As posted as a comment to the Editorial in today’s Trenton Times:
Is our reluctance really so “difficult to fathom?”
Trenton is a town where only 47% of its property by value is taxable. It has the 5th highest percentage of non-taxable property in the state, out of 535 municipalities.
In the last couple of years, the market value of the remaining taxable property has declined by over a quarter-billion dollars.
The City has long been unable to support itself without significant financial support from the State, support that is formally supposed to “transition” to zero in the near future.
In short, the financial future of this City as a going concern is dismal.
In the midst of this, the City has for decades been incapable of demonstrating any competence at economic development that would improve Trenton’s financial condition and reduce the pressure on those few remaining taxpayers left holding an increasingly burdensome bag.
What I and some of the other residents who spoke at Council were asking for Council to do was to ask some important questions about this proposal, about alternative sites in Trenton that might be better suited for Thomas Edison, and to find out more information about why the City has neglected this site – for which taxpayers paid between $3 and $4 Million, remember – for so long.
I do not object to TESC’s proposal. I do not deny that, as you state, “Its redevelopment of other decrepit buildings in the city has won awards and rescued landmarks.”
What I do assert is that TESC’s presence, or that of the Arena, Ballpark and Hotel built over the last decades, has had little to no sustainable positive impact on their surrounding neighborhoods. There has been no revitalization effect from any of those projects, and I foresee the same result for TESC’s current proposal.
It seems to me that business neighbors in Trenton, such as this paper and its parent the Star-Ledger, should be more sensitive to these developments as they have unwound over the last decades, and be more supportive of efforts to raise legitimate questions about the desirability of turning over yet another prime parcel of real estate to a non-profit.
However, since in your case, your company has recent experience of abandoning its own previous corporate home on Perry Street in favor of smaller and far less expensive digs yourself, I imagine you can feel some insulation from the long-term consequences of your position.
“Reprehensible” is not the word I would use for our position. I would suggest looking in your corporate mirror.
Thank you, Kevin. Well said.
I would like to know what “substantial investment in the city’s future” TESC would be making above the $300,000 payment on the property.
A “substantial investment in the city’s future” should include a financial component that goes above a one time for all time lump sum.
Trenton will eat up that $300,000 in a couple of years and be left with nothing. Forever.
Thanks, Bobbie and Mike!
Mike, the Times seems to be happy that TESC’s previous “redevelopment of other decrepit buildings in the city has won awards and rescued landmarks.”
I mean, Hey! Awards!!! That counts for more than cash, am I right, or am I right?
As to Trenton eating up the $300,000 in a few years – try a few months. Maybe even a few weeks. Three hundred thou in this economy is not very much money. PHS
@Kevin – You might have hit onto something here. Instead of paying my ever increasing property tax bill (I am helping to subsidize all Trenton’s tax exepmt properties after all. Not sure how many of the Times’ Editors are actually doing that.), I’ll create some awards and send those into the City.
Amen. This editorial is what’s reprehensible.
I think the proposal needs careful review but building a nursing school in Trenton will bring in hundreds of students to Trenton. Unlike the state government where the garages are filled with about half as many PA plates as NJ plates. We need land use that will bring people into the city where they will live in the city and spend money in the city. People come to the city and go to a ball game or a concert and then LEAVE without spending any money on other local businesses. At least a nursing school will support a student population that will need housing, pizza, drug store goods, clothing and beer and will likely live or stay in the city. Further, a good nursing program would give many inner city men and women a shot at a brighter future with some of the new area hospitals and boost the income base above minimum wage. I can’t think of a better use of the real-estate. When it comes to other offers, I have heard that everyone else wanted the city to remove the building which is filled with lead paint and asbestos at a reported sum of $1.2 million. At least the current plan puts the responsibility of the building’s removal on the college. I still have to disagree with you just this one time.
Kevin, Great work as usual, and again, “Thank You for all you do”. And the thoughts of all who ‘question’ are asking many right questions and appropriate in the comparisons to the Ballpark, the Arena, etc. When the questions are asked, with all due respect…could one of the questions please be a clarification of: ‘if this proposed ‘Nursing Education Center’ actually will ‘bring human students’ to the City and that proposed building – versus – only be used for a newer more modern Administration building to further support ‘online graduate students’ taking courses only online with Professors who live elsewhere in the Country’ as I know for a fact has been the case with some students’ experiences. And, also we musn’t forget that several Nurses Schools have also LEFT Trenton… and that the education process is evolving for said Nursings training.
Thanks for all the comments, guys. Jack, we can’t agree about everything. All I hope is that all the relevant facts and data be released and factored in to the final decision. Any method of governing, such as being practiced by the current Administration, based on a “Here’s the proposal, take it or leave it” is not in our best interest.