OP-ED: Cary Heller Discusses Town Redevelopment

The following article was written by New Jersey Developer Cary Heller in response to the many articles, editorials and blogs about him and the affiliate companies' objection to, and subsequent appeal of, the planning board and Superior Court decisions affecting the redevelopment of Block 228 in Bloomfield. --  Bloomfield Joint Venture and Bloomfield Transit Villages

On behalf of the several opposition entities, I have not commented while the developer Mr. William Colgan and Mayor Raymond McCarthy have personally challenged my reputation with misleading and inaccurate comments. I have never been a rival or competing developer for development on Block 228. My interest three years ago was to propose a redevelopment plan utilizing  municipal parking lots located at blocks 225 and 227, which the Bloomfield Parking Authority's attorney Joe Bauman deemed "too expensive" for Bloomfield to partner with us.  Mr. Colgan's project was moved forward on Block 228 with substantially more cost and with less benefit to the town, but it was the Bloomfield Council's choice.  There was no competition; each project was independent of the other. I have no issue with not being selected for my proposed project.  Block 228 is worthy of redevelopment and, if done properly, will improve the downtown. 

Mr. Colgan has tarnished his own reputation with name-calling and trying to convince the public of his incorrect vision of downtown planning on behalf of his development entity. His most recent ramblings include that I am "corrupting the system for personal gain" and my appeal is a "contemptuous act."  Is Bill Colgan feeling worthy of those comments or is he speaking of himself? The public has been misled by Mr. Colgan and Mayor McCarthy, and their misrepresentations will lead people to see what they have done for their very own personal or political gains. I have nothing to gain but the truth, transparent government and proper downtown planning. 

I hope to see the completion of Mr. Colgan's project on Block 228 in a method utilizing good planning, responsible fiscal management and consideration toward all property owners and visitors to the downtown. 

Watch the video and read the article that was posted June 13, 2011, on Baristanet.com titled "Will Bloomfield Redevelopment Create a Traffic Nightmare?" which may be found at  http://www.baristanet.com/2011/06/will-bloomfield-redevelopment-create-a-traffic-nightmare/, for short descriptions of what is wrong with this project. There is much more. I support the completion of a project on Block 228, but not what Bloomfield has approved. The premise of any new real-estate development project should be to improve the streetscape, increase ratables, parking and traffic, but not at the expense of the future use of the downtown.

Am I holding up the redevelopment project or is the developer, who is asking for generous handouts and requiring a density of construction that is excessive and obscenely expensive?  Do note, the only holdups, delays and false starts to date are Bloomfield and developer caused. It was not until last month that the project received its final, amended, site-plan approvals.

Bloomfield and the developer continue to negotiate agreements necessary to start the project. Environmental cleanup and Parking Authority debt-bonding issues remain unresolved. Financial issues continue to burden Bloomfield's commitment, as the net result of this project will be a financial deficit to the taxpayers. Bloomfield has already started paying interest on the parking deck's $12.4 million loan. The deck has to be constructed before the retail and residential can be built. This project is up to three years away from being completed and close to four years away from being fully occupied if successful in leasing.  

Did anyone notice the backdoor attempt by the developer to add another 20,000 square feet of retail at the amended site plan approval hearing in May 2012?  Although legally required, Mr. Colgan did not include the 20,000 square feet in his plans nor did he provide a proper legal notice to neighbors or the newspaper.  Imagine 20,000 more square feet of retail space without parking and without anyone being informed. The developer and mayor knew of this change, but did not feel the need to offer information to the public. We learned of this additional space and made it public. The developer withdrew his application for this space at the planning board meeting, but approval for many more bedrooms was passed.

Bloomfield used its own traffic, parking and planning experts to approve its own redevelopment project; because of this, there are multiple violations of municipal zoning ordinances, overreliance on municipal handouts and no vetting by independent planners and engineers.

For that matter, the same law firm represents Bloomfield at the Parking Authority; and as redevelopment counsel to the Township Council; condemnation counsel, of the Haberman property; and defense counsel for the lawsuit. Four separate lawyers from the same law firm. Perhaps a conflict of interest, but certainly a conflict of "different perspectives of development"; a terrible job by Bloomfield officials in not vetting competing municipal interests by different boards. Should the Parking Authority and Town Council always be in agreement? I think not.

Here are some facts to consider:

• This project is being built at enormous cost to the taxpayers, including monstrous land costs by the Parking Authority and mind boggling subsidies to the developer. 

• There are over 110 retail, ground-level street-parking lot spaces that are being removed and replaced in a new parking garage that has its parking spaces allocated to this new project.

• This new project will over-utilize parking lots throughout the town, and building owners will have nowhere to put prospective tenants as existing buildings fill up. 

• The changes to Washington, Lackawanna and Farrand streets and the access to the streets under the train's bridges will be forever changed.  A new one-way street, offset intersections, narrowed streets and blind turns will not be an improvement to traffic flow.

• Because Lackawanna Street is being narrowed rather than widened, the street in front of the train station will be so congested that commuters, parkers, trucks or vehicles will not be able to pass through the street during peak periods.

Bloomfield will only have a better project if the developer is forced to modify his plan, or by having the courts require the same. If delaying  — not stopping — the project is necessary for this to occur, I support that in filing the appeal. Bloomfield developed along the train 150 years ago; this is a rare opportunity to again improve upon the original design. Let's not mess it up.

Let's improve the streetscape — how about some green space? There is less than current — increase ratables, make the area pedestrian-friendly, and develop around the train station with buildings and parking supply that is in scale with our streets.  Supermarkets and large trucks should not be what downtown Bloomfield becomes.  Better is good, bigger is not always better, but the betterment to the many, far exceeds the financial perks for the few.   

My group does not win anything by prevailing in court. Bloomfield and the developer would just go back to the planning board and correct their mistakes and come back with a better plan. This was an option over a year ago when our concerns were brought to the table. 

For those who do not know, Bloomfield is at risk for a lot more debt and the possible loss of the redevelopment project. Bloomfield just initiated a condemnation action to take the strip of property in front of the railroad station from Daval Associates. Not only is there a cost of over $1 million at stake to Bloomfield in purchasing the property — more debt — but it may lose the lawsuit and have to restart the redevelopment process over again. There is a portion of that corner that is included in the redevelopment plan of Block 228 that Bloomfield may not own.

The Block 228 redevelopment project is a beneficiary of a PILOT tax program.  PILOT — payment in lieu of taxes — programs are good incentives for cities to dedicate more tax dollars to the municipal budget, eliminating the Board of Education and County of Essex tax contribution. I would be enticed to make use of the same benefit, if available.

What has not been released to the public is that the grossly expensive purchase of 1.75 acres of land on Block 228 by the Bloomfield Parking Authority and Bill Colgan in the amount of $13,148,200, plus millions more in soft costs, now needs an enormous tax subsidy. The PILOT contribution is to be reduced to $1,400 per year for each apartment unit —  should be $3,000 per year — a reduction in taxes to the town in the amount of $358,400 per year for 30 years. This additional subsidy is needed because of the massive debt expended to acquire the property.

Also, note Bloomfield has lost roughly $150,000 per year, for multiple years, in real-estate taxes from the demolished buildings on Block 228.  This loss has not been included in the net loss on the income and expense of this project by the Parking Authority. Bloomfield has lost those tax dollars when calculating the cash flow of this project. This lost revenue is not included in the Parking Authority's income and expense budget.

Last, a little history:

Over eight years ago, I tried to stop the massive, ill-conceived Forest City redevelopment project which included many awful features, the worst being an elevated, second-floor supermarket of some 60,000 square feet  extending from Bloomfield Avenue decking across Farrand Street. I urged Bill Colgan at meetings to not continue his support for this project, but he refused.

Note, this Forest City project was shelved because Bloomfield leaders did not follow development procedures properly, ultimately ending with Bloomfield paying $5.5 million to Forest City for terminating their redevelopment contract with  Bloomfield. There are two people around Bloomfield who were part of this financial disaster, Bill Colgan and Mayor McCarthy.

I am a real estate developer. My most recent project was the Panera, PNC Bank, Smashburger property in Glen Ridge and Montclair. Anyone who knows me professionally in Essex County knows that my involvement in downtowns is about making the streetscape and downtown business community friendly to pedestrians, cars and shoppers. Another example of a project I was involved in is South Orange: Come take a look under the train station and see what I helped create.

Mr. Colgan and the mayor say that my group is holding up this project. The arrogance of the developer and the mismanagement of this project by the Parking Authority, Town Council and primarily the mayor is not only a cause of the financial mess, but an embarrassment to the community. As to the merits of the more material objections to the project, I will be pleased to discuss in detail at a later date.  There is so much wrong with how this project was approved. Bloomfield residents are the only ones who can really correct the problems. 

--Cary Heller

July 26, 2012