Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"][quote="wcody"]... It is clear that the proposed "growth share" formula is based on a telephone survey conducted by a COAH consultant, which resulted in a "new" calculated ratio between square footage and jobs. In Viridian's experience, the maximum density is one job per 5,000 square feet of warehouse space. In most instances, the ratio is closer to one job per 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. This calculation is embodied universally in municipal zoning ordinance standards for warehouse development throughout the state. In the absence of more compelling data than that which has been provided with the "third-round" COAH proposal, the "growth share" ratio, especially with regard to warehouse uses, is unfounded and should be rejected outright. ...[/quote] This just to show how reckless and ignorant those people in charge of making the COAH "growth share" formula are.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Apr 18 2008, 12:41 pm EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: COAH regulations discriminate</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>wcody wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">... <br />It is clear that the proposed "growth share" formula is based on a telephone survey conducted by a COAH consultant, which resulted in a "new" calculated ratio between square footage and jobs. In Viridian's experience, the maximum density is one job per 5,000 square feet of warehouse space. In most instances, the ratio is closer to one job per 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. This calculation is embodied universally in municipal zoning ordinance standards for warehouse development throughout the state. In the absence of more compelling data than that which has been provided with the "third-round" COAH proposal, the "growth share" ratio, especially with regard to warehouse uses, is unfounded and should be rejected outright. ...</td> </tr></table><span class="postbody"> <br /> <br />This just to show how reckless and ignorant those people in charge of making the COAH "growth share" formula are.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>wcody</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Apr 18 2008, 10:18 am EDT<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: COAH regulations discriminate</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style: italic">The following editorial appeared in the Trenton Times Thursday April 17. The author is CEO of Viridian Partners who purchased the 400 acre Unexcelled Property off Brickyard Rd in Cranbury.</span> <br /> <br />COAH regulations discriminate <br />Thursday, April 17, 2008 <br />BY WILLIAM P. LYNOTT <br /> <br />In December 2007, the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) voted to propose its revised "third-round" regulations as directed by a Jan. 25, 2007 Appellate Division decision. The proposed regulations were published in the Jan. 22, 2008 New Jersey Register and, as part of the rule-making process in New Jersey, COAH held five public hearings throughout the state. Unfortunately, the proposed COAH regulations will place significant burdens on New Jersey municipalities and push development out of the state. <br /> <br />As a brownfield redevelopment firm focused on the remediation and development of "as of right" industrial sites, with a significant financial investment in communities throughout the state, we question the validity of the data used to support the proposed rules and we find the proposed rules to be overly discriminatory toward nonresidential developers. Stated simply, inaccurate and invalid data have resulted in unrealistic, irrational proposed rules that must be amended to preserve municipalities and treat fairly the development community. <br /> <br />In 2004, COAH's proposed "growth share" formula was struck down by the courts for its failure to provide adequate data regarding job growth and housing needs. The proposed "third-round" COAH rule does no better. As proposed, the rule would create an obligation to make one affordable housing unit for every 16 jobs. We object to the calculations used to project and implement the nonresidential components of the "growth share" formula based on "use groups" and square footage. Like its 2004 predecessor's proposal of one affordable housing unit for every 25 jobs, this conclusion is unsupported by satisfactory data and is without a rational basis. <br /> <br />It is clear that the proposed "growth share" formula is based on a telephone survey conducted by a COAH consultant, which resulted in a "new" calculated ratio between square footage and jobs. In Viridian's experience, the maximum density is one job per 5,000 square feet of warehouse space. In most instances, the ratio is closer to one job per 10,000 square feet of warehouse space. This calculation is embodied universally in municipal zoning ordinance standards for warehouse development throughout the state. In the absence of more compelling data than that which has been provided with the "third-round" COAH proposal, the "growth share" ratio, especially with regard to warehouse uses, is unfounded and should be rejected outright. <br /> <br />Even if supported by isolated data, the proposed calculation will have a chilling effect on future nonresidential development throughout New Jersey. By way of example, Viridian is in the process of developing a site in Middlesex County that will produce three million square feet of nonresidential development and the tax ratables that one might expect to go with such a project. Under existing COAH rules, the COAH obligation is 22 affordable housing units. Under the proposed rules, that obligation would jump to 270 affordable units. The economics of warehouse development cannot support such a massive obligation and municipalities cannot absorb such massive numbers. Needless to say, there is now growing local opposition to the project, and other similar projects known to be in the various preliminary stages, all because of the affordable-housing obligations the projects either will create or are perceived to create. <br /> <br />As the appellate court indicated, the data are the key to the analysis of COAH rules and regulations. As it relates to the "growth share" calculation, there must be accurate data, a satisfactory description of how that data was collected and the steps taken to insure its accuracy. Municipalities and the developers on whom they will rely to fulfill their obligations are entitled to at least as much. <br /> <br />In addition to questioning the collection, accuracy and validation of the data used to support the new COAH rules, we question a number of proposals that directly affect nonresidential development. Overall, there appears to be little or no realistic understanding of the nonresidential development market or of the realities that drive that market. <br /> <br />As proposed, the new COAH rules propose "compensatory benefits for nonresidential developers" that offer benefits that residential developers would embrace, while offering little or no flexibility for those in the business of nonresidential development. Additionally, the new rules would offer a "reduced financial incentive" or penalize nonresidential developers for building affordable housing units "off-site," thereby increasing the number of affordable units and pushing those units next to nonresidential areas. Clearly, it would be unreasonable and discriminatory to expect residents of affordable housing to live in units constructed on industrial warehouse sites. This proposed rule undermines the common-sense goals and principles of sound planning. <br /> <br />Finally, the 2004 rule changes to the COAH regulations increased nonresidential developer fees from 1 percent of the equalized assessed value of the project to 2 percent. Given that there was no adjustment to the permitted fee for 15 years, this did not seem terribly unreasonable. However, COAH now proposes an additional 50 percent increase, raising the fee to 3 percent without offering the slightest rationale for doing so. This extreme financial exaction further undermines the economic viability of commercial development in New Jersey. <br /> <br />The proposed COAH regulations will place substantial burdens on New Jersey municipalities and push development out of the state. Multiple municipalities and statewide associations representing their interests have communicated that position well. Unfortunately, municipalities and taxpayers in those towns that have embraced nonresidential development will feel those adverse impacts even more. Regrettably, COAH has proposed rules driven by flawed and inaccurate data with little understanding of the realities of development in New Jersey and the planning principles embodied in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The people of New Jersey deserve better. COAH can and must do better. <br /> <br />William P. Lynott is CEO of Viridian Partners (www.viridianpartners.com), whose mission is the acquisition, remediation, repositioning, risk management, and eventual sale or redevelopment of surplus distressed properties.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in