Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks 35-year tax abatement for 10 Park Place; residents press council for affordability details
Summary
The council heard a public hearing on a 35-year tax abatement for 10 Park Place, a planned adaptive reuse into 196 units the applicant says will be 100% affordable. Residents and council members pressed the developer and counsel for clearer guarantees on income targets, senior set‑asides and local access provisions.
The Newark Municipal Council held a public hearing on June 17 on a proposed 35-year tax abatement for 10 Park Place, an adaptive-reuse project to convert the historic Fireman’s Insurance Building into 196 residential units downtown.
Jennifer Mazaway, an attorney with K&L Gates representing the applicant, told the council the project would be 100% affordable and that affordability bands range from 27% AMI to 57.5% AMI, averaging about 50.1% AMI. The proposal would set aside 10% of units for seniors and another 10% for artists “as best efforts,” and the developer said the first-floor retail would be leased at below-market rates for up to 20 years to encourage local small businesses.
Residents and community advocates pressed for more precise commitments. Deborah Salters and other speakers asked which income bands would qualify as “affordable in Newark,” and whether units would be reserved first for Newark residents. Lisa Parker and other speakers raised broader concerns about long-term tax abatements, arguing abatements shift tax burdens away from developers and reduce funds that would otherwise go to public schools and services.
Developer Miles Berger said the proposal is an unprecedented downtown, 100%-affordable project and described community benefits including discounted retail rents and a proposed construction timeline of roughly 21 months. Counsel said some elements (notably the senior set-aside) depend on approval by HMFA and HUD rules; as a result the 10% senior set-aside was described as a best-effort commitment rather than an unconditional guarantee.
Council members asked the applicant to return with clearer contract language and financial documentation. Councilwoman Bay asked whether the senior and disability set-asides could be guaranteed; Mazaway said the financial agreement and HMFA approvals lay out the permitted structure and that the project will pursue those set‑asides if allowed. Council members also asked for details on application and selection processes, local preference/first-access mechanisms and enforceability if HMFA rules limit certain allocations.
The council did not take a final vote on the abatement at the June 17 meeting and directed the applicant to provide additional documentation and clarifications before the council votes on the ordinance. A public hearing on related ordinances on first reading was scheduled for July 15 for other items on the docket.
The most recent procedural step: the council closed public comment and asked the applicant to return with documentary detail on AMI bands, the senior set-aside, and tenant selection rules.
