With all the talk about construction of a new Montclair public elementary school building, LEEDS and other issues, another area school quietly acquired this historic property, the W.I. Lincoln Adams House, circa 1907.
Montclair Co-op School purchased 32 Llewellyn Road for $1,800,000 (originally listed at $1,300,000). The Georgian revival mansion, designed by architect Frank Wallis, has, among other historic details, a pipe organ. An architectural rendering of the school’s plans for this additional location, was on view at the school. Plans detail renovating the existing mansion and adding at least one out building. The school, which currently has one class per grade K-8, is looking to expand to two classes.
“with all the talk” is a pretty bad characterization. “with all the ALLOWED talk” would be more correct. When “eccomontclair” and others could not in any way detail what specifically is being proposed in the new Rand School. let alone any idea of the costs/benefits, I went looking for some facts myself. I found some info showing that in another NJ school their solar panels will take from 37-43 years to BREAK EVEN. But this was deemed ‘too generic’ by the censors and not relevant to the discussion.
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/MtcWatercooler/files/_ENVIRONMENT/
(see the file schoolsolar.txt)
Too generic?
Coincidentally the Llewellyn mansion costs just a tad over what just the Solar Panel retrofit costs the school in Woodbridge. I wonder if it will take 43 years to pay off as will the (economically beneficial?) solar panels?
p.s. Again, whats with the dissabled URL linking. Afraid of outbound traffic?
ROC — I just clicked on the link and got there fine…
For the last 4 or 5 days links don’t show on my browser at all on Baristanet.
: (
You, see one cannot refute the “solar energy is a money saving bonanza” meme on the watercooler with facts, because that (I suppose) would upset the “party line”.
Have a look at: https://groups.yahoo.com/group/MtcWatercooler/message/26350
I had posted a (denied) response saying that since the taxpayers were subsidizing 70% of the installation costs his 10 year break even point moves to 33 years without the “free” money from the NJ Taxpayer.
Again, “not relevant” to the discussion….
I am all for solar energy as a moral statement if you want to spend the cash, but the financial argument simply does not seem to hold water, as far as I can find.
But it seems that members of the “fact based” community don’t want to have their particular “faith” disturbed.
ROC: the link you can’t get to is Watercooler message 26208
Right of Center-
I believe the disablement of the automatic link has to do with Barista’s enablement of HTML tagging. For instance, here’s your link: Your Link. I did this by typing in the comment area:
<a href=”https://groups.yahoo.com/group/MtcWatercooler/files/_ENVIRONMENT/”>Your Link</a>
or, generically:
<a href=”URL”>Text Tag</a>
Good luck.
-Milo
Thanks Liz,
the Urls in your articles work, but (for me) any links in the reader posts don’t .
No biggie.
Thanks Milo.
Here is the latest shell game.
Too bad Facts are not allowed in to the discussion at the WC, Because I would want to say that without TAXPAYER subsidy Solar Energy seems to LOOSE money.
Whether we send out tax payments to CIty Hall or Trenton, what is the difference? WE still pay EXTRA to subsidize a money loosing enterprise.
Milo, it worked! thanks.
or even LOSE money (which might be Loose!)
Looks purty, too.
While the discussion of links and such is nice, I would hope we could focus here on encouraging the Planning Board NOT to allow this ratable property to be removed from the tax rolls in Montclair.
What would the planning board have to do with it? Can they stop the sale of private property to a non profit organization.
Boy, I hope not.
But I am all for watching out for the hands reaching into our wallets. Lets also hope the School Board considers Costs/Benefits (as in *actual* costs) before implimenting any LEED mandates in the new Rand school on the basis of “savings”.
p.s.
“While the discussion of links and such is nice…”
So glad we got the “thumbs up”
Kevin –
How is the taxable status of property determined? Are all non-profit organizations exempt from property tax? I was under the impression that it was only churches and municipality-owned property. If it is all non-profits, where does this exemption come from? (I assume it has to be the NJ constitution?)
Thanks.
-Milo
the planning board cannot restrict the sale, property owned by a non-profit has to appeal to the planning board for real estate tax exemption. For too long, our planning board has been too quick to grant this exemption.
Given the dearth of ratables, I am loathe to grant any exemptions. If this school can purchase a million dollar property for a half million over asking price, they can contribute to the general welfare.
Kevin,
Well I learn something new everyday. I thought property Tax exempt status was automatic along with the sales tax exemption.
Thanks for the info.
I would agree with you. In fact I think we should not grant property tax exemptions unless the non-profit (or entity in question) provides an vital service TO the community as a whole. You know as a way to support activities which the entire community needs and can support.
Because, after all, a tax exemption amounts to a back door public funding source. So we should save such beneficence for such things as Local Non Profit Theater Companies providing free meeting space for partisan political causes and paramours of veterans, that sort of thing.
Maybe we should extend tax-exempt non-profit status to Montclair’s restaurants, which by all accounts seem to 1) serve the community (literally) and 2) fail to make a profit (as per multiple postings on baristanet)
By the way, this looks like it would have been a steal at $1.3m based on the picture. Maybe the location isn’t much. Or more likely, the ludicrous Montclair taxbill capped its appreciation potential, making its purchase palatable only to a non-profit.
Richard O’Colgan drives a truck.