Re: Positive things I like about JC
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
There was a nice thread apparently lost on this subject near the inception of jclist-
1) Not only diversity, but the mishmash of multi-ethnic and gay families. 2) PATH access to NYC, Newark, JC was built on proximity to NY / transportation and still is. 3) Liberty State Park. 4) Coming into Jersey City on the Pulaski Skyway 5) NYC Skyline and the Hudson River 6) Loew?s Theater 7) Little India 8) Grace Van Vorst as a cultural center 9) That little car (Henry J?) on top of the used car lot on lower Communipaw 10) The sense of neighborhood, though you may need to set down roots to get it. 11) Some of our neighbors that care about the city and its future 12) The idea of the cultural anchor of PAD 13) JC is a do it yourself kind of place that has the bones to be a great city. I do not get including WFMU, while I love the station, you barely know that they are here and seem to have nothing to do with JC; rather I would also include Iris Records on Brunswick.
Posted on: 2006/7/11 21:42
|
|||
|
Re: Healy and emails
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
No, I never received a written or telephone response to any letters or email sent to former Councilman Maldonado. As posted on jclist in the past, while I found him accessible, during my two year tenure as Harsimus Cove Association president (calendar years 2003 and 2004), I never received a response, by letter, by email or by phone to letters or emails that I sent on behalf of HCA.
Since you are bringing this up, I never met or knew who you were until a November 2004 council meeting when you approached and offered me a complementary ticket to a political fundraiser. In early 2005, I believe February, when I was no longer on the board of HCA, you called me out of the blue at my business and updated me on a whole range of issues. From this conversation resulted a difference of opinion regarding a meeting that you offered to set up with Councilman Maldonado on the Warehouse District / PAD. In order to get a response from the councilman, I had to ask face to face. My only non face to face communication was during some demo of 110 First Street, I was given his cell phone number by a neighbor too timid to call him on a Sunday. I called him and he had already been to the scene, also saying not to hesitate calling. As I said, he was accessible, but no, never responded to written mail or email correspondence. Quote:
Posted on: 2006/7/11 13:05
|
|||
|
Re: Healy and emails
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
A Letter to the Editor can be more effective and the politicians read the papers (maybe not their own mail).
Actually, in my own experience, the Healy administration is marginally better at responding than the Cunningham administration to written correspondence. Worse, never have received a response from Council President Vega to emails or written correspondence during this or prior council terms, never from any other council person EXCEPT current Ward E Councilman Steven Fulop, who in my experience responds to every, letter, email and phone call. The way to get anything done- unless your council person takes up your cause, which some may do, you need to mount a massive media campaign to embarrass the players. By the way, I would like to get a copy of the letter regarding pedestrian issues on Newark Ave. from "swooshy", it should go to Councilman Fulop, the Downtown SID, City Planning among others and be submitted to the current Jersey City Regional Waterfront Access and Downtown Circulation Study which info has been posted on this board.
Posted on: 2006/7/10 22:48
|
|||
|
Re: NEW POLICE CHIEF TOM COMEY SWORN IN TODAY.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The message I get is - they do not care....
Maybe if we could double our voter turn out.....they would need to care.
Posted on: 2006/7/3 3:43
|
|||
|
Problems with Developer Give Backs etc.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
fyi, very relevant considering the recent St. Francis Redevelopment Plan approval and the proposed settlement of the 111/110 lawsuit.
In Major Projects, Agreeing Not to Disagree The Jerde Partnership By TERRY PRISTIN Published: June 14, 2006 To blunt opposition to its proposed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, Forest City Ratner promised to make half of the rental units affordable for low- and moderate-income families. To gain neighbors' support for its new cancer care center, Yale-New Haven Hospital agreed to create an outreach program for children with asthma. And to smooth the way for its Gateway Center retail project, which will replace the Bronx Terminal Market, the Related Companies pledged to bar Wal-Mart as a tenant. In New York and around the country, it has become standard practice for developers of major projects to negotiate with neighborhood and other groups to forge so-called community benefits agreements ? contracts that almost always contain wage and hiring goals and may also include a grab bag of concessions, like a day care center, a new park, free tickets to sports events and cash outlays to be administered by the groups themselves. In New York, in contrast with many other jurisdictions, the city itself is not a party to these agreements. Theoretically, at least, the pacts are not supposed to play a role in the city's zoning review process. Since 2001, when a comprehensive community benefits agreement was struck for a hotel-and-entertainment project now being developed in Los Angeles next to the Staples Center sports arena, the trend has quickly spread to other cities, including Denver, Milwaukee, Chicago and Washington. Advocates of C.B.A.'s, as they are known, see them as an outgrowth of the Smart Growth movement ? the idea that development decisions should address a broad range of social and economic issues like transportation, jobs and housing. In New York, however, some critics are wondering if this trend is threatening to distort the planning process. They say the danger is that local groups will agree not to oppose the projects in exchange for favors that may be unrelated to the project's impact on the neighborhood. Critics of the Atlantic Yards (whose developer is a partner to The New York Times Company in its new headquarters building on Eighth Avenue) and other agreements have questioned whether the groups signing the document really speak for the community. "Groups pop up and you're not sure who they represent," said Patricia A. Jones, the co-chairwoman of the Manhattan Community Board 9 task force on Columbia University's expansion in Manhattanville. Ms. Jones contends that development plans ought to be reviewed by community boards, which are currently excluded from the C.B.A. process, before the benefits are meted out. "They can look at the bigger picture," she said. Ross F. Moskowitz, a real estate partner at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, said developers would like the procedures to be clearer and more predictable. "The danger of a C.B.A. is that it is outside the process," he said. "There are no guidelines, no controls. The transparency is not there. You just don't know what you're walking into." In California, leaders of the community benefits movement say New York's agreements lack the protections that are standard elsewhere. "In the C.B.A.'s we work on," said Julian Gross, the legal director of the California Partnership for Working Families, an advocacy group that has negotiated a number of agreements, "the city is closely involved in the negotiations. There's no point in the community group and the developer negotiating a lot of stuff that the city doesn't want." Outside New York, benefit agreements are usually incorporated into the developer's agreement with the city, adding another layer of enforcement. The local redevelopment agency was "intimately involved" in the C.B.A. that J. H. Snyder, a Los Angeles developer, negotiated for NoHo Commons, a 1.5-million-square-foot mixed-use project centered on a subway stop in North Hollywood, said Clifford Goldstein, a senior partner. "It's a very open process," said Mr. Goldstein, who is currently working on another C.B.A. for a project in South Los Angeles. Carl Weisbrod, the president of Trinity Real Estate in New York, said that the government should be involved in any agreement that pertained to a subsidized project to ensure that "the services and the organizations that are being given money to provide the services are fully in keeping with government priorities." There are signs that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration is rethinking its position on community benefits agreements. A year ago, it was the mayor himself who trumpeted the Atlantic Yards agreement between Forest City Ratner and eight community groups. But in April, the mayor reacted angrily to the suggestion that the Mets would negotiate a C.B.A. for its new ballpark. "Every development project in this city is not going to be a horn of plenty for everybody else that wants to grab something," the mayor said. And while the Mets agreed after heated discussions with council members from Queens to contribute $50 million over 20 years to local community groups, no C.B.A. was signed. The mayor's office declined requests for interviews with city officials, saying it was premature to discuss the administration's plans for C.B.A.'s. Several land-use specialists said the debate over community benefits agreements was a throwback to the 1980's, when local groups in New York often leveraged their support for development projects to get libraries, parks and other amenities. Critics at that time also said it was unfair for a community's chance to get a park to hinge on its ability to attract a deep-pocketed developer, said Margaret P. Stix, a land-use lawyer. In an influential 1988 report, the New York City Bar Association said that some politicians had approved projects solely to get unrelated benefits, thereby corrupting the zoning process. The lawyers' group recommended that any amenities promised by a developer have a reasonable relationship to the project, a practice that successive administrations adopted, said Jesse Masyr, the lawyer who negotiated the Bronx Terminal Market agreement. In the 1990's, Mr. Masyr said, the Giuliani administration barred his client, the Blumenfeld Development Group, from providing a park to appease opponents of East River Plaza, a shopping center now under construction in East Harlem. They reasoned that testimony from people who had received a benefit unrelated to the project could taint the zoning review process, he said. But the current administration has taken a more hands-off approach, Mr. Masyr said. "I'll tell you what I think is the most dicey part of this: there's cash involved, money payments to be made. Who monitors it?" he said. "This is about as unregulated a world as you could imagine." In California, leaders of the community benefits movement that are party to an agreement never accept money from the developer, said Madeline Janis-Aparicio, the executive director of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a nonprofit research group. "No donations of any kind," she said. She also said it took six months to a year to pull together a coalition before negotiations could begin. "You can't skip steps," she said. Melinda R. Katz, chairwoman of the City Council's land use committee, said that New York officials were examining how other cities handled community benefits agreements. "We can probably learn a lot from other jurisdictions," she said. "And we're in the process of doing that."
Posted on: 2006/6/30 3:36
|
|||
|
Re: Fulop donating council salary to school that helps women
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
It is good to see a campaign promise fulfilled, allbeit a little delayed, but apparently well thought out.
Posted on: 2006/6/30 3:22
|
|||
|
Re: Three 40-plus story towers on 110 and 111 First Street sites.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The merits of the PAD redevelopment plan and warehouse historic district designation including the artist housing element and positive impact on Jersey City as a whole were discussed in a lengthy public process culminating in four unanimous City Council votes of approval. It would be foolish to believe that both property owners in this area and developers did not have input in the resulting plan prepared by City Planning. This is Jersey City after all.
Other developers have honored the plan and are building. The attorney representing the owner of 111/110 First Street threatened litigation throughout the planning process so no surprise, he followed through. They have made it clear that they will use whatever means possible to increase the value of their property including what some might describe as frivolous litigation and SLAPP suits. The settlement as outlined by the City?s Corporate Council includes a potential 67 story tower. This appears to be an incredulous reward for litigating. Note that the public was not provided with a copy of the settlement agreement to review or question. The Corporate Council failed to explain again and again how this settlement would not set precedence and encourage other property owners / developers to seek and secure through litigation, increases of height and density in excess of zoning and redevelopment plans in the PAD or elsewhere in the city to the detriment of the public. Councilman Steven Fulop who up until this point had not been a supporter of both the PAD redevelopment plan and the historic district, followed through on his commitment to support the position of the PAD Neighborhood Association and VOTED NO on the settlement proposal. He articulated numerous problems with the settlement as presented. Councilwoman Viola Richardson also voted no voicing her disagreement with the settlement and belief that the city should spend the necessary money to defend itself. It is time for those dissenting to forget about the property owner and his attack dog processionals and direct efforts including potential legal action at the city and our elected officials before it is too late. Fundamentally, how can a city govern if it fails to enforce and defend its own ordinances?
Posted on: 2006/6/29 18:12
|
|||
|
Re: Redevelopment Pay-to-Play Ordinance
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Among the many other issues and happenings at the City Council meeting this evening, Civic JC will follow up on our request for the City Council to introduce the model Redevelopment Play to Play ordinance at this meeting.
Posted on: 2006/6/28 19:39
|
|||
|
Re: JERSEY CITY POLICE CHIEF TROY CALLING IT QUITS
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Short term political appointments to bump up the pension.
The public needs to clammer for not only a qualified police chief, but one that will commit to serving the full term of the administration. Still, I feel the police department is in better shape then under the former administration. The political appointments are not new, but hopefully will get better with public pressure. Take your posts and complain to the city council during the open speaking portion and in letters to the editor of the Journal and Reporter.
Posted on: 2006/6/28 18:48
|
|||
|
Re: Three 40-plus story towers on 110 and 111 First Street sites.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Tax abatements might be beneficial for the city if -
- the city negotiated the best possible "contract" - the up front PILOT (or advance) payments were utilized in a sound financial manner and not to plug budget deficits - applicants for tax abatements were not permitted to make campaign contributions and the professionals working for them were required to disclose their contributions as part of the application process The proposed settlement of the 111 lawsuit would seem evidence enough of the city's inability or intentional unwillingness to enforce its laws and succesfully negotiate in the public's interest with property developers. Back to the topic of the 111 settlement, the public must create political consequences to deter the council from accepting this deal and for them to stand behind the city's masterplan, redevelopment plan and four unanimous city council votes creating PAD.
Posted on: 2006/6/28 18:41
Edited by DanL on 2006/6/28 19:12:56
|
|||
|
Re: Three 40-plus story towers on 110 and 111 First Street sites.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Thank you to the JC Reporter for getting the settlement out in the public.
Only in Jersey City, could the city use what has been described as a can't lose lawsuit to destablize the land use law of the entire city. If the administration is unable or unwilling to enforce the laws of the city, an administration that won 80% of the wheeling and dealing vote, there needs to be public awareness and outcry. Hopefully, the PADNA group will find widespread support throughout the city as this is not just about their neighborhood but the future of Jersey City, its quality of life, its financial future.
Posted on: 2006/6/24 17:53
|
|||
|
Re: Historical Preservation Society
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
You already have your answer, Dan Wreiden is Jersey City's Historic Preservation Officer. The information you need to start making a decision will come from his office. As the above poster advised, you can then put a cost/value of the violations. One would have hoped that the/your realtor had the information and advised you.
Exterior work on properties within the historic districts require either a Certificate of No Effect from Mr. Wreiden or apply to and receiving a approval from the Historic Commission. The merits of the historic districts have been argued on many other threads.
Posted on: 2006/6/23 17:02
|
|||
|
Re: Join Team Vas
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Met both candidates, Joe Vas certainly has put a hell of alot of face time in JC including the Meatball, JCLC Awards Ceremony and other places. He also talked with the pubic and seemed to listen. Albio Sires while also attending my neighborhood association (after Vas did) seemed to mostly hit the political events (maybe only these people will vote in the primary).
While discussing Common Cause's Redevelopment Pay to Play ordinance with Mr. Vas, he stated that the redevelopment that has occured in Perth Amboy was done without tax abatements. While assuming that there may be specific reasons for this, it is interesting. He also tossed around some statistics that the people filling the new developments are mostly relocating / empty nesters from within Perth Amboy. On the negative side, how Mr. Vas does in the primary will impact the political jockeying of the JC politicos endorsing him. It would also be interesting to see as mrrogers points out, what will Mr. Sires do if wins the special election and loses the full term.
Posted on: 2006/6/5 19:07
|
|||
|
Re: The New York Times: LeFraks Envision Even Bigger Skyline Across Hudson
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The socialism aspect is on the side of the developers, no bid sales, no competition redeveloper designations, no transparant abatement / pilot policies, no evidence that the city got a good deal for selling land, re-zoning or making tax deals. Look at who the developers have been up until recently, all local political insiders, no need for me to name names.
The Powerhouse was on track to be torn down by the Port Authority (50% owner) if not for civic activism. The JCLC went over the state which deferred to the PA and refused to landmark it and obtained federal landmarking on the National Register of Historic Places. Here is where you can find out more info - Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy Quote:
Posted on: 2006/6/2 0:00
|
|||
|
Re: Please stop the huge 9/11 memorial at LSP - it will ruin the park's views of the Manhattan skyline!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
While the memorial selection appears to be a done deal, the initial rfp was poorly publicized and the state to its credit "redid" the process.
However, it is unclear how the actual site location for the memorial was selected and approved. If it was done administratively, we might be able to force public hearings. It is shame that so much effort goes into creating open parkland only for it marred and taken back. Liberty State Park is the result of 48 years of civic activism. In Hoboken, hard won Pier A park will host their memorial of which most of the proposals would have all but blocked the skyline view. It may be hard to, but if we were to wait five to 10 more years, I believe more meaningful and appropriate memorials could be created. I also have a personal aversion to memorializing the architecture of the WTC Towers. It is the loss of human life and the forever altering of other lives that stays with me.
Posted on: 2006/6/1 23:32
|
|||
|
Re: The New York Times: LeFraks Envision Even Bigger Skyline Across Hudson
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
As AlanSommerman has posted, the Newport site was one of the most spectacular pieces of undeveloped land in the world and Jersey City pissed away the opportunity to create a waterfront community that would have made the city as a whole better.
What have other cities done with redeveloping their waterfronts both in this country and abroad? Does Newport holds it own? The Newport site was prime waterfront property across from lower Manhattan with a built in subway minutes from both downtown and midtown Manhattan adjacent to the Holland Tunnel. The primary purpose of redevelopment is to improve the city. Does Newport open up the waterfront and Hudson River to the city? Does it preserve sight lines? Does it provide easy access to the neighborhood west from the PATH station? Is it an economic engine for the city? The city failed to create and enforce a master redevelopment plan to tie Newport to the rest of Jersey City, to integrate and better implement the Waterfront Walkway, to preserve sight lines to the river, to provide easy PATH access to the neighborhood just west, to make the best possible reuse of this property. As is, Newport could have been built anywhere, it does not take advantage of its unique and special location. Instead the developer was permitted to build quick and cheap (as little capital investment as possible) for the short-term leaving the development with high turnover and transience, short of public amenities such as parks space and a library, and walling off the Hamilton Park neighborhood from the river. When one Hamilton Park activist points out again and again that the redevelopment plans for Newport permit the grassy meridians on Washington Blvd to be counted as green space, city council after city council looks vacant, votes yes on amendments or bad deal tax abatements and then congratulates themselves on the job they are doing. Newport as we know it falls short of its potential because of our city?s poor planning and poor governance. The Lefrak family just successfully maximized their short-term returns. It was city government?s job to get the best possible long- term development from Newport. What can be done ? Every time Newport redevelopment plans are amended to be changed in anyway, to up-zone, to increase building heights, density, parking ratios, to change uses; that past wrongs are corrected, more open space is included, more recreation, reorienting the western access, library space, greater access to the Waterfront Walkway, completion of the Waterfront Walkway and the list can go on. What can be done to stop Jersey City colluding with developers to misuse redevelopment law? How about banning redevelopment pay to play. Ask your council person to introduce this ordinance from New Jersey Common Cause.
Posted on: 2006/6/1 22:54
|
|||
|
Redevelopment Reform
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Common Cause New Jersey
(Mar 8) Bill to Change Course of Redevelopment Decisions Yesterday, the Citizens'Campaign and Senator Karcher announced our "Redevelopment Reform & Pay-to-Play Protection Act," which will curb the influence of pay-to-play contributions in the redevelopment arena and create greater accountability to citizens with respect to redevelopment decisions. Because of the rapidly increasing amount of development in New Jersey, these large scale projects are magnets for pay-to-play cash. The redevelopment decisions are being made with broad discretion and a lack of citizen oversight. This piece of legislation will change that. There are seven major components of the proposed Redevelopment Reform and Pay-to-Play Protection Act: * Ban pay-to-play contributions by redevelopers from the onset of the redevelopment process to the completion of the redevelopment agreement. * Ban pay-to-play contributions by the Redeveloper's consultants-i.e. attorney's, engineers and political consultants, while working on redevelopment projects. * Eliminate the "Smart Growth" basis for authorizing the designation of an "Area in Need of Redevelopment" and for use of the Eminent Domain power. * Expand transparency of the redevelopment process with expansion of the public notice requirements covering citizens outside the boundaries in the area of prospective redevelopment. * Increase accountability in the redevelopment process by creating earlier and expanded opportunities for public questions and input at Planning Board and Council meetings to consider redevelopment decisions. * Require annual disclosure by Redevelopers to the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). * Application of this law would be comprehensive as it governs redevelopment projects at the state, county and local level, including the Meadowlands Commission and all independent authorities.
Posted on: 2006/5/26 13:49
|
|||
|
Re: Earl Morgan on Steven Fulop in today's Jersey Journal
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
He's been fighting for political power and a political base.
He also endorsed Healy for Mayor and Epps for Assembly. He opposed a Newport tax abatement just as his predecessor did. He has accepted campaign contributions from the big developers while voting on ordinances that benefit them such as tax abatements and redevelopment plan like the rest of the City Council. Beyond getting the VVP dog run moving forward (his predecessor would not touch this), he looks likes he has only been working hard to build a political career and create alliances with long time polticos. Where do his Ward E constituents fit in and how is he contributing to the "better good"? When will some change begin to occur? Maybe when Ward E casts more than 4,000 or so votes in a council elections. Otherwise the politicians play the voting blocs with developer funding and we are where we are. So for starters vote. Our councilman would have an aweful lot more clout if Ward E turned out 8,000 to 10,000 voters in the council elections. Quote:
Posted on: 2006/5/25 0:41
|
|||
|
Re: School District Map?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
As far as a map, it must be a big secret at BOE headquarters. Basically, you call the BOE, give them your address and they will tell you which school district you are in.
As ALB describes, you can transfer to other schools if there is a space available, however, it is a big mystery on how they fill the extra seats, no criteria, no lottery. You are likely in the district for Cordero, PS 37 school, which is one of the higher ranked public primary schools. The principal is well known as a strict disciplinarian (which may be necessary). Most of the charter schools have struggled with the exception of Learning Community Charter School located on Grand and Grove at the Boys and Girls Club not far from Harsimus Cove, admission is by lottery. Having just gone through this process with our son entering Kindergarten this fall, please feel free to contact me directly (PM) and I would be happy to discuss our experience further. Another good source for information about your neighborhood is the Harsimus Cove Association which meets the third Wednesday of each month, see www.harsimuscove.org Quote:
Posted on: 2006/5/4 18:27
|
|||
|
Re: Tax abatement for Newport this Wednesday
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Someone (AlanSommerman) posted recently that 20 years ago, the Newport area was one of the prime, most spetacular undeveloped sites in the world.
What happened? Shortsighted, short-term planning and developer driven development. No school, no library, little park and open space, no street life, towers in the green .... Isolated from the rest of the city, transient population. Our real loss is what could have been developed..... One issue is whether the city should grant tax abatements. Other issues are whether the city (as Councilman Fulop comments) negotiates the best possible abatement deals. Now, does anyone believe that the city is capable of negotiating the best possible abatement deal? Is it possible when councilmembers and the mayor accept campaign contributions from developers, their attorneys and consultants. See Common Cause NJ site for more info on this. Maybe we need a moratorium on tax abatements until this mess is sorted out? Quote:
Posted on: 2006/4/26 2:59
|
|||
|
Re: HUDSON COUNTY DFA ENDORSES MAHDI HEMINGWAY AND VERNON RICHARDSON FOR JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCAT
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Thank you for disclosing that Mr. Hemingway is an aide for Councilman Fulop. This is transparency. Sometimes I cannot fathom Councilman Fulop's efforts to hide things (even when it might be a positive). If you endorse the man, state your relationship to him if it exists. Fulop then admits Mr. Hemingway is a volunteer (simliar to his admission that Charles Torres was a volunteer after threatening an prominent citizen at City Hall.). It is these type of reoccuring incidents and behavior that have led me to believe that he could be hiding bigger things.
Back to Hudson DFA, yes, these efforts are sorely needed!
Posted on: 2006/4/19 1:35
|
|||
|
Re: School Board Election -- Anyone Got a Clue?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
No, it is not stated in the article either.
Quote:
Posted on: 2006/4/13 19:28
|
|||
|
Re: School Board Election -- Anyone Got a Clue?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Here is the endorsements by Hudson DFA - Hudson DFA School Board Endorsements
These endorsements overlap with Fulop's. The Hudson DFA's endorsement of Mahdi Hemingway mentions that Hemingway is an aide to Councilman Fulop (so much for the transparancy mentioned in his endorsement). Many longtime activists like Mia think highly of Sue Mack who was if not still heads the Hudson County Transportation Management Association I agree with "mrrogers" that a larger than expected turnout can send a message that there are votes downtown to attend to.
Posted on: 2006/4/13 1:14
|
|||
|
Re: Green Roof?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Dunno how they got it approved, but look behind 234 Fourth St. (btwn Erie and Jersey). A couple of years ago there was a two story masonary structure with apparently full utilities constructed on what may have existed (or at sometime existed) a 7' back shack. The building abutts the rear and side property lines and is visible from the street in the Historic District.
Maybe you could use the approvals given that structure as precedence for your garage. Otherwise, great idea to go green roof, as you learn more please share.
Posted on: 2006/4/8 22:20
|
|||
|
Actions Taken Planning Board Meeting 3/28
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
JERSEY CITY PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC NOTICE REGULAR MEETING Please take notice the Planning Board took the following action at the Regular Meeting of March 28, 2006: 1. Call to Order 2. Sunshine Announcement 3. Roll Call 4. Correspondence 5. Old Business: 6. Review and Discussion of the proposed St. Francis Hospital Adaptive Re-Use Redevelopment Plan. Formal action may be taken. Approved with conditions and recommended to City Council for Adoption.. 7. Section 31 Review. Municipal Parking Lot, Marin & Montgomery Streets. Carried to April 4, 2006 meeting. 8. Cases: P05-139 Administrative Amendment Applicant: 19 Prescott LLC Attorney: William R. Lindsley Address: 19-25 Prescott St. Block: 1925 Lot: 10, 11, 12 Zone: R-1,One and Two Family Housing Description: two new two-family homes and one new one-family home Variances: Change internal stairwells from spiral stairs to traditional stairs in two-family homes only. Application was previously approved on January 10, 2006. Decision: Approved. 9. New Business 10. Review and discussion of the proposed Forrest & Bergen Study Area. Formal action may be taken. Approved and recommended to City Council for Adoption. 11. Amendment to Green Villa Redevelopment Plan Area as per Forrest Bergen Study Area. Approved and recommended to City Council for Adoption. 12. Case: P05-132 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with ?c? variances Applicant: John Crowley Attorney: Charles Harrington Address: 165-169 Academy Street Block: 1884 Lot: P, Q, Q.1 Zone: O/R - Office Residential Description: New 9-story building with 33 residential units and 34 garage parking spaces Variances: Lot area, lot width, rear yard, side yard, lot coverage, building coverage, parking aisle width Decision: Approved with conditions. 13. Cases: P05-167 Minor Subdivision with ?c? variances Applicant: Luis Garcia Attorney: Pro Se Address: 57-59 Wallis Ave. Block: 1616 Lot: 24, 25 Zone: R-1 One and two family housing Description: Subdivision of existing lot into two undersized lots of 2,000 sf for the construction of two new two family homes Variances: lot area (both lots), lot width (both lots) Decision: Approved with conditions. 14. Case: P05-150 Minor Subdivision Applicant: Summit Avenue Homes, LLC Attorney: Eugene Squeo Address: 195-197 Van Horne St. Block: 2041 Lot: X & Y Zone: Morris Canal Description: Re-subdivision of two lots to create two new conforming lots of 2,500 sf and 2,800 sf. Decision: Approved. 15. Case: P06-014 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan Applicant: Newport Associates Development Company Attorney: Charles Harrington Address: Marin Boulevard & 18 Street th Block: 20 Lot: 4.01 Block: 19 Lot: A.12 Zone: Newport Description: Addition of 42 parking spaces Decision: Approved. Planning Board Meeting March 28, 2006 Page 2 16. Case: P05-026 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Attorney: Judith Babinski Address: 101 Linden Avenue Block: 1507 Lot: 20&21 Zone: Greenville Industrial Redevelopment Plan Description: New cellular phone monopole. Decision: Approved with condition. 17. Case: P05-162 Minor Site Plan with ?c? variance Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Attorney: Judith Babinski Address: 487 Bramhall Avenue Block: 1963 Lot: 15, 16, 17.T Zone: R-1, One and two family housing Description: New cellular phone antennas. Variances: Telecommunication equipment on a roof less than 60 feet in height. Decision: Approved with condition. 18. Case: P05-130 Minor Site Plan with ?c? variance Applicant: Omnipoint Communications, INC Attorney: Dean Stamos Address: 1584 JFK Boulevard Block: 1376 Lot: 88.A Zone: NC, Neighborhood Commercial Description: New cellular phone antennas. Variances: Telecommunication equipment on a roof less than 60 feet in height. Decision: Approved with condition. 19. Case: P05-089 Preliminary and Final Major Subdivision / Variances/ Deviations Applicant: Dinh and Phu Nguyen Attorney: Jon Campbell Address: 113-119 Harrison Ave./632-634 Communipaw Ave. Block: 1931 Lot: 7, 8, 9, H2 Zone: R-1, Residential and Monticello Avenue Redevelopment Area Description: Subdivision of four lots into five new lots for a commercial lot and two new 2- family residential buildings. Split zone project with frontage on two streets. Variances & Deviations: Lot area (4 lots), lot depth (5 lots) Carried, No date specific. 20. Case: P05-072 Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan / Variances/ Deviations Applicant: Dinh and Phu Nguyen Attorney: Jon Campbell Address: 113-119 Harrison Ave./632-634 Communipaw Ave. Block: 1931 Lot: 7, 8, 9, H2 Zone: R-1, Residential and Monticello Avenue Redevelopment Area Description: New 2,073sf commercial space with parking along Communipaw Avenue and two new 2-family homes fronting on Harrison Avenue. Variances & Deviations: side yard (one lot), rear yard (5 lots), building coverage (2 lots), lot coverage (one lot), front yard parking Carried, No date specific. 21. Case: P06-011 Preliminary and Final Site Plan with Deviation Applicant: Heidi Curko and John Colangelo Attorney: Jon Campbell Address: 59 ? Lafayette St. Block: 2051 Lot: P Zone: Morris Canal Redevelopment Plan Description: 2-story addition to the rear of an existing house Deviations: Rear yard Decision: Approved. 22. Memorialized the following resolutions, available for review at the Office of City Planning, 30 Montgomery Street, 14 flr., Suite # 1400, Jersey City, NJ: th (1) Resolution of the Planning Board of the City of Jersey City Approving Amended Preliminary Site Plan # P00-116.1 submitted by Vector Urban Renewal Associates I, L.P. and Vector Urban Associates II, LP(328-342 Washington Street). (2) Resolution of the Planning Board of the City of Jersey City Denying Preliminary and Final Site Plan with ?c? variances # P05-142 submitted by York Street Properties, LLC (102 York Street). 23. Executive Session, as needed, to discuss litigation, personnel or other matters 24. Adjournment JOHN CARDWELL, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING BOARD
Posted on: 2006/4/5 20:12
|
|||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation Community Report
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
For anyone that could not open the links, the full report can be found here -
http://www.harsimuscove.org/Hamilton%20Park%20Renovation.pdf
Posted on: 2006/4/3 21:42
|
|||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation Community Report
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Still cannot open the link, but did see the results as they were published after each vote on the website-
I would ask that both, the HPNA and FoHP push now to establish an interim dog run in one of the fenced tennis courts or one of the grassy quadrants AND push to have the city designate one of the grassy quadrants as pet free. Using the park stinks, not because it needs renovation, but because of the decades old issues/conflicts with people and dogs. Dealing with it now, will only make it easier later. If a dog run is being built in VanVorst Park and two lawns have already been designated pet-free, the Hamilton Park community groups must take responsibility and address these issues now. Now and not put it off in a park renovation that could start next year or could start in five years.
Posted on: 2006/3/29 23:02
|
|||
|
Re: 18% TAX HIKE!!!!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Complaining is fine, more complaining is fine, but the complaints might be more effective if also done in letters to the Jersey Journal and by speaking before the City Council.
Send Letters to- Letters to the Editor Jersey Journal 30 Journal Square Jersey City, NJ 07306 Fax ? (201) 653-1414 jjletters@jjournal.com Include your telephone number for verification The City Council meets the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month. To speak during the the Open Public Speaking portion of the meetings, contact the City Clerk a day in advance at (201) 547-5150. Get a group of friends together, speak on a specific issue before going out to Trivia Night or Jazz.... see your government in actions (or inaction). As pointed out on a recent the thread, code enforcement could bring in much needed revenue along with making our city safer, healthier and cleaner: Enforcement of- Building, Zoning, Health, Motor vehicle and Parking ordinances. Obviously, we need a long term financial plan in place. Tax Abatements should be opened up and made transparent. The abatements may need to have shorter time frames, not be extended, not be transfered. The upfront PILOTS could be restricted to captial projects and not be used for general municipal operations (plugging budget deficits). Unless you can find a JC version of Corey Booker, we have a long hard road ahead.
Posted on: 2006/3/29 18:53
|
|||
|
Final Recomendations to the St. Francis Hospital Redevelopment Plan
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Jersey City Planning Board
c/o Division of City Planning 30 Montgomery St Jersey City, NJ 07302 Re: St. Francis Hospital Adaptive Re-Use Redevelopment Plan, Ver. March 06, 2006 Dear Chairman Cardwell and Board Members: This owners of the St. Francis property, who are expected to be the designated developer for this property, have an admirable record of adaptive reuse of historic buildings in the Downtown area and are to be commended for their outreach to the community. This Redevelopment Plan must nevertheless be considerably strengthened to protect the character of the Hamilton Park National Historic District through changing economic conditions, business priorities, and, possibly, changing developers. The Plan will set a precedent for future development in Hamilton Park and other Historic Districts. The Plan should be revised and issued in ample time for public re-review. The current version was revised on March 6 and is being reviewed by the Planning Board eight days later. As of this date, the Division of City Planning has yet to participate and present this plan in a public meeting. They did not participate in the meeting held by Exeter properties on Monday, March 20th. There is no evidence that City Planning staff has provided significant professional staff input into this redevelopment plan to date. Please consider the following comments on the March 6 version, and recommendations for its improvement. 1. Good planning beings with an assessment of assets in the area - what should be protected and preserved. A primary objective of the Redevelopment Plan should be, at a minimum, to protect the National Historic District. Recommendation: The Plan should open with a section that sets the tone for redevelopment. It should describe the Historic District, the original design of this 19th-century residential park, the characteristic stooped entries of its residences, the history of changes to the park--particularly its eastern side, the possibility that the Historic District could be extended, and the need to protect the park, Historic District, and nearby century-old buildings not yet in the Historic District from undesirable impacts. 2. The Plan currently appropriately cites "Smart Growth" principles, including "minimiz[ing] automobile use by maximizing the appeal of mass transit, encourag[ing] reduced parking and shared use parking solutions." This and similar "boilerplate" statements in the Plan pay only lip service, however, to these principles. The Plan actually calls for vastly increased parking facilities, which will encourage car ownership and use in the Downtown and decrease incentives for mass transit use. Recommendation: The Planning Division should seriously explore options for encouraging mass transit and alternative transportation and discouraging car ownership. Examples: requiring the developer to provide bike racks, providing more attractive pedestrian access to the Newport Mall, and allotting parking spaces to car sharing organizations like the one now operating in Hoboken. 3. The Plan calls for "creating a livable community with convenient access to commercial facilities." This language ignores the fact that a livable community with access to commercial facilities already exists adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. Within four blocks of the Redevelopment Area are at least the following commercial facilities: ? two small groceries/ convenience store ? two combination convenience/liquor stores ? one combination convenience store and pizza shop ? five cafes and restaurants (three of them with bars) ? a delicatessen ? an organic food store ? a drug store ? a pet supply store ? a gym ? a bank ? several medical facilities ? various offices There is also a realty office and additional commercial spaces, currently vacant. In addition, new commercial spaces at Manila and 10th are not yet occupied. A few blocks east of the Redevelopment Area is the Newport Mall, with several department stores and more than 100 clothing stores, restaurants, cinema, book store, pet store, shoe stores, a drug store, and other shops. Nine blocks south is Newark Avenue, the historic commercial street for the Downtown that the City has long sought to improve. The current version of the plan allows too much commercial use, compromising the character of the Historic District and wider neighborhood and threatening existing businesses. Recommendation: The Plan should describe the commercial establishments that currently exist in the wider District and neighborhood, note their usual location on street corners, their small scale, and that they principally attract foot and not automotive traffic. The Plan should state that this precedent should guide any new commercial development in this Area. The Plan should also make note of vacant commercial space in the District and in the wider area. It should analyze whether additional businesses can be supported by the population and whether they will drain business from existing locations. The Plan should specify that the Redevelopment Area should not compete with existing local businesses, the Newport Mall, or Newark Avenue, the main historic shopping street for the Van Vorst Park, Village, Harsimus Cove, and Hamilton Park neighborhoods. 4. This Redevelopment Plan currently introduces a completely new type of intrusion into the National Historic District: a commercial strip completely surrounding the two hospital blocks on ground and mezzanine and/or second floors. It allows a great variety of commercial uses: retail sales of goods and services, restaurants, health club, offices, financial institutions, art galleries, child care centers, off-street parking, private recreation facilities and areas (indoor &/or outdoor) including pools, landscaped yards and decks, active recreation uses, gymnasiums, exercise rooms, etc., community rooms, home occupations. Within the parameters of the first two floors of the hospital block, the Plan specifies no limit to the numbers of such businesses. It does not forbid the duplication of types of businesses. It does not attempt to distinguish businesses attracting large numbers of customers at any one time. It does not limit hours of operation. In other words, it permits the potential transformation of a quiet residential neighborhood to a busy destination. Recommendation: The commercial aspects of the Plan must be thoroughly reviewed, scaled back, and sufficient controls provided to protect the District and neighborhood. 5. The current Plan limits retail and restaurants to the corners of the hospital blocks. While this provision is an improvement on the original draft, it is insufficiently protective of the park and the District (see Items 6 and 7 for reasons) and did not even consider the impact of the commercial strip on the wider area. Recommendation: The Plan should limit the placement of business entrances to Pavonia, Erie, and Ninth Street. McWilliams Place should have no retail or restaurants, identifiable as such, facing the park. The Plan should reexamine the impact such a quantity of businesses could have on this residential area. 6. The Plan uses the following terms to indicate where commercial space is allowed on the hospital block: ground floor, mezzanine level, second floors. This terminology changed from previous drafts and implies three floors of commercial space, whereas the common understanding seems to be that no more than two floors is what is currently intended for commercial space. Recommendation: Clarify these terms. 7. The Plan specifies a 2000 sq. ft. maximum for retail only, not for restaurants or other businesses. This is a serious flaw in the Plan. Recommendation: The Plan should extend the 2000 sq. ft. maximum to other types of commercial establishments, particularly restaurants. 8. Even if the 2000' limitation is extended to all businesses, a size limit in itself is insufficient to protect the District and neighborhood. Other controls must be in place. Recommendation: Square footage limits should be considered for all types of businesses, not just retail. The size limit could be larger for businesses that do not generate automotive traffic. It should not be larger for restaurants. In addition to limits on size, the Plan should limit the number and types of businesses to those that do not generate much automotive traffic. It should require potential occupants to provide traffic studies before approval for occupancy is given. It should provide architectural guidelines that prevent a commercial presence facing the park. 9. The Plan makes no mention of the need to control additional traffic in the area of the proposed day care or the Cordero School, where 700 students cross busy streets, and which has a twice-daily double-parking problem. It does not consider that Erie is a major street for local traffic to get to the Holland Tunnel and Hoboken. Recommendation: The Plan must reconcile the increased traffic that commercial development will bring with the need to provide safe streets and sidewalks for school children and to keep a major Downtown exit artery clear. 10. The Plan allows but does not mandate any additional public or private open space on the hospital block. The partial restoration of the historic Pavonia Avenue and the sidewalk area of Hamilton Park, as well as space on top of garages, cannot be considered compensation for the future increased use of Hamilton Park by new residents of this re-development area. Recommendation: The Plan should mandate the rooftop gardens that the owners have said will be included in their hospital block development. It should require a contribution to public open space acquisition as well as maintenance of Hamilton Park. 11. The Plan as currently written will govern redevelopment for 20 years. The property owners have proposed a phased approach to redevelopment, but with all construction to be completed in three years. Recommendation: The Plan should be closed in ten years, ample time for the designated developer to complete construction. 12. The Plan permits "decorative concrete paving materials" and "additional decorative elements?at building entrances at street corners and along the curb line to accent and channel pedestrian flow." Recommendation: All decorative elements in the Historic District should be subject to the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. 13. The Plan says, "All landscaping shall be guaranteed for a period of two (2) years." It makes no mention of tree size, type of tree, or responsibility for continued maintenance. Recommendation: This period should be extended to insure the quality of plantings and their critical early maintenance. Experts in urban forestry, for example, from the New Jersey Tree Foundation, should be consulted for their recommendations on tree caliper, type of tree, correct planting time and techniques, and proper maintenance during the first few years. Trees planted in the Historic District should be species appropriate to a 19th-Century streetscape, if possible. Maintenance responsibility should be assigned. Provision should be made for assessment of the condition of the plantings before the guarantee period ends. 14. The Plan will add to scarcity of parking for Hamilton Park residents and adjacent neighborhoods. Recommendation: Parking should be deeded with condominium units, to discourage new residents from parking on streets. 15. The Plan allows past transgressions of building height, density, and design to govern future development. While no one proposes a return to four-story residences lining McWilliams Place, this Plan could do more to control the increased density and building height that will detract from the character of the Historic District and the special quality of its quiet park. Recommendation: On the hospital block, decrease density, and decrease the height of the south tower to the height of St. Michael's Church, the tallest historic building on the park. 16. The Plan allows sidewalk cafes. The Plan also says, "In general, sidewalks serving commercial areas should be wider than those serving residential areas." The drawings the property owners have shown to the public, however, show complete build out to the existing sidewalk. There is no available sidewalk space on McWilliams, 8th, Erie, or 9th for sidewalk caf?s. Indeed, the massive buildings will dwarf the sidewalks that currently exist. Recommendation: Remove the provisions for sidewalk cafes and wider sidewalks from the plan, or else specify how sidewalk cafes and wider sidewalks can be accommodated by providing building setbacks. 17. Currently, Section XII of the Plan, "OTHER PROVISIONS TO MEET STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS," states that the plan has "delineated a definite relationship to local objectives as to appropriate land uses, density of population, and improved traffic and public transportation?recreation and community facilities and other public improvements." This statement is not completely warranted. Recommendation: The Plan should meaningfully address state and local requirements and goals, particularly in respect to the Historic District, before the Planning Board gives its approval. Sincerely, Daniel Levin Third St. Jersey City Copy: Bob Cotter, Director, Division of City Planning Claire Davis, Secretary to the Planning Board Dan Wrieden, Historic Preservation Officer Stephen Gucciardo, Chairman, Historic Preservation Committee Steven Fulop, Councilman, Ward E Sam Stoia, President, Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association Janet Allen, Friends of Hamilton Park Valerio Luccio, President, Harsimus Cove Association Steve Gold, 25mc Watchdog Group Eric Silverman, Exeter Property Company Marvin Stryner, Principal, Rafael Cordero School, PS 37 Joshua Parkhurst, President, Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy
Posted on: 2006/3/26 22:23
|
|||
|