|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() Streaming Radio |
Real Estate |
Automotive |
Employment |
|
Classifieds |
|
Media Kit |
Forms |
|
|||||
|
Somewhere over the bulkhead?
Bergen, along with Mayor John Merla, made a presentation at the KBA’s Jan. 24 meeting, asking the Board of Directors to assist the borough in financing public works projects. “What I’d like to see is a streetscape program that takes the entrances into Keyport at Broad Street and the highway, and transform them into beautiful promenades to the waterfront,” Bergen said in a telephone interview last week. “It should be like following the Yellow Brick Road to the most beautiful place there is here, which is the waterfront.” The council is requesting that the KBA commit to allocating a portion of its assessment to the borough for a set number of years. “If you can designate 10 percent — I’m just picking a number — it could be 5 percent or 15 percent, from the operating budget to do projects through the entire community, we could match the funding,” Merla said at the meeting. “It can give us the opportunity to do more projects.” Merla, who was speaking on behalf of the council, was referring to borrowing funds from a financial institution based on an assurance from the KBA. “If we know the commitment is there for the next 10 years, we can do the projects now,” Bergen explained. The request was met with criticism from Keyport plumber and commercial property owner Ed Burlew. “You’re tapping into a fund that you probably shouldn’t,” said Burlew, a member of a local group known as the Concerned Owners, which would like to see the KBA disbanded. “What we’re requesting is using some of your resources, if you’re willing to, to borrow more money to get more projects done quicker,” Bergen said. Burlew continued to ask questions about the idea, which stems from the council’s updated redevelopment plan to focus solely on revamping the former Aeromarine Plane and Motor Co. area. “You’re talking condemnation, yes or no?” Burlew asked several times. Although a definitive answer was not given, Bergen tried to calm fears of condemnation by speaking of his experience as a municipal attorney. “It’s completely hypothetical. I’ve been involved in five redevelopments and only condemned one property. … And because of what’s going on with the Supreme Court, by June we may all be out of the redevelopment business anyway.” Bergen was referring to a Supreme Court case currently under way in Connecticut, which challenges a governing body’s right of eminent domain for the purposes of redevelopment. Terry Musson, also a member of the Concerned Owners, spoke about his plans to invest $400,000 in his own properties. “Why should I spend $400,000 if you’re going to take it over?” Musson asked. “It puts me in a bind.” “Redevelopment may put some people in a bind,” responded Bergen. Merla and Bergen were asked by the KBA to speak at the meeting about the status of the Smart Growth study. A year-and-a-half ago, the borough received an $82,500 grant from the state’s Smart Growth Office in order to conduct a redevelopment study. The grant allows the borough access to state experts from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA,) the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the purpose of town planning that avoids sprawl and overdevelopment, according to the Smart Growth Web site. For this purpose, a redevelopment study area was introduced that includes the downtown waterfront, the marine basin and Aeromarine. The New Jersey Green Acres Program, administered by the DEP, is offering municipalities and nonprofits the opportunity to apply for grants as well as low- to no-interest loans for land acquisition projects. According to Bergen, the original grant money awarded to the borough is running low, and more funds are needed to complete the Smart Growth projects already begun. “The public participation process, a lot of the original money was spent there,” Bergen said on Wednesday. “We need to go back to the state and see if we can get more money.” The mayor, a member of the council for almost 20 years, also spoke on the public’s involvement in the Smart Growth study. “We’ve come a long way from where we started,” Merla said. “There’s more public process now than there’s ever been. In the 1960s, we put together a master plan. One person spoke at the public hearing.” Bergen and Merla’s presentation focused on how the Smart Growth study would affect the Aeromarine property, if the borough were to change the original waterfront redevelopment resolution to include only Aeromarine, thus expediating the council’s chances of purchasing the land. “At first, I did not agree with the way we were going about the process with just [focusing on] Aeromarine,” Merla said. “But it’s a starting point.” Resident Terry Musson questioned why the borough would want to purchase the property. “To answer Mr. Musson … we can drive the project the way we want to drive it. It gives us the opportunity to get funds from the state of New Jersey that a private developer couldn’t. I’ve been watching Long Branch and Asbury Park. They’re not getting the funds they thought they would. All these funds are going to come our way, and if we’re not prepared for it, we’re going to miss the boat.” All present agreed that the on-site landfill and subsequent leakage into the bay was a major concern for the future of the Aeromarine area. According to state law, if the property were to change hands, the owner would be responsible for cleaning up the toxic site. “Who would want to touch it?” asked one member of the audience. Merla and Bergen assured the crowd that it was safe and legal to build on such a property. “I have a study that says you can,” Merla said.
|
|
||||