The City Council tonight awarded a $30,000 contract for the construction of an interim parking lot on Main Street, which should be completed within several weeks.
Matawan-based Esposito Construction was awarded the contract in the amount of $29,652.95. Funds for the interim lot were included within a $200,000 bond ordinance also approved tonight that also will fund demolition of 65 E. Cherry St. and installation of a fence around The Savoy site at Main and Monroe streets. Mounds of asphalt millings have been staged at the site for the resurfacing, which must be completed in time for next month’s Hot Rods & Harleys event, according to Redevelopment Director and City Administrator Peter Pelissier.
The interim lot is expected to add about 100 spaces to the existing 65, which the Parking Authority will lease from Dornoch Holdings — the developer which originally proposed to build The Westbury — for $1 annually in exchange for property taxes on the site being waived. The idea for an interim lot was proposed in fall 2009 when it became clear the mixed-used development wasn’t coming online anytime soon. [Link in italics added 4/16]
An advisory issued last week by NJ Transit indicated that construction of the center stairs at the train station — which have been closed for a year — is expected to begin in “mid-April.”
Wait — Rahway is going to "lease" (i.e. pay rent for) the parking lot space (paved at city expense) from Dornoch? The same Dornoch who will not pay for a fence around another one of their burnt-out properties, but instead told the city to pay for it with a lien?http://www.rahwayrising.com/2011/03/e-cherry-st-eyesore-could-come-down-by.html("Given Dornoch's financial situation, his suggestion was for the city to install the fence and place a lien on the property.")Talk about corruption. How many pockets are these Dornoch guys lining?If the burnt out property is not maintained by Dornoch, it should be condemned and seized. And let Dornoch pay for its own paving of their planned parking lot.Instead, Rahway pays for the fence around their burnt-out property, and Rahway not only pays to pave their vacant lot into a parking lot, now it will also pay rent to Dornoch to use that parking lot.
Agree with Matthew 100 percent. This is crazy.
Get a clue. Its called a tax lien."seize" the building? what country do you live in?
"what country do you live in?"New Jersey.
Didn't Mark have a article about Dornock's relatives owning 2 stores on Main st? I believe a dress shop is right across the street from "their" new lot.!
Disgusting. How do these politicians sleep at night? Give aways to all the politically connected while the tax vise squeezes out everyone else.
It's called "Recall". There are enough disgruntled voters in Rahway to set off a recall drive. Let's stop the madness. We do not need seasoned politico's who play a bait and switch game. There are foreclosed homes and empty store building throughout Rahway. Why does Rahway need a $200,000 a year bookkeeper. Larry
Matthew- don't you sit on these boards?
Matthew, Remember that even if the city/Redevelopment Agency were to seize/condemn property, they still must pay "fair market value." Granted, Dornoch bought those properties at the height of the market; likely ~$7m for The Westbury-related parcels (this Lot B parking area), but even if you consider half that amount at a time when the city is having second thoughts on borrowing more money for the arts districts project is highly unlikely. Seizing the burned out building may not cost much to acquire (and never should've been let to lie fallow as long as it has) but those other downtown lots would add up. You also have folks I'm sure who aren't keen on government using eminent domain, regardless of the situation. I believe the thinking was that this deal would provide some needed parking downtown and some cash flow for Dornoch's land while construction/paving/painting would be shared by the city, parking authority and county. If you think that's cause for 'lining pockets,' well…I think the city is trying to be pragmatic in this situation. As far as the liens, the city will get paid — eventually. But it will get its money back. I don't aim to invalidate your point or defend the current course of action, I think you make important points — that often are not raised at public meetings — and you do tap the brewing frustration over the Dornoch projects and redevelopment generally. Kevin, It was the managing partner's stepmother who set up shop in one of their Main Street storefronts. Better than vacant, which it had been for some time — no?
I don't think they care about your explanation Mark, they are going to complain regardless.This is a classic case of buying high and now not being able to sell it. Would the complainers want the City to pay what the developer paid? I think not. Is Dornoch going to sell at a loss? That remains to be seen.Lets all keep our fingers crossed that whatever bank holds the note likes what they hear from Capodagli and a deal comes together.I agree on the burned out building 100%. should have been acted upon quicker.
Mark,You make some good points. I am not advocating the use of eminent domain for all of Dornoch's properties downtown, just the burnt-out, unsafe eyesore on Cherry Street that Dornoch won't even take responsibility for by putting up a fence on its own. Sure, eventually the City of Rahway might get reimbursed for (some) of the cost through a lien, but that is purely speculative and how much overhead and waste will go into processing/collecting those funds (if they are ever repaid) all for something that the property owner is responsible for doing on its own.As for the parking lot, I understand that Rahway sees some benefit to additional parking spaces downtown. What I don't see is why Rahway should be looking to "provide … some cash flow for Dornoch's land." Dornoch's cash flow is not the responsibility of Rahway's citizens. Here, Rahway is paying out of its own pocket for improvements to Dornoch's land (i.e. paving the lot at taxpayer expense), and then will be paying to rent that improved land from Dornoch. That is pocket-lining territory. That's "you build a house on my vacant lot with your own money, and then you pay me to rent that house" territory.Dornoch isn't doing anything else with that land, let them pay to pave the lot and then Rahway can rent spaces from them at arms-length fair market rent, if necessary. If Dornoch can't afford to pave the lot, then in exchange for Rahway not taking a hard-line against them on other areas (e.g. paying for the darn fence around their burnt-out building on Cherry Street and not initiating legal process against them to condemn it) they can allow Rahway to pay for paving the lot in exchange for free use of the lot for a specified period of time (e.g. a year or two until Dornoch can re-assess whether it's able to re-start development of those lots).Dornoch isn't doing Rahway any favors, nor should they be entitled to favors from Rahway. There should be an arms-length give-and-take between Rahway and Dornoch. That would be protecting the public's hard-earned tax dollars. Instead, what I see is a give-and-give by Rahway, getting nothing in exchange from Dornoch. You see that as pragmatic. I see that as evidence of corruption; I have no doubt that some palms are being greased.(And to the anon poster — no, I do not sit on any of these boards or hold any position in Rahway politics nor any investment in Dornoch or any developer in the area. I'm just an observer.)
"Would the complainers want the City to pay what the developer paid? I think not. Is Dornoch going to sell at a loss? That remains to be seen."This complainer will note that if Rahway decided to exercise its right to use eminent domain with respect to property that presents a safety hazard to the public and is not being maintained by the owner (i.e. the Cherry Street property that looks like something out of the London Blitz), Rahway does not have to pay "what the developer paid." Rahway only need pay fair market value. Fair market value isn't what Dornoch overpaid for the land 5 years ago, it's fair market value as of today. Whether Dornoch wants to "sell" at a loss is of no bearing on the issue.
Matthew you just want to listen to yourself speak. The seizure comment was about the savoy not cherry street. Dont twist it now to a building we all know will come down and should have sooner.Maybe you should get the facts. Who is getting the revenue from the expansion of lot B? Parking authority! will it make money? yes. Is it better than an empty lot? yes. Is dornoch getting the money?no. Ddoes dornoch get any consideration? yes. what is that consideration? no property tax. Even when the economy improves Dornoch will never build anything. the best we can hope for is capadagli or another developer gets the project.I think you are the same matthew that sits on the boards and sells real estate. Seems very coincidental, but lets hope not because that would make you a hypocrite
I think it's funny that the people posting anonymously are the ones speculating who Matthew is.
"Seems very coincidental"Yeah, because what are the chances of there being more than one guy named "Matthew" in the world, right Sherlock?
Nice try Matt. Its well known who you are.
Years from now, there will be some agreement with Dornoch selling that Cherry St land with a throw-away note that says "with the city forgiving an existing lien". And no one will remember what that was all about.