The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ: And the headline read...

Hamilton Stuck With Land

Does this surprise anyone? Anyone??

The state Supreme Court has decided it will not weigh in on Hamilton's agreement to buy Klockner Woods.
The court's action ends the appeal process by the township and a legal battle over one of the most politically contentious issues to grip the township in recent memory.
The high court's denial of a township petition on Friday effectively enforces a lower court decision ordering Hamilton to pony up the roughly $4.5 million it owes a developer for 51 wooded acres off Klockner Avenue.

The total comes to nearly $5 mil, when all is said and done. $4.1 purchase, nearly $800,000 in interest and another $30,000 in legal fees. Now, Hamilton has to face the music and come up with the money:

Mayor John Bencivengo did not rule out any scenario yesterday, including
selling the 51 wooded acres off Klockner Avenue or renewing applications for
grants or loans contingent on the land's preservation.
But regardless of what route Hamilton takes, it appears that property
owners in the township will be footing at least part of the bill.

The rest of it, non-Hamiltonians, may be paid by low-interest state loans and a grant from Mercer county- hence, why we were ALL fleeced on this ludicrous land deal.

However, the Hamilton taxpayers will be feeling it the most, and for a long time. For the sake of their wallets, I'm sorry this fight had to end like it did. For the sake of sanity, I bet everyone's damn glad it is finally ended.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Quit while you're behind edition

Court upholds land deal
Hamilton stuck with Klockner Woods

HAMILTON -- A state court has again refused to void the township's agreement to purchase the 51-acre tract known as Klockner Woods, keeping taxpayers on the hook for the roughly $4.5 million land deal while township officials contemplate taking the case to the state Supreme Court.
A decision handed down yesterday from the appellate division of the state Superior Court ruled that the township must uphold its 2005 agreement to purchase the land, despite arguments that the township council never approved an appropriation to buy the property.

The township council says they never approved the funds for the purchase, so it isn't legal. Unfortuantely, the courts don't see it that way; they (repeatedly) state that the purchase was legal.

George Dougherty, the attorney representing Hamilton, said he would be recommending the township pursue the matter with the state's highest court.
"I think they absolutely missed the law," Dougherty said. "You can't make a solid commitment unless you have money set aside to do it. You simply don't spend money that you don't have."

Unfortunately, George, spending money we don't have is the American Way. See, right now you're spending Hamilton taxpayers' money to fight a fight you can't win.

But if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, or if it upholds the decision of the lower courts, there would certainly be implications for Hamilton's finances, according to interim township business administrator William Guhl.
Besides legal costs, which have climbed to about $30,000, the township will be on the hook for long-term debt payments on the $4.1 million price, plus interest, including a down payment of roughly $200,000, Guhl said.
The township has already paid Fieldstone about $380,000 in interest as part of the agreement, and further interest payments have raised the township's current obligation to about $4.5 million, according to John Buonocore, the attorney representing Fieldstone.
When asked his opinion on the decision, Guhl backed Dougherty's view.
"If you want to buy something, and it's a capital item and you want to" using a bond ordinance, Guhl said, a municipality must "specifically identify in the ordinance what it is you want to buy."
The courts, however, have ruled otherwise. The appellate court affirmed Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg's opinion that a bond ordinance specifically appropriating money for the land purchase was not required in order for the purchase agreement to be binding.
In her decision, issued early last year, Feinberg pointed to other actions the township took that could have funded the purchase, including $5 million appropriated for open space and multiple public attempts by the township to secure outside funding for the purchase.
Feinberg also argued that the cost to taxpayers would be higher if she overturned the settlement to purchase the land, pointing to the cost of the litigation that could ensue.

Just when you thought this whole mess couldn't get worse...

"This has always been about Hamilton politics and it was never about the value of the land," Buonocore (of Feildstone) said.
(former Mayor Glenn) Gilmore backed that claim yesterday.
"The Republican council knew that they were simply wasting valuable taxpayer dollars in lawyer fees and interest cost with this appeal, but they wanted to keep the issue alive for the last election at taxpayer expense," he wrote in response to an e-mail asking for comment.

Add that comment to the (very short) list of things that Glen Gilmore got right.

A friend and Hamilton resident put it very succintly to me once: "Gilmore screwed us." Especially on this issue, you bet. But it's time for the new administration and town council to stop trying to fight old battles and move on to fixing the problems they were elected to fix. Meanwhile, legal fees and interest payments keep piling up, and guess who has to pay for those?

Yes, the land should be preserved. Yes, when the purchase agreement was made SOMEONE should have been looking out for the taxpayers' interest. We all agree to that.

Now is not the time for those arguements- that time was back in 2004 and 2005. Now is the time now for the council to stop shoveling more of the taxpayers' good money after bad and move on.

Wha... huh?

The Republican council members in Hamilton want to put a referrendum on the ballot to ask township residents if they want to spend the alloted $4.1 million to buy Klockner Woods.

The Republican council members posing the question have fought the purchase of the land since taking office in 2006, but have agreed to abide by the people's vote.
"I think the voters have already spoken loud and clear that they don't want the land at the price," said Council President Dave Kenny, referring to the 2005 election, when the purchase was a major campaign topic. "The mayor has said the people support the purchase, so let's ask the people."
Mayor Glen D. Gilmore, who championed the purchase of the land after receiving a petition signed by neighbors of the woods asking for its preservation, said he also would abide by the referendum, but doing so might be complicated.
"I would be glad to let the people of the township decide whether or not they think Klockner Woods should be preserved," Gilmore said. "At this point we are under court order to move forward with the preservation so if the community decides we should not preserve these woods I imagine what we would need to do is complete the preservation as ordered and then put the land up for sale."

That's right, there is a court order! Oh, yeah! (council members smack their foreheads as if remembering they could've had a V8.) "Complicated" is an understatement. So putting this on the ballot now is what, simple political posturing?

BTW, the price is no longer $4.1 million- It's over $4.6 million, because of the interest that's accruing while you continue to bicker. Be honest about what you're spending here.

The Klockner Woods Debacle goes on and on and on...

Hamilton has declined to fund the purchase of Klockner Woods:

The township council last night rejected an ordinance to fund the $4.2 million purchase of the land, ensuring that the ultimate price will be determined by the court.
"I will in no way support the purchase of this property at this price," said Councilman Dennis Pone. "If we pay this amount we will have less money to preserve other open space in this township."
The $4.2 million was to be used to fund the land while the township waited for about $1.3 million in state and county grants and a $2.9 million state loan to pay for the land.
The council has appealed a recent Superior Court judge's ruling upholding the purchase from Doylestown-based developer Fieldstone Associates and council members said they would continue the appeal rather than withdraw it and vote to pay for the controversial tract.

This appeal is a waste of time and money. Pone is absolutely right that by paying this outrageous price there's less funds to preserve other parts of this quickly-developing township, but the time to decide that was probably before the agreement was signed. The judge was pretty clear that the original agreement stands and Fieldstone gets their interest. Good luck with that appeal- you'll need it.

Grasping at memos

I read this on Sunday, and quite honestly, I just stood there shaking my head.

This is significant because almost EVERYTHING I've read on the Klockner Woods boondoggle since I started this blog has sent me sprinting for the computer. I read it, get ticked off/laughing/sad/scared/whatever, and I just have to write about it. This time, all I could do is shake my head, and wonder what they really expect to gain this time.

A previously un disclosed memo from a township planner has cast fresh doubts on the $4.1 million price the municipality paid for Klockner Woods, re kindling the bitter debate over the property.
The memo, written in December by township planner Allen Schectel, was not disclosed to Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg before she ruled last week that the township is obligated to honor its deal to buy the land.
A township official called the memo routine and said the Gilmore administration had no reason to make the planner's opinion part of the court record because it does not affect the value of the property. But township council members are crying foul over the withholding of the document. The memo surfaced last week after council members learned of its existence and demanded to see it.
In the memo, Schectel raised questions about 12 of the 40 home lots identified by consultant Van Note-Harvey Associates.

So, let me get this straight- a township planning official disagreed with the professional surveyors' report and had questions, that memo wasn't disclosed to the judge, so the council is saying that if it was disclosed the judge may have made a different ruling?

HALF THE TOWN disagreed with or had questions about the lot sizes and yield in Klockner Woods. That's WHY an independent firm was hired to survey it. The official wasn't swayed by the independent firm's audit? Wow, I'm shocked.

I'm no lawyer, but I can't really believe that the judge would take this with more than a grain of salt.

(The township planner's boss, Director of Planning Lloyd) Jacobs said "there was no reason to" disclose the memo, because Feinberg was already aware that six lots needed variances and had already dismissed them as minor.
"The memo was an internal communication and is consistent with what the planner does on any application," he said. "All of the is sues raised in this memo were addressed by the judge in her ruling."

This council is frantically grasping at straws. According to the esteemed Darryl Isherwood in the article, the town has already spent over ten thousand dollars on their case and hasn't decided whether to appeal or not, which will cost even more.

For the sake of Hamilton property taxpayers, drop it. It's over. Stop spending more money on it. You want the town sufficiently pissed at Gilmore before the election and look like the good guys, we get it. Spend campaign money on that, not precious tax dollars.

Trenton Times: Let It Go

I think the Times of Trenton editorial speaks for most Hamiltonians here:

Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg's lengthy opinion in the Klockner Woods property-tax case may be a bitter pill to swallow for the Hamilton Township Council's Republican majority. But for the sake of the taxpayers in the township, they should let it go and rethink their tentative plan to appeal the ruling.
An appeal likely will be costly and time-consuming and a further distraction in the running of Mercer County's largest municipality.

They acknowledged that they "understand (the council's) bewilderment" at the exorbitant price. However, this town council majority was elected on the bewilderment of the voters at this in the first place- and they now want to milk it. Bad idea. Folks, if you push this too hard, you'll look like you're only trying to ensure your "we did all we could" stance at the next couple elections while costing taxpayers even more money on unsuccessful appeals.

I'm angry. Anyone who follows this story, Hamilton resident or not, should be angry. What I'm angry about, however, isn't the ruling- which we were sincerely hoping but not expecting to go a different way- but about how his debacle was handled from the very beginning. The ruling isn't what was screwed up here.

Please, after this parcel is saved and you put up those preserved open space signs, have the dignity to call it "Taxpayers' Preserve." We deserve that much- we sure paid enough for it.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- The Last Word (?)

Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg has made her ruling. Just as she hinted she would, she said the sale's going through as planned:

A Superior Court judge upheld yesterday the township's agreement to purchase the 50-acre plot known as Klockner Woods and ordered township officials to pay for the land within 30 days, capping more than three years of dispute over the tract.
In her complicated 80-page ruling, Feinberg also ordered that some $327,000 in interest the township has already paid will not be credited toward the purchase price as the township had requested. The ruling means the township's final price tag for the land will be nearly $4.6 million.
Judge Linda R. Feinberg also shot down claims by the township council that the purchase agreement was illegal because the council never voted to appropriate the funds and ordered the township to abide by all terms of the consent order she issued in June 2005, which set the terms of the purchase.
...
In the strongly worded opinion, Feinberg took a chastising tone with the township and the council, going as far as to say she regretted a decision made last year to postpone the purchase while the township investigated the land's value. The judge seemed to blame politics for the strife over the purchase.
"Looking back, the court regrets that decision (to postpone the ruling,)" the opinion said. "Now, several years later, clearly the allegations by the township were wrong. Furthermore, at this juncture, the action by the township appears to have been motivated purely as a result of outcry from members of the public, who while urging the township to preserve the property, objected to the price."

She's right, of course. This was all motivated by the outcry from the public, who objected to having to buy land for $4.1 million that they sold barely four years earlier for $375,000. Clearly, if the land is really worth $4.1 million (and it sure looks like it is), we got screwed when it was sold off for vastly less than it was worth.

The payment is now $4.6 million. The article by Times reporter Darryl Isherwood explains that the interest from Sept. 2005 to Sept. 2006 must be paid, but the interest since then may be credited to the purchase price.

Mayor Glen Gilmore sent out a news release yesterday, tooting his own horn:

Gilmore, who only days before, in his State of the Township address, re-asserted his belief that Klockner Woods were, in fact, worth preserving, said, after learning of the Court's decision: "I am glad that the court has confirmed what we had said from the very beginning, namely, that these woods are woods that could become a housing development, and that the price we offered to pay for them was a fair price." Gilmore went on to say, "This is an important vindication for a number of good citizens whose reputations went on the line to save these woods."
The judge's decision also contained a stern warning that additional costs to fight the purchase are an unnecessary and unwarranted burden on the taxpayers of Hamilton that are to be laid directly at the doorstep of the Council, who, from the beginning, has misrepresented the land, its price and their motives for opposing the preservation purchase.
Rejecting all the arguments raised by the special council retained by Council, the Judge has ruled:
1. The price negotiated by the Mayor was a fair price and that if the negotiated price were set aside, the taxpayers would have to pay more for the same land;
2. The purchase of this land can be made without direct resort to using money raised from local property taxes and that the council's contention that the agreement was void was without merit;
3. Further delay by opponents of the purchase can only waste taxpayers money and endanger the preservation of this parcel of green.

Surprisingly he didn't go so far as to thumb his nose while shouting, "I told you so!" Hamilton has a mayoral election this year, if you hadn't guessed. Gilmore doesn't mention that he was mayor when the land was sold to Fieldstone in 2001 for $375,000.

Let me state again that the reason we're all being fleeced by this deal is spelled out by the mayor in #2: Mercer County and the State are chipping in for this one, so we all have to pay. Also let me state again (because it bears repeating) that there is no question that this parcel of land should be preserved; just whether or not the price was fair.

So, is that it? Is this the last word?

Councilman Dave Kenny, who raised issues about the land before he was elected to the council and later led the effort to nullify the purchase, said the opinion represented "a sad day for Hamilton taxpayers" and promised to appeal.

Somehow I doubt that will help. Since the judge was pretty clear that the price was fair, I think an investigation needs to be launched into original sale price, including into the rumor that Gilmore recieved campaign donations from Fieldstone during his last election battle (he denies this.) Also, maybe a look should be taken at the the decision to avoid the costs of a court battle by not using Eminent Domain to secure the land for preservation.

It appears that the court decision was fair, but that doesn't guarantee that justice was served.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Was it in 2001?

According to Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg, who will issue her official report later this month, the idea that Klockner Woods* is too much wetland and couldn't be developed is "totally unfounded." Darryl Isherwood reports in today's Times of Trenton:

Judge Linda R. Feinberg said a consultant's study of the wetlands on the tract clearly showed the land could hold as many as 40 homes as township officials and the land's owner, Doylestown, Pa.-based developer Fieldstone Associates, have said and was not a swamp as detractors of the township's purchase of the property have alleged.

If the judge is right, the Central NJ town of Hamilton's mistake wasn't in buying back the land for $4.1 million; it was in selling it for $375,000 six years ago. It certainly looks as if her ruling will go that way.

On the other "fun" part of this deal, the claim that since the town council never formally approved funding for the purchase, it is illegal under state laws:

In a separate aspect of the complicated land deal, Feinberg said she would consider the township council's arguments that the entire purchase should be voided because the council in power at the time of the agreement never approved a bond ordinance to pay for the land. If the new council's argument is upheld, the land would revert back to Fieldstone and the price would become irrelevant.
But in her comments, Feinberg warned that the new council should be "careful what they ask for." If the purchase is voided, she said, the township could be liable for damages to Fieldstone.
"One thing for sure is Hamilton Township wants that property for open space, and if I were to do anything the township would probably end up paying more in damages than the $4.1 million purchase price," Feinberg told the three attorneys representing the township, Fieldstone Associates and the council.

Don't forget the $400,000 owed in interest on the money, making it a total of $4.5 million.

So, it looks like the land is worth what Fieldstone wants for it after all. Since it looks like the taxpayers of Hamilton and Our Fair State will be footing the bill for this, I wonder if the two strange parts of this debacle will be formally investigated:

• the decision in the first place to sell the land for what was clearly VASTLY below its market price to Fieldstone
• the decision to not try to force an eminent domain issue in order to avoid a costly lawsuit

I can't wait to see the formal ruling. I'm sure all of Hamilton is on edge waiting.


*Hamilton Twp. sold this wooded property to Fieldstone Developers in 2001 for $375,000 with the intent of development. Four years later, Hamilton agreed to buy it back for conservation for $4.1 million. Hamilton foots part of this bill but monies come from the county and the state, through the DEP and low-interest loans- hence the fleecing of all of us on this deal. The key posts of the Center of NJ Life continuing series:
Cut the price, 40 Lots and a scam?, Like a bad marriage, The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ, Deal postponed, 41 lots not feasable, Klockner Woods, Deceptions, Wheeling and dealing, Lawsuit, Paying interest, Money flow

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Cut the price

Hamilton has sought a discount on the Klockner Woods deal, and credit for the interest paid so far, from Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg:

In a letter to Feinberg, township attorney Paul Adezio explains that a plan by a township consultant shows that at least 34 homes -- and as many as 40 with zoning variances -- could be built on the site. The $4.1 million price, Adezio says, was based on the ability of Fieldstone to build 41 homes on the land.
"Additionally, since the parties were mutually mistaken as to the number of buildable lots on the property when they entered into their agreement ... the Township will ask the Court to consider correcting the mutual mistake of the parties by amending the purchase price to reflect the applicable number of lots ...," the letter said.
Adezio does not specify how much the township feels the price should be reduced. Fieldstone attorney John H. Buonocore did not return calls for comment on the suit and Adezio said he had not heard from the developer on the possibility of dropping the price or crediting the interest payments.

Hamilton also requested "guidance" on how to proceed since one councilman, attorney David Kenny, still feels the purchase was illegal because funding was never approved and will block the approval now. Yeah, good luck with that.

Rocky Swingle (what a great name, Rocky Swingle), president of Save Hamilton Open Space: "We need to save this money so we can preserve other land with it. If we spend too much on this, there is less to spend on others." The land ought to be preserved, absolutely, but at a price that Hamilton's and Our Fair State's taxpayers can afford.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- 40 lots and a scam?

It turns out that forty lots will fit on the Klockner Woods property in Hamilton, according to a recent consultant's plan. This kind of justifies the price that was agreed to for the property, right? Right?

Except the way they did it was to reduce the lot size:

The plan by Van Note-Harvey Associates that Hamilton released yesterday shows that 40 lots could be carved out of the property off of Klockner Road without being built on top of the protected wetlands comprising one-third of the land.
Many of the lots in the Van Note-Harvey plan are smaller than those in an earlier plan drawn up for Fieldstone Associates, which sold the property to the township last year.
...
Council President Tom Goodwin, who had not seen the plan yesterday afternoon, questioned its conclusions and asked who ordered Van Note-Harvey to lower the lot sizes.
"Gilmore is just trying to maximize whatever he can to say he's right," said Goodwin.

And, who exactly did say they could lower lot sizes? How low can they go? Does this even justify the $4.1 million price tag for land that only cost $375,000 a few years earlier?

The council members who were trying to get this deal annulled are still on that hunt. The interest paid by Hamilton has topped $380,000- now more than the original purchase price. And while the posturing and finger-pointing goes on, the interest accumulates.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ-"Like a bad marriage"

From today's Times of Trenton:

HAMILTON -- Like a bad marriage, the GOP-controlled council is seeking to have the township's purchase of the plot known as Klockner Woods annulled because the three Republican councilmen say it violates state contract laws.
In a memo to township Business Administrator John Mason, Councilman David Kenny, who is a former municipal attorney, said the $4.1 million contract to purchase the 51-acre property is not valid because the money was never appropriated by the township council.
...
Kenny cites state law as well as case law that requires the governing body to appropriate money for any purchase and asks that the administration attempt to void the purchase completed in 2005.
"Accordingly, it is my view that (township attorney Paul) Adezio should file a motion with the court to set aside or vacate the judgment as it is void and in violation of the law," the memo said.

Nice try. Think it'll stick?

Hamilton Twp. is, of course, paying interest on the money it is not paying to Fieldstone Associates while it balks at honoring the horrendously overpriced deal it made. So far the interest has amounted to $330,000- almost as much as Fieldstone paid for the property when it bought it from Hamilton 2001. If this hold on another couple months, Fieldstone breaks even, regardless of whether Hamilton can pull an annulment.

No matter what, this property should be preserved wetland, but we shouldn't all have to pay through the nose like this for it.

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- The wetland report

Klockner Woods is 1/3 wetland, according to a long-awaited study of the Hamilton Twp. property*. However the study was not definitive on how many homes could be built on the remaining land, and that will be the subject of debate for some time, I'm sure.

But based on a concept plan submitted in 2004 by the land's owner, Doylestown developer Fieldstone Associates, the wetlands would cover all but 31 of the proposed homes along with a storm water basin.
Based on $100,000 per lot, the purchase price would come to $3.1 million, saving the township $1 million.
More homes also could be lost once state-required wetlands buffers are
actored in.
But township officials said yesterday the 31 acres not covered by wetlands could hold closer to 40 homes.
That number may be crucial in determining how much the township actually ends up paying for the property.
...
In her ruling ordering the township to begin paying interest, Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg left open the possibility the price could be reduced if the number of homes the land can hold is substantially lower than 41.
Since then, the township has paid $218,664 -- $27,333 per month -- in interest payments on the $4.1 million.
Feinberg also gave the township hope on that front when she hinted that she might allow the already-paid interest to be credited toward the purchase price of the land.
John Buonocore, a lawyer representing Fieldstone, said yesterday he had not seen the township's report and could not comment on it.
But during last fall's hearing, Buonocore argued that the $4.1 million was not based on the number of lots and so should not be reduced if the number is lower.
Both parties agreed to the price, Buonocore argued, and should be binding. Feinberg is expected to rule on the price once the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has approved the study.

Mayor Glen Gilmore immediatly struck the vindication bell:

"What is clear from this application is that our experts have determined that there is a significant amount of buildable land in Klockner Woods and it doesn't come close to being a swamp as some people claimed it was," Mayor Glen Gilmore said in a statement.
Gilmore blamed partisan politics for the eight-month delay in buying the land and said opponents of the deal misrepresented the amount of wetlands.

Opponents misrepresented the amount of wetland? Mayor, this study doesn't exactly paint you and the council as in the right. The number of housing lots available is most likely 75% of what you agreed to shell out other people's money for. Don't forget township planners knew years ago that 41 lots wasn't feasable. The land should be saved from development, you betcha, but at a reasonable and fair price- for instance, one that was studied in advance.

The study now has to go to the DEP for approval. The agency has said it does not have enough information to decide whether they will contribute the money for purchase through the Green Acres program. Does that mean that Hamilton will get stuck with most of the bill on this, with only Mercer County chipping in its portion?


*Hamilton Twp. sold the property to Fieldstone Developers in 2001 for $375,000 with the intent of development. Four years later, Hamilton agreed to buy it back for conservation for $4.1 million. Hamilton foots part of this bill but monies come mostly from the county and the state, through the DEP- hence the fleecing of all of us on this deal. The key posts of the Center of NJ Life continuing series:
The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ, Deal postponed, 41 lots not feasable, Klockner Woods, Deceptions, Wheeling and dealing, Lawsuit, Paying interest, Money flow

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- The money begins to flow

Hamilton has made its first three interest payments to Fieldstone Associates in regards to the Klockner Woods land deal. This would be the payments due on Oct. 1, Nov. 1 and Dec. 1; January's payment hasn't been made yet, according to Hamilton Township officials, as reported in today's Times of Trenton. These payments may possibly someday hopefully but probably not be credited toward the purchase price of $4.1 million, but under the current deal they are on top of it. The township also owes $100k on a loan for money alloted to buy the property, so right now we're looking at approx. $4.3 million.

All for a bit of land the developers bought in 2001 for $375,000.

Back at the end of October, someone in Hamilton's administration leaked that a deal was reached to build 100 age-restricted housing units on half of the property and conserving the other half. This was close to the deal Fieldstone wanted in the first place, but several township council members were in danger of losing their seats in the following week's election and it really looked like they were trying to save face. It turned out to be even worse- the deal was never struck and they were grasping at straws.

Weak straws. The three council seats in play, all held by Democrats, were turned over. And the Republicans danced, as they regained control of the town council.

Hamilton has just over 90,000 residents, making it NJ's eighth largest municipality, and politically has a lot of focus from both parties. It was solidly Republican until just about six years ago, when the longtime mayor lost reelection due to a nice scandal involving gambling, possible Mafia ties and lots of politicians. (PoliticsNJ has the rundown on that story in a piece currently on their front page about Hamilton and the Republican hopes.) A loss of this town by the Dems is felt far and wide.

The Republicans spent a good deal of time campaigning on the Klockner Woods issue, but really, did they have to? It was front page fodder for the Times of Trenton several days a week. (Probably the Trentonian too but I can't bring myself to read it and find out.) The Republicans promised to try to void the deal as is and and seek to pay a reasonable price for the land. New councilman Dennis Pone is quoted in the Times today, "Our goal is to preserve it, but we want to preserve it having all of the information about the land and preserve it at a fair price. It's unfortunate that the deal was brokered with this interest payment, but we really can't do anything about that at this point." Ah, but it made good campaign fodder, whether or not you could actually do anything about it, right?

Mind you, Hamilton isn't the only ones paying for this soggy boondoggle. Hamilton pays some and Mercer County covers a bit, but much of the purchase price is to be paid by Our Fair State through grants and loans. That's why the DEP balked at paying so much and requested a study of how much of the property is swamp- oh, I'm sorry, "wetland." This study will be completed in the spring. I wonder after how many more interest payments are sent will the results come back.

I feel like I've been had

From the illustrious Darryl Isherwood, Times of Trenton:

HAMILTON - The township is close to a deal that would scrap its controversial purchase of Klockner Woods and allow a developer to build age-restricted housing on about half of the property and donate the other half to the township, an administration source confirmed yesterday.
The deal, which is being negotiated with the land's owner, Doylestown, Pa.-based Fieldstone Associates, would kill the township's controversial $4.1 million purchase of the land and allow the developer to instead build 100 age-restricted duplexes on half of the 51-acre property.
To avert just such a development, the township had previously agreed to buy the property from Fieldstone on the assumption that at least 41 single-family homes could be built there, though subsequent revelations about the extent of wetlands opened up that assumption to considerable doubt.
The new deal would effectively end the township's two-year attempt to preserve the property. Its plan to buy the land has been plagued from the start by questions over the actual value of the property, which Fieldstone bought in 2001 for $375,000.
Under the deal in the works, the undeveloped half of the property would be donated to the township as open space. According to the source, the deal also calls for Fieldstone to pay for recreational improvements, such as trails and possibly fields, on the land.
The deal would effectively put the two sides back to where they were in late 2002, when Fieldstone first submitted plans to develop the land. But the 100 age-restricted homes are fewer than half of the 256 originally proposed for the property.
...
Township officials would not comment yesterday on a possible deal. And an attorney for Fieldstone could not be reached for comment.

Really. No, really- This is what's happening now. After all that, months of legal wrangling, weak attempts to preserve the land, court cases- Hamilton will roll over and let the developer just build much like they wanted in the first place? I guess the town wants its citizens to be happy that some of it will be preserved in the end, and that the town/county/state don't have to pick up the exorbitant tab as negotiated.

I feel like I've been had. It almost seems as if the town never had any intention of preserving the land and a lot of this was for show, to placate the preservation groups. That would explain a lot- particularly, why they declined to use the eminent domain proceedings in the first place.

The Times report was based on an anonymous source and the parties involved haven't commented. I wait to see what happens next...

Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Hamilton must pay

Hamilton must pay interest as the original purchase agreement states, according to preliminary findings by Judge Linda R. Feinberg. Hamilton Township was to begin paying interest Sept. 1 on the $4.1 million they agreed to pay Fieldstone Developers to buy back land the township sold to them for $375,000 four years ago. Feildstone filed a motion to force the town to begin to pay the interest as agreed to in the June purchase agreement. The interest is a little over $27,000 a month.

The money is interest in addition to the purchase price, so the cost is currently $4,145,556.00 and counting.

The judge suggested that the interest may be able to be counted as part of the price, but that is yet to be seen. She was careful to point out that the case is not settled and the terms could still change. However, "If in fact the township did not exercise as much due diligence as it should have, maybe Fieldstone should have the benefit of that (8 percent) interest going forward," Judge Feinberg is quoted in the Times.

Township Attorney Paul Adezio had requested to waive the interest payments because of the delay in closing the deal, caused by the state Department of Environmental Protection's request for a wetlands delineation survey. The survey should have been done a long time ago and at the request of the Township, and that is at the heart of the matter. As of now, however, Hamilton has to pay what they agreed to pay. Tough luck, that, being held to your legal agreements.

Let us not forget that this is an election year in Hamilton Township, so the candidates are all up in arms about this. "I don't think it's a big issue. A lot of the people I talk to don't think that much about it. It's important, but is it as important as the safety of their kids or the schools? I don't think so."said Councilman Wayne DeAngelo, who is up for re-election this year. I wonder who he talks to who doesn't care much?

(Previous posts about Hamilton's Klockner Woods:DEP agrees to investigate, Deal posponed, Council attacked, Eminent domain?, Survey requested, Fieldstone may have known, Study Delay, Lawsuit )

Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Klockner Woods Lawsuit

As shock follows shock, Fieldstone Developers are suing Hamilton to get the interest they are owed under the current contract. Why shouldn't they? The payment is all legal-like, set in court and everything.

Fieldstone may be slick, predatory and even have crossed the line into illegal practice, but they didn't fail the taxpayers of Hamilton, Mercer County and New Jersey with this ridiculous deal. The Hamilton Council and Mayor did that.

Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Klockner Woods study delay

The study to determine how much of Klockner Woods is wetlands won't be ready until spring! So much for the one-month estimate. This delay would put the interest due to the develper at over $100,000 by the time the assessment is finished- over a quarter of the original cost ($375,000) that Fieldstone Development paid for the land four years ago, but only a pittance compared to the $4.1 million they expect to be paid for selling it back to Hamilton Twp. for preservation.

"My hope is that we are still going to be able to preserve Klockner Woods," said Mayor Glen Gilmore yesterday. "We have asked both the owner as well as the court to provide us with the additional time to conduct the study so that there are not any outstanding questions about the preservation effort." Gilmore said Fieldstone has yet to agree to waive the interest payments, which amount to about $27,000 per month.

And why should they? They've done quite well for themselves.

Gilmore also says he wants to be mindful of the 1500 petition-signing residents who want the land preserved. I think almost ALL the residents want this land preserved. We're angry about the exhorbitant price to which you agreed with almost no study.

Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Klockner Woods Deceptions

I know you're shocked, as was I. But it seems Fieldstone knew at least some of the houses on their plans for Klockner Woods could never be built:

A consultant hired by the owner of the 50-acre Klockner Woods tract knew that a portion of the land the developer hoped to build on was wetlands and would not be suitable for home building, state records show.

A 2004 letter to state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) officials from the consultant, John Szczepanski of Nova Consultants, included a swath of wetlands on the map of the area where owner Fieldstone Associates had hoped to build. The additional wetlands would make at least three houses impossible to build.

But despite the addition of the wetlands, Fieldstone never removed the three homes from the concept plan for its development submitted to local officials in March 2004. The number of possible houses ultimately determined the price the township paid for the land.

Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore says that "If it turns out the developer was telling us one thing and telling the DEP another, that to me would be a breach of fairness and we would certainly ask the court to reassess the terms of the agreement."

I certainly hope so.

The clock is ticking; as of Sept. 1st, interest is owed by the Township to the developer at a rate of $27,000 a month. The Township is hoping the developer will forgo the interest provided the deal goes through as planned. (Try that line next time you're late on a mortgage payment: "Oh, I'm sorry. I hope you'll forgo the interest since I will pay you someday.") They're still waiting for the survey that Hamilton commisioned, which should be done in the near future.

Klockner Woods closing date update

The date for Hamilton to begin paying on their inflated-price purchase of Klockner woods has come and gone- with no action. This means the township will begin to owe interest at a rate of 8% annually on the $4.1 million they agreed to pay.

The wetland and flood plain survey they commissioned should be done Sept. 12. Also, there's no guarantee when that is done that the purchase agreement will be changed at all.

And the fleecing of Hamilton and NJ continues...

The Fleecing of Hamilton and NJ- Update

Well, Hamilton is still trying to figure out what they're going to do about agreeing to vastly overpay for Klockner Woods. Last week they finally hired a surveyer to comply with the Department of Environmental Protection's order for a wetlands review. Van Note Harvey Assoc. will take no more than 30 days to finish the job. It's a shame that the deadline to begin paying Fieldstone is in 8 days.

And this week, documents were revealed that show the township planners knew last year that 41 lots was most likely not feasable. The chief planner, Allen Schectel, reviewed the original plan for 48 homes and felt that there were more wetlands than Fieldstone assumed. The memo eliminates seven units and suggests that more would be lost once a flood plain and wetland survey was completed. None was ever done; a year later, Hamilton agreed to pay $4.1 million based on an incomplete assesment of a plan that didn't include surveys recommended by their own planners.

Huh?

Our best hope here is, as stated by township spokesman Rich McClellan, "If the township finds there was any misrepresentation involved in the information provided by the developer as part of the negotiating process, we will petition the judge to vacate the consent judgment." Maybe someone should have looked for any misrepresentation before agreeing to overpay with township, county and state money. Or at least listened to the planners who said a survey should be in order.