Developer Proposes 74 Apartments
The township would sell land for $1.8 million under the tentative agreement.
The township has tenatively agreed to sell a piece of land it owns nearby Gloucester Township Community Park to a New York developer that proposes to build 74 apartments there.
The Township Council at its Feb. 27 meeting authorized the $1.8 million sale of township land to Conifer Realty LLC, of Rochester, NY.
The township selected Conifer as the developer after it and another developer each bid $1.8 million for the property, which is located at the end of Melbourne Lane, between the Revere Run II development and the park.
Conifer has proposed to build and manage a 74-unit affordable housing development on the site.
A total of three developers submitted bids for the property by the Feb. 8 deadline. The bids ranged from $750,000 to $1.8 million, with the high bid coming from Conifer, Township Solicitor David Carlamere said.
Lawrenceville-based Community Investment Strategies (CIS) LLC increased its initial bid of $1.5 million to $1,800,001 during an advertised auction, at which Conifer was not represented.
With CIS and Conifer both essentially making the same bid for the property, township officials asked both developers to make pitches in support of their proposals. The developers met with Carlamere, Business Administrator Tom Cardis and Councilman Dan Hutchison.
"We had to look at their finances and the proposals that they submitted, and where they were going to secure their funding, because we were very much interested in being satisfied that the award would go to the one most likely to succeed," Carlamere said during the Feb. 27 Council meeting.
The three-man committee decided Conifer was "most likely to succeed" with its proposal.
The property had previously been approved for 100 housing units, according to Carlamere.
According to Cardis, Conifer's proposal would result in construction of 35 three-bedroom units, 25 two-bedroom units and 14 one-bedroom units.
The resolution approved by Council stipulates that the contract of sale be finalized "with a projected date for closing to be set at a date within 120 days of availability of funding to the purchaser or Dec. 31, 2012, whichever first occurs."
Joshua Berry
8:21 am on Friday, March 9, 2012
Because our mayor and council believe in complete transparency, I'll offer the following piece of information.
Conifer Realty (based out of New York), are donors to little Gloucester Township alllllll the way in South Jersey. Now why would a realty firm that far away donate to a local political race? Oh, that's right donating to the party is the entry fee to be taken seriously. Why else would the township attorney have any part in the vendor process (cause he is also a major party player and runs a pay to play PAC). Remember for the 2012 vendors, half of the bidders were non-donors, but virtually all of the contracts went to donors.
So a party donor gets rich building an apartment which will cause your taxes to go up (every new family causes school costs to increase, and the taxes per family in an apartment are less than a house). Did council or mayor disclose that donation during the vote? No? Oh, what a surprise. Cause that would have been transparency.
That is why we need this pay to play ordinance passed. Their friends cash in and your taxes go up.
N/A
8:16 pm on Friday, March 9, 2012
I see a bit of irony here since if your illegal pay to play ordinance was in effect you would have never known who donated to anyone....NOW THAT’S KARMA.....By the way your assertion they donated to GT Democrats to get this past is backed up by what? NOTHING!!!! Just like the petitions you turned in with hundreds of false signatures you’re lying to us about this too. You claim you’re a savior yet you turned out to be nothing more then a liar and a deceiver. Why don’t you tell everyone the real reason you’re doing what you do. Joshua how many times did you apply for funds from the citizen’s campaign to live off of now? How many of your street walkers know about that. I have a feeling they will soon.
Michelle Wolfson
9:08 am on Friday, March 9, 2012
Interesting Josh.
Political ramifications aside, do we really need more apartments in Gloucester Township? This is frustrating.
Darren Gladden
10:22 am on Friday, March 9, 2012
Is it Michelle , Well I ask and beg for all the Great People of Gloucester Township to let the Stachie Crew know that we are GETTING real mad and if they can throw this CASH COW making deal to there friends in a heartbeat. Well "SIR" YOU PLUGS can also bring and Build a FUN CENTER in this great town but "nooooooooooo ".They keep playing the same old BS games things are happening but nothing is getting DONE . " hey I hit 32 more pot holes today" . "WHO DO I SEND THE BILL TO FOR ALL THE CAR REPAIRS" ........Just care , I do ....Have a nice day
http://youtu.be/RkZC7sqImaM
Uncle Jon
7:49 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
No we do not! This is a big problem already, there are too many apartments in this township, enough already. Build more anything, just not apartments!!!!
Paul J. DiBartolo
12:48 pm on Friday, March 9, 2012
The answer to your question, Michelle...
No, the township doesn't really need any more apartments but do the township politicos need more campaign money? The best way to get the needed money is through contract awards, right? See, we really do have transparency here, Josh. Why all the complaining?
N/A
8:07 pm on Friday, March 9, 2012
Striking this deal yesterday was sheer brilliance. Pushing this deal made sure that we as a municipality maximized the value of land that certainly is not worth today what was paid for it yesterday, now that the Appeals court ruled, as I said they would that, Governor Chris Christie was AGAIN in violation of state COAH laws and overturned Dictator Christie’s Executive Order directed at forcing the poor and middle class to leave the state. The Mt. Laurel Rule is alive and Chris Christie’s actions again were deemed unconstitutional.
As to your comment that apartments don’t pay taxes beside it being a complete lie can you tell the rest of us sensible people how you pretend to be so intelligent, yet once again you prove your only jaded and unrealistic about how the real world works.
GT thanks to our previous Mayor was in violation of COAH laws despite Dictator Chris Christie refusing to use tax payer funds for what state law required him to do the law remained the law and now the courts are going to force the issue. This does deal not only help us meet our required prorated number of units the $1.8 million dollar windfall, from the otherwise worthless ground, nets every homeowner of GT $ 414.00 on their taxes. If you have a problem with that you’re barking up the wrong tree for support on this issue.
Paul J. DiBartolo
9:02 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
Gee, "N/A" (hmmmm, that's a funny name), you'd have a whole lot more credibility if you stood up like a real man or woman and used your real name...but then again, that would blow your whole ruse. Wake up and get a life.
Charles
9:53 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
N/A: COAH was and is a disaster for ordinary families. Does GT really need another set of transients who cost much and pay little in taxes? Comment was that apartments pay much less than homes and require the same or more services.
When I see the $414. reduction in my taxes, I'll also believe in the tooth fairy!
Michelle Wolfson
11:12 pm on Sunday, March 11, 2012
What exactly IS our required prorated number of units? And are we close to meeting it? Because again, I am not discussing the political ramifications or the pay to play accusations- I am asking sheerly as a resident of this township who just doesn't really want to see it continue to be built up until there is not a blade of grass left. I am the 'green' girl after all.
If it meant we could stop the overdevelopment of the area, I'd gladly hand you back my $414, but that's just me....
N/A
7:38 am on Monday, March 12, 2012
Michele I agree if it meant kicking $414 to not build "ANYTHING ELSE" in this town, I'd kick mine in the pot too. Unfortunately we both understand that will never happen. To take some words from your comment If they can find "a blade of grass" that they can build on and make a buck every builder would do it no matter how we feel.
To answer your question about how many units we are short of compliance on in GT: 1064 units. I have to say I do not remember how they were supposed to be “phased” in but I do know however it was thanks to Christie we are now 2 years behind schedule and they will have to do something in a rush or risk whatever penalizing action the coalition has to enforce GT's compliance with the state law.
GTWatchdawg
12:26 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
Did we or did we not already meet our requirement for affordable housing (COAH) for before this administration even took office?
GT = Greatly TAXED
A. Carroll
7:52 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
Who got paid off? When? and how much? I want to gauge Conifer's level of "support" for "civic engagement." Maybe this developer can ante up more kickbacks than Blue Sky does.
My Common Sense
8:08 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
So when can I expect my check for $414.00? Can you send me my cut of the B.C. road red light camera revenue too? I'm thinking of opening a business with he funds. I hear that the businesses are doing well since everyone is slowing down and noticing them.
Paul J. DiBartolo
9:10 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
We seem to be embroiled in a "Catch-22" here, Tom. Let's see, let's set up Red Light Cameras to generate revenue but say that they're there to slow people down so they can notice and patronize the 'local' businesses along B-C Road...but if people slow down, there goes the revenue out the window. Hmmmm, what to do? Oh well, time to move on to some other crooked back-room deal like changing the zoning laws so Norcross and company can make money from setting up Rt.42 signage that was precviously thought a bad idea or maybe provide some land to an out-of-state donor to local political campaigns to build some more apartments that we don't need...and the list goes on.
My Common Sense
9:58 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
So lets see. Do I have this right? The mayor said he wanted a local Camden company like Blue Sky for one contract and a NY based company that donated to his campaign for the apartment complex over a NJ company that offered the same bid. Does the mayor think we dont see or care?
Paul J. DiBartolo
10:45 am on Sunday, March 11, 2012
Both! Actually, I don't think he cares whether we see or care, he will just keep doing what he does best with impunity until the 'Walking Dead' (i.e., the Democratic voting public) wake up!
A. Carroll
9:29 am on Sunday, March 11, 2012
We need an occasional troll like N/A on the blog, just to remind us where we live. I especially appreciate his/her calm and closely-reasoned responses, combined with an absolute lack of bias.
Joshua Berry
9:47 am on Sunday, March 11, 2012
It's time to bring back an old favorite...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvcJqcUlYTo
A. Carroll
9:54 am on Sunday, March 11, 2012
Nice! I wish only that we could solve some people's riddles.
Schu
5:45 pm on Monday, March 12, 2012
Oh Joy, another La Cascata.