Dear Editor:
As we enter the summer months before a more specific discussion of the issues come the fall, it's a good time to look back on the accomplishments we've had as a community in the worst of economic times.
After years of controversy and litigation, EnCap is finally behind North Arlington.
The construction of Arlington Valley will not happen and homeowners have beaten down the challenge to urbanize this community into an extension of Hudson County.
It is a battle that has retained our small town character.
More specifically, the Porete Avenue business community was saved and the application of eminent domain averted. Most importantly, the construction of low income housing has been stopped and North Arlington now controls it's own economic destiny.
This battle was fought and won on a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues joining the Massa Administration in simply doing what was right.
We continue to work hard with state officials to secure funding in lieu of diminishing host fees from solid waste operations.
Earlier this year, this council secured $800,000 in state funding to make-up for the temporary closing of the baler facility we're working hard to re-open. This is a priority for North Arlington and we've worked closely with Commissioner Joseph Doria of the Department of Community Affairs as well as Senator Paul Sarlo to make this a reality.
Planning for a better North Arlington continues to move forward.
Our discussions with the state's Department of Transportation (DOT) to improve Ridge Road as well as our Visioning Committee as to what to do with our Meadowlands parcels is the kind of transparent and responsible long range planning needed to keep North Arlington economic competitive in terms of jobs, commerce and quality-of-life issues necessary to keep this community small, safe and suburban.
As finance chairman, we had to make tough choices in terms of spending to keep property taxes stabilized.
When voters defeated the school budget on April 21st, this council once again was joined by my Republican colleagues to cut spending some $360,000 to produce a "zero" tax increase on the school side of the property tax ledger. Note that 70% of a homeowner's tax bill is derived from school spending. The Massa Administration has once again sided with homeowners to reduce spending without cutting vital school services.
That's the kind of leadership voters expect in rough economic waters!
As of this writing, we applied for $600,000 in Extraordinary Aid to assist us in fixing these inherited budget woes. My goal is to reduce spending as best we can so that we can provide the greatest service value at the lowest possible cost.
While these challenges have been monumental, North Arlington is better off today than it was yesterday. While battling problems both big & small, we continue to make the necessary investment in infrastructure to maintain our property values and the kind of community we all have come to love and enjoy.
We refurbished Allan Park in 2008 and the Little League Field in 2009. We just completed the renovation of Vincent Macaluso Memorial Park. We're in the process of renovating the Fischer Field playground and are in the final stages of modernizing and rehabilitating the North Arlington Library. While other communities are cutting municipal investment, we're maintaining our commitment to parks, playgrounds and the library through responsible management and disciplined leadership on a bipartisan basis!
Not only did we continue this commitment to infrastructure improvement, but the borough is now in the process of developing the proper specifications to purchase a new senior bus on top of the new fire truck purchased earlier this year for our dedicated volunteer firefighters.
Strategic planning and the ability to identify needs is what governing at the local level is all about.
Aside from our continued commitment to street resurfacing and Streetscape, all of this work is being done with no increase in taxes in 2008 and a commitment to stabilize the rate again in 2009!
Governing in tough times can be a lonely endeavor.
This is a governing body that had to make tough choices in collective bargaining and say "no" more than just once. At the same time, we kept our commitment to services and the important quality-of-life issues that makes North Arlington more affordable and more attractive than many like communities in the region.
Both of us are proud of these accomplishments knowing full well there is so much left to do.
But this record of putting taxpayers first is a solid record of achievement and we look forward to working with you in the months ahead to continue to keep North Arlington on the right track in good times as well as bad.
Sincerely,
Council President Al Granell
Councilman Sal DiBlasi
The authors are members of the North Arlington Mayor & Council.
The following is the opinion of an unsigned author:
Who's going to take responsibility for poor performance?
The obvious answer to this question is educators and administrators. In other words, the teachers and the Board of Education. What the citizens of North Arlington often fail to realize is that these two groups rarely cooperate nor agree on what is best for our #1 concern: the success of our students.
Who, then, has the power to improve our schools? PARENTS AND RESIDENTS of North Arlington, of course!
We now have Board members whose children no longer attend NA public schools (Editor's note: at least three current board members have children in the system), who never had children in the school system, or worse: members who play a very minimal, cooperative role in their child’s education, yet still claim the right to criticize and control it. Public attendance at Board Meetings is pathetic, and unless parents and knowledgeable citizens take an active interest in the success of our children, our school system will continue to fail. As a result, North Arlington’s students will be denied the opportunity of a respectable future.
North Arlington is the lowest-paying school district in the entire county of Bergen regarding teacher salary (Editor's note: New Jersey pays the highest teachers salaries in the country and Bergen County pays the highest teacher salaries in the state of New Jersey) Research local salary guides and pay scales, and the mystery of why our test scores are weak is as plain as day. How can you attract highly qualified educators with such low incentive? Teachers know that their profession is not a lucrative one, but when faced with the decision of where to teach, why in the world would a trained educator choose North Arlington?
Salary is a complex issue that requires an in depth, unbiased examination of facts and statistics, so for the sake of time we will address that notion at another point in the near future.
Let’s consider the other factors that would cause an intelligent and talented person to choose employment with the NABOE. Appreciation for their dedication and endless workload would be nice. Feeling valued and knowing that the community is grateful for their altruistic motives would be a great incentive. Recognition from the Board of Education for teachers’ commitment to the community and enthusiasm for their students would be perfect.
Ask an NA teacher the last time they received compensation of that nature?
Working conditions, educational resources, technology, and family support are just a few of the other reasons a teacher takes into consideration when seeking employment.
The school buildings are outdated and uncomfortable, at times even hazardous to the health of both teachers and students.Working materials such as textbooks, novels, school supplies, and classroom tools are in low supply.
Those that exist are dilapidated and old. Despite the recent addition of electronic whiteboards, working computers are scarce and desperately outdated. The majority of parents are eager to voice an opinion, but ask a teacher the last time a parent volunteered their assistance, and you may be surprised. Instilling a respect for education at home? A rare exception here in NA. Medical Benefits. NA teachers pay an average of $150 a month for prescription and dental. Eye care is minimal if at all.
The list could go on and on, but I think the point here is clear. Under these conditions, with students understandably apathetic and distracted, what experienced teacher would choose North Arlington Schools as an employer?
Until salaries increase, buildings replaced or renovated, and curriculum tools updated; until parents actively support their children’s schools and teachers; until the Board of Education realizes its responsibility to keep the students’ best interests in mind….success is unlikely.
It takes talented teachers to inspire today’s overly stimulated youth, and very few are willing to work under these conditions.
UNSIGNED
The Editors respond:
We appreciate all opinion, no matter how self- serving and misguided!
You would think working in the North Arlington school system was the equivalent for time served in San Quentin!
The author fails to point out many facts to make the case that because teachers are underpaid, children cannot learn.
Where is the evidence between student performance and teacher salaries?
The first question is when was the last time a tenured teacher resigned? Teachers rarely leave the district. Secondly, if teacher pay is so awful, why would they take a job in the first place? Why are there so many applicants for a single teaching position? North Arlington has no shortage of people who want to work in this system.
The premise of the author is that teachers are never to blame for the failure of a school district to excel, or a student to learn. That it must be the lack of money (NA is now spending over $20M to educate about 1,600 children. That's about $12,500 per pupil).
How much more is needed to provide sound education?
It sounds to us the author is a disgruntled employee or a former employee of the district.
What exactly did Donald Trump get right ("Trump got it right when it came to EnCap")?
The universal assessment that the state did not offer the kind of oversight necessary for the project to come to fruition? The fact that the Meadowlands Commission never sought a single competitive bid for the remediation? That for the most part EnCap was handed the project idea on a silver platter?
Columnist Mike Kelly fails to acknowledge that the people of North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford had little say in the formulation of this project. The people did not choose EnCap. There was never any support for the transformation of a region to become the most densely populated residential corridor in New Jersey.
The urbanization of the Meadowlands was marketed under the guise of golf courses, destination resorts and a remediation that is not possible. The reality is that the EnCap debacle has set back the course of redevelopment for decades, and the real objective here was to construct tens of thousands of new homes we never wanted in the first place.
There is nothing right about EnCap and certainly nothing new in the Trump interest in this redevelopment nightmare.
Al Granell, Borough Councilman
I am writing to you to request an immediate legislative investigation into the EnCap redevelopment matter in the Meadowlands of Bergen County. The EnCap debacle has reached a critical point in its evolution - a point at which only someone of your stature can be relied upon to unravel. I am respectfully asking you to make good on a pre-Election Day statement to investigate EnCap on behalf of the taxpayers of New Jersey.
As you know, this project has been mired in controversy for several years. There are grave concerns about the quality of the environmental work done to remediate the old landfills upon which homes and golf courses are to be built. There are published reports suggesting that state environmental officials were pressured to relax environmental standards for the developers.
Just as troubling, Senator, is the amount of public money that has been poured into this controversial project and the apparent lack of financial safeguards for taxpayers. As a councilman, I know firsthand how our taxpayers are suffering because of the overblown promises made by EnCap and the lack of third party review by the state, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission or -- sadly - even local governments. Upwards of $300 million of taxpayer money is at risk and there has been little or no oversight from the state watchdogs who are supposed to be protect-ing taxpayers, but appear to be more concerned about protecting EnCap. Again, published reports indicate that state- backed loans and grants were made through the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust and the Bergen County Improvement Authority over the objections of state officials who considered EnCap to be too risky of a proposition.
I believe, as I am sure you do, that EnCap must come under more scrutiny. In a published report in the Record newspaper on Sept. 22, 2007 you and Sen. Paul Sarlo agreed that taxpayer money needs to be protected and that a legislative investigation into EnCap is warranted. You and Sen. Sarlo said we would have to wait until after the leg-islative elections were completed to conduct that investigation. Senator, the elections are over and the EnCap picture is getting more clouded with the emergence of Donald Trump as a player in this drama. I believe it is indeed time for you -as one of the most powerful and respected members of the state legislature - to put the state’s investigative forces to work to protect the health and pocketbooks of the New Jersey residents.
Those who live in the Meadowlands not only need a legislative investigation, but we need you as the Senate President to call on Mary Jane Cooper to immediately release the findings of her 10 month long investigation into EnCap. And we need the Attorney General to look into the published allegations that EnCap benefited from political favoritism in Trenton.
The people of my community have lived under the thumb of EnCap for more than six years. We know all too well the political machinations that have allowed this boondoggle to fester and grow over the objections of local residents. Our concerns about this project are being proven correct with each new report about EnCap. I know you are a man of integrity who has the courage to look into the EnCap debacle and to make those responsible for this boondoggle accountable to the law and to the taxpayers. I pledge my full cooperation to you for any information you need for the legislative investigation.
Council President Steven A. Tanelli
Revelations about Donald Trump assuming control of the Encap debacle are good news for the communities of North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford.
The fallout of EnCap has been nothing short of a political disaster for elected officials who have struggled with the repercussions of a project that has raised property taxes at a horrendous pace.
The people of North Arlington may oppose EnCap, but they despise high taxes. This year's election results were a direct result of the sins of EnCap. Compound that with a lack of state aid and a fundamental shift in state dollars from direct aid to municipalities to property tax rebates, and this is the net effect of such a dubious course of action.
The public needs confidence and comfort in a developer it knows and, to some degree, trusts. The Trump brand cleanses the project of the EnCap label and begins the process of restoring some semblance of public confidence in something that never should have been allowed to spin out of control.
Let the lesson of EnCap be that state officials don't know what's best for local municipalities. The tail cannot wag the dog.
Al Granell
The choices in the race for North Arlington council are crystal clear and the best choice for voters is Councilman Philip Spanola and Councilman Mark Yampaglia.
In 2006, voters changed course by electing anti-EnCap, anti-eminent domain and anti-low income housing candidates in Mayor Peter Massa and his running mates Sal DiBlasi and Albert Granell. Since coming to office, incumbents Spanola and Yampaglia have supported Massa's efforts to void the EnCap agreement.
In clear contrast, the Republicans inexplicably support EnCap, despite the fact the entire project is unraveling before our eyes.
The EnCap proposal has become a boondoggle of the largest proportions. There is now bipartisan support for a complete investigation of this development travesty, yet Republicans Joe Bianchi and Richard Hughes think working with this controversial and unreliable developer is somehow still a goof idea.
Moreover, these local Republicans fail to address the simple fact that property taxes will rise this year because of the problems they created and Democrats inherited.
For 22 years, the Republicans ran North Arlington. They increased property taxes seven consecutive times. They squandered nearly $45 million dollars in temporary landfill fees and indebted the community to the tune of nearly $20 million. During this time, Bianchi and Hughes supported these fiscal policies without question, nor hesitation.
Spanola and Yampaglia are qualified and competent to serve as members of the borough's governing body. Both are college graduates. Both have lived in North Arlington nearly all of their lives.
Spanola has served as council president and acting mayor. He is a retired Jersey City police officer and former consumer fraud investigator. He has served as a member of the North Arlington Zoning Board, as well as serving as a member of the North Arlington Board of Education.
Yampaglia is a lifelong resident and law school graduate.
Meanwhile, Republicans want to urbanize North Arlington into an extension of Jersey City and Hudson County. Bianchi and Hughes want to foil Massa's plans to put North Arlington on the right track. They want to disrupt the unity and harmony that currently exists on the council with infighting and gridlock. They are committed to making sure Massa fails in his bid to stop EnCap now.
Let's keep North Arlington moving forward with the right team supporting the mayor. That team is Phil Spanola and Mark Yampaglia.
Ken Ludviksen, president, North Arlington Democratic Club
The Record's Columnist Mike Kelly's broadside on North Arlington's elected officials was aimed at the wrong target.
I have opposed the EnCap Golf Holdings agreement for years. I opposed the 2006 municipal budget that depended upon dollars from EnCap to balance our books because I knew it was an irresponsible ploy to give former Mayor Russell Pitman an election advantage.
In addition, I authored and sponsored the borough's vote on a proposal to block use of eminent domain for EnCap's benefit. The voters overwhelmingly supported that question, 4-1.
Kelly is right to be concerned about EnCap and the financial mess it has created. Unfortunately, he should be leveling his sights at the state and the legislators who backed this project from its inception. He should be probing the backroom deals that turned this project from a golf destination to a high-density, pie-in-the sky housing development.
We lobbied state government for emergency aid to get us through this difficult period. We were denied.
We don't want to raise taxes. But neither do we want to continue with financial gimmicks that will only dig us deeper in debt and delay the day of reckoning.
Newspaper columnists ask for elected officials to demonstrate political courage and tell the truth. We have done that in North Arlington. Now we are being criticized for doing the right thing. That's unfortunate.
Steve Tanelli
Regarding The Record's Columnist Mike Kelly's assumptions about North Arlington's budget process and battle with EnCap in "Apathetic N. Arlington voters accept tax increase":
The current Borough Council voided the EnCap Golf Holdings contract negotiated by our predecessors. It also stopped the use of eminent domain that would have allowed EnCap to acquire properties of people unwilling to sell. I can say with a great degree of confidence that this action prevented the random overdevelopment of North Arlington.
It is important to note this tax increase was no surprise. The voters have been kept in the loop with letters by Mayor Peter Massa, as well as a town meeting attended by nearly 500 residents May 1.
No elected official wants to raise taxes. North Arlington's revenue gap was caused directly by the negotiated agreement we voided. Those responsible for that course of action were removed by the voters last June in a Democratic primary battle.
Kelly has the right to an opinion about our finances and the battle with EnCap. He doesn't have the right to suggest this governing body somehow endorsed EnCap when facts clearly suggest the exact opposite.
Albert Granell
Residential development for the sake of development will not lead to North Arlington's remaining a small, suburban community ("Developers hope North Arlington will OK project with fewer units," Page L-3, Sept. 4).
Having served on the governing body for some 10 months, I believe one thing is absolutely certain: North Arlington homeowners reject more housing.
Morton Street Holdings has failed thus far to make the case for developing a site on Belleville Avenue with 42 residential units, a project in which this community has little or no interest. The issue isn't how much housing, but rather a general consensus that the community embraces non-housing alternatives that do not create strains on an already strained municipal budget.
Residential development is the most expensive form of ratable because of the municipal services it requires. The Belleville Avenue property is zoned for commercial use. That intent remains. No one in North Arlington is seeking to change the status of the property except the developers themselves.
If the developers have been watching with any real interest the battle with EnCap Golf Holdings, they already know another proposal for housing is the last thing North Arlington wants to consider.
Albert Grannell
The awkward and poorly managed supposition that hiring a public relations firm to level the playing field as it applies to North Arlington’s ongoing battle with EnCap did little to clarify the cost or the need (Town spends up to $44,000 a year for PR).
The inference that a $44,000 expenditure has anything to do with this year’s significant tax hike is simply uninformed.
More importantly, there remains a strong suggestion that North Arlington is being frivolous with tax dollars in the face of a tax crisis we inherited and did not create as a governing body.
Rather than analyze last year’s phony municipal tax decrease or the two-decade embedded fiscal policy of applying temporary host fees to an ever swelling municipal operation, continues to go untold. Tax hikes like the one we face this year has nothing to do with a $44,000 expenditure. It has everything to do with institutional deficit financing and the squandering of millions and millions in temporary landfill fees.
This is a classic example of some uninformed bureaucrat bending over for a proverbial penny while dollars continue to fly overhead.
Please, let’s just stop telling just a portion of the story.
North Arlington’s operating municipal budget is nearly $20 million. The amount of $44,000 represents about $120 a day in spending out of the some $54,794 a day it takes to operate this municipality. To put this expenditure into perspective, this contract represents 0.2 percent of all spending in this budget.
Given the actual cost, how can anyone suggest hiring a professional firm in the face of the EnCap media machine didn’t make sense?
What makes this issue all the more ironic, this paper’s sister publication (The Record of Hackensack) reported in April of this year that EnCap Holdings expended $1.6 million in lobbying assistance including a contract with Princeton Public Affairs, one of the state’s most politically influential lobbying firms. In addition, EnCap spent some $13 million in various professional services like a PR firm while securing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to push a project my community adamantly opposes.
Where is the outrage when it comes to EnCap’s purchased political influence and checkbook journalism tactics? How about the fact that EnCap has donated over $300,000 to various elected officials including $22,000 to local Republicans here in North Arlington? One can make the case that EnCap’s money is nothing more than tax dollars from the state of New Jersey.
How come these facts are never scrutinized?
EnCap Holdings purchased tens of thousands of dollars in newspaper advertising as well as cable ads. Can the South Bergenite truly be objective considering the fact this paper financially prospered by those media placements and expenditures promoting Arlington Valley?
EnCap Holdings according to the same investigative report has expended nearly $9 million in legal fees while North Arlington is facing fiscal catastrophe because of the lopsided agreement that my predecessors endorsed along with EnCap’s enablers in the state Legislature. How can any reasonable person not come to the conclusion that given the infinite resources of our adversary, that the hiring of an expert to defend our point of view was not a responsible investment in retaining the character of North Arlington?
While North Arlington was forced to beg for state assistance only to receive one third of its urgent request of $1.5 million, how does EnCap Holdings secure over $300 million in state awards and loans? While North Arlington and Rutherford only received a fraction of their state aid requests, EnCap now is teetering on default while North Arlington has been mired in litigation and lawsuits directly created by the EnCap fiasco.
Why was it that this state budget, some $33.5 billion in spending failed to fully fund extraordinary aid? In fiscal 2006 extraordinary aid was funded to the tune of $14.6 million. This year funding decreased some $9 million and assistance was limited to just 22 municipalities out of a possible 536 here in New Jersey.
As an elected official, I welcome public inquiries that seek to weed out waste and other inefficiencies. What I object is haphazard reporting that suggests a scenario far different than the political and fiscal reality North Arlington taxpayers have been subjected thanks to the incompetence of those who somehow thought shoving EnCap Holdings down the throat of homeowners was a good idea.
The hard reality is that North Arlington has gone it alone and continues to go it alone as it applies to the damage caused by EnCap. No one has come to our aid or assistance.
That’s a reality many conveniently ignore each and everyday.
Councilman Al Granell
To the Editor:
Should local government officials opposed to a project no one supports be held accountable for the actions of those no longer in office?
That is the question state officials should be asking themselves when they evaluate the merits of North Arlington’s plea for financial assistance from Trenton as it applies to our 2007 municipal budget.
As a councilman, I cannot be held accountable for the financial practices of the past that led to unbridled application of temporary host fees to articifically keep the municipal tax rate the same. This administration should not be held accountable for the deficit financing practices of the past that saw our long-term debt swell to unprecedented numbers despite the millions we continued to receive from landfill operations.
Because no one ever anticipated the day host fees would end and landfill operations would cease, North Arlington finds itself scrambling to get out of a bad agreement no one supports while trying to figure out just how to stabilize revenues without a severe tax hike that will impact every homeowner.
Mayor Massa has taken the bold step of voiding the current agreement, and the time to develop a plan the community can accept is first and foremost on my mind.
North Arlington’s application for state aid must be approved to avert such a financial disaster. I can’t think of a community more in need of state assistance given the circumstances surrounding our finances. This is not a political issue, but an issue of economic survival for thousands of seniors on fixed incomes who cannot afford a spike in the local tax levy.
Last year, the previous administration cut the tax rate on the premise a deal with EnCap would be approved. But now we learn otherwise. Only Mayor Peter Massa and Councilman Steve Tanelli had the foresight at the time to reject that budget and vote no. Since then, this governing body is united in preventing Arlington Valley while seeking responsible alternatives that do not include a random overdevelopment, eminent domain or low-income housing.
While our financial future rests in the hands of the state of New Jersey and the Governor’s office, we now learn that phase one conversion of Rutherford and Lyndhurst will now increase more than $70 million! The cost now to remediate these landfills is closing in on nearly $200 million, and some government agencies may claim the whole project in financial default based on these higher costs!
So if the developer in question can increase the cost of remediation some $70 million in which taxpayers will flip the bill, can Gov. Corzine and the legsislature see fit to approve a $750,000 in a one-time request for help here in North Arlington in a state budget that exceeds $33 billion in spending?
Can the state see fit to approve our application for Extraordinary Aid given the extraordinary and unforseen financial burden this project will have on all homeowners? Isn’t it obvious North Arlington’s financial condition has been in part created by the problems of this over ambitious project?
In 2005, then Sen. Jon Corzine came to North Arlington seeking to become our next governor. He campaigned door to door at the Ridge Park Apartments and worked closely with many of the elected officials here in the community who are feeling the pain of no financial assistance. The voters of North Arlington overwhelmingly supported Sen. Corzine, as well as Sen. Sarlo and Assembly members Schaer and Scalera.
The time has come for Gov. Corzine to come back to North Arlington and hear our plea for help. The problems we face today were inherited, not created by this governing body. I’m hopeful that those of us who fought so long to do the right thing will somehow not be penalized for circumstances far beyond our own control. In the end, the only thing that will accomplish is higher taxes that were supposed to be stabilized by property tax reform that can only happen thorugh direct financial assistance of the State of New Jersey.
Councilman Al Granell
Borough of North Arlington
State Sen. Paul Sarlo's decision to join us here in North Arlington to put a stop to the proposed EnCap project is welcome news .
The people of North Arlington have never embraced or endorsed this ill-conceived plan to squeeze 1,625 units of housing here in the borough without a clue as to the overall impact on roads, schools and other essential services.
The myth that North Arlington would be appropriately compensated has been smashed once and for all. Those who were duped into believing this project was in the borough's best interests failed either to read the agreement or understand the details of a proposal that is nothing more than a house of cards!
Even more to the point is the public's complete dissatisfaction with a proposal that mandates use of eminent domain seizure as well as the construction of low-income housing that is overwhelmingly opposed by the community. In short, there is nothing about EnCap or the proposal that benefits North Arlington in a positive fashion.
What is disturbing to me as a homeowner and elected official is the way we've been treated as a governing body and community. For months we have had no contact from this developer except in the way of lawsuits and litigation.
As a resident of North Arlington, I am proud of the fight we have waged despite the initial opposition from all levels of government that should have been protecting North Arlington versus enabling a project no one ever wanted in the first place.
Steve Tanelli
North Arlington Councilman
Did anyone read the Leader Editorial published on 2/8/07 “When it comes to EnCap, just give us the facts?”
I usually look forward to their editorials, often finding myself in agreement, or at least appreciate reading another viewpoint. However, this one turned out to be just a bunch of sour grapes (and I think) a heavy dose of false hope!
I was surprised that the Leader condemned the actions of a major newspaper’s reporting staff for having researched EnCap’s wheelings and dealings, and bringing their findings to the public’s eye. I would have thought the Leader would applaud such actions!
Many in the three affected communities have been concerned about how the PILOT would be paid; we worried why there was such a push to add more and more housing. The Bergen Record is showing us WHY!
I know for a fact that Mr. Pillets and his associates have been involved in researching EnCap’s dealings for well over a year. I don’t know if they knew when they started they would expose how the developer was planning to fleece New Jersey’s taxpayers, but that’s the path it’s taken. Therefore, suggesting that the Bergen Record’s efforts is little more than a “what if scenario” was both mean-spirited and unprofessional, as is the suggestion that the Leader Newspaper could not answers to their phone calls!
While the Leader’s editorial included vague references such as “there’s a project in Newark” and “another project in Edgewater” – they seem to present a performance surety underwritten by AIG (for the $211M in bonding by the NJEIT) as a sort of Holy Grail complete with the quote “as answers come in, you’ll see articles in the Leader.”
Hasn’t the Leader noticed that the cost of the project now hovers between $750M and $950M? Didn’t the Leader think that maybe the $211M was already identified as an amount that is at least backed by insurance? Didn’t the Leader’s Editor think that other major insurers might have checked to see if EnCap (or its parent company or subsidiaries) was seeking to cover additional large amounts?
Further, while a small-town-newspaper can afford to make vague references, it doesn’t appear that the Bergen Record has had that same luxury. Their articles are complete with quotes from a myriad of state officials and leading lawmakers from BOTH political parties.
I was particularly disappointed in how the Leader Editor concluded their editorial stating, “The EnCap deals that are in place with Lyndhurst and Rutherford still appear to protect the local taxpayers even if something is amiss at the state level, or if the entire project tanks” ……Are we to believe this is true because the $211M from the NJEIT (known of since 2005) is backed by AIG?
Kerry Ann Gennace
North Arlington
Thank you for taking a tough stand on the lack of oversight the state of New Jersey provides when it comes to out-of-control development proposals like EnCap ("An uncapped comptroller: Meadowlands cries out for a state watchdog," Editorial, Jan. 30).
For seven years we have heard nothing but corporate spin from this developer backed by political cheerleading from the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, the Legislature and many other bureaucrats and elected officials who failed to protect the municipalities of Lyndhurst, Rutherford and North Arlington.
There is something terribly wrong with a process that allows one developer to purchase nearly 800 acres of property for less than $24,000 per acre. There is something terribly disturbing about a process that has state officials and state agencies behaving like an extension of the developer's marketing efforts, which has led us to the place we find ourselves today.
North Arlington is against this project and has made the tough decisions to prevent taxpayers from being ripped off by a proposal nobody supports. Our actions find ourselves in a lawsuit to protect taxpayers and homeowners. We are protecting the integrity of our land assessments, not bending to the developer's unreasonable and ridiculous claims that these parcels somehow lack value.
Governor Corzine, the NJMC and the Legislature need to take the necessary steps to protect the public.
Steve Tanelli
Rocky road for North Arlington homeowners
"it is because Pitman lacked the ability to govern that he frantically scrambled for this deal with EnCap"
It’s important to distinguish the truth from rhetoric as it applies to the suit recently filed by EnCap against North Arlington (Cherokee Porete takes North Arlington to court).
Former Mayor Russ Pitman’s description of North Arlington as a “customer” of EnCap is truly strange and disturbing.
Wasn’t there a time when the customer was always right?
If North Arlington was truly a customer of EnCap, wouldn’t this developer reveal the price they paid for the BCUA Transfer Station or drop the multiple law suits as they apply to tax appeals and forced usage of eminent domain seizure against the Porete Avenue business community? When did this customer ever have a say in this lopsided agreement?
I welcome this lawsuit because people like Pitman will be required to state his role in these negotiations and how we went from golf courses to 1,625 units of housing and hundreds of units of low-income housing as required in this agreement engineered by the ex-mayor and his borough attorney.
Ironically, it is because Pitman lacked the ability to govern that he frantically scrambled for this deal with EnCap. His inability to cut costs, negotiate collective bargaining agreements or say no to more spending is the very reason he was forced to make a deal so bad that finds us in today’s financial predicament.
Because Pitman failed to govern, because he avoided the tough issues of taxes and spending, EnCap received a deal so lopsided that those of us prepared to govern must first clean the mess of those rejected by the public.
I accept this burden. My job will not be easy. Pitman’s agreement with EnCap ensures a rocky road for North Arlington homeowners. North Arlington is not a customer of EnCap, but a hostage in an agreement so bad our future depends on getting out of it and starting anew.
Let the record state that no one from EnCap has ever contacted me during my time as a councilman or as mayor. Not a call. Not a letter. Only a lawsuit seeking to compel our community into something nobody wants. When will EnCap acknowledge that reality?
Mayor Pete Massa, North Arlington
Redevelopment Area Bonds
I’ve been doing a lot of research about RABs (Redevelopment Area Bonds) the means Encap reportedly would use to finance their PILOT Program. RABs have been described as a” relatively new financial tool” and that’s an understatement!
Fact is, RABs have only been used once in New Jersey! The solitary experience being to finance the PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) for the renovation of a single building in Newark, New Jersey!
The EDA (New Jersey Economic Development Authority) used RABs to finance the $7.9M needed to transform Newark’s “Eleven80” from a vacant office building to a luxury apartment complex! So, while since 1974 the EDA has funded $1.69 billion to finance 477 urban renewal projects in Newark, they only elected to use RABs this one time, for the renovation of “Eleven80”.
The Long-Term Tax Exemption Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1) was amended in 2002 to include RAB bonding, with RABs being designed to allow PILOTs to be structured to match debt service.
The purpose of RAB financing was to allow towns in need of infrastructure improvements and also land acquisition and demolition. For example, had North Arlington not sold off its water system, it could have applied for RAB financing to facilitate up-grades, pointing to the fact that improvements were needed to ready the system for the eventual development beyond its easterly borders.
Concerning Encap….this developer would make PILOT payments to the town on the value of improvements to the property, enabled by a tax abatement on the property for those improvements. The town would then pass along the payments to a “trustee”, which uses these PILOTS to make the debt-service payments on the bonds. So, while I have read the assurances that the host communities would be insulated form any financial risk, it seems very clear that the towns are pivotal in not only acquiring these RABs, but active in dispensing the RAB debt service! Therefore, I’m not sold (nor is the state apparently!) that there is no risk!
Also, I just don’t see how remediation of hundreds of acres of landfill in comparable to converting a single office building into a luxury apartment complex! While it is very reasonable to anticipate folks wanting to purchase/lease a luxury dwelling adjacent to Newark’s Military Park, there’s really NO GUARANTEE whatsoever that folks will be clamoring to buy homes built upon remediated landfills.
I’m glad the state is looking at Encap’s financing method and the risk it could present to the three host communities. I think ultimately a different financing formula will be required, and the RAB approach be reserved for less speculative ventures (like building renovation and financing urban renewal projects) not landfill remediation and the creation of urban sprawl.
Kerry Ann Gennace, North Arlington
The Corzine administration is to be commended for putting responsible governance ahead of politics as usual when it comes to the pay-to-play environment surrounding New Jersey's redevelopment process.
The governor needs to take drastic action and implement the findings of the public advocate as it applies to development and eminent domain. He must install the necessary protections to ensure that homeowners and municipalities do not become the pawns of greedy developers.
I'm embarrassed by a process that is nothing more than an insider's game controlled by the powerful and politically well-connected. The people simply have no say about the future when it comes to EnCap and the consequences of moving forward with such a risky proposition.
State bureaucrats and neighboring mayors met to discuss Phase I financing of the project. I did not attend because North Arlington is not part of that application. But more important, why would I tacitly endorse this controversial project when the developer is now suing my community and demanding we exercise eminent domain seizure to construct hundreds of units of low-income housing this borough does not want?
What these people don't seem to understand is that 80 percent of North Arlington voters endorsed vast restrictions on eminent domain. The people have spoken. I intend to keep my promises to the people. They are my employer, not the bureaucrats, politicians and developers who could care less about the urbanization of North Arlington.
Peter Massa
As a North Arlington councilman, I’m interested in the opinions of the Leader Newspapers and how these opinions shape public opinion.
In the case of EnCap, I feel some clarity is in order.
Thoughtful discussion on how to proceed in terms of future development here in the South Bergen region is a discussion that deserves balanced reporting since the very future of Rutherford, Lyndhurst and North Arlington hangs in the balance. I appreciate the opportunity afforded me here to express my views and the sentiment of many North Arlington homeowners as it applies specifically to the proposed Arlington Valley project.
But because EnCap was designated by state officials and not the local municipalities to redevelop these parcels, the financing of such a massive proposal must be scrutinized and must be credible.
As The Leader stated last week, just how did this project morph from golf course living to housing construction? I don’t recall when it became 4,000 units of new housing. How did we get from living on the links to eminent domain seizure and low income housing?
I believe at the heart of this controversy is the lack of transparency as to the intent of EnCap and how this project has transformed itself and how it will fast track these small communities into urbanized, mini-cities!
As a public official, taxpayer and parent, I believe that development can be positive for a community.
The question before us now is does the plan(s) as presented to these communities have the public support necessary to move forward? Does the present economic environment lend to the construction of 4,000 units of housing or some 10,000 additional residents for North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford?
More specifically, what is the benefit for those already living in Rutherford, Lyndhurst and North Arlington?
Will property taxes stabilize or decrease? Will schools become overcrowded and cost more to operate? Will local roads be able to absorb literally thousands of new cars each and every day?
These basic concerns remain for the most part, unanswered.
As The Leader accurately states, EnCap is not the developer. But EnCap has engineered this development project. They have formulated the need for additional housing few seem to endorse nor want.
The public’s access to the policy formulation process has been nearly non-existent.
And now state officials are questioning the very premise of the EnCap application.
What other private developer has been able to extract $142 million in low-cost loans and then go back to the state and request another $366 million in new financing?
Why would the state of New Jersey accept such financing terms without credible public scrutiny?
The gamble here is that homebuyers will purchase properties on remediated landfills for nearly $1 million? Where is the credible evidence such a purchase is realistic given the downturn in residential housing?
What is the net result of a bust housing market and the EnCap project?
I agree with The Leader that the financing as presented is neither simple and nearly impossible to understand. That in itself is cause for concern. That in itself raises red flags that must be considered.
The problem with EnCap is not in the questions, the problem is that questions are never answered. For years these questions have remained on the table without a reply. Dozens of public officials and private citizens have asked these same questions time and time again on these very pages without any answers from the folks at EnCap.
For North Arlington did not pick EnCap. North Arlington was thrusted into negotiations with this developer because of a regional policy directive promoted by the NJMC. May I remind your readers that no one at the NJMC was elected by anyone, yet those of us accountable to the voters continue to bear the brunt of unanswered questions and the very credibility of the project as it effects these three communities.
Why hasn’t EnCap held a single regional meeting on this project? Why hasn’t EnCap addressed any of these financial issues as well as held public forums to defend the financing as presented? Why doesn’t their Web site even mention any of the issues brought forth by Director Jacobucci as it applies to Rutherford and Lyndhurst?
While Director Jacobucci’s concerns remain legitimate and on the table for discussion, EnCap remains silent.
Not only does EnCap remain silent, but they now have begun the process of suing North Arlington because we won’t condemn dozens of thriving companies who offer good paying jobs to hundreds of area residents. These companies pay over $1 million in taxes and have minimal impact on essential services.
How can you claim to be a partner to North Arlington when you’re seeking reduced property assessments and demanding North Arlington to seize condemn the property of neighbors and friends?
At the end of the day, the developer agreement with North Arlington is a lopsided deal that does not protect homeowners. It will not stabilize taxes. It will increase the cost of local government while losing our small-town character and charm.
I urge The Leader to consider these central themes and arguments as the debate over responsible development continues here in the South Bergen communities of Lyndhurst, Rutherford and North Arlington.
Councilman Steve Tanelli
Now that the Corzine administration has gone on record opposing the controversial financing methods as it pertains to the embattled EnCap housing project, when will the state realize this proposal is just bad public policy?
I'm encouraged that Governor Corzine has become a forceful voice for development reform. I hope that position will extend to details of a plan few in North Arlington want or support.
The developer of this poorly planned project that lacks any semblance of public support, EnCap, is now suing North Arlington because of those of us who had the temerity to challenge the whole concept as nothing more than the complete urbanization of South Bergen.
This lawsuit only confirms that EnCap is not a friend to North Arlington. I welcome it because we will finally find out who is responsible for a deal so bad that North Arlington voters are simply exhausted in expressing their absolute discontent with EnCap and those who continue to support this public policy tragedy.
Al Granell
I have been actively opposed to the EnCap project for several years now and believe that the financing structure is so tenuous and questionable that it will likely lead to collapse. Such a collapse would result in a New Jersey equivalent of the Teapot Dome scandal.
To collect any money from Bergen County through the bonding process, Gauger must form an urban enterprise limited liability company as well as a host of other corporate entities to structure this complicated transaction. The truth is that there is a web of corporations, LLCs and other entities all designed to maximize EnCap's financial position and to shield the company's officers and its parent, Cherokee Investment Partners of North Carolina, from liability.
EnCap doesn't qualify under the urban renewal statute. First of all, it registered as such with the secretary of state in March 2006, years after the initial deal had been signed. Second, it is questionable as to whether EnCap would qualify as an urban renewal project under the statute. If a court were to rule that EnCap couldn't use the urban renewal designation, the delicate financing house of cards that has been constructed to fund this project would fall down.
Gauger's statements about the liability to the local municipalities are, at best, oversimplified. The $450 million cost in payment-in-lieu-of-taxes bonds does not include $30 million a year in debt service. That's another $900 million over the 30-year repayment period -- $600 million for Lyndhurst and $300 million for Rutherford. According to the present estimates the project will not generate the amount of money necessary to cover this massive debt.
Then there is the issue of EnCap and pay-to-play. It would take volumes to list with any degree of thoroughness the amount of pay-to-play that has surrounded this project. EnCap has systematically used pay-to-play money to place the burden of this project on the taxpayer.
Michael A. Guarino
To the Editor:
Recent revelations uncovered by investigative reports conducted by a local daily paper, as well as the questions posed by Director Susan Jacobucci as chair of the state’s Local Finance Board, call into question the viability of the EnCap proposal to move forward.
For years, those of us who questioned the rationale, size and scope of the project were ignored or shuttled aside as troublesome pests who simply wanted transparency and guarantees that the homeowners of South Bergen would be protected by this developer.
For years, I have watched appointed state bureaucrats and others tell each other what a wonderful project this will become. But the details always remained murky. The protections we pleaded for were never hammered out. In the end, state government enabled a project nobody supports over the concerns of the municipalities most effected by this debacle in the making!
Finally, Director Jacobucci’s questions as to the actual viability of this financial arrangement have been called into question, and these questions deserve immediate answers from those who have heaped praise upon a project that has created more questions than answers. A project that lacks any serious public support while avoiding legitimate scrutiny and oversight by those charged to protect the public interest.
Myself, along with Councilman Tanelli and incoming council members Al Granell and Sal DiBlasi, made opposition to EnCap, eminent domain seizure and the construction of low-income housing the cornerstone of our municipal campaign. We refused to buy into the corporate rhetoric that EnCap was the solution to all of our problems. That this out-of-state developer would somehow fix the ills of the past and transform North Arlington into some golf destination resort.
That rhetoric just isn’t true.
I believe that EnCap is nothing more than a massive housing project under the guise of marketing a public and private golf course. I think this project will swell traffic, public school enrollment, and in the end, cost North Arlington millions in infrastructure costs while the developer walks away with 40 percent of the revenue.
Hardly a deal worth bragging about.
More importantly, I believe it will raise taxes while urbanizing North Arlington into an extension of Hudson County. The current deal gives the developer the opportunity to increase the number of units to over 2,000, and in the end, is nothing more than a headache for homeowners who will gain nothing from a project nobody supports.
In the end, developers just want to make money, and they really don’t care about the impact or consequences left to the municipality. I think those charged to protect the interest of South Bergen have slept at the switch, and now sadly, the chickens are coming home to roost.
The first responsibility of any government is to protect the citizenry. But when it comes to EnCap, I believe state government has ignored public sentiment, steam rolled over home-rule and laughed in the face of the exhausted homeowner who will live with the results of this development nightmare.
That is the tragedy of this situation.
MayorPete Massa
Borough of North Arlington
Why is the voice of the people being ignored?
To the Editor:
The recent revelations as to the financial condition of EnCap only confirms my belief this agreement must be voided.
According to published reports, the developer is now seeking $366 million to jumpstart this fledgling development few people want or support.
With the exception of some non-elected bureaucrats who seem determined to support this project no matter what the consequences, EnCap has failed miserably in making the case for transforming the South Bergen communities of North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford into mini-cities incapable of providing the services necessary to accommodate thousands and thousands of new residents, additional school-age children and the thousands of cars that will descend upon these municipalities in the form of additional traffic that will choke Route 3, Ridge Road and Schuyler Avenue.
Here in North Arlington, EnCap has insisted in invoking eminent domain condemnation and seizure despite the fact hundreds of jobs would be lost and the lives of dozens of Porete Avenue businessmen would be turned upside down.
But despite all the problems and challenges of this dubious folly, county and state officials seem determined to enable a project nobody wants!
Why is the voice of the people being ignored?
Now we find out that the state’s Local Finance Board is questioning the exposure to Lyndhurst and Rutherford and the whole financial viability of the project.
Does one need any additional information to understand that the brakes need to be put on EnCap right now?
As a member of the North Arlington governing body, I intend to vigorously scrutinize this plan negotiated by others who are no longer part of this council. It is this very agreement and the way it was negotiated that led to their political demise.
It is pretty obvious now, given this additional information, that EnCap is not only a terrible deal for North Arlington, but a huge financial risk that in the end will raise property taxes.
The time has come for the truth and some transparency when it comes to this project. When will the developer along with the NJMC and other state officials admit that simple reality?
Councilman-elect Al Granell
North Arlington
Why does Bianchi call himself ‘Councilman-elect’?
To the Editor:
I noticed that Republican council candidate Bianchi has already decided he has won the election by identifying himself as “councilman-elect.”
I didn’t realize the election was canceled and he was declared the winner!
I guess I should stop campaigning and just stop by the shop and congratulate Mr. Bianchi on a job well done.
I urge Mr. Bianchi to join me door-to-door and hear the concerns of senior citizens and other homeowners who are frightened by the proposition of eminent domain seizure and the construction of 1,625 units of housing coupled with 300 units of low-income units he supports.
In this carefully worded victory lap, Mr. Bianchi fails to state if he would use eminent domain seizure to condemn the Porete Avenue business community. I found it odd Mr. Bianchi had nothing to say at the last council meeting as to his position on eminent domain or his lack of support for the ballot initiative that will vastly restrict this process here in North Arlington.
Maybe if Mr. Bianchi and the Republicans spent less time replicating phony tax bills to use as campaign literature, they would take the time to clarify their position as it relates to EnCap, eminent domain seizure and the construction of low-income housing.
While Mr. Bianchi seems to brush aside the real threat of eminent domain seizure, it only proves just how out of touch he is with the residents of North Arlington.
Mr. Bianchi has served in government for nearly two decades in various capacities. I’ve always known him to be a Pitman supporter, and Pitman has endorsed his campaign.
I believe he has had countless opportunities to take a clear position on the issue of EnCap, but continues to avoid the issue.
Why is that?
While the self proclaimed councilman-elect calls for additional police officers and other increases in the size of local government with no explanation or justification, it would be nice to tell taxpayers just how much it will cost for patrol cars, motorcycles and added staffing.
Too bad councilman-elect Bianchi has refused to debate such important matters.
It’s been a pleasure going door-to-door and meeting the people of North Arlington. I understand your concerns about EnCap and why this is the most important issue to face this community in decades.
For whatever reason, Mr. Bianchi believes that his position on EnCap, eminent domain seizure and low-income housing should remain a mystery since he’s apparently already won.
That’s too bad.
Know this about myself, Pete Massa and Sal DiBlasi. We don’t assume anyone’s vote or support.
We want to earn your trust and confidence.
Something I don’t think Mr. Bianchi seems to understand.
Al Granell
Candidate for Council
North Arlington
An open letter to Republican candidate Peter Norcia
To the Editor:
Campaigns for public office generally set the tone for how one would govern if successful.
Peter Norcia, the former Lyndhurst resident and failed candidate for commissioner, is running a campaign that I don’t think addresses the core issues facing taxpayers: random development, EnCap, eminent domain seizure and the construction of low-income housing.
How can an individual be taken seriously when one refuses to acknowledge the inherent dangers of supporting the EnCap/Pitman agreement?
I organized real opposition to EnCap back in March and contacted U.S. Attorney Chris Christie to evaluate the EnCap debacle.
The current plan as I understand it hands over 40 percent of all tax revenues to the developer.
At the last council meeting, I helped kill an ordinance that would have imposed eminent domain seizure upon the borough. Mr. Bocchino and Mr. Bianchi won’t even take a stand on the upcoming referendum to vastly restrict eminent domain seizure.
To me, it seems obvious they support EnCap and not the Porete Avenue business community.
I have lived in North Arlington all of my life. I was raised here. My parents still live here. My children were raised here. My wife and I are homeowners for nearly four decades. I didn’t move to North Arlington to try to jump-start a failed political career. I’m a lifetime law enforcement official, having served at the local, county and state level. My current position allows me the opportunity to fight organized crime and protect our ports.
Public service to me is a way of life.
I want North Arlington to remain a small, suburban community and all that it has to offer in terms of value, location and services.
I will not back down to out-of-state developers and sell out North Arlington property. I have been consistent and concise in my opposition to EnCap, eminent domain and low-income housing during my whole tenure on the governing body.
Mr. Norcia, I will meet you anytime, anywhere to debate the issues for all to compare and contrast.
The people of North Arlington are exhausted by the behavior of a campaign that has no regard for the truth. The people of North Arlington solidly endorse my opposition to EnCap. I earned my way on this ballot.
It’s time to stop hiding and start answering some basic questions. The people know where I stand. Phony tax bills, distasteful flyers and other lies just won’t cut it. Stand next to me side by side so the people can make an informed choice.
Your silence has become deafening.
Councilman Peter Massa
Candidate for Mayor
North Arlington
Phony Tax flyer upsets North Arlington Community
To the Editor:
North Arlington residents were recently what I consider to be victimized by a tasteless political flyer sent in the disguise of a final tax bill. The envelope looked like an official borough mailing, complete with a Property Tax label and a red PAST DUE “stamp” on it. Enclosed was a document that was titled 2006 FINAL TAX BILL — a very close resemblance to the real thing.
What turned out to be political propaganda, prompted an outcry from confused residents who called borough hall looking for answers. Where did this phony “tax bill” originate? After reading the back of the letter, it was not difficult to figure where it had originated.
I attended the Oct. 19 borough council meeting, with the intention of asking Mayor Pitman if he was aware of the letter. However, he was not in attendance. I, then, directed my question to council President Spanola, who was chairing the meeting. Mr. Spanola responded he didn’t know but confirmed that the letter created a great deal of concern among residents.
Since no one could answer my question, I turned to Mr. Norcia, who was at the meeting, and asked him if he would explain how he came in possession of this document. He declined to answer directly and responded, “Address your questions to the chair.”
Mr. Spanola responded that he would have the situation looked into. The borough attorney advised that tax bills can be obtained via OPRA [Open Public Records Act]. I asked how a blank tax bill with the borough’s information can make it out of town hall and into the hands of candidates running for office, especially those who do not currently hold an elected position.
George McDermott
North Arlington
Disturbing notice of tax increases if Massa wins election
Dear Editor:
It is very disturbing that Norcia, Bocchino & Bianchi are sending out letters to taxpayers that say "past due" and stating that under Massa, DiBlasi and Granell our property taxes would increase $515.62 per quarter.
My husband went to the Tax Department today, October 19th, to report this and was told some people already went in to pay their taxes because of this "Past Due" that appeared on the front of the mailing envelope.
Something has to be done to stop this scare tactic and I suggest you print this in your next issue.
Sincerely,
Ruth Hughes
Editor's Note: We agree 100% Ruth!
Dear Editor:
This letter is in response to Mr. Norcia’s letter to the editor posted in the local papers starting on September 20, 2006.
One of the comments posted in that letter stated that Mr. Massa voted for the ENCAP agreement then voted against it was the same comment made by the current mayor at previous council meetings. He continued to state that Mr. Massa, along with Mayor Pitman, hasn’t been truthful with taxpayers. Was Mr. Norcia forgetting that members of his ticket have been witnessed meeting with the Mayor and his circle, on more than one occasion, in such places as his campaign headquarters on primary lection day as well as local diners in the area?
What reason did they have for these meetings? Along with a recent public endorsement of the Republican ticket, it appears we have the outgoing Mayor meeting with the Republican candidates on a regular basis and exchanging information which they, as current candidates, may not even be entitled too.
The Republican ticket and current Mayor continue to point out that Mr. Massa along with Mr. Tanelli voted in favor of the MOA last April.
That vote only gave permission for continued research and studies under the due diligence process. No where in the MOA did it state they were voting to allow the ENCAP project to proceed. On the contrary, they both voted against the agreement because due diligence was not completed and the terms of the agreement benefited the developer far more than the residents and community of North Arlington. The continued meetings and subsequent endorsement by Mayor Pitman only shows that Mr. Norcia and his ticket support that overdevelopment, overcrowding the schools and eminent domain be rammed down the throats of all North Arlington residents and business owners.
George McDermott
The writer is a member of the North Arlington Board of Education and a former candidate for Borough Council.
Dear Editor:
I'm glad to say that after living in NA for almost 10 years and being a homeowner for the past 4 we've sold our two-family house and got out of this place just in time.
Councilman Pat Roche is right, it is the armpit of Bergen County, that is run by complete incompetence, and no matter who is in office!
They just want to take advantage of the taxpayers. I mean look at the state of affairs, $25 million in debt, constantly increasing the school budget, just to cover operating expenses while the kids just keep getting more and more stupid and fail miserably!
Residents like our former neighbors who let their filthy dogs crap all over the front lawn with little kids around and don't bother to clean up for weeks at a time! A police force who although the chief truly tried to be helpful really don't care about the town, and just want to collect their bloated paychecks. A Building Department that has no teeth and can't force a dump of a house to clean up its act or fine the owner of the house, who inherited it and let the house go to crap!
And yes this is the exact reason why we left, two well educated professionals that earn 4 times the average household income in NA, who spent tens of thousands of dollars renovating a beautiful house only to have it marred literally cost us $45,000 in our price reduction.
If NA thinks they are going to make, they are sorely mistaken. Driving out people like us (well educated, parishoners of QP, helpful and caring of our neighbors - the good ones) means only one thing for NA - You'll soon look like Newark, and you have no one else to blame but yourself. NA should be ashamed of itself for allowing its affairs to get completely out of control. It's a dying town literally!
I hope Councilman Massa and Councilman Tanelli can turn the tide in this town, because you are all about to be soaked!
Goodbye and good riddens!!!!
A very happy former NA home owner!
Editor's note: The above letter was edited due to length.
Editor:
On June 6, voters in North Arlington will determine our borough’s future. I welcome the opportunity to walk door-to-door, reminding our friends and neighbors of the challenge we face in the form of EnCap, eminent domain and the random development of this community. Unfortunately, Mayor Pitman hides and avoids my calls for a debate.
His version of leadership begins at the end of the line.
This proposal supported by Mayor Pitman will construct at least 1,625 units of housing, of which 200 units will be dedicated to low income housing. Because of the massive loopholes in this sweetheart package, EnCap could build as many as 2,000 units and waive all height restrictions negotiated in the contract. This proposal will increase passenger traffic by at least 3,000 cars in the Belleville Pike, Schuyler Avenue entrance. It will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in school construction costs as well as more employees, an additional police station and new firehouse.
The price tag attached to this project is conservatively $75 million upon build out. This proposal will increase our population and urbanize North Arlington into a small city increasing crime and the other problems that come with any overpopulated venue. I know. I’m a career law enforcement official. I served this community for three decades as a police officer. I know that a population explosion Pitman supports will demand more cops and another police station. To keep North Arlington safe, millions will need to be invested in our public safety expenditure.
But despite the obstacles, we can defeat EnCap and Pitman.
No developer will dare move forward without some semblance of community support. June 6th is the one day, the one opportunity, to reject Pitman’s scheme to double the size of this community and impose low income housing and eminent domain on hard working citizens like Sal DiBlasi.
Both of my running mates understand the fear of eminent domain. Al Granell’s Ridge Road residence is at risk as well as Sal’s company Cobra Construction located on Porete Avenue. How would you feel if someone wanted to take your home or business? Would you be able to sleep nights? What effect would this have on your family and your future?
Four years ago we believed Pitman. He said he was opposed to EnCap. He said he was opposed to eminent domain. He said he opposed low-income housing. But Pitman lied. He lied to me, to Granell and DiBlasi. He’s become a pawn in a massive housing development that will destroy our town and raise property taxes.
In the end, Pitman doesn’t represent you and me. He represents an out-of-town developer who’s been given a blank check to do what they want and make millions in the process. Pitman has flip-flopped on EnCap and the casualties are the homeowners of North Arlington.
Together, we can go a long way. But I’m not stopping until we’ve protected the dream of a better future for every North Arlington family.
In the end, we need a development plan that’s about building a future. I want to lead North Arlington forward with a bold and positive agenda for our future. But I need your help. Politics is a team sport and together we can defeat EnCap and stop eminent domain here in North Arlington.
Councilman Peter C. Massa
Candidate for Mayor, North Arlington
Vote for Pete Massa, Al Granell & Sal DiBlasi
To the editor,
In the past few weeks, residents of the North Arlington have found political
flyers in their mailboxes that support the Pitman, Roche and Yampaglia team.
These flyers were full of inaccurate statements and were followed by a door
to door campaign that left some residents trying to figure out if this team
actually knew what they were talking about. Read More
Editor:
Because of the overwhelming opposition to the controversial EnCap housing project, the implementation of low-income housing and seizure of private property through eminent domain, I have announced my intention to seek the Democratic nomination for the office of mayor.
Four years ago, Russ Pitman opposed EnCap and low-income housing. Three years ago, Pitman and Patrick Roche criticized then-incumbent Councilman Frank Caputo for supporting 1,550 units of housing.
Now, Pitman and Roche support the construction of 1,625 units of housing with the possibility of an additional 375 units should the project not be profitable as per the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement I opposed. This also includes 200 units of low-income housing.
Widespread opposition to EnCap and this misguided project is obvious. Even more ferocious is the anger that drives homeowner opposition to the usage of eminent domain for any purpose.
While Pitman splits hairs over his changing position on eminent domain, homeowners demand clarity and honesty.
I am opposed to the usage of eminent domain to assist the development objectives of any private developer. There is no public purpose in driving companies out of the borough that pay taxes and produce jobs for North Arlington residents.
EnCap’s objective of urbanizing North Arlington for profit is not shared by the voters of this community.
To add injury to insult, EnCap is aggressively seeking property-tax reductions on properties they purchased for less than $500,000. These properties are currently assessed at nearly $8 million. Why would North Arlington even consider such an irresponsible course of action that will shift the property tax burden further on the shoulders of every North Arlington homeowner?
Opposition to EnCap and eminent domain transcends traditional party registration. If anything, EnCap’s misguided project has unified the electorate to stop this project at all costs. That is exactly what I will do if the voters support my candidacy come June 6.
Despite all the corporate rhetoric and slick advertising, EnCap has no public support. This election is in fact a referendum on the flaws of this project and the dangerous application of eminent domain that would only divide North Arlington and destroy its small town character.
North Arlington voters, for the most part, have been intentionally kept in the dark by the supporters of EnCap. They want approval at any cost and don’t care what you think.
That’s the sad reality.
A vote for myself and my team represents North Arlington’s first and last opportunity to stop EnCap and eminent domain once and for all. If I’m defeated, both Mayor Pitman and mayoral candidate Caputo support EnCap and the dangerous application of eminent domain!
This is the most important issue ever to face North Arlington voters. Failure to participate in this June Democratic Primary will result in the mass urbanization of North Arlington, the usage of eminent domain and the construction of Low Income Housing.
My candidacy is the last line of defense that stands in the way of a mass transformation of a community I have served and lived for sixty years. If you believe, like I do, that EnCap will destroy the community we all truly love, I urge you to support myself, as well as my running-mates Al Granell & Salvatore DiBlasi come June 6th.
The stakes are that high.
Councilman Peter C. Massa
Candidate for Mayor
North Arlington
To the Editor:
Because of the overwhelming opposition to the controversial EnCap housing project, the implementation of low-income housing and seizure of private property through eminent domain, I have announced my intention to seek the Democratic nomination for the office of mayor here in North Arlington.
Four years ago, Mayor Russ Pitman opposed EnCap and low-income housing. Three years ago, Mayor Pitman and Councilman Patrick Roche criticized then incumbent Councilman Frank Caputo for supporting 1,550 units of housing.
Now Mayor Pitman and Councilman Roche support the construction of 1,625 units of housing, with the possibility of an additional 375 units should the project not be profitable as per the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement I opposed.
This also includes 200 units of low-income housing.
Widespread opposition to EnCap and this misguided project is obvious. Even more ferocious is the anger that drives homeowner opposition to the usage of eminent domain for any purpose!
While Mayor Pitman splits hairs over his changing position on eminent domain, homeowners demand clarity and honesty.
I am opposed to the usage of eminent domain to assist the development objectives of any private developer. There is no public purpose in driving companies out of the borough that pay taxes and produce jobs for North Arlington residents. EnCap’s objective of urbanizing North Arlington for profit is not shared by the voters of this community.
To add injury to insult, EnCap is aggressively seeking property tax reductions on properties they purchased for less than $500,000. These very properties are currently assessed at nearly $8 million! Why would North Arlington even consider such an irresponsible course of action that will shift the property tax burden further on the shoulders of every North Arlington homeowner?
Opposition to EnCap and eminent domain transcends traditional party registration. If anything, EnCap’s misguided project has unified the electorate to stop this project at all costs. That is exactly what I will do if the voters support my candidacy come June 6.
Despite all the corporate rhetoric and slick advertising, EnCap has no public support. This election is in fact a referendum on this flaws of this project and the dangerous application of eminent domain that would only divide North Arlington and destroy its small-town character.
North Arlington voters for the most part have been intentionally kept in the dark by the supporters of EnCap. They want approval at any cost and don’t care what you think. That’s the sad reality.
For a vote for myself and my team represents North Arlington’s first and last opportunity to stop EnCap and eminent domain once and for all. For if I’m defeated, both Mayor Pitman and mayoral candidate Caputo support EnCap and the dangerous application of eminent domain!
This is the most important issue ever to face North Arlington voters. Failure to participate in this June’s Democratic Primary will result in the mass urbanization of North Arlington, the usage of eminent domain and the construction of low-income housing.
My candidacy is the last line of defense that stands in the way of a mass transformation of a community I have served and lived for 60 years. If you believe like I do EnCap will destroy the community we all truly love, I urge you to support myself, as well as my running-mates Al Granell and Salvatore DiBlasi come June 6.
The stakes are that high.
Councilman Peter C. Massa
Candidate for Mayor
North Arlington
Dear Editor:
Having learned (at the meeting on 4/19/06) that the final agreement contains all the same language as the MOA, I looked again at the MOA.
I turned to the part concerning the condemnation of properties on Porete Avenue, where it says that the Borough would need to acquire long and short term acquistion bonds to purchase these properties following the condemnation. When I initially read the MOA, I wondered why (as it was abundantly clear we would be handing the property over to Encap) the Borough had to cast bonds to purchase the property in the first place, as the developer promised to repay the bonds.
My point is this: looking back at the MOA, I realize now that while there is a promise of repayment, the agreement does not include a timeframe for repayment. This is puzzling, as any contract/agreement I have been part of (anything from a cell phone contract to a real property transaction) always incuded a re-payment schedule! Yet, in a project this massive, there is no re-payment schedule expressed!
I'm wondering how this happened!
I'm wondering if this would interfere with (once Pitman is gone!) writing the letter discussed on page #19, and getting out of this agreement.
I mean, how can we write the letter if we hold long and short term bonds amounting to millions?
Was this deliberate, or just sloppy legal counsel? Seems amazing too, that in addition to our Borough Attorney, one councilman who is also an attorney (Mark Yampaglia) did not pick up on something seemingly so basic as a re-payment schedule!
Aren't there protections against sloppy legal counsel?
Kerry Ann Gennace, 4/06/06
The writer is a former member of the North Arlington Redevelopment Agency, Planning Board and Board of Education.
Dear Editor,
Do we live in a democracy or dictatorship?
Did democracy for the borough of North Arlington die at this weeks Mayor and council meeting? Whether or not you agree or disagree with the Encap Project or Eminent Domain, school budgets, taxes or just are on the other side of an issue.
One of the most precious items that we have as citizens is our right to free speech and assemble. These are some of the founding principles of our country.
The other day Councilman Tanelli was denied these rights. He is a councilman in the borough of North Arlington and was removed from an impromptu press conference being held in a borough building. Who was having this meeting? Several our our councilman, ENCAP lawyers and supporters and our Mayor. What could have been so important to throw councilman Tanelli out of the building? Threatening him by physically removing him from the building. What item could possibly be told to the media that could not be told in front of Councilman Tanelli? Why would you have a press conference on something you haven’t even voted on yet in council? Kudos to you Councilman Tanelli for acting like the class act and gentlemen you are. It would have been very easy to get into a confrontation with this current administration.
Thanks once again for setting the example.
The conduct of this administration the other night at the Mayor and Council meeting was appalling.
This local government can throw people out of borough buildings. This administration can make wild accusations about how wonderful ENCAP is. This administration still needs to explain to the people of North Arlington why we need 2000 condos. It can openly abuse its citizens in council meetings telling them to "shut-up." We have one councilman calling our home the “Armpit of Bergen County”. It can even threaten fellow councilman. It can not let the people of North Arlington Vote on the Encap project paving the way for the urbanization of our small town. It can rob the people of their voice in government.
It can make a sham out of the proposed eminent domain ordinance by not protecting business’s as well.
But it cannot and will not take the right of every citizen in North Arlington to vote. Newsflash to the current administration, "This is not a dictatorship". On June 6th we will have a Democratic Primary.
True democracy will be put to the test. On June 6th all of North Arlington can remind this administration, “Democracy is not dead”. It is alive and well.
Al Granell
610 Ridge Road
North Arlington, NJ
The author is a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for borough council on the ticket of mayoral candidate, Councilman Peter C. Massa.
Dear Editor:
I can't believe that I voted for Mr. Pitman when I first purchased my home in NA.
What a mistake it was moving to North Arlington. Mr. Pitman has sold out the very people who elected him in the first place.
Has he forgotten what he told so many tired voters when he first ran for mayor? A Mayor for the people he is not.
Come election time it doesn't matter anymore who runs or who wins because I will not wait to see the inevitable outcome of the ENCAP project and its effect on this town. I have listed my home for sale while I can still get some reasonable money for it and bail out of this town that you intend to or should I say are destroying by allowing these greedy developers to "ghettoize" NA.
Low income housing, what were you thinking? Increasing the population without considering the impact on schools and services. I'm sure many homeowners are also thinking about bailing out while they can.
I'm embarrassed that I voted for you. You've truly shown that you are a man that does not listen to his constituents and does not care what they think about the future of their town.
Name Witheld
To the Editor;
Well, It looks like the Mayor let us know Who the boss is , or should I say he is the "decider" .
It seems to me, the Mayor is burning the house down to save the cockroaches.
What a disappointment you are Mayor,to all Democrats, how we believed in you, cheered your victory,only to be sold to the highest bidder.
I won't be so naive the next time.
NA.Taxpayer & still a proud Democratic.
It's Time for a Reality Check
To the Editor:
Honestly, how out of touch with reality is Mayor Pitman? He’s writing letters to all the local newspapers defending the EnCap agreement! How can he hope to convince residents if he’s failed to convince his all-Democratic council?
In his recent letter, Mayor Pitman sought to assure the borough’s “cliff dwellers” that their view of lower Manhattan will not be obscured by high-rise buildings. Many “cliff dwellers” are afraid that a profit-seeking developer (knowing Pitman invited EnCap to explore other properties to condemn!) could waltz in a few of their “experts” and pronounce the cliffs “unsteady” and worthy of condemnation.
Additionally, Mayor Pitman continues to try to persuade residents that the project will contain “senior citizen affordable” housing. Unfortunately, anyone who has read the MOA knows there’s really nothing that guarantees this. The developer has plenty of wiggle room allowing them to market the units to anyone interested in investing in housing built atop landfills. Mayor Pitman continues to point proudly to the “Circuit Breaker” stipulation, failing to acknowledge that the MOA states that whatever we request must first be deemed “reasonable” by EnCap.
What is most puzzling is Mayor Pitman’s continued insistence that the financials will prove advantageous to North Arlington! He still points to the $3.4M we will receive yearly for a total of $17M in lieu of host fees (without addressing what EnCap will receive in tipping fees), and that the project when completed will generate tax revenues of $16M yearly. But that’s really growing stale.
Just about two weeks ago, EnCap made a point of clarifying that of the $16M in tax revenue the project will generate, approximately $10M will go toward providing services. Meaning, the so-called “windfall” will actually be $6M! Trouble is, we already know that during Mayor Pitman’s tenure, he has taken to “stabilizing” taxes by infusing monies gained in firings, sale of our water system and accepting upfront payouts from EnCap (proceeds all eerily aping the $3.4M we will receive from EnCap in lieu of host fees!) Well, as we will have grown accustomed to stabilizing our taxes by kicking in $3.4M, won’t that mean we actually will see a “windfall” of $2.6M?
But wait, isn’t $2.6M just about what we are currently receiving in tax revenue from the businesses operating on Porete Avenue?
Kerry Ann Gennace
North Arlington
Dear Editor,
My family and I just wanted to say, "Thank You", to all the people who attended last weeks town hall meeting held by the North Arlington Property Rights Coalition.
It was heart warming to see the community come out in force and be so supportive in the issues of Eminent Domain and Encap. The communities support for my family has been overwhelming. It's been a great relief for my family to know that in the face of such an issue as Eminent Domain and Encap. People, your friends and your fellow neighbors care. It was wonderful to see so many people concerned with "Saving the Future of North Arlington" our home.
Thanks again to all of You
Al Granell
610 Ridge Road
Art Roberts Studio
North Arlington
Dear Editor,
I would like to commend Pete Massa for his letter to your website. My home and family business have been targeted by Eminent Domain.
Several times I have received the verbal commitment from the Mayor that Eminent Domain would not be used to take a North Arlington homeowner home. As Mr. Massa letter states, "Time and time again, Mayor Pitman has expressed opposition to the seizure of private property. If this is in fact his position, why is he opposed to having his own position on the issue affirmed by the very voters he claims to represent?"
I still receive letters from the developer harassing me to sell our property. This borough as of today has no ordinance preventing that from happening. The reason why we do not have a ordinance is clear. This borough intends on using Eminent Domain where it sees fit.
There is no logical reason why a referendum should not be on the ballot.
I was speaking to my family about his issue. One of my children said to me," Dad, imagine if the Declaration of Independence didn't have any signatures on it. Where would we be today, If it was all verbal". Children have a way of cutting to the chase on issues.
Eminent Domain is not just Porete Avenue. It's a weapon that will be used all over the borough. We are not talking about capping the landfills, golf courses, senior housing and a equestrian center anymore. We are talking about making a city within a city. The borough will need Eminent Domain to build this new city.
Thank You Mr. Massa. I hope and pray the people of North Arlington can "Save North Arlington and Stop this Encap Proposal". The future of our borough, homes and our children's future is at stake.
Al Granell
To the Editor:
Last week, North Arlington Mayor Russ Pitman voiced his personal opposition to referendums stating, “I don’t believe in politics by referendum.”
While Mayor Pitman is certainly entitled to that opinion, it is the council that would decide if such a referendum would make its way to the ballot. Mayor Pitman would only participate in this process if the council were deadlocked in a tie-vote.
In wake of universal opposition to eminent domain, random development and the controversial EnCap project, such thinking flies in the face of direct democracy. Anything that appears on the ballot other than a candidate for office is a ballot measure. Ballot measures are either referendums or initiatives. Here in New Jersey, we practice government by referendum each and every election!
New Jersey has more than 600 school districts that ask voters to support budget referendums every election. Most voters are driven to the polls to support or reject spending initiatives when it comes to school spending than the actual candidates on the ballot. With over 60 percent of property taxes dedicated to school spending, does Mayor Pitman dismiss the importance of school referendums and budget questions? Our November ballot will include various spending proposals that seek voter support.
How can an elected official take the position of opposing referendums and claim to be accountable to voters?
Just last November voters approved a constitutional amendment creating the office of Lieutenant Governor. How can Mayor Pitman oppose a concept of democracy that is embedded into the framework of representative government? Referendums are a practical and constant tool of democracy that voters demand and expect.
Does Mayor Pitman oppose this kind of voter participation in the democratic process? Does Mayor Pitman support eliminating voter approval of local school budgets? Why is Mayor Pitman fearful of a referendum on the issue of eminent domain?
Time and time again, Mayor Pitman has expressed opposition to the seizure of private property. If this is in fact his position, why is he opposed to having his own position on the issue affirmed by the very voters he claims to represent?
In the case of a referendum on eminent domain or EnCap, the governing body would be under no obligation to abide by the results. A municipal referendum would in fact be non-binding, with the electorate being merely consultative and advisory in the process of developing public policy.
What elected official would oppose such voter participation?
The reality is that referendums serve as a gauge to the thinking of the collective electorate. Referendums serve as a complement to our representative democracy. Here in North Arlington, referendums are a rare occurrence with the last one taking place in 1979 when voters overwhelmingly rejected a change in the government’s municipal charter.
Our democracy is based in a system where elected officials should be exercising independent judgment as it applies to the issues of the day. In the case of EnCap and eminent domain, is that the case or are certain members of the governing body robotically carrying out the wishes of private developers and the special interest?
Direct democracy in the form of referendums ensure that the wishes of the majority are heard. In the case of eminent domain and EnCap, this opposition to a municipal referendum by Mayor Pitman flies in the face of his self-proclaimed support of homeowners. I’ve yet to meet a homeowner who supports eminent domain, random development or this artful folly called EnCap!
Mayor Pitman, if you don’t believe in the art of direct democracy, what do you support? Is your version of democracy having appointed officials and lawyers decide North Arlington’s fate? Are you prepared to alienate your party, as well as every homeowner, simply to accommodate the demands of EnCap and those who want to implement eminent domain?
Survey after survey shows no support for either EnCap or eminent domain. The people want and demand a voice in this process that affects the home values of every property owner.
As a homeowner, taxpayer and elected official, I support the efforts of the North Arlington property owner. I will be attending the meeting scheduled on March 30 to lend my assistance to these courageous individuals.
While Mayor Pitman may find pleasure in opposing the referendum process, I oppose the future of North Arlington being decided by a few insiders versus the North Arlington electorate.
I trust the people of North Arlington agree with me when it comes how the most important issue ever to face this embattled community will be determined.
Councilman Peter C. Massa
Borough of North Arlington
Dear Editor:
I read with interest your article (and Mr. Farley's e-mailed resignation letter) wherein he resigned from the Encap Advisory Committee.
Hopefully, with the resignation of someone of Mr. Farley's stature, Mayor Pitman will realize that he is wrong to ignore the concerns and will of the people.
I am left to wonder if Mr. Farley and the other members of the Encap Advisory Committee had access to the Memorandum of Agreement? I obtained a copy (albeit somewhat unofficially!) in October of 2005. Investing two days of reading through the document (and having revisited it many times since then) I knew immediately that the "deal" would prove very bad for North Arlington....on so many levels!
A segment of the MOA described in detail how the propertie! s on Porete Avenue would be acquired (to be condemned by N.A. and purchased via long and short term acquisition bonds which would ultimately be paid by Encap) and that same document contained an invitation to explore other areas for development!
I suspect that the Encap Advisory Committee was not provided copies of the MOA.
Remaining members should demand to see the MOA immediately (if the town won't provide it - I will!) They should not rely on "assurances" made by the governing body and Encap's representatives (complete with artist's renderings) but read for themselves the very straight forward document's requirements!
II am confident that if the remaining member of the Encap Advisory Committee were to read the actual text of the agreement, they would not only join the push for safeguards insofar as use of eminent domain, but also demand the hiring of an INDEPENDENT planner to evaluate the project!
Kerry Ann Gennace, 3/26/06
To the Editor:
I thought it important to clarify my comment about the Borough that appeared in the recent Record article (Showdown Looms Over Eminent Domain, March 19, 2006).
My comments were made to the reporter in the context of a discussion about the cleanup of Porete Avenue. In fact, the remarks were meant to describe the solid waste operations of the 1-E landfill and the blighted and contaminated industrial properties along Porete Avenue that have marred this community for too long.
The comments were not describing the entire Borough of North Arlington.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Roche
Councilman North Arlington
To the Editor:
As you may already know, the Borough of North Arlington has entered into an agreement with Cherokee (EnCap Holdings) to construct 1,625 units of housing, along with 50,000 square feet of new commercial space along Porete Avenue.This agreement also includes the construction of COAH mandated, low-income and affordable units.As a member of the governing body, I voted against this agreement along with Councilman Peter Massa because we both believe the project as presented will over-populate North Arlington, as well as our public schools. It will create an inordinate amount of traffic congestion along Schuyler Avenue and the Belleville Pike. In the process, it will create an undue burden on municipal services (police, public safety), and in the end, increase property taxes on every North Arlington homeowner!There is nothing in this agreement that provides tax relief nor addresses the issue of constructing a new school facility that has been estimated by educators between $35 and $50 million.In the case of EnCap, as well as other potential development being considered at the old Spring Air Mattress site as well as Ridge Road, the rights of homeowners and taxpayers must take precedent over the construction objectives of any private developer.In all of these development scenarios, I believe the residential homeowner must come first.As an elected official, it’s my job to protect the public from projects and developments that seek all kinds of exceptions at the expense of our residents.I fail to recognize any community support for any of these projects as presented. In all my time on the governing body, I have failed to meet a solitary individual not affiliated with EnCap who supports Arlington Valley as proposed.But more importantly, there is a growing fear and concern that the process of eminent domain could be used to relocate property owners, as well as homeowners in proximity to these projects.In response to this real concern over eminent domain seizure, I have suggested that the North Arlington Mayor and Council support a referendum placed on the ballot restricting the usage of eminent domain. It’s time the homeowners and property owners of North Arlington had their say on this very controversial issue.I intend to sponsor this resolution at a future meeting of the mayor and council. The people of this community suffered for years under the fiscal mismanagement of my predecessors. They suffered for years under systematic tax increases and spiraling debt.For North Arlington to finally put its financial house in order, we need responsible planning that in the end stabilizes the tax rate and protects property values. A plan that doesn’t urbanize North Arlington into a small city. A plan that disfigures the small town character that brought so many people here in the first place.It is morally bankrupt to use the process of eminent domain to relocate legitimate property owners who pay taxes over those who don’t. I will not support the demands of a developer who sues North Arlington for lower assessments for property never exposed to the open market.Councilman Massa and myself seek your input and advice on these important issues of eminent domain, rampant development and the overall disfiguring of North Arlington by greedy developers who have refused to be partners, but rather profiteers with no interest in the opinions of the North Arlington homeowner.If you oppose the use of eminent domain and the unbridled development of North Arlington by EnCap, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at stanelli3@comcast.net.Radical redevelopment that fails to take into account public sentiment and support is disastrous public policy.As long as I serve as a member of this governing body, my objective will be to keep you informed as to what is happening.
I intend to stand against this misguided path of rampant development as in the case of EnCap.
This can only happen with your active support.
Councilman Steve Tanelli
Borough of North Arlington
Dear Editor,
I am completely shocked at what our Councilman called North Arlington, our home.
It’s one thing to be on oppsite sides of the fence and have an opinion on an issue. But, it’s another thing, when your elected officials embarrass our borough in another local newspaper, by saying, North Arlington has been the armpit of Bergen County for some time — so it's time it was cleaned up." This is what Councilman Patrick Roche said.
That's his comment concerning Porete Avenue and the borough.
What has he done himself, in his tenure, to clean things up? Nothing on his resume says he has done anything to help the borough as he put it, “get cleaned up.”
Shameless, arrogant and dissapointing.
I hope the taxpayers remember this statement during election time.
Al Granell, North Arlington
Dear Editor:
As you may already know, the Borough of North Arlington has entered into an agreement with Cherokee (Encap Holdings) to construct 1,625 units of housing along with 50,000 square feet of new commercial space along Porete Avenue.
This agreement also includes the construction of COAH mandated, low-income & affordable units.
As a member of the governing body, I voted against this agreement along with Councilman Peter Massa because we both believe the project as presented will over populate North Arlington as well as our public schools. It will create an inordinate amount of traffic congestion along Schuyler Avenue & The Belleville Pike. In the process it will create an undue burden on municipal services (Police, Public Safety) and in the end, increase property taxes on every North Arlington homeowner!
There is nothing in this agreement that provides tax relief nor addresses the issue of constructing a new school facility that has been estimated by educators between $35 and $50 million dollars!
In the case of EnCap as well as other potential development being considered at the old Spring Air Mattress site as well as Ridge Road, the rights of homeowners and taxpayers must take precedent over the construction objectives of any private developer.
In all of these development scenarios, I believe the residential homeowner must come first.
As an elected official, it's my job to protect the public from projects and developments that seek all kinds of exceptions at the expense of our residents.
I fail to recognize any community support for any of these projects as presented. In all my time on the governing body, I have failed to meet a solitary individual not affiliated with EnCap who supports Arlington Valley as proposed!
But more importantly, there is a growing fear and concern that the process of eminent domain could be used to relocate property owners as well as homeowners in proximity to these projects.
In response to this real concern over eminent domain seizure, I have suggested that the North Arlington Mayor & Council support a referendum placed on the ballot restricting the usage of eminent domain. It's the time the homeowner's and property owners of North Arlington had their say on this very controversial issue.
I intend to sponsor this resolution at a future meeting of the Mayor & Council. The people of this community suffered for years under the fiscal mismanagement of my predecessors. They suffered for years under systematic tax increases and spiraling debt.
For North Arlington to finally put it's financial house in order, we need responsible planning that in the end stabilizes the tax rate and protects property values. A plan that doesn't urbanize North Arlington into a small city. A plan that disfigures the small town character that brought so many people here in the first place!
It is morally bankrupt to use the process of eminent domain to relocate legitimate property owners who pay taxes over those who don't. I will not support the demands of a developer who sues North Arlington for lower assessments for property never exposed to the open market.
Councilman Massa and myself seek your input and advice on these important issues of eminent domain, rampant development and the overall disfiguring of North Arlington by greedy developers who have refused to be partners, but rather profiteers with no interest in the opinions of the North Arlington homeowner.
If you oppose the use of eminent domain and the unbridled development of North Arlington by EnCap, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at stanelli3@comcast.net.
Radical redevelopment that fails to take into account public sentiment and support is disastrous public policy.
As long as I serve as a member of this governing body, my objective will be to keep you informed as to what is happening.
I intend to stand against this misguided path of rampant development as in the case of EnCap.
This can only happen with your active support.
Sincerely,
Councilman Steve Tanelli
Borough of North Arlington
Dear Editor,
It's clear now that the Pitman Administration has an agenda all it's own.
Home by home and business by business will be evaluated for ratable and eminent domain usage.
This person's home is okay, but you're not.
Who will make these decisions?
Mayor Pitman himself made it loud and clear that he doesn't believe in government by referendum!
This seems to indicate that the referendum sponsored by Councilman Tanelli for the November ballot will never happen.
At the last council meeting, Councilman Steve Tanelli and Councilman Peter Massa voted no on the resolution for certain pay increases for borough employees. But the council voted on the resolution and it passed. They same thing will happen when councilman Tanelli proposes his referendum on eminent domain!
They'll vote. Tanelli and Massa for the referendum, and the rest of the council against!
No referendum. The people of North Arlington are still a target for eminent domain seizure!
Municipalities all over New Jersey are supporting referendum's to protect their taxpayers. As recently as yesterday, the Bergen County community of Little Ferry are proposing a referendum to protect their homeowners.
Also, on a separate note. It was very disturbing to hear the Borough Attorney Joseph Mariniello tell a taxpayer at a public meeting to, "shut up".
I'm still confused as to why Mr. Mariniello didn't apologize for the outburst or why Mayor Pitman tolerates this behavior. The taxpayer apologized if he talked out of turn.
Al Granell
Dear Editor:
I want to thank Councilman Peter Massa, for speaking out for the people of North Arlington, as a taxpayer and die hard Democrat, to see in print
a reflection of what almost everyone is feeling about this { En Cap --Cherokee mess } and to know someone I voted for is actually doing his
job, made my day, keep up the good work.
I'm disappointed that the Mayor & four other council members are not with us on this.
Name Withheld.
North Arlington
To the Editor:
As a councilman, taxpayer and homeowner, I’m disturbed by the fact a developer would appeal current tax assessments on parcels valued over $7 million when they paid only $427,000 for the property in question.
Unfortunately for North Arlington, this seems to be the agenda of the Arlington Valley developer, EnCap Holdings.
I don’t think a single homeowner would disagree that purchasing land valued over $7 million for $427,000 is a deal few would pass upon. Based on the purchase price alone, why would EnCap contest the assessed values?
How much money is enough for EnCap?
It is this sense of greed and outright disregard for North Arlington homeowners and taxpayers that has fueled my opposition to the Arlington Valley project.
Could you imagine a local homeowner buying a single family home for $2,500, but the assessed value was $250,000? Would that homeowner feel the need to appeal the assessed value knowing full well the market value could be even higher?
Profit and greed should not be the driving forces behind any redevelopment project!
While every North Arlington homeowner pays higher taxes, EnCap is seeking lower assessments on properties never exposed to the open market. This arrogance only builds a growing consensus among taxpayers that EnCap is not a friend, but a profiteer with little concern as to the impact on North Arlington’s small-town character.
While those seeking re-election claim EnCap has the answer to all of our fiscal woes, no one can accurately display the financial impact on North Arlington. While we all know North Arlington will receive $17 million in impact fees, what will be the net impact if some 4,000 new residents descend upon North Arlington’s infrastructure?
To believe such foolishness, to spew such rhetoric is to think squandering your paycheck on lottery tickets is a plan for financial security!
Why is it that Encap’s apologists are obsessed with bragging about a financial benefit ($17 million) that doesn’t adequately cover North Arlington’s overall financial exposure as it applies to more traffic, more students, more employees and higher operational costs?
With the conservative estimate of at least $35 million to construct a new school facility, raising taxes is the only way to cover the $18 million North Arlington isn’t receiving from the developer. This does not include the cost of supplies, personnel, construction change-orders and the dozens of other costs both anticpated and unanticpated that will fall into the lap of every homeowner, parent and taxpayer impacted by the size of such an undertaking.
No one I’ve met supports the construction of low income, COAH mandates and 1,625 units of housing. No one has accurately described the real cost to taxpayers as it applies to traffic, passenger vehicles or overall impact on Schuyler Avenue, Belleville Pike and other surface streets.
More importantly, the prediction of 360 children for a project yielding nearly 1,700 units of housing is simply flawed. While some continue to use the rhetoric of “senior housing,” that language does not appear in the Memorandum of Agreement.
Logically, how can anyone believe a project of 1,625 units will yield less school-age children than a project of virtually the same proportions located in near-by Wood-Ridge where they’re anticipating 431 new students based on only 700 units? In Wood-Ridge, that governing body has already set aside some $15 million for anticipated school construction.
When I sought a seat on the North Arlington Borough Council, I opposed EnCap, low-income housing and the use of eminent domain. I oppose random development and projects that ask for my vote and answer my questions later. I have a problem with developers who can’t address the fine print or the details of this grand plan. I don’t view Ridge Road as some blighted area in need of hundreds of units of new housing.
Development for development’s sake is neither an answer or a solution to financial problems inherited by the failures of the past. I have no intention of repeating those mistakes.
I won’t go along with a plan that creates more questions than answers.
For the easy route is to say yes and simply go along. The path of least resistance is to bury my head in the sand and support something so outrageous that it will destroy this community’s small town charm and basically create two communities within one. I was not elected for appointed officials to make decisions reserved for those who have the obligation to protect the public good. That I cannot do.
But most importantly, where is the grass-roots support for turning North Arlington into an urban center? Who supports COAH mandates? Who wants thousands of units of housing and hundreds of new school-age children?
The truth is clear. North Arlington homeowners will not see a reduction in property taxes. They won’t see a reduction in school taxes. They will see a large spike in the community’s school population as well as the overall population. Residents will have the responsibility to build a new school facility.
If EnCap offers absolutley no tangible benefit to the current North Arlington taxpayer, why should North Arlington accept the unilateral housing objectives of this developer? Where is the support of homeowners for such a radical transformation of North Arlington that at the end of the day will increase expenditures and raise property taxes?
I will continue to oppose EnCap and other projects that disfigure North Arlington. While I am only one of six, I believe all change begins with someone standing up first.
I will stand first and stand alone if I must to make the point that EnCap simply is a bad deal for North Arlington. It will never be said that I didn’t keep my word. It will never be said I broke my promise to homeowners.
I will stay true to the reasons why I ran for public office and why North Arlington’s silent majority will be outraged by the consequences of such a project that does nothing to make North Arlington a better place to live and raise a family. I will remain independent and objective in my positions as they affect the very people who elected me in the first place: to protect the interests of the over-burdened North Arlington homeowner.
Councilman Peter C. Massa Jr.
North Arlington
Dear Editor,
As of today. I haven't received a new meeting notice from the Borough or Palumbo's developer concerning my home,
or the property across the street (601-624 ridge road).
So my family's home has received it's stay of execution.
The only way my family or anyone else in the Borough will be safe is to get Eminent Domain off the books in North Arlington!
The only way to do that is to get as many of the good people of North Arlington to show up at the next Mayor and Council meeting and voice our concerns.
The council has the ability to address this issue. They need to. They should. We need this addressed today, not in November.
Thank you NA TODAY and those of you who have supported my family during this time.
Al Granell
Editor's Note: Councilman Steve Tanelli (D) is seeking the support of the Borough Council to vastly restrict the usage of eminent domain. Maybe it's time this resolution be put on the agenda so that an up or down vote take place.
We thank you for your comments.
Dear Editor,
Thanks for publishing my letter. Here is an update to the letter I sent you.
On Wednesday the 17th early in the day my family reached out to Mayor Pittman and called the town hall to find out what was going on with the letters I received from the boro planning board. He wasn’t available then.
But later in the day Councilman Roche stopped by my home to speak with my family about the letters and to ensure us that Eminent Domain wasn’t an issue for my property. He explained to my family that indeed there were two projects that were presented to the mayor and council. One of them was the 5 story Renaissance project on my side of the street (Palumbo’s, UVA and Art Roberts’s studio).
The other project is called the ‘Village’. That’s across the street from me. That’s 601 to 623 ridge road. That’s’ also where Joe’s Bakery, Jade Chinese Takeout, and Sanborn’s deli are today. That project will be looking to create a first floor parking lot and a three story condo complex if Palumbo gets his way.
Later in the day. Mayor Pittman stopped by my home.
I wasn’t home, be he left me a number to call him to address this issue. I called the number and spoke with the mayor. He to, was like Councilman Roche and unaware of this mailing by the boro concerning my property. He pointed out that even though both letters have the boro seal on them. The mailing was from the developer, not the boro.
I know it's legal to only send letters to people within 200 feet of a proposed project. But these aren't little projects and they both affect the boro dramatically. I would hate to live 201 feet away and not know what's going on next door to me. There has to be a better way of communicating that info throughout the boro.
He also mentioned to me that the Boro Attorney spoke with the developer and made his position on Eminent Domain very clear.
The Mayor made it quite clear he hasn’t changed his stance on Eminent Domain and didn’t understand what Palumbo and his developer were up to.
We will all find out on the 23rd of February.
I have also found out today that I’m not alone in receiving letters from this developer on Eminent Domain. At least one other family across the street from me has had to endure the abuse by Palumbo’s developer.
I don’t know why we would do business with Palumbo’s developer. If Palumbo wants to move and expand. Move. But not at some family’s expense.
A. Granell
via the Internet
Dear Editor:
I for one am on the side of the NA home owner and business owners being threatened with "eminent domain" by the town and the greedy real estate landgrabbers.
Do not allow Palumbo to have his way and destroy any person's home or business here in NA because of his greed and lack of concern for our town, only his pocket.
Take your real estate mogul plans back home to Lyndhurst Mr. Palumbo!
Mayor Pitman, where the heck are you?
On the side of the taxpaying homeowner, or standing alongside the "for profit only" businessman and developer with no reason to be here but making money and leaving town ?"I'm mad as hell and ain't gonna take it anymore!" sign me as "disgusted with local government in NA"
A disgusted Taxpayer
Dear Editor,
I'm confused.
I've told Robert Palumbo and his developer that the family owned business that has been there since 1957 is not interested in selling.
But no is not an answer. Mayor Pitman has stated several times that "eminent domain" will not be used against a homeowner.
Now I receive a notice for the Borough's Planning Board to discuss changing variances to my property to allow building to a greater height. My question is build where? I said no.
Why is the Borough's Planning Board sending me letters when Mayor Pitman says that Eminent Domain will not be used?
Several weeks ago I gave a letter from the developer to Mayor Pitman and Borough Attorney Mariniello that the developer gave me.
It more or less said to cut a deal with him or in six months they would use eminent domain.
Next thing I know I get a Borough Planning Board letter.
Why is Art Roberts Studio under attack?
1,625 new housing units by EnCap nobody supports isn't enough for North Arlington?
A. Granell
North Arlington
via the Internet
Dear Editor:
At Thursday evening's meeting it was suggested that I put in writing my concerns about the "agreement." While I am troubled by the number of housing units to be included, MY primary concerns are more immediate.
While I anticipate all sorts of references to the DEP and EPA approvals, - using hazardous waste products to cap the landfills is risky, particularly if the remediation site is surrounded by residents, as is the case in N.A.
Attached is that letter (Click Here). I know you dislike lengthy letters and my "rhetoric" so please edit if you like. Or you can pass on it altogether, as I have asked both the South Bergenite and Leader to consider running the letter also.
Thanks,
Kerry Gennace
Dear Editor:
Great to have a "free" NaToday back online.
Citizens aren't stupid. We need to know the black and white of the issues that are being presented to the borough.
That starts at home. When people from out of town think they know better than the people living here.
That is an issue.
An issue that the small power circle in town doesn't want publicized. Looks like this web page was reminding people about something called "free speech".
People are entitled to know what is happening to the borough.
We need to know. The average person in the borough relatively has no idea what's going with Encap and your web page helps fix that issue.
This information should not be for a select few.
Please continue to let us know what is happening. We have serious issues in town, and we need serious people to help resolve them.
Your page and contribution is part of the solution for NA.
Congratulations on being back online.
Al Granell
NA Homeowner
Dear Editor:
Glad your voice has not been silenced!
There's been a seemingly unending string of disappointments insofar as the lack of leadership regarding decisions with Cherokee/Encap.
Too much authority to out-of-towners who have no vested interest in the well being of North Arlington is obvious.
The Administration's reliance upon the developer's "experts" concerning everything from impact on schools to road repair caps (while ignoring constituents and two councilmen's pleas to obtain independent studies/community input) is difficult to comprehend.
Having read the MOA, even to my untrained eye, it is apparent that North Arlington has not been afforded proper legal representation.
I cannot imagine an attorney leaving his/her client so vulnerable!
There is a clause, wherein either party can simply write a letter to dissolve the agreement, therefore there is still time (especially with your input) for a fresh start.
Everyone in North Arlington should want our "brownfields" redeemed, but on our terms!
Kerry Ann Gennace,
1/4/06
Dear
Editor,
I'm
a
home
owner
at
610
Ridge
Road.
That's
the
site
of
the
proposed
development, The
Renaissance.
The
family
photography
business
Art
Roberts
Studio
has
been
there
since
1958.
It's
a
family
owned
business.
Now
our
home
and
business
is
under
attack.
A
Developer
-
Capodagli,
a
Deli-
(Sanborn's)
and
a
hair
salon
-
(Robert
Palumbo)
want
to
take
our
property
using
Eminent
Domain.
I
have
attended
several
council
meetings
in
the
past
and
have
heard
the
Mayor
state,
"There
will
be
no
sneak
attacks
on
homes
in
North
Arlington".
I
applaud
the
statements Pitman
has
made
in
the
past.
But
I
am
very
concerned.
I
see
what
is
happening
with
the
Encap
project
and
hear
the
words
eminent
domain
being
used
all
the
time.
Especially the
comments
made
by Borough
Attorney
Joseph
Mariniello reciting
Kelo v.
New
London.
The
Developer,
Deli
and Palumbo
Hair
Design
think North
Arlington
needs
96
condo
units
at
the
North
End
of
town
and
that
this
is
all
possible
because North
Arlington
has
been
deemed
this
area 'blighted"
so
that
eminent
domain
can
be
exercised.
Is
this
true?
Has
the
North
end
of
North
Arlington,
AutoZone,
UVA
Restaurant,
McMullen
center,
Sanborn's
Deli,
Valley
National
Bank,
Robert
Palumbo's
and
Art
Robert's
studio
been
deemed
blighted
by
the
North
Arlington
Re-development
plan?
Can
Eminent
Domain
be
used
to
seize
any
of
these
properties?
To
take
a
person's
property
for
public
use
is
one
thing.
To
take
a
persons
property
and
give
it
to
some
else
is
a
different
matter
all
together.
How
does
a
person
find
out
if
there
property
has
been
deemed
blighted?
It
sounds
like
between
Porete
Avenue,
the
Spring
Air
property
and
my
home
that
Eminent
Domain
can
be
used
all
over
the
borough.
Who's
next?
I
understand
that
HR
3058
which
was
supported
by
Congressman
Rothman
passed
into
law.
But
that
law
provides
limited
protection
with
federal
funds
not
being
able
to
be
used
to
support
Eminent
Domain. Several
municipalities
including
Bogota have
already
approved
referendums
or
ordinances
to
limit
their
authority
to
take
private
property
through
eminent
domain.
The
move
is
intended
to
give
homeowners
an
added
sense
of
security
that
their
properties
won't
be
seized
for
redevelopment.
These
towns
wanted
to
make
it
clear
to
their
communities
that
in
no
way
would
they
consider
exercising
eminent
domain
against
private
homeowners.
What
steps
can
people
in
North
Arlington
pursue
to
protect
their
homes?
I've sent
letters
to
the
mayor
and
council.
I'm
awaiting
there
reply.
Sincerely,
A
Very
Concerned &
worried
NA Homeowner
Dear
Editor,
After
attending
the
last
council
meeting.
Now
more
than
ever
I
am
concerned
with
what
Encap
has
proposed
for
North
Arlington.
Expert
after
expert
stood
up
in
front
of
the
council
and
did
his
job by
saying
exactly
what
Encap
wanted
them
to
say!
Where
are
the
North
Arlington
Council
experts
with
their
feasibility
study
on
the
Valley
project?
Does
anybody
want
4,000
more
people
in
town,
with
new
homes
at
$400,000
to
$600,000?
We
go
from
about
200
plus
children
for
this
project
to
now
370.
Why
does
the
number
of
school
children
that
this
project
will
create
get
closer
to
the
number
Dr
Stringham
stated
around
500?
Now
the
Encap
lawyer
wants
to
use
Dr
Stringham's
numbers
to
be
more
accurate.
Who
is
running
this
show?
Looks
like
Encap!
How
is
North
Arlington
validating
any
of
the
numbers
from
Encap?
Just
ask
Rutherford
and
Lyndhurst
residents
if
the
numbers
from
Encap
should
be
questioned.
The
council
also
amended
the
redevelopment
plan
for
Porete
Avenue.
Paving
the
way
for
eminent
domain.
Is
there
anybody
who
doesn't
think
that's
next?
Seizing
the
business's
and
properties
on
Porete
Avenue.
First
Porete
Avenue
and
then
anywhere
else
in
North
Arlington.
I
know
that
on
a
federal
level
H.R
3058
passed
into
law
and
H.R
4128
is
in
the
Judicary
Committee.
On
a
local
level.
The
ACR255
bill
is
in
the
New
Jersey
State
house
awaiting
approval.
But
today,
no
home
or
business
is
safe
from
the
North
Arlington
Re-development
plan.
It
was
interesting
to
get
no
response
from
the
Encap
experts
to
Councilman
Ferriero's
question
about
whether
this
Project
will
create
two
North
Arlingtons.
Of
course
it
will.
According
to
Encap
experts.
The
project
itself
based
on
the
volume
of
people
in
the
project
will
pay
for
the
new
Police,
EMS,
School
funding,
Fire
and
the
rest
of
the
needs
for
that
part
of
the
municipality.
Really?
The
project
will
pay
for
itself?
Well
according
to
their
experts???????
Just
another
concerned
NA
Taxpayer
Dear
Editor,
