Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance

Posted by dr_nick_riviera on 2019/1/10 22:33:35

JCGuys wrote:

bodhipooh wrote:
One can only hope the city administration (and the council) have done their due diligence and ensured this move to rescind the abatement is within the stipulated terms of the contract, including timeframes for claims, etc.

The last few lawsuits brought against the city have resulted in monetary losses in the form of punitive fees, including having to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs.

I am in favor of the city holding developers to their commitments, but I am definitely not cool with the city grandstanding for PR purposes, only to leave the citizens holding the bag in the end.

Every news article I've read in the past two years about legal action against the city were about the city losing the lawsuit, especially when it comes to property and development issues.

We have the reval x 2 (the contractor hired to do the old one and against the state), the robinhood property, One Journal Square's record request, 16 Perrine "arbitrary and capricious" denial, etc...

I don't fault legal consul as they are obligated to inform when there is a weak or strong case. I fault the pols for playing politics with taxpayer's money.

I'm far from an attorney, but trying to define what constitutes "a good faith attempt" to hire locally and to legally prove that the developer failed to do so seems like an uphill battle for the city. Let's be honest - a good faith attempt is wishy washy language. Put in a hard requirement: "a minimum of 40% of the construction workers must be residents of Jersey City." That would be much easier to define and to verify compliance or noncompliance.

Bookmark this thread. bodhipooh is right. This will be another lawsuit where the city is overruled on appeal and the developer is entitled for repayment of taxes plus interest and punitive damages.

Also, is the city monitoring all developer agreements that contain the good faith attempt language to hire locally... because if it's selective enforcement or they are holding this developer to a higher standard than other developers...

The one owns who really make money in this state are the lawyers.

Let's be sure to add the city suing the Bright & Varick developer at the behest of Yvonne and the VVPA. Another case involving property rights the city lost that cost the taxpayers dearly (because a couple old timer NIMBYs were scared of losing their free parking).

This Post was from: