Published in the Westfield Leader, Thursday, September 13, 2007 (from PDF)
PUBLIC NOTICE
UNION COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
ORDINANCE NO: 657-2007
INTRO: 9/6/2007
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following proposed Ordinance was introduced and passed on the first reading at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Union, New Jersey held on the 6th day of September 2007, and said Ordinance will be taken up for further consideration for final passage at a meeting of said
Board to be held at its meeting room in the Administration Building, Elizabeth, New Jersey, on the 27th day of September 2007, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as said matter can be reached, at which time and place all persons who may be interested therein will be given an opportunity to be heard concerning same.
A copy of this Ordinance has been posted on the Bulletin Board upon which public notices are customarily posted in the Union County Administration Building of the County of Union and a copy is available up to and including the time of such meeting to the members of the general public of the County who shall request such copies, at the Office
of the Clerk of the Board of Chosen Freeholders in said Administration Building, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Nicole L. DiRado, Clerk of the Board of Chosen Freeholders
ORDINANCE PROVIDING THE CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF UNION TO THE ISSUANCE BY THE UNION COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY OF ITS NOT TO EXCEED REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2007 (AFRICAN AMERICAN FUND OF NEW JERSEY PLAINFIELD PROJECT) IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $7,000,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUTHORITY’S PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Union County Improvement Authority (the “Authority”) has been duly created by an ordinance of the Board of Chosen Freeholders (the “Board of Freeholders”) of the County of Union, New Jersey (the “County”), as public body corporate and politic of the State of New Jersey (the “State”) pursuant to and in accordance with the county improvement authorities law, constituting Chapter 183 of the Pamphlet Laws of 1960 of the State, as amended and supplemented from time to time (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, The Torain Group on behalf of its Client, the Black United Fund or its affiliate or transferee has requested the Authority’s assistance in relation to the expansion of a pre-school facility in the City of Plainfield; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed its support for the Project in a letter from the Mayor dated August 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to finance the Project through the issuance of one or more series of Bonds (the “Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $7,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds shall have such other terms as set forth in those certain resolutions authorizing the issuance of the “Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (Black United Fund-Plainfield Project)” of the Union County Improvement Authority to be adopted by the Authority prior to the issuance of the Bonds (the “Bond Resolution”; the Bond Resolution, and any amendments or supplements thereto in accordance with the terms thereof may be collectively referred to as the “Bond Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, the principal of (including sinking fund installments, if any) and interest on the Bonds when due may be, if the Authority determines it to be in its best interest, insured by a municipal bond insurance company (the “Bond Insurer”) in accordance with the terms of a new issue municipal bond insurance policy (the “Bond Insurance Policy”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority shall make application to the Local Finance Board in the Division of Local Government Services of the Department of Community Affairs of the State (the “Local Finance Board”) for the Local Finance Board’s review of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority believes: (i) it is in the public interest to accomplish such purpose; (ii) said purpose is for the health, wealth, convenience or betterment of the inhabitants of the County; (iii) the amounts to be expended for said purpose are not unreasonable or exorbitant; and (iv) the proposal is an efficient and feasible means of providing services for the needs of the inhabitants of the County and will not create an undue financial burden to be placed upon the Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
OF THE COUNTY OF UNION, NEW JERSEY, as follows:
Section 1. In accordance with Section 13 and all other applicable law, the Board of Freeholders hereby consents to (i) the Project and the financing of same, (ii) the execution and delivery by the Authority of the Financing Documents and such other documents as necessary and reasonable for the transaction, which documents shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board prior to the issuance of any Bonds, (iii) the adoption by the Authority of the Bond Resolution, and (iv) the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds to effect such purpose. The consent hereto given to the Financing Documents contemplates the insertion of the final financing terms.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take at the time and in the manner provided by law.
Section 3. Upon the adoption hereof, the Clerk of the Board of Freeholders shall forward certified copies of this ordinance to the County Manager, County Counsel, Executive Director of the Authority, and John G. Hudak, Esq., Bond Counsel to the Authority.
1 T - 9/13/07, The Leader Fee: $131.58
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, July 20,2007
Setback for Newark condo project
Judge rules city failed to prove that the 14-acre site
on Mulberry Street is 'blighted'
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
A Superior Court judge in Essex County has dealt a major blow to a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark, saying the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment.
The 71-page decision, issued yesterday, cites the watershed state Supreme Court decision, Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, handed down earlier this year that limits the government's power to seize land.
In the Newark case, Judge Marie P. Simonelli said the city cannot designate the 14-acre Mulberry Street area "blighted" simply because the property could be used for better purposes. Property owners fought the designation, saying the area was still thriving and that they did not want their land to be seized through eminent domain.
"The court finds that the city declared the entire Mulberry Street area as an area in need of redevelopment solely because it is not properly utilized and fully productive," Simonelli said in her decision. "Under the Gallenthin holding, this declaration does not meet the constitutional requirement of blight and must be invalidated and set aside."
The decision puts the future of the condo project in jeopardy, though all parties involved disagreed on whether the project is dead or viable in an amended form. The Mulberry Street condo project, which was to be developed by the Newark Redevelopment Corp., is slated for a prime tract one block from the Prudential Center arena, scheduled to open in October.
Stefan Pryor, the deputy mayor in charge of economic development, said the Booker administration is analyzing the judge's decision and refused to say whether it will appeal.
"The outcome of the case will not affect the arena project," he said.
John Buonocore, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, declared the condo project dead.
"We are delighted that the court saw through this pre-arranged land grab on behalf of politically favored developers," Buonocore said. "The ruling sends a message to politicians across the state that the courts will not sustain economic development takings under the guise of the redevelopment laws."
Bruce J. Wishnia, one of the principals of Newark Redevelopment Corp., said the decision is a sad day for the city and the state. He said he is not sure what this means for the overall project.
"If the Mulberry Street area is not in need of redevelopment, then the court needs to tell us what kind of area would be," Wishnia said. "If this decision if not reversed, it will effectively shut the door on urban redevelopment in our state."
The Mulberry decision comes at a time when land and redevelopment issues are under intense public scrutiny in a city that has struggled for decades to rebuild itself.
One week ago, Sharpe James, who served as mayor for two decades, was indicted on charges he steered lucrative land deals to companion Tamika Riley. The property owners in the Mulberry case have long alleged political contributions from the developers swayed council members to vote in favor of declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
The judge concluded her opinion with a tart reference to James' criminal charges.
"This evidence certainly provides cause to question the results and validity of the redevelopment investigation," she said. "However, the court mentions it for historical purposes only and makes no determination of the merits of plaintiff's corruption claim. It appears that such a determination may be made in the recently initiated criminal proceedings involving former Mayor James."
The Mulberry Street Redevelopment project made its debut five years ago during James' administration. In November 2002, Wishnia and his partner, Emile Farina, a former aide to then Councilwoman Bessie Walker, pitched the idea to Nathan Allen, director of the city's Department of Economic and Housing Development.
Plans called for the Newark Redevelopment Corp. to negotiate with property owners for their land. If negotiations failed, the developers planned to ask the city to use its condemnation powers to seize those properties.
According to Simonelli's ruling, there is no evidence any negotiations took place.
Instead, she said, the city pursued an investigation into declaring the area in need of redevelopment, paving the way for condemnation.
In her decision, Simonelli leveled stinging criticism at the snug relationship between developers and officials in the city. Attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with Wishnia and Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when they were making critical decisions about the project, according to the plaintiffs.
"There is evidence in the present case that the Mulberry Street Redevelopment project and NRC's role as its developer was "a done deal," a fait accompli, before the required statutory redevelopment process began," Simonelli said.
City-hired planner David Roberts issued a report in April 2004 declaring the area in need of redevelopment because the parking lots, storage yards and businesses in the area "consumes land that could otherwise be available for much more productive uses."
But Simonelli faulted Roberts' report, saying it lacked empirical evidence to support his conclusions.
On Oct. 14, 2004, the planning board passed a resolution recommending the city declare the Mulberry Street area in need of redevelopment. The city council agreed and on Nov. 3, 2004, it passed a resolution declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
Katie Wang may be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
