Petitioners Call for Halt to LumberYard, but Is It Too Late?
Mayor James Maley says the group is entitled to its views, but that legally they could never reach a ballot initiative.
Photos
At present, the LumberYard redevelopment is not exactly what it was supposed to have been: a tightly budgeted investment that would invigorate downtown Collingswood with luxury condominiums and an infusion of the tax revenues that such high-end projects deliver.
Instead, myriad factors—a down economy, a burst housing bubble, a builder crying poor, a savaged municipal credit rating—rewrote the script.
In its current incarnation, the last phase of the project is slated to be completed as a multi-unit, five-story apartment complex with some retail spaces on the bottom floors.
And for one group of Collingswood residents, that’s one change too many. They’re hoping that with enough signatures, the borough will change course on the project. They’re hoping that after five years, they can take their case public. They’ve only got a handful of days to go.
‘You’ve got to set good intentions aside’
Joseph Dinella is a sprinkler fitter by trade, but in the public forums and town hall meetings around Collingswood, his second occupation might as well be professional political opponent.
Dinella is known as the most consistent voice of opposition, not only to the LumberYard project in specific, but to the administration of Mayor James Maley in general. He speaks in loaded language about the project as “Maley’s folly,” and accuses the mayor of running Collingswood “like his own little fiefdom.”
Dinella is a Collingswood lifer. He owns the house he grew up in; he holds it as a point of pride that he has known the same neighbors all his life. He believes the borough “was a good place to live 20 years ago [when] it was more moderately priced,” and that people who remember it then “aren’t as happy as they used to be.”
Dinella disagrees with the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) programs that were granted to redevelopers of the Heights of Collingswood (or Parkview) apartments, Pewter Village (or Eldridge Gardens) apartments, and he disagrees with the tool being used to fund the completion of the LumberYard.
“Why are we going to build, in a down real estate market, something we didn’t want in the first place?” Dinella says. “In this climate we need the money.”
Together with a handful of other Collingswood residents—John Staley, Charles Ferrara, Nathalie Marquet, and Robert Gittler—Dinella is leading a citizen petition to repeal the borough ordinances approving the five-story apartment project that would occupy the LumberYard site and awarding a 25-year PILOT program for the Ingerman Group to complete the job.
“The first way to get out of trouble when you’re in a hole is to stop digging,” Dinella says. “Because you have a fiduciary obligation to 14,000 people, prudence demands that you step back and get other ideas. You’ve got to set good intentions aside and deal with the hand you’ve been dealt.
“I really believe the redevelopment thing has run its course,” he says. “They need to go back to the drawing board, and the only way to do that is make them repeal these ordinances.”
Independent market analysis
Gittler, a transplanted Philadelphian who came to Collingswood for the small-town/hometown feel, and who works in economic development, has a different skin in the game.
“I’m not a person who opposed the LumberYard in principle,” he says. “I don’t hate the mayor personally, I don’t think everything he tries to do is bad. But the second phase [of the project] started well after the real estate collapse was apparent. That’s where a lot of the problem started.”
Gittler, who says he’s worked in commercial real estate, called the length of the approved Ingerman PILOT “absurd.” He calculates that the total foregone revenue under the plan is $12 million, and frets openly about the market for the type of housing it will provide.
“I would say if 25 years is needed to make a project fly then there’s something economically infeasible about the whole thing,” Gittler says. “There’s no independent market analysis that shows what kind of demand there is for these units.”
Gittler says that the philosophical notion that the LumberYard can be a model in contemporary community design doesn’t account for the leeway that Maley is allowing if things go awry.
“I’ve always been a New Urbanist advocate, but citing New Urbanist latitudes does not come into this project,” he says. “He’s leaving the door open for too many things.”
‘The horse has left the barn’
Maley, for his part, is past the point of weariness almost at the mention of Dinella’s name. The repartee that the two share at nearly every borough commissioners meeting is almost as rote as the Pledge of Allegiance that opens it.
In the matter of the LumberYard, as in the matter of other projects over which the two have publicly sparred, Maley says, he is unsurprised by Dinella’s opposition.
“The fact that Joe Dinella is leading a petition drive, I don’t think I need to explain motives,” Maley says. “I don’t know them, but Joe’s been against everything we’ve ever done, ever.
“If he had his way, Peter Lumber would be empty,” Maley says. “The Zane School would still be boarded up. Bobby Chez would be a rundown gas station. I don’t know what would happen at the Parkview, the Heights.
"He’s been lobbing bombs for years and has yet to have any kind of constructive view of what should be done.”
Moreover, Maley doesn’t even believe the petition challenge has any legal standing. He says the Planning Board recommendations adopted by the borough commissioners for the Ingerman PILOT and the completion of the five-story, mixed-use apartment building are administrative processes that are not subject to appeal by referendum.
“People can circulate a petition to let us know their thoughts,” Maley says. “We’re happy to accept what anybody has to say and listen to it. But it’s not like it’s in consideration; it’s been approved. The horse has left the barn.”
The revenues generated by the PILOT project essentially cut out the county portion of the taxes on the building, Maley says, providing the financial incentive for what is essentially a $15 million investment.
Although the school district will not immediately see a return on that money—PILOT arrangements require a separate agreement to be carved out for that—he says, some of the revenue generated after the first four to six years of the project will be shared with the schools.
“Do I think it could be three to six years that we’re paying this down before we see a real economic benefit? Yeah, it could take that long,” Maley says. “But it won’t be hurting. Finishing the Ingerman phase of this does nothing but increase revenue to the borough. There’s no other expense. It increases our revenues.”
“It’s been very difficult getting through these last four years, but we’ve still been building, and we’re going to finish that project.”
The Collingswood Patch
Valentine's Shopping Guide
See the full guide!
Patch Picks
In This article
-
-
-
-
-
-
Heights of Collingswood
700 W Browning Rd, Oaklyn, NJ
-
Pewter Village At Collingswood
1058 Eldridge Ave, Oaklyn, NJ -
-
-
Bobby Chez
33 W Collings Ave, Collingswood, NJ
Gabe Fletcher
7:17 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA................................. mmmmmmBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA.
This is HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!! Do you REALLY think that the town is going to put away something that the towns government is going to PROFIT AND CLEAR ON!?!?!?!?
Sorry guys... Drugs are bad... M'Kay.
Porterincollingswood
8:12 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
So, their alternative plan is....nothing. As usual.
If you want to be taken seriously in life, have a plan guys. You can't just go around saying "nuh uh".
Barring the invention of a time machine, these people are an absolute waste of our time.
Ron D.
11:39 am on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Can't be all bad, the mayor likes it ! !
Lou M
3:05 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Lou M.
104 apartments total renting for $1400 - $2000 a month. How successful do you think that will be? Another white elephant right in the middle of downtown. It's not too late to try & stop this.
Porterincollingswood
3:28 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Will you sign my petition to save Roney's while we're at it?
David Maynard
3:58 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
The move to build apartments is disappointing and I wish another viable option was on the table but the other realistic option would appear to be leave it a vacant lot, the project basically undone and hope the economy recovers faster than anyone sees happening esp. in New Jersey which is lagging the national recovery. Of those two choices I say build the apartments and perhaps in an economic upturn we can hope for a condo conversion.
david g
4:43 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
$1400 to $2000 is not a bad deal to live in a brand new apartment in Collingswood!!! The center of town is 99% walkable. In a great town your going to pay more. You can pay less in other towns but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night living there. Collingswood is not paying for the project - it is bank owned - and the town will be getting tax/pilot money. Sounds like a winner to me! It's better then a empty lot with two abandoned buidings on it just waiting for trouble. No taxes are going towards the county which could be used to pay for the Camden police!!! All money would be staying right in Collingswood. School taxes - Of the 65 to 70 condos at the Lumberyard, there is only ONE child attending the schools and that family has been paying taxes in Collingswood for over 30 years. LOVE THE LUMBERYARD LIFE!!!
Porterincollingswood -Yes I would sign your petition for Roney's! I missed the petition for the Collingswood circle!!
Gabe Fletcher
7:41 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Roneys is GONE. LOL.
J tewart
7:19 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Wow - really!!! We have had the same mayor and commissioners for forever. We keep hearing the same song and dance about how great this is going to be so good for our little town. You would think that someone with such a great ideas would have made things better for this town in - how many years? - 15, 16, +. No sorry, not happening. Instead the people who have lived here all there lives are being taxed right out of town. This is not a good idea - just like all the other - NOT GOOD IDEAS!!! How about an open space - that does not have anything on it, but grass and benches. I've lived here since 1956 and I can no longer afford to stay, so I hope you like what your getting, cause you will definitely be paying for it
J tewart
7:27 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Remember all the other good ideas - like Sutton Towers, the poorly built condos no one wants to buy, the shops that are empty or going out of business - the restaurants that are clogging the sewer lines for the other business that have not yet gone under and all the tax breaks so no money goes to the schools for the next 25 years. This does not sound like sound business planning to me - but we are the ones who get to pay the bill.
Lou M
8:34 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Reply to David G.
Sounds like you are a Lumberyard owner. If you really think 104 apartments will rent for that kind of money, you're dreaming. About 1/3 of the homes in Collingswood are multi-family homes with apartments that rent for far less money. Towns like Haddon Twp, Haddonfield, & Haddon Heights also have many apartments for rent for less & I wouldn't mind living in any of those neighborhoods. The mayor has promised "pie in the sky" with this project, but we won't see our taxes going down. I haved owned my home in Colls since 1991 & our taxes have tripled. Any profits, and there may not be any, will go to pay down our debt on the poorly designed & over-priced Lumberyard phase two along the speedline. If he wants to make Collingswood a pedestrian friendly town, how about putting businesses in town that people could walk to such as a supermarket (Whole Foods maybe), a butcher shop, a stationary store, a shoe repair place. How about making one side of Haddon Ave a designated bike path? I think this project stinks & only serves to enhance the mayor's reputation as a land use attorney. We are tired of being the "poster child for redevelopment".
Pat Kelly
7:56 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Unfortunately, what you are all not understanding is that the original developer, Costanza Corporation, walked away from the project 2 years ago. The bank consortium, TCIC, is the owner of the property. They can sell it to whomever wants to buy it, for whatever price they deem profitable to retire the debt from their books. It is their debt at this point, not the borough's. The cost to the taxpayer is the 5 million bond that was guaranteed by the borough. This translates to - roughly - $85 per household yearly increase in property taxes, if the sale to Ingermann Corporation doesn't go through. Finishing the existing building to be condos as was previously the plan and open space sounds wonderful to me if it is possible, but it is, unfortunately, the property of the bank, and I am pretty sure they wouldn't want to write it off as a loss and have to explain it to their shareholders at the next annual meeting.
eamonn shields
8:07 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Another 104 apartments? The heights have over 200 available and it seems more people are moving out than moving in. Where does the mayor think these remnants will come from. Greystar, while doing their best to bring the heights to a "b" property, are finding it difficult to entice the right tenants. Where will the mayors project pool from? Probably the heights. If this be the case, we will have two, in town businesses fighting for dominance in an already hurting economy. Sounds counter productive to me. Why wouldn't they put their effort into the heights, it was once the jewel of the town and could be again. Throwing the heights under a bus to satiate this project is a big mistake, we don't need another apartment complex, we already have enough apartments. While I do agree that something has to be done with the space, an apartment complex is surely not the answer. If Mr Dinnella thinks the mayor is doing such a bad job, I would suggest he put his own name on a ballot. Bickering about this is counter productive, something has to be done to move forward, but what?
Future Old Angry Italian Guy
8:23 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Mr. Dinella should take my name. I've always liked porters comments, too. Like many Americans, the dissenters of the LY refuse to see past tomorrow. The LY may not look good right now at this exact moment, but it is a step for the future of Cwood. In 15 years, it will look much better as our economy grows. Don't worry, Dinella will be resting comforting and still petitioning for Bingo night and rice pudding at the nursing home up the street. LY is here to stay and will be a benefit in time. We will be lucky we have it. It won't happen tomorrow so many of you need to relax and think about what's good for your grandchildren and in my case, my children and not about yourselves. Ask not what your town can do for you....
Lisa
9:34 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
The petitions are available for reading and/or signing at Martin's Cleaners on Haddon Avenue, next to WaWa.
Gary B
10:45 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Mr. Dinella couldn't be more wrong with his 'Transient Village' mindset, as Collingswood happens to be an almost 50/50 population of renters & home owners. And the Heights has been here longer than 87% of the current residents (with it's construction in 1948) Collingswood makes a lot of money from restaurant row and renters, for him so forsake this is perplexing. While nobody wants slums or slum lords, the Lumber Yard will most certainly not be part of the group. If Mr. Dinella is concerned with the current 'renter situation' in Collingswood and the other issues he rides the mayor on, he most free to run for mayor.
Whining, protesting and petitioning does not require much thought or integrity, putting together a plan and make something happen, does....if there are concerns that's fine of course, but have solutions or alternatives.
On the idea mentioned above about making dedicated bike paths on Haddon Ave, I think is great and also I'd like to see them along Collings Ave as well.
http://www.americantowns.com/nj/collingswood/info/housing
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3414260.html
Lou M
1:02 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Response to Pat Kelly:
Although TICIC is now the owner of the vacant lot that was originally to be phase 4 of the Lumberyard and they could sell to whomever they want, there ARE ZONING CHANGES WHICH THE BOROUGH HAS TO APPROVE for this apartment complex go thru. The borough still has control over what does or does not get built there. And a 70 unit apartment complex is a huge risk .
And to Gary B above, the dedicated bike path above is a good idea, along with many good ideas the citizens of Collingswood have for our town. As for petitioning not requiring much thought or integrity, I think it is about time the people of Collingswood spoke up about what should be built at the Lumberyard. And the petition seeks to allow a public vote on the issue is exactly what us needed. Allowing at 25 year PILOT plan to pass should be something that concerns everyone, especially families with children in our public schools.
Cwood Resident
10:18 am on Monday, August 13, 2012
I feel the apartment complex is a good option and is viable. Multifamily development is the only bright spot in real estate development now and investors are lining up to put money into good multifamily projects. Single family (condo), office and most retail development is dead at this point, multifamily is very viable now because there is very limited new apartment supply being developed in our region right now. Market rate apartments rents are steadily increasing so why does this development need to be subsidized with a PILOT? Are there going to be requirements to address infrastructure and traffic issues that come with a substatially higher density of multifamily? Why wasn't the development of the last phase put out for RFP to get the best offers? Possibly the same reason the Scottish Rite or original Lumberyard phases was given to Costanza rather than being put out to bid as well. There is zero transparency and communication in our borough operations.
Will McGowan
11:28 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I first want to say that I have no "beef" with our mayor nor any alligience to Mr. Dinella. I do, however wish that Colls was going a different direction than making apartments for the next phase of the Lumeryard. My experience with apartments is that they grow to become transient over time and nobody ever seems to take care of something that they do not own. If I were an early buyer into the Lumberyard and paid those 2005-07 top dollars, I would be furious at this plan. It almost guarantees that they will never see the equity they expected. What were the other options? Were "less units" with perhaps, 3 or 4 bedrooms and a revitalized plan for townhouses out of the mix? Building is resumeing in the up & coming areas of Philly. Why are we not looking into more "market priced" homes with some upgrades to get permenant residents where they belong?
It does seem like reviosionist history as Collingswood tried to get duplexes converted into single homes at one time and now we are going into the rental business. Apparantly they are NOW SAYING that the old attempts were against lanlords and not rentals but somehow, I just don't buy it.