| Part of the story of the trial is the Union Hotel, where hundreds of journalists, witnesses and trial watchers stayed, right across the street from the courthouse. There's WAY too much history for me to go into here, but my favorite quote is from H.L. Mencken - who stayed at the Union - and called it "the greatest story since the Resurrection."
And since 2008, the Union Hotel has been shuttered.
Much has been written elsewhere about the last four years of history of the Union Hotel, including this article that Rosi front paged on Wednesday, this recent account, and this account from a year ago when talk about designating an "area in need of redevelopment" first began.
What I want to focus on here is the overwhelming reaction of the community to what has been a seemingly closed process of picking a redeveloper for this historic site. Once a redevelopment plan was adopted by the Borough Council in October of 2010, a committee of 4 screened potential redeveloper candidates -- outside of an RFP process -- and issued a report picking a group interested in putting residential apartments in the old Hotel. That group would be asking for a 10 year tax abatement, and the distinct possibility of a taking by eminent domain of the property.
The other finalist for the redevelopment rights has already entered into contract to buy the property, has a lead on acquiring a liquor license, and wants to keep the hotel, well, a hotel.
Follow me after the fold, and I'll try to break down the reasons why we're seeing these goings on. But it has a lot to do with who is on this small committee. What's been most encouraging for me, however, has been how a group of grassroots folks have been able to mobilize hundreds of people to come to meetings, write letters to the editor, and generally engage in an effort calling for greater transparency in their local government.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I was a candidate for Mayor of Flemington last year. And while I lost that election, I continue to serve as Vice-Chair of our Planning Board, and as a member of our Environmental Commission.
I say this because of who has been involved with this redeveloper selection subcommittee: the newly-elected Mayor, Erica Edwards; councilman Marc Hain; newly-elected councilman Phil Greiner; and Planning Board Chair Todd Cook. For the record, Edwards, Greiner and Hain are registered Republicans, and Cook is unaffiliated.
I also need to mention that in the weeks before the election, the redeveloper candidate selected by the committee stood up at a council meeting and said that he (and his group) wanted to redevelop the hotel.
There are three areas that just don't pass the smell test here:
1. There was no RFP process. Under NJ law -- in particular Chapter 19 -- the award of public contracts needs to be done in a fair and open process. That requires (1) Public advertisement with "sufficient time to give notice," (2) award under "a process that provides for public solicitation of proposals OR qualifications," and (3) Established on the basis of an award and disclosure process documented in writing prior to any solicitation, and (4) Publicly opened and announced when awarded.
Under advice of counsel, the Flemington Borough Council decided not to use an RFP process to select a redeveloper for the Union Hotel. They were told it was not necessary under the Redevelopment Law. And since there were already four candidates having expressed an interest, they argued that it would be faster and less expensive for the town.
What that has meant, however, is that the entire process -- the interviews, the items that were submitted by each team, emails between members of this committee -- all of it happened outside the 'fair and open' process. Repeated OPRA requests have been filed to get at some of this information, but it has been difficult to get it. Had this been done within the RFP process, many of the issues would have been done in an open and transparent way.
2. A private sale vs. eminent domain. In the time between the start of the selection process and now, (roughly mid-January) a group comprised of Joe LoPiccolo, Frank Bansich and Matt McPherson (the one's profiled here) entered into a contract to buy the Union Hotel from the current owners. These are the guys who want to make the hotel a, well, hotel. Case closed, end of ballgame, right?
Wrong. Under the redevelopment law, it is the governing body (or a designated redevelopment authority) that gets to pick who gets to redevelop it.
And it looked as if the Flemington Borough Council was, in fact, going to go the other way. On February 10th, one concerned citizen just happened to notice two items on the upcoming Council meeting Agenda: a resolution naming _______ as the Union Hotel redeveloper, and another one authorizing the subcommittee to obtain an appraisal of the property.
Let me restate that one concerned citizen just happened to notice this on the agenda. She called me, and over the weekend, she was able to reach out to a number of us in town, who then reached out to more and more people. So many people said that they were coming to the meeting, that we got the venue changed from the small council chamber to the Historic Courthouse where the Lindbergh Trail was held. That meeting was on February 15th, with 80 in attendance. The public got the Council to agree to a session on March 2nd where each of the candidates would present their proposals; and another hearing on the record on March 14th to hear testimony from the public on which plan they prefer. There were over 120 at the meeting this week, on the 14th. So many wished to speak that more testimony will be taken on the 28th.
This was -- and continues to be -- an amazing grassroots effort.
Now the reason it caught my eye a month ago -- and the reason I knew we had to organize -- was the second item on that agenda from February 15th: the assessment of the property. One would only need that if you were thinking about eminent domain.
Eminent domain has gotten a bad wrap lately, but it is an invaluable tool for redevelopment work. But the Framers were so afraid of the power of the state to take private land, a protection was included in the 5th amendment of the Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Those of us concerned with civil liberties should be wary any time eminent domain is used. In this case, we have a willing buyer and willing seller -- but a Borough Council considering the idea of awarding the redevelopment rights to someone outside this contract.
What was heartening to see was the coming together of progressives and conservatives in that meeting on Monday night -- neither group wanted to see eminent domain as part of the process when we had a viable candidate, already under contract. Countless questions were asked of Ms Edwards about why we'd even consider eminent domain. The Republican County Clerk, Mary Melfi, asked if there was money allocated for legal fees in next year's budget. And on, and on, and on went the grilling. So we have to ask again, what's really going on?
3. Tax Abatements. In addition to eminent domain, the NJ Redevelopment Law also grants the power of tax abatements for these projects. Some argue that this is sometimes the only way to encourage private investment in our most blighted neighborhoods. Personally, I think that's a bunch of bunk -- the research on the effectiveness of tax abatements in economic development is spotty at best -- but it is out there.
The group recommended by our committee was seeking a 10-year abatement of their taxes. And one could argue that since the Union Hotel was sitting vacant and underutilized, the private sector needed a kick in the pants.
But here's the thing: the other group -- the one's under contract to buy the Hotel -- was only seeking to use a Historic Building program already in place in Flemington. In this program, the new assessed value of a renovated historic property is phased in over a 5 year period. It's been a great tool to encourage rehabilitation in town. This group wasn't looking for any abatement at all.
So let's take these three together: a closed process, which recommends a candidate who would need tax abatements and eminent domain over one who doesn't need the handout.
Can you see why this seems off?
Now let me be clear -- there is no smoking gun. No campaign contributions above the reporting limit to the Committee to Elect Edwards Gorman & Greiner, and no reported contributions to the Hunterdon County GOP by any of the partners in the group recommended by the subcommittee. But one has to wonder why they'd recommend a group that would be getting such a sweetheart deal from the town -- at taxpayer expense -- when a viable alternative exists. |
.gif)
