Pleasantville City Council tables Lakes Bay Redevelopment | #citycouncil


Students from Leeds Avenue School in Pleasantville is representing New Jersey at the centennial National Christmas Tree display in Washington, D.C. Paper ornaments adorned with pictures of state symbols and landmarks, created by 24 students were selected to be placed on the display’s New Jersey tree.


PLEASANTVILLE — A development plan for the long-vacant site of the former high school has stalled because of concerns over tax breaks.

City Council voted Monday to table a 30-year financial agreement that had been the crux of the Lakes Bay Redevelopment plan. The setback for the development, Spyglass at Lakes Bay, came amidst a groundswell of opposition to the agreement’s proposed tax exemptions.

The majority of council left open the possibility that they would reconsider the agreement in 2023 when the new council session begins, but said they wanted to place it under review and study its impacts on the community.

Developer Sean Scarborough said council’s vote has left the future of his project uncertain.

The city had named Scarborough the developer in 2017, then designated him the redeveloper in a November, 2018 ordinance.

People are also reading…

“We just have to reassess now,” Scarborough said.

The proposed development is located between Bayview Avenue, Franklin Boulevard and Hampden Court. It would have six buildings with 180 one- and two-bedroom rental units priced at market rate, with amenities including a pool, clubhouse and gym. There is also a planned commercial component with restaurants along the nearby waterfront.

Opponents of the agreement and its defenders argued over the merits of the project for nearly five hours.

Residents largely expressed support of the project itself, but argued the proposed tax exemptions tied to the project were exploitative. It was not fair, they said, that the city should have to forgo normal tax revenue in order to attract developers.

“I believe this project could benefit the city greatly,” resident Tim Jones said. “My concern is absolutely one of tax fairness.”

Linda Carrington noted the disparate treatment between wealthy developers, who she argued do not have to pay full taxes to fund city services, and average residents, who she said rarely see tax relief or forgiveness.

“The plans are absolutely gorgeous, I absolutely get it, but I don’t get it at my expense,” Carrington said of the project. “I don’t get multimillion dollar corporations coming in paying little to no taxes for 30 years. Who does that? If I miss one sewer bill, you want to put a lien on my house.”

Rick Ginnetti, a consultant who advised the city on the financial agreement, defended the plan. The $378,000 the Spyglass would be scheduled to pay by the fifth year of the agreement would make the property the fifth largest revenue generator in the city, before accounting for the commercial development.

Absent the tax exemption offer, Ginnetti said, development was unlikely, resulting in less revenue coming into the city.

Scarborough told The Press that he is currently paying $9,800 in taxes for the vacant land.

Bill Christmas, a former councilman, supported the project.

“These developers, if you’re not going to offer them something, they’re going to go to the town that offers the PILOT,” Christmas said. “It’s the same deal. If you don’t give a little, you’re not going to get anything.”

Ginnetti said the struggle to bring development to the Bayview Avenue property had been a decades-long endeavor, beginning in the 1990s when Pleasantville High School vacated the area and moved to Mill Road. The decision to bring on the current developers, Ginnetti added, was not made in haste. The city had rejected several proposals over the year that were not offering high enough PILOTs or even demanding direct transfers as a subsidy to build. Other proposals were rejected because they offered exclusively affordable housing, which Ginnetti noted, would necessarily generate less revenue for the city than market-rate alternatives under state law.

Scarborough, also countered previous arguments made earlier in the month by school board members that the development would draw in more children without a proportional increase in revenue.

He said one- and two-bedroom units offered would not attract a significant number of households with school-age children.

Irvin Moreno-Rodriguez, a resident and local activist, said the city needed to consult more experts and conduct more research before it entered into the agreement. He cited a 2010 report from the Office of the state Comptroller that deemed tax abatements were used improperly in some cases. The report found the process for abatements was not transparent and excluded stakeholders such as residents, county governments and school districts. The report also criticized municipalities for bringing in developments that did not satisfy immediate community needs.

Several residents expressed concerns that the development would exclude low-income city residents, making Lakes Bay development an exclusive, upscale neighborhood unto itself. The economic benefits it generates, they argued, would be confined to area immediately surrounding the development, worsening intra-city inequality.

Steve Young, the president of the South Jersey branch of the National Action Network, was also critical of the plan. He asked that Scarborough enter into a community benefit agreement, or CBA – an arrangement between a developer and third-party community group whereby the former agrees to further tailor a project to community needs in exchange for the latter’s support.

Scarborough, however,  told Young that he would not consider a CBA. After the meeting, Scarborough noted that the project already involves rejuvenating the public land in front of the property, as well as the nearby waterfront.

The vote to table the agreement was 5-0. City Councilman Stanley Swan and City Council President Ricky Cistrunk abstained, with Swan warning that a decision to reject the deal could deter future investment in the neighborhood and city.

“If it just falls apart, just so you understand, I guarantee there’s no way anybody’s ever going to invest $40 million again in this city,” Swan said, sparking arguments from the people in the audience.

Cistrunk said that the PILOT programs can “move communities forward” and said the forgone revenue was worth ensuring the property was at least developed.

“Some of our money is better than a whole lot of none of our money,” Cistrunk said.

Mayor Judy Ward voiced support for the project. She said that implementing abatements, exemptions and PILOT regimes was routine in municipal governance and that it was a tool the city could use to capture much needed ratables and generate revenue.

“At what point do we just get ratables in here?” Ward said. “I just implore you to just know the whole story and figures and everything rather than think that we’re just giving everything away for no reason at all.”

Contact Chris Doyle

cdoyle@pressofac.com


Click Here For This Articles Original Source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *