Earlier this week the organization Revolt! published their principle's on PILOTS in response to the current Church Square Towers controversy. Read these and see if they seem reasonable:HOBOKEN PILOTs - Principles
1. We support Workforce housing as an essential component of Hoboken's residential real estate portfolio.
2. A transparent and thorough review of all existing PILOTS should be undertaken immediately to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreements, and approval of any new PILOTs should be thorough and transparent, with a clear articulation of community benefit.
3. The CT PILOT has expired. There is no clear basis to claim that continuation of PILOT payments on a month-to-month basis constitutes an "implied" contract.
4. According to the CT management company, the CT mortgage has been paid and there may be no ongoing relationship with HUD or identification of an alternative HUD program which might cover CT.
5. Therefore, the City could be extending a PILOT for private property without an understanding of whether workforce housing will continue or what the community benefit would be from the PILOT.
6. A Council vote on "extension" of the expired CT PILOT should not be rushed until all legal, policy and community benefit issues have been reviewed.
7. However, if the Council approves a CT PILOT: the terms should be for a limited period of time and mandate that the owners continue the building as Workforce housing as long as the PILOT is in effect; that it be precluded from flipping the building to a Condo or taking any other actions that remove Workforce Housing tenants in good standing, or in any way generate a "windfall" profit for the owners; and that reasonable terms be included to allow for cost of living adjustments to payments made to the City.
8. In summary: a CT PILOT would be a "Standstill" agreement to continue to operate the building as if it was still under the initial PILOT, and as if all HUD and other original legal requirements remain in effect.
9. The Council should state that a CT PILOT is not a precedent for other PILOTs when they expire, and that each situation must be reviewed separately and distinctly. ◦
