“It’s not an open, public process, sorry, and it never really is. If people want to think it wasn’t enough, or too much, that’s the way the negotiations went, this is the deal on the table.”
Those words were spoken by Trenton’s Acting Director of Housing and Economic Development, JR Capasso, at a City Hall forum yesterday afternoon to discuss the proposed sale of 301 West State Street to Thomas Edison State College (TESC). As reported in this morning’s Trenton Times, it sounds to me that Mr. Capasso believes this is a take-it-or-leave-it deal. “Frankly, I was happy for the $1.4 million to get the building demolished,” which is the only benefit the City and its taxpayers are going to get from the sale of the site of the decrepit Glen Cairn Arms buildings. That, and a one-time only payment of $300,000 to the city by TESC, which is a fraction of what Trenton would earn in property taxes from even a modest commercial development.
Well, if that’s the only offer on the table, Mr. Capasso, I would have to say “No Deal.”
Before we get any further, it should be said that should City Council, at its scheduled February 7 vote, decides against the current proposal, this would not end the project. There are many alternative paths to pursue from that point. The City can re-open negotiations with TESC for a better deal. A deal based, perhaps, on an annual Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) fee to the City; perhaps an arrangement based on annual Rent to be paid to the City as a landlord, should Trenton retain title to the property. Or, as TESC President Dr. George Pruitt seemed to offer in the meeting yesterday, the college would look at another site in Trenton.
There are many options forward, if Council votes No on February 7. There are none if the vote is Yes.
Apart from the paltry financial terms of the deal, there is also this to consider: the City has indicated that if we sell 301 West State to the College, and the State of New Jersey fails to fund TESC’s proposal at the amount requested, or if for any other reason the project stalls, the college will still own the property, and will be able to do with it what it will. To me, that is a real potential downside to the proposal.
There are several reasons that delaying now makes sense. And none to move forward at the rapid pace this is moving along. Which is probably why yesterday’s “forum” was structured as it was.
As the Times article by Erin Duffy reports, “residents and officials continued to ask questions on the project’s tax and traffic impact and the behind-the-scenes negotiations that brought the plan to life.”
But Dr. Pruitt and the other participating officials had no answers, and were not going to volunteer any more information that they absolutely had to. “Pruitt told the crowd of 40 gathered at City Hall that he was not there to engage in a back-and-forth over the project’s economic impacts or renegotiate the land deal,” Ms. Duffy reports. He was only there to answer very narrow questions about the deal on the table, the take-it-or-leave-it ordinance Council will consider on February 7.
There were several supporters of the project there last night. An account by one member of the public present at the meeting, Jim Carlucci, describes how Dr. Pruitt characterized their support: “After listing all the people and entities that have come out in support of the project Pruitt stated ‘we can’t all be wrong.'”
Please raise your hand if you think we can take that to the bank!
There were some skeptical voices there, from rather unlikely (to readers of this space, at least) sources. Council Member-at-Large Kathy McBride called for a cautious response to this proposal. Referring to supporters’ claims for all the benefits and trickle-down effects that would fall on the surrounding neighborhood, she said, “This conversation has taken place many times before and it was always the same deal. ‘You need to act because this is an eyesore and we need to enhance our city, it will boost the other property values.’ But still we’re left with the burden [presumably the financial burden on the city of another tax-exempt property]. It’s my job to make sure that doesn’t happen on my watch.”
Member-at-Large Alex Bethea also struck a prudent note, suggesting that any deal should include fair, annual income to the City. “I am not interested in [the single payment of] $300,000. If they said, ‘we’ll pay $10,000 a year from now until Jesus returns,’ that would be better than $300,000 once and we’re done.”
What a world this is! Kathy McBride and Alex Bethea are the voices of reason, and all the rest are saying, “We can’t all be wrong!” But here we are.
This forum, as described in the Times article and in the accounts of eyewitnesses, does not change anything. This morning, the offer on the table still looks to be a bad deal for the taxpayers of the City of Trenton. This is good for TESC, and I do not object to Dr. Pruitt fighting for the best interests of his school. That is his job.
But as it stands now, the best interests of Thomas Edison State College and the best interests of the taxpayers of Trenton are at odds. This proposal to remove this parcel of city-owned real estate – purchased for millions of dollars after years of legal dispute, remember – from the city’s ratables forever, in return for a pittance of a payment, deserves to be turned down.
Let’s Make a (Better) Deal.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think we can assume J.R. has final say over this. My limited interaction with him suggests that he’s reasonable.
Mr. Capasso exlained to me last evening how these deals are negotiated in private – that’s the way it’s done. Obvioulsy it is, BUT if there was more sunshine on these deals would three Trentonians be under federal indictment? And would there be a group of Trentonians (the most active and interested) questioning this TESC deal? Unlike Dan Dodson, I’m not impressed by Mr. Capasso; he’s following the same script that I’ve been hearing for 27 years.
@ patricia ~ there is some substance behind the privacy these deals often take and at least worth acknowledging. As an illustration, consider a deal which involves the procurement of several parcels of land that neither the developer, financier, or city own – if word of the deal got out, it would create the potential for speculators (or worse) to swoop in, grab a critical parcel of land, and hold the deal hostage for almost prohibitive selling costs. So, some things need to be kept quiet until there is an appropriate time to put them on display.
That being said, this ISN’T one of those times. The land was owned by a single, participating entity – the city. So, while this is the way it should be done SOMETIMES, this isn’t one of them. Frankly, keeping it quiet only served one purpose – to escape criticism and efforts to block the project.
Having had some experience in this arena, there are times when you want to avoid external “criticism” – the competing developer slandering your effort, the poorly informed-highly passionate citizen that screams foul play, the political hostage taking, etc. However, when your most informed, most involved citizens are up in arms – yeah, chances are its for a good reason. These aren’t the voice the CITY should be dodging (though certainly the developer will).
I concur with Patricia Stewart.
I trust my experience. I experienced audacious arrogance, from some of the people on the ‘panel’ as they answered questions of the couageous public citizens who rightfully are taking part in a ‘conversation’about the future of this city. For anyone upon that ‘panel’ to complain about ‘the time’ invested in ‘questions’ about this proposed ‘deal’ is not only disrespectful, but questionable of why would their time be more important than anyone else’s and seems to me a stonewall tactic and an attempt to intimidate. Paticia Stewart was right on to remind the panel that the public had only been informed for two weeks prior. I suspect that there are more reasons than the public has been told that this panel and others want to quickly continue onwards with their goals of ‘this deal as is’. I believe they just want ‘we the people’ to just be quiet and go away, and allow them to do whatever they want to do…and with any and all ‘deals’.
I do not know if any other State has ‘absorbed’ it’s Capitol City’s land and/or buildings. I do not think that is what the State and it’s power-brokers may want, but then again, I am still learning. If that were part of any larger deal or plan, I believe the State monies are too low to give any or all of the home owners some kind of tax rebate to ‘stay’ here under those circumstances. And, then there is definitely the aftermath of the ‘Sandy’ storm keeping many busy, yet, as I said before, I am still learning.
So, again, I will learn…@ James E.and ‘Everyone’ ~could one of last night’s panelist’s moneyed bankers/backers want to purchase that lot from the State(which I had read earlier) at a later time for $400,00.00 vs. the $Millions it has already cost the taxpayers of Trenton, and may still be worth ??
Dan, I wouldn’t think that JR has final say over this. But frankly, his presentations and statements on the matter have not given me much confidence in the way he and his department has performed.
To James, Barbara and Pat: Regarding the confidentiality of the negotiating process, I totally understand that a lot of this must be done behind closed doors. I get it. I do a lot of that at work. That’s standard.
But after such deals are tentatively concluded that involve the public’s business, both parties should realize that their agreement is only the first step. The next part of the process is informing the public, explaining the merits of the deal, and getting THEIR approval.
On this aspect of the process, I would grade TESC and their supporters with a “D.” The announcement of a done deal was made on a Friday, with the first chance for the public to weigh in on the plan only 4 days later. And at the first presentation, the tone taken by the school was clearly condescending. “We just don’t know why you don’t understand what a great plan this is” seemed to be the message.
Rather than a campaign of friendly persuasion, this proposal has been lopsidedly aggressive, by the City, the College, and the Trenton Times.
That was a bad move to make with a proposal with as many holes, unknowns, and bad economics as this one.
Kevin, Here, here…and thank you.
Also, Thank you so very much for the laughter and concerts last night from your prior post, ‘Same Old, Same Old’. Super !! I do not have a TV right now, have been using this PC instead…so, Thank you, again…I will return to it for more entertainment…my pet thought I had ‘lost it’, haven’t laughed that much or loudly in ages !! I appreciate all you do for all of us !!
I am also appreciative to have found these blogs and for all that each of the other residents contribute to all of us !!
At the meeting last Wednesday, the panel gave the impression that they were dealing with difficult children. They resented having to be there – too bad! And Dr. Pruitt was condescending. His first statement – he was not there to renegotiate the deal. And he announced that if this deal did not go through, there were others in Trenton who would be willing to sell to TESC; property that was already on the tax rolls. Will things ever change? I beginning to doubt it.