Local Awareness and Unanswered Questions

To our pleasant surprise this morning we received a call that said to check out the Barista, the local, independent (keyword here) news source, which we would have done at some point in the day anyway.

There was an article, unprompted by anything but the discovery of our blog, detailing our blog and the issues at hand. The telling part was the debate occurring in the comments area of the article, and the number of posts that occurred over such a short time.

The debate went back and forth about the fairness involved in the entire process.

Let's review some key issues here.

The issue here is not, and never has been, whether or not redevelopment should occur. The sign on our front door which has been there for months and was photographed by the Star Ledger should make that clear. The sign reads "Help Revitalize Bloomfield the Organic Way - Support Local Business."

If this process is fair, then some questions need to be asked:

• Why do I have petition signatures from hundreds of local community members (representing near 90% of the people that enter this store) declaring the following:
  "By signing this petition I declare that I do not support the misuse and abuse of the eminent domain laws by the township of Bloomfield in the downtown / center area. This abuse has been documented and challenged in courts. A law in place for the public good should NOT benefit private developers!"

• Why are the owners of the properties on the other sides of the tracks being prevented from their own redevelopment plan because Forest City is the "official" agency of the town (and also a private, for-profit corporation)?
  
  
• Why is an area zoned as "redevelopment" for five years before a project gets off the ground, making a documented and clear impact on market values? These market values are then considered the "fair" values of the properties, even after being desolated
  
  
• Why were businesses left out of the new plans with no space for them, and then promised relocation assistance under New Jersey state law, only to move and be left with thousands of dollars in unpaid expenses that the town is liable to cover under the law?
  
  
• Why did a county court judge prevent the town from condemning its first set of properties because she felt the plan did not justify the move AND there were too many suspicious interests?

Sadly these are just the tip of a VERY big iceberg of questions left unanswered. The most telling part is the lack of response from ALL OF THE PARTIES who received a letter requesting information sent four weeks ago.

The Only News That Matters - The People

So I got the only news that matters today, the voices of the people. The postman, who knows this area inside and our for years, and speaks to every single business owner daily, has confirmed that Bloomfield township was out to get this area, and has nearly won.

My amazingly kind postman said that three more businesses closed, and every business confirmed their holiday season was the worst in years (possibly ever). He confirmed that there were no people in sight, that he has no idea where all the people have gone. He mentioned how absurd the holiday meter cover up (lack thereof) was and how that truly affects people coming down here.

So there we have it, from the voices of the business owners, the people who work here every single day - Bloomfield has nearly officially slaughtered its downtown.

What a lovely, foggy day this is.

P.S. - No response from the mayor, the zoning board, the neighborhood association, or the development consultants on a letter sent last week.

Odd Update Results in Questions

An odd update from this weekend's local press (The Star Ledger) is making less and less sense of the situation. To briefly summarize, the area on the other side of the train tracks in downtown was to be the first condemnation. Back in August condemnation by eminent domain was not approved by the judge, who cited lack of justification and problematic redevelopment planning / set up (anyone could have told you that). Now the property owner wishes to redevelop it himself, but the town doesn't approve of this idea, saying they are not the approved developer (who happens to be a New York based multi billion dollar company). All I see are dollar sign intentions, and little discussion of the actual process here. Yet again, redevelopment and the actual process of revitalizing the area gets politicked and flavored with greed.

The article also claimed that the project was moving ahead with construction after the New Year - what project? Is this my area? Does anyone think to tell those of us there the status? It has prompted me to write a letter to all town officials, the redevelopment consultants, the developer, and the center alliance for an official status. I have many lawyers now reviewing the details of the case and hope that they begin to tell me what my own rights are, but now it's time for an official statement to me, a local business owner.

Check out the article from http://www.baristanet.com:

Eminently Reasonable?

Here's a novel idea: instead of government leading a downtown revitalization and kicking out the current property owners by means of eminent domain, why not let the property owners plan their own revitalization? That's the concept behind a new proposal by 110 Washington Associates, which wants to build a 10-story condo tower behind the Bloomfield train station.

110 Washington Associates, you may remember, successfully sued the township of Bloomfield over the condemnation of its property, and put a halt to Bloomfield's downtown revitalization plans last August.

Mayor Bloomfield Raymond McCarthy, as quoted in Sunday's Star Ledger, doesn't like the new proposal.

But condos built by 110 Washington Associates are not part of the township's redevelopment plan, said Mayor Raymond McCarthy.

"(The company) could build that if they were given developer status," he said. The designated developer for the 13.5-acre redevelopment zone is New York City-based Forest City Residential.

Since 110 Washington Associates is not the developer, McCarthy said, they can't built residences on that property. Currently the area is zoned for industrial or retail uses.

"This is an attempt in futility," McCarthy said of the company's plans. "I would think this is called posturing."

We're not the Amazing Kreskin, but in the battle between 110 Washington Associates and Mayor McCarthy, our money is on 110 Washington Associates. One of its principals, David Mandelbaum, is number 384 on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans.