I think that tax reductions themselves are often appropriate or necessary.