Development at historic Manischewitz site in the PAD

July 2009

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31
		Birthdays
Jul 13 - Sands Jul 15 - Christine16(29) Jul 17 - missa Jul 17 - SamS
		Events
Jul 2 - Grove St. Farmer's Market Jul 2 - Shakespeare in Van Vorst Park Jul 3 - City Hall & JCPA closed Jul 3 - Creative Grove Artist Market Jul 3 - For The Love of Music Jul 4 - Fireworks Show, Hudson River Jul 4 - VVP Farmer’s Market Jul 4 - Jenga Tournament Jul 8 - Hamilton Park Farmer's Market Jul 8 - Groove on Grove Jul 8 - JSQ Farmer's Market Jul 8 - "Man On Wire" @ VVP Jul 22 - "Mamma Mia" @ VVP
		Holidays
Jul 4 - Independence Day

[MCA]

From the NYT: Up in Smoke: The Deposit Vanishes:

Elizabeth and James Pham put all their savings into the deposit they made on a $956,990 two-bedroom apartment at Maxwell Place, a new development in Hoboken, N.J.

They signed an agreement for the apartment in 2005, put down $93,199 and were preapproved for a mortgage for the rest of the purchase price.

But when their closing date arrived last September, several banks told them that to get a mortgage, they would have to increase their 10 percent down payment by another 15 to 25 percentage points. With no way to come up with that much money, the Phams notified the developer, Toll Brothers, that they could not get financing for the apartment. Toll Brothers declared them in default and kept their deposit.

“It would take us another 15 years to save that money again,” Ms. Pham said.

The Phams, who have two children, a 4-month-old and a 2 ½-year-old, live in a two-bedroom in Hoboken that is smaller than the one they had hoped to move into in Maxwell Place. But they borrowed on their equity there to help put together the deposit on the new apartment. The rest of the deposit came from Mr. Pham’s work as a real estate agent, income that has all but dried up in the current market.

“If we tried to sell our apartment, we wouldn’t make enough to cover the cost of selling it, so we’re really stuck,” said Ms. Pham, who works as a benefits manager at a professional services firm. Ms. Pham said that the developer “made no attempt to work with us; they wouldn’t even return my phone calls.” She added that the sales manager had declined their offer to help find another buyer for the apartment and had told Ms. Pham that “not getting our deposit back was just business.”

[MCA]

PRESS RELEASE from the PADNA:
February 16, 2009

STRANGE DOINGS AT THE JERSEY CITY PLANNING BOARD

JERSEY CITY, NJ - Last April, the Jersey City City Council, over the strenuous objections of a room full of residents, adopted amendments to the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan.  These amendments were crafted to specifically and exclusively benefit Pennsylvannia "McMansion" developer Toll Brothers and result in destroying the vision and potential of the Powerhouse Arts District.
 
Soon thereafter, the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association (PADNA) filed suit in Hudson County Superior Court to overturn these amendments. The case was argued in December 2008 before Judge Barbara Curran.  A broad coalition of neighborhood, preservation and civic associations, appeared as friends of the court in support of PADNA.
 
To date the Court has not issued a verdict. This is not surprising given the complexity of the zoning matters at issue.  But no matter which side prevails, it is likely that the case will be reargued in the state's appellate courts which may prove to be a lengthy process.
 
DESPITE THIS PENDING LITIGATION, the Jersey City Planning Board has scheduled a February 17, 2009 hearing for Toll Brothers' application for "site plan review" of the blocks that are the subject of the litigation.  Astonishingly, the Planning Board is moving ahead on the assumption that the legally-challenged amendments are or will be found valid. Indeed, Toll Brothers is/are seeking yet MORE changes in the Redevelopment Plan to further ease their way.
 
"Site plan review" is a process under which a local planning board makes sure that a proposed development will be carried out in a manner consistent with local zoning.  In this case, the Board is being asked to make such a determination in spite of the fact that the status of the basic law (PAD Redevelopment Plan) itself remains unresolved.
 
While nothing in the law explicitly prohibits such an exercise, nothing mandates it either. Typically, land use boards wait until complex litigation is resolved rather than indulge in speculative planning which may be undone by the actions of the Court.  For some reason, the Jersey City Planning Board is not.
 
PADNA is asking the public to turn out on February 17 to ask why the Planning Board is acting so prematurely, and to oppose Toll Brothers' latest attempts to revise the carefully-considered Jersey City Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan.
 
New Jersey's land use laws, which mandate public hearings on proposed development, are designed to incorporate informed public opinion into the entire planning process.  By accelerating the development application of a favored developer while the key law is still in question, Jersey City is only fueling even more public disappointment with and cynicism about the entire process.

The Planning Board Meeting is at the City Council Chambers
City Hall, 280 Grove St. , 2nd floor
5:30pm Tuesday, Feb. 17

[G_Elkind]

Like the Embankment, the PAD is a key development issue with major implications for downtown and the rest of Jersey City.

At crucial moments like these, this is when we need our representatives to be out front, demonstrating leadership. Presently, I'm not seeing or hearing that level of leadership or support when it really counts the most.

Among the numerous development issues of importance to the downtown community, these are up there right at the top.

Where does our Councilman stand, today, on what's going on?

All the best.

Geoff

[MCA]

Announcement from the PADNA:


Toll Brothers Alert - Action Required
Message from the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association

Despite no decision yet from the courts on our lawsuit to protect the PAD, the Planning Board is allowing Toll Brothers to present a request for FURTHER deviations from the PAD Redevelopment Plan.  PADNA maintains that this request is entirely out of order while litigation is still pending. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD IN THIS ELECTION YEAR!   
 
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
CALL the Planning Department THIS WEEK at 201-547-5010.

Ask for Director of Planning Bob Cotter and/or senior planner Maryann Bucci-Carter (leave a message or voicemail if you cannot reach them directly):

o  Why is the Toll application being heard when Toll's amendments to the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan are still in litigation?

o  Why is the Planning Board allowing this meeting?  Any ruling from the Planning Board will be entirely speculative and will be thrown out if the courts rule the Toll amendments illegal. Why is the Planning Board wasting our time in this way?

o  Request the meeting be CANCELLED until litigation is resolved.

BE THERE:
In lieu of our regular meeting, PLEASE JOIN US in voicing our concern to the Planning Board at next week's meeting:
 
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 280 Grove St. , 2nd floor
5:30pm, Tuesday, Feb. 17
 
If the meeting gets cancelled - which may happen up until time of meeting, PADNA will send out an email - please check your email before leaving for the meeting.   
 
For more information on the PAD Redevelopment Plan, visit padnajc.org and see About > PAD Redevelopment.

[MCA]

JJ:


Judge to decide arts district's fate
Will taller buildings be allowed?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
By CHARLES HACK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

A Superior Court judge heard oral arguments Monday in a case by a Jersey City community group challenging the city's right to allow a high-rise development in a Downtown area that was planned to be a mid-rise haven for artists.

The suit was brought by the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association against the city and Toll Brothers, the developer planning to build a 950-unit, three-tower project in the Powerhouse Arts District at Marin Boulevard and Bay Street.

The Toll Brothers plan calls for towers taller than 30 stories and demolition of all buildings, save for two facades of the historic Manischewitz warehouse.

The original redevelopment plan called for buildings no taller than 10 stories and preserving the warehouses.

After a five-hour hearing, Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Curran said she would consider the testimony and provide a written decision at a later date.

PADNA attorney Michael Kates argued that the Toll Brothers plan "eviscerated" the Powerhouse Arts District and "severely limited" affordable lofts.

"It is the same old story - make a contribution and grant a favor," Kates said. "The problem here is the favor is putting the plan in jeopardy."

Toll Brothers attorney Carl Bisgaier said the City Council amended the redevelopment plan in April after a public planning process. He argued that amenities included in the company's proposal more than justify the changes in height and density.

Those amenities include a 550-seat theater with parking, a $1.1 million contribution to operate the theater, thousands of square feet of performance and exhibition space, and an outdoor plaza to serve as a neighborhood gathering place.

[MCA]

JJ:


Groups jump on anti–Toll Bros. bandwagon
Monday, December 15, 2008
By CHARLES HACK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

An artists community group suing to limit the size of a planned Toll Brothers development in Jersey City's Downtown arts district has gained neighborhood backing for its cause - not a moment too soon since oral arguments are to be heard today.

Three neighborhood associations and two citywide civic groups have recently submitted written testimony to Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Curran, siding with the lawsuit filed in June by the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association.

Another group, the Harsimus Cove Association, joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff in September.

The lawsuit filed in June seeks to overturn a City Council ordinance adopted during April that amends the 2004 Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan in order to allow Toll Brothers to build a mixed used, 950-unit high-rise complex at the site of the former Manischewitz factory at Morgan Street and Marin Boulevard.

The amended plan includes three towers of 30 or more stories, a 550-seat performing arts theater, gallery space and a plaza.

The original redevelopment plan called for projects limited to 10 stories filled with spacious "live/work" units for artists.

Having the neighborhood associations behind the association is a significant boost to its case, said PADNA's attorney, Michael B. Kates. "It shows that there are neighborhood associations and other significant contributors to the scene in Jersey City who believe that the planning process is not so easily ignored," Kates said.

Bill Matsikoudis, the city's top attorney, said the additional voices don't change the law, which is the city has the right to amend a redevelopment plan.

"Unless they are putting forward a new theory of law or new facts I don't know it will have a substantive impact on the case," Matsikoudis said.

PADNA members see the Toll Brothers project as another nail in the coffin of the 2004 Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan that envisioned a low-rise community, with plenty of commercial art space and 10 percent affordable housing.

The Historic Paulus Hook Association, Inc.; Van Vorst Park Association; Newport Neighborhood Assn; and a "representative" of Hamilton Park Association, have all filed written testimony as "friends of the court."

The Newport Neighborhood Association, Inc., whose president is Sonia Maldonado, supports the Toll Brothers project, while a rival group, the similarly named Newport Neighborhood Assn, whose president is Robert Vivien, opposes the development.

The other civic groups - Civic JC and Pro Arts - have sent the court statements supporting the PADNA suit. Officials of Toll Brothers refused to comment.

[MCA]

Announcement from the PADNA:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 24, 2008

For more information contact:
Jill Edelman 917-757-8238
Evan Gourvitz 201-217-1339
http://padnajc.org

DOWNTOWN JERSEY CITY UNITES AGAINST TOLL BROTHERS UPZONING

PADNA (The Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association) of Jersey City is pleased to announce that Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Curran has ruled favorably on a motion requesting permission to appear in PADNA's suit against the City of Jersey City as amicus curiae ("Friends of the Court").  The motion was filed by Jersey City's downtown neighborhood associations: Historic Paulus Hook Association, Inc., the Van Vorst Park Association, the Newport Neighborhood Association, Inc., a representative of the Hamilton Park neighborhood and two citizen advocacy groups, ProArts and Civic JC.  The Harsimus Cove Association, another downtown neighborhood association, has joined PADNA as a co-plaintiff.  These local organizations, which have expressed their concern about the radical set of amendments to the PAD Redevelopment Plan, will have an opportunity to weigh in on PADNA's suit against the City of Jersey City, filed earlier this year.

When the Jersey City Municipal Council voted to up-zone the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment plan to accommodate "McMansion" developer Toll Brothers, it simultaneously laid waste to over a decade of broad community involvement (including input from the Urban Land Institute), made mockery of the planning process and set a terrible precedent that will embolden developers to engage in excessive profiteering.  In response, PADNA filed a suit in Hudson County Superior Court on June 2, 2008.

The PAD Redevelopment Plan was adopted in October 2004 to facilitate a DUMBO-like arts and historic warehouse cultural hub. The recent amendment gives Toll a huge subsidy at no cost to Toll and with no giveback to the community.  If built, the Toll Brothers plan will:

 • Destroy the unique character of the arts district
 • Demolish historic warehouses
 • Eliminate affordable housing for artists
 • Obliterate one of five remain cobblestone streets in Jersey City, the only one with an embedded rail
 • Double the density previously permitted
 • Quadruple the height previously permitted
 • Plunge four occupied and actively used historic warehouses into permanent shadow

PADNA and its fellow plaintiffs are being represented by seasoned land use attorney Michael Kates of Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis Farhi, LLP.  The amicus groups are represented by Cynthia Hadjiyannis, Esq. of Jersey City.

Oral argument is scheduled on Monday, Dec. 15 at the Hudson County Administration Building, 595 Newark Avenue, Jersey City.
 
The PAD is home to over 350 residents with more than $125 million invested in the neighborhood.  PADNA has over 150 active members, supports the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan as it stood before April 9, 2008, and strives for a transparent city government that supports its residents.

[bdlaw]

Toll Brothers: More housing support needed

Toll Brothers (TOL) is sounding another alarm on the economy. The Horsham, Pa., luxury homebuilder posted a 41% decline in revenue for the fourth quarter ended last month. Net signed contracts dropped 27%  from a year ago, as the bottom fell out of the market in October.

CEO Robert Toll said that as late as September, the company was on track to post a flat quarter in terms of contract signings. But that trend, which Toll had pointed to in its third-quarter earnings call as an early and modest sign of stability after a three year housing slump was “upended by the past month’s financial crisis,” the company said. As a result, Toll said it won’t offer any financial guidance for 2009.

Now, with Washington handing out multibillion-dollar goodies to the finance industry, the company’s focus is turning to how to break the cycle of slowing economic growth and falling house prices. Toll is among those who want to see the feds take more action to shore up the housing market.

“Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to reset mortgages, help people who are in foreclosure, and protect those who have been the victims of rapacious lending practices,” Toll said in Tuesday’s press release. “We believe all of these goals are very worthy.

“However, we believe that, if home prices are not stabilized, these efforts will be for naught, more mortgages will go under, and the taxpayers’ money will have been wasted,” Toll added. “We urge Congress to stimulate demand by reducing mortgage rates and fees and by providing incentives such as a buyer tax credit for the purchase of all types of homes. We believe these initiatives would offer the greatest benefit for the taxpayer’s dollar.”

Of course, as the National Association of Homebuilders will be sure to tell you, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 authorizes a $7,500 tax credit for some people buying their first houses between April 9, 2008, and July 1, 2009. But the call for lower mortgage rates and fees tracks with a proposal that some observers are making about dramatically expanding the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in providing low-cost financing to first-time homebuyers. The question now is what approaches the new administration might embrace.

[MlNNlE]

The owners of 140 Bay would have done the same thing, if they weren't hoodwinked into a plan that had no legal basis.  They just built too soon.  Do you honestly believe that any of the other developers will stay with this plan?  Long live the PAD, the PAD is dead!

[NON]

This is great news!  Hopefully 140 Bay will realize that their tax abatement is not such a good deal, and back out of the deal so that the City can reevaluate the ratables in that building, and raise their taxes  to cover the lawsuit and lighten the load for the rest of the City.  You will show them! At whose expense?

Yeah because 140 Bay complied with the PAD plan in good faith, let's punish them for expecting equal protection from the city.

I love apologists for indefensible city activity.

[MlNNlE]

This is great news!  Hopefully 140 Bay will realize that their tax abatement is not such a good deal, and back out of the deal so that the City can reevaluate the ratables in that building, and raise their taxes  to cover the lawsuit and lighten the load for the rest of the City.  You will show them! At whose expense?

[MCA]

JJ newsblog:

City slapped with Powerhouse Arts District lawsuit
by Charles Hack
Tuesday June 03, 2008, 7:27 PM

A neighborhood group has filed a lawsuit to invalidate an amendment to the Jersey City's Powerhouse Arts District development plan that would allow a developer to build three towers of 30 or more stories.

Attorney Michael B. Kates, an attorney for the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association, said the lawsuit against the city was filed Monday.

The suit seeks to invalidate an ordinance passed by the City Council in April that would allow the developer Toll Brothers to build three towers 30 or more stories -- two of them at the site of the old Manischewitz factory at Morgan Street and Marin Boulevard and one across the street at Morgan and Warren streets.

The original redevelopment plan approved in 2004 called for projects limited to 10 stories filled with spacious "live/work" units for artists. This plan calls for 950 residential units, 12 of which would be live/work units, and 32 affordable housing units. Toll Brothers is also providing $2.8 million for affordable housing.

It also envisions a 550-seat performing arts theater with a $1.5 million subsidy from Toll Brothers, extensive gallery space, and the 24,000-square-foot Provost Plaza. The suit alleges that the city did not follow proper procedures, and the outcome is not consistent with the city's Master Plan.

"This ordinance could not be adopted without first going back to the planning board to evaluate whether this is still an an area of redevelopment," Kates said.

City attorney Bill Matsikoudis and Toll Brothers officials would not comment because they said they have not seen the lawsuit.

"We firmly believe that the amendments were appropriate to further Jersey City government's legitimate interests and we were completely within our right to do so," Matsikoudis said.

The suit also seeks unspecified compensation, punitive damages and costs.

[Woodsy]

From the New York Times:

May 15, 2008
Our Towns

Adjusting Vision of Waterfront Arts District to Include High Rises
By PETER APPLEBOME
JERSEY CITY

Across the street from the hulking remains of the Hudson & Manhattan Powerhouse, which once provided electricity for what is now the PATH rail system, is a mountain of bricks and rubble in the middle of a sprawling vacant lot.

Once it was the site of the Lorillard Tobacco and Snuff Manufactory, the largest tobacco factory in the country. Later it was a thoroughly magical warren for hundreds of artists, and the inspiration for an arts district envisioned as a way to revive a decrepit, forgotten warehouse district near the Jersey City waterfront. Current plans call for it to become a 52-story residential tower designed to look like a precarious stack of blocks.

Whether or not you care to see Jersey City as New York’s sixth borough, you could write a pretty interesting urban history centered on the 12 or so blocks now designated as its Powerhouse Arts District. But before you did, you would have to sort through two distinct story lines about how the tale has evolved.

One is a story of betrayal, how almost two decades of hard work and advocacy that produced a visionary plan for a low-rise arts district that preserved the area’s past was shunted aside in favor of plans for megatowers and cookie-cutter urban development. The second is a story about the malleability of urban life, how neighborhoods always evolve and how no planning document can ever be exempt from the vagaries of market forces and social trends.

It’s probably appropriate that either narrative culminates at the same point: a shootout over an abandoned matzo factory. In this case, it was a bitterly contested decision by the City Council last month to approve a proposal by the giant home builder Toll Brothers to construct three residential towers of 30 stories or more. Two would be on the site of an old Manischewitz factory; one would be across the street.

It came after a heated meeting at which nearly all the 45 or so people who spoke opposed changes in the plan. Nearby residents have threatened lawsuits to stop the project.

“We’re insulted by this scheme,” said Jill Edelman, president of the neighborhood association in the area. “It’s not only not in keeping with the vision of the redevelopment plan, but it goes counter to it and it destroys it.”

The current chapter of this saga dates back to the early 1980s, when Jersey City’s real estate boom seemed a contradiction in terms. Led by a painter named Charles Kessler and inspired by a burgeoning downtown art scene, residents and officials began thinking of redeveloping some of the most hopeless real estate in the city as an arts district with galleries and housing for artists.

After various iterations and much high-level study, including an enthusiastic report by the Urban Land Institute, the result in 2004 was designation as the Powerhouse Arts District, with a plan designed to maintain the district’s historic character, low-rise feel and mix of art and housing.

In retrospect, that plan probably died with the pile of rubble at the old tobacco factory when the city — facing lawsuits from the developer who owned the building, which had since been converted into artists’ studios — allowed him to knock down the building and build a high rise instead. “That was the first domino,” said Mr. Kessler. “So now we have Toll Brothers.”

But city officials say that in truth, the plan, however romantic it seemed, was flawed from the start. It didn’t provide enough critical mass for a successful district, it couldn’t generate enough revenue to support retail projects envisioned for the area, it didn’t support renovation of the one truly iconic building — the powerhouse — and it didn’t provide enough density for the rail service now in place.

“The idea of keeping density extremely low on a PATH stop is a luxury the city can’t afford,” said Robert Antonicello, executive director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. “It’s not consistent with smart growth, and it’s not what’s best for the whole city. What’s disappointing to me is that instead of embracing what’s best for the entire city you’ve got a group that instead has taken a more myopic Nimby approach.”

AND so it will go.

The city talks about a broader district, covering 25 blocks instead of 12, an arts district with entertainment space, not just visual arts. Critics point out that the city isn’t hurting for high-rise development, it’s drowning in it. What it almost had, they said, was something distinctive, something based in the city’s old industrial past — not a substitute for high-rise development, but a bit of diversity that’s an alternative to it.

In the Kabuki world of development fights, it’s hard to be too surprised at how this chapter played out, but Mr. Kessler said he was still disappointed. “We have plenty of high rises, we have an entire waterfront that’s suitable for high rises,” he said. “I expect a developer to try to make as much profit as he can. But here we had an incredible resource that speaks to Jersey City’s history like nothing else — railway history, industrial history — and rather than fight to save it, the city just folded.”

E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com

[alb]

In point of fact, Toll Brothers was deliberately evasive in dealing with the community.

It seems as if Toll Brothers just got way too big too quickly. It probably hasn't been doing much of anything right anywhere in the country over the past couple of years.

But it looks to me as if, for example, Paul and Eric Silverman of Exeter Properties (the ones turning St. Francis into condos) and the people at Schenkman-Kushner (Grove Pointe) are a lot smarter than the Toll Brothers people.

Does anyone in this thread know what the Silverman and the Schenkman-Kushner folks say about all of this?

Do they say something like, "Yeah, the only thing to do with the Manishchewitz site is put a mirrored skyscraper there and try to get a J.P. Chase IT office in there," or do they have any PAD-friendly ideas?

[bdlaw]

Because I know everyone has been on pins and needles waiting for Sonia to take a position on the PAD/Toll issue, I humbly present to you:

http://www.newportvoice.org/bb/showthread.php?t=3723

Not to engage in cross-forum bickering but:

"The argument made by some of the residents is that they relied upon the terms of the older redevelopment plan, and the representations made by the city, at the time they purchased their units."

Why would anyone do something as stupid as that?!

[NON]

Because I know everyone has been on pins and needles waiting for Sonia to take a position on the PAD/Toll issue, I humbly present to you:

http://www.newportvoice.org/bb/showthread.php?t=3723

[bdlaw]

In point of fact, Toll Brothers was deliberately evasive in dealing with the community.

As far as other developments within the district, I'd point to 140 and 150 Bay as being well and truly what the PAD is supposed to be about.  In fact I've looked at 140 Bay as a possible spot to move but frankly for the price and the fact that the lot across the street is going to be a construction war zone for the next several years it just doesn't seem worth it.

And yes, if you look at WALDO from the outside, it's a good example of how a more commercial development can also fit with the zone's planning and intent.

Just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

[jcpeace]

a) I'm going to respond to response because I think your response raises interesting questions. I'm not trying to dominate discussion here or anything, just discuss things.  Sorry if that comes off as being intrusive or combative.

not intrusive or combative at all......

One piece of evidence in support of the idea that there are some good guy developers out there: as far as I can tell, all of the rehab projects/construction projects now going on in the PAD east of Marin look terrific. The developers or their architects seem to at least have a general idea of what the PAD should look like. Maybe those folks have ideas for making sure the other projects completed in the PAD also look good and protect as much of the old construction as possible.

one project that fits this description is the Waldo Lofts. at least from the outside it seems to be a nice design that attempts to fit in.

it would be nice, as you suggested in your post, if the developers actually wanted to engage the community and were thinking aesthetically. but generally speaking, based on my limited experience of negotiating with a few developers, they are primarily motivated by density; cramming as many units into the land parcel as is physically possible.

The Toll Brothers never bothered to engage the community, which is the real tragedy here.

[G_Elkind]

Alb:

The real issue is not about "all or none" or simply a matter of aesthetics, but about whether the city really means what it says when it adopts a development ordinance and policy through a redevelopment plan.

From my experience with development issues, I don't know of anyone who would begrudge a developer, relatively de minimis changes to accommodate exigent or unusual circumstances where literal compliance with the ordinance is physically impossible.

On the other hand, the Toll Bros. experience is about wholesale reversals in development policy for the benefit of a well-heeled developer, which is virulently at odds with local community wishes and the world-class development plan the city itself established and trumpeted only several years prior.

See quote below from a related thread on another well-known website.

All the best.

Geoff

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8653&forum=8&post_id=151278#forumpost151278

Xerxes is partially correct.

We'll forgive his opinion on aesthetics, as he's entitled to that, and there's no accounting for taste. His take away conclusion that people should not waste their time is something else.

Taxpaying residents can, do and should stand up for their positions on development. They have been historically successful in influencing development outcomes, albeit not everytime, and not always to the degree wished for -- which is to be expected.

The old guard in the JC political scene have yet to come to grips with the fact that Downtown has changed and that people are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Time will tell and we'll see how the PADNA law suit against the city develops. The folks who have worked hard to preserve the Embankment know that it's not nearly enough to bring people to City Council meetings, and the outcome is still not assured. I personally hope the city council and the mayor's administration keep their word, on this issue.

DanL: The perennial problem with JC is that, for other than the Parking Authority, it remains enforcement challenged. I am absolutely certain that the Mayor meant exactly what he said, like other mayors before him, and other council persons - current and past. They all intend to enforce the law as it is written ... and this is perhaps where Xerxes is 100% correct.

This city has never seen a redevelopment plan that they could ever keep their hands off of. In making these promises, they never promised not to amend or not to change the law, as it is written -- and every mayoral administration at least in the past 30 years+ has more or less taken extreme liberties when it comes to satisfying developers in amending redevelopment plans in whole or in part and often against community interests.

This practice would be considered illegal spot zoning if these properties were part of regular zoning. While it may or may not be legally proper to spot 'amend' redevelopment plans, one thing is for certain -- the impact is exactly the same as spot zoning. Nobody can count on finality or certainty with respect to development, especially as the process appears to be driven by a steady stream of campaign contributions, directly or indirectly funded by developers, by or through even their attorneys.

It's unfortunate, but I don't even see how the upcoming pay-to-play initiative will stem this problem. As much as I would love to see true reform, this will remain a problem even if the initiative is passed in November.

DanL, CivicJC would really live up to its founding principles if it undertook to review and analyze all the Elec Reports of each and every current councilperson and the Mayor and post the same on your web site. The same for candidates who declare themselves for these same positions in the run up to next year's municipal elections.

Now this would really be revolutionary and bring a degree of openess and transparency to the voters on development issues affecting everyone in Jersey City.

Just my two cents.

All the best.

Geoff

[NON]

Economically feasible and economically beneficial are two entirely different concepts, worlds apart when it comes to major developers and the Jersey City feeding frenzy.

I think it's nice to think that developers work in "can we recoup our costs?" tones and not "this project will not go forward unless X profit is achieved and maximized".

I appreciate when people are willing to accept the reality around them and be pragmatic within that reality of how best to achieve as much as possible under the new, changed circumstances, so keep on truckin, alb. So long as you understand that the desire to build skyscrapers comes not from an aesthetic affection for skyscrapers, but from the reality that a 60 story tower will generate 3 times as much revenue as a 20 story tower, if not moreso, and at a proportionally much lower cost.