Dear Editor:

Have Parsippany Officials performed any due diligence in their knowledge and applications of The Sciences of Ecology? Especially the ecotone scam, and our water future?

Understanding ecology is to safeguard the environment and improve human well-being. To refer to themselves as “Puddingstone Developers LLC” is absurd. This is an antithesis to the Puddingstone Ridge Corporation of the original founding community.

The developer produced NO EXPERTS in the required fields, Ecology, Hydrology, Forestry. In his fantasy of ecotones, and destroying an established forested area, to make it better. Planners and Engineers in the service of LL are not; experts in this testimony, as was obvious.

Developers’ presumption of ecotone balance, or as stated a better landscape after a major disturbance; erasing a sensitive landscape would be laughable to anyone with a basic knowledge of ecology.

The Board itself prevented Due Diligence in rejecting Advanced Property Reports/ Advanced Scientific Data made available for such Boards, and the Public concerning the properties’ inherent characteristics. We should not be concerned with Ecotones, (a misused term in this situation) but Ecosystem Services and functions that will be lost to the detriment of the Township. Established Maturing Tree Species, Original Landscape Biodiversity, Groundwater Recharge, A remaining unique neighborhood.

In addition, we must state that Groundwater Recharge cannot be ignored as O’Neil stated, Parsippany has the highest water deficit between 1-7.11 Million gallons a day. (The Block Lots are majority GWRA. Block 45.10 6.70 acres (59.37%) Lot 11 3.03 acres 99.55%)-(These areas will be erased and surely severely degraded, and their ecosystem services gone) ( The disturbance will surely have some additional impacts on the areas overall recharge phenomena )

Page 64 Master Plan.

A water allocation permit from the NJDEP is required for the diversion of

large amounts of groundwater for long periods of time.12 The Township has an NJDEP permit for up to 2,900 million gallons per year and uses about 80% of that amount within capacity limits of daily water supply. To conserve water Parsippany limits the number of days when residents and businesses may water their lawns from the start of June until the end of September each year.

* Note according to Highlands data most of Parsippany is in a water deficit area. The deficit is somewhere between 1 and 7.11 MGD. The most stressed category of water deficit in the Highlands. Part of the problem in addition to over-development/impervious surface, failure to protect GWRA in the past, depletion, (leaks), consumption (lawn culture), groundwater is withdrawn and then conveyed to the downstream sewer treatment plant, where it flows down the Rockaway River and is no longer available to recharge the aquifer, What is called water mining.

Tree Ground Cover and Soil Erased? Making it Better by Destroying a Landscape. another ecological impossibility; laughable.

At the very least Shelter-Wood Forestry Method should be applied, not the total erasing of trees, soils, and groundcover biota. (the animal and plant life of a particular region, habitat, or geological period.)

How can a major development asking for a hardship, suddenly change that position, and allege that their major development is a balance; that Ecotone can be better than a natural landscape or life in harmony with the Puddingstone Community?

The proposed major development is a Monstrosity ignoring and disregarding Master Plan Goals and Objectives Six are violated/ignored: 1-2 -7-10-11-12. (which in the time allotted cannot be read and emphasized)

3 minutes for concerned citizens to defend their Homeland, while a rich corporate developer has all the time necessary. Pride in Parsippany is just three words? We shall see.

To the Editor:

The November 21 Council Meeting pitted a very defensive and willfully ignorant Mayor against an increasingly knowledgeable and vocal group of Parsippany residents who are fed up with him and his self-serving policies.

The November 21 Council Meeting underscored the unwillingness of the Mayor to provide residents with information other than that provided by John Inglesino, the developers’ highly paid attorney, and Mr. Dan Cassese, Parsippany’s Tax Assessor who admitted in his presentation,  much to the Mayor’s discomfort that:  “I don’t do PILOTs”. 

The November 21 Council meeting asked the question as to why the expertise of the  Mayor’s much touted Financial Consultant and the expertise of the lawyer from (the “I know what I don’t know”) Town Attorney, Mr. Michael Lavery’s, firm have not yet been made available to the Council and the public. 

The November 21 Council meeting provided insight from Parsippany residents who have extensive professional experience in commercial and residential real estate and who spoke about how attractive Parsippany is to developers and how unnecessary it is to give developers any incentive to capitalize on all that Parsippany has to offer. Why is the Mayor continuing to disparage Parsippany as a good place to do business?

The November 21 Council meeting provided School Board members with the opportunity to advise the voters that the Mayor had failed to provide them with any information and had deliberately “kept them in the dark” The fact that the Mayor has now suddenly announced his willingness to meet and “negotiate” with the School Board begs the question of what the Mayor will be negotiating about. If the PILOTs are not approved then no issue. If the PILOTs are approved then how is the tax-strapped Mayor going to give up any of the discounted taxes that will be paid to the municipality? By the way, let’s not forget that at the last Council meeting, Councilman Paul Carifi pledged that he would personally guarantee that Parsippany schools, libraries, and fire stations would not suffer any adverse effects if the PILOTs passed muster in the Council.  

The November 21 Council meeting forced Councilman Neglia to finally speak up and move slightly away from his prior blanket and blind support for Mayor Barberio’s residential PILOT programs. Perhaps Mr. Neglia is learning that what is good for Mayor Barberio and his coterie of campaign contributors is not good for Parsippany.

The November 21 Council meeting offered up a process modification recommendation that would be in the best interests of Parsippany residents. Councilman Musella suggested that the PILOT discussion and decision be tabled until the recently elected Council members joined the Council in five weeks providing new and current members with the time required to fully review the pros and cons of PILOTs. Why the Mayor won’t consider that can only suggest that he fears losing his grip on the Council especially with the likely arrival of Ms. Hernandez.  

Finally, the November 21 Council meeting offered Parsippany voters a clear choice between Councilman Justin Musella’s efforts to learn and openly share the truth about PILOTs and Mayor Barberio’s desperate efforts to continue to hide the truth about PILOTs from Parsippany residents.              

Bob Crawford 

Dear Editor:

Editors Note: This letter was presented at the Parsippany-Troy Hills Council meeting on November 23.

First, I want to make it clear that my comments refer only to the PILOTs at 2 and 3 Campus Drive, because they will add students to Parsippany’s school system.  

Prior to the last meeting’s public session, the mayor and the developer’s attorney, Mr. Inglesino, delivered what can only be described as an all-out PILOT sales pitch. The sales pitch contained the expected embellishment of a PILOT’s positive points while omitting any points that could be interpreted as negative. It also included a generous amount of scare tactics.

Leading off was the mayor, who brought up two points that I would categorize as unsubstantiated. First, the mayor stated emphatically that these PILOTs were necessary because of the rise in construction costs and interest rates. The big problem here is that 2 and 3 Campus Drive were purchased only a month ago. During that short period of time, construction costs have remained about the same and interest rates have actually gone down. So, the mayor’s rationale for why these PILOTs are necessary is not valid, and for that reason alone, the PILOT ordinances should be withdrawn tonight.

Next, the mayor claimed that if the PILOTs are not granted, the projects will not get done, Parsippany will lose tax revenue, and property taxes will go through the roof. That statement is a speculation, a mislead, and a scare tactic all rolled into one. The possibility that Avalon Bay, one of the largest REITs in the country, bought the property on the gamble of obtaining a PILOT, and would walk away from their investments at 2 and 3 Campus Drive after owning them for only one month is very small. And the mayor knows full well that your taxes will not skyrocket even if Avalon Bay pulls out. Because of the 2% cap law, you can count on property taxes going up between 2 and 3 ½% with or without a PILOT.

Mr. Inglesino’s presentation was professional, factual, and informative, but it was also incomplete. Here are just some of the more important details that were left out.

• Mr. Inglesino stressed that the school district will still receive a share of the land taxes if a PILOT is granted. What he left out is that the school district currently receives a share of the land tax, and will continue to receive that same amount whether a PILOT is granted or not. The school district gets no additional money from the PILOT, but it will have to pay for additional students.
• Mr. Inglesino made absolutely no mention that the developer would be receiving a Land Tax Credit (LTC) under the PILOT. According to the financial charts, Parsippany will rebate approximately 75% of the Land Tax. Avalon Bay is already getting a sweetheart deal on the Building Improvements at Campus Drive, so why does the company also need a rebate on the land taxes, and how does that rebate affect what the school district receives?
• Mr. Inglesino also failed to disclose that under the proposed PILOT, Parsippany will forfeit $47 million in property tax dollars over 30 years, a number easily derived from totals that appear on the financial sheets. What is Parsippany getting for that $47 million, and is the mayor, the council, and the public comfortable with that price tag?
• Next, Mr. Inglesino’s statement that the school district receives all of the budgeted money that it is entitled to, is entirely true. But there were no details about what happens after a PILOT kicks in. Let’s say that the 410 apartment units at Campus Drive add 50 students to the schools. We already know that the PILOT is not contributing anything extra for the approximately $1 million cost of educating these additional students. But somebody has to pay for them since their costs will be included in the school district’s next budget. As Mr. Inglesino stated, the town must pay for everything that the school district asks for, but that money only comes from properties in the tax-ratable base, which includes every homeowner, but not the PILOTed properties on Campus Drive. In short, the Parsippany taxpayer must absorb all of the additional educational costs that the PILOTed properties are exempted from.
• Mr. Inglesino also neglected to tell the audience that Parsippany will most likely have to pay out more money to provide municipal and educational services than it will receive in PILOT payments. For example, according to the financial sheet handouts, in year 1, Parsippany will receive a $1 million PILOT payment but will have to spend $1.7 million to provide municipal services and to educate 50 additional students. No savvy businessman or council member enters an agreement knowing that it will lose money. Rather than operating at a deficit under the PILOT, the township would be better off financially if nothing were built on the property.

In certain cases, commercial PILOTs may be warranted, but the more you learn about residential PILOTs, the worse they get. Thank you.

Bob Venezia