Boru wrote:
Yesterday the owner of the building where I live notified me of a 30% increase in my rent -- this is on top of my usual rent increase, which happened in December.

Is this the future of Harsimus Cove? Is there anything I can do about this, or should I just pay or move out? I know there is no rent control, but there is a state law protecting tenants from unconscionable rent increases. I know downtown is booming ... would 30% be considered unconscionable? (by a Judge, I mean) I've lived here 12 years but I really don't want to get into some big legal battle unless I had a good chance of winning.

Also, where can I live for about $750 a month? Besides Antarctica?

JSalt wrote:
It'll be interesting to see the way things go.

There are certainly a lot of factors working in favor of the developers -- the longstanding housing shortage in the NYC area, outrageous prices in Manhattan, a luxury condo boom, plus the hype generated by Trump and others may move more people to consider JC that wouldn't have before.

OTOH, if the city can't get its act together with crime, with meeting infrastructure needs etc. that'll be a big turnoff for people, especially in the Bloomberg era when people coming to (or from) NYC actually expect cities to be well run. An economic downturn (which doesn't seem impossible the way fuel prices are going) could also dampen the luxury market. Plus it seems obvious to me that the sheer fact of so much residential construction ALL OVER the NYC area will at least slightly soften the market in the short run -- when buyers have so many options I'd think it'd drive prices down a little.

The developers are all saying that all these apartments togehter aren't enough to meet current demand, but demand may or may not stay where it is.

elgoodo wrote:
Minnie wrote:

Quote:

If the abatements are not given out downtown, then the developers will go where they can get them.

You honestly believe that? You really believe that some of the most valuable land in the United States will remain untouched by developers if the abatements cease?

Quote:

You have to think about these things because your taxes are going to go up regardless!

They've gone up a lot more at least partially due to recent abatements. Somebody's got to carry the burden, and if you own non-abated property, that somebody is you.

The very things you are complaining about are directly related to the thing that you are rooting for.

StevenFulop wrote:
Just one perspective on this thread... to me, the issue with the American Can application is not the project itself. I agree with you that its a project that warrants a tax abatement. The problem is that they have applied for 30 years ? 10 years more than the norm. This sets a bad precedence. In the Medical Center/Beacon, there were significant give backs to the city such as affordable housing, policing needs for a motorcycle unit, etc?. all in exchange for the extra ten years and modifying the structure of the abatement. I voted in favor for that one

In this project there isn?t any of that. The basic argument is that they need the extra 10 years to make the financing work based on the cost and location of the project. Truthfully, while I am sympathetic to the economic difficulties that the developers find themselves in, I feel the cost that the developer paid for the project is not a reason to vote for 10 extra years. I feel its not my problem ? I need a better reason to put an additional ten years on the abatement other than it helps the economics..

In my view, there is plenty that can be done for that area as give back that would work. Affordable housing is one aspect, open space is another, or ideally, the building is located in an area of the city that the PATH actually comes above ground. We eventually will need a PATH station there to further jump start that side of the city and the cost is relatively cheap because it is an above ground platform. As I said at the caucus if we get some of the developers in that area to start moving in that direction with dollars, I believe it will be easier for the city to work with the Port Authority because it isn?t really at an additional cost to the PA. ? and in reality it would only benefit the real estate projects in that area over the long term.

In the end, the issue to me is not the project itself but it is the abatement application of 30 years. Right now, the city is in a good position at the negotiation table and I just view it as bad city business to give someone a pass with ten extra years for nothing.

Hope that clarifies my perspective
Steven Fulop

Nuada wrote:
Personally...I support the American Can Company abatements, just as I supported giving the Beacon abatements. Some areas of the city need stimuli to spark growth.

What I cannot understand at all is giving abatements to Hudson River projects. It's just crazy. The JC waterfront is some of Hudson County's most desired residential real estate. People don't need to be cajoled and coaxed to live there. 20 years ago, abatements made sense in Newport. Now they are simply giveaways to the affluent.

CleanGov wrote:
by Pisces1979 on 2006/3/29 16:03:39
The cost of everything has gone up 20 percent in the past 10 years, so has the cost of running a government.


And the amount of money coming into JC has also gone up at least 20% and probably a LOT more.

CleanGov wrote:
The Tax increase of 18% indicates that Healey has completely mismanaged the City funds. He is clearly incompetent and out of his depth and he is either a moron or a crook.

Should he do the decent thing and resign?

Annod wrote:
Quote:

Pisces1979 wrote:
You guys are so screwed when a hurricane hits Jersey City.

So what's your point, Pisces1979? How old are you? 27? When I look back, I think I was pretty naive and immature at 27. 1979 was when I started this job.

Do you have a solution, Pisces1979? Do you want us to move to the Marion district and be your neighbor? You know what will happen then? The Marion district will get gentrified, real estate prices will go up, and rent will go up. Is that what you want?

You tell us we are screwed, and then you say, "Oh, by the way, can you help me with the food bomb project up here in Journal Square?" Was that a good idea, Pisces1979?

DanL wrote:
Yep,

The Light Rail could have / should have run down the middle of Washington St. and connect directly with the PATH. Instead the Light Rail has direct access to the mall. Similiar problem in Hoboken with the Light Rail a decent distance from the PATH at the most opposite ends of Hoboken Terminal. Lots of compromises made when the alignment was determined.

The opportunity for a direct connection has been lost. Yes, thank you for the blessed developers and the well thought out redevelopment plans proposed and adopted by the city.

Quote:

Pisces1979 wrote:
I wish a developer would build and maintain an underground tunnel connecting the PATH station at Pavonia-Newport with the light rail station at the mall. It is a pain in the ass to get from the PATH station to the light rail during bad weather and especially during the winter. Every day commuters have to walk across a busy highway with the winter wind coming off the hudson at 10 degrees below zero. It would be nice to have a heated tunnel to walk through, and the developer could pay operating costs by renting out space for advertisements on the walls of the tunnell. What do you guys think of this idea?

medfever555 wrote:
My subject heading was mean't tounge in cheek. But i really do resent the kneejerk reaction to all developers by people that don't appreciate the important role they play in turning places around and sustaining them.

All they can quack is "abatement, abatement." Those abatements do help developers sell their units for more but they also make them more afordable for people that buy them in terms of monthly carrying charges.

It was guys like Lefak that helped bring jobs here and Guys like Mocco who developed the Village Townhouse who had the balls to step up when this was a scary place. There impact should be appreciated.

In 1983 Peter Mocco developed the first major downtown Jersey City non-subsidized market rate townhouse project in 40 years. The Village Townhouse Estates, located in the Village Section of downtown Jersey City, was an instant success, and spawned such developments as Newport, Harborside and Dixon. (Taken from www.libertyharbor.com)

That said, I totally support subsidized housing for certified artists.

ccitizen wrote:
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Ms. Davis had a very strong argument for why this variance should be granted and I appreciate her objectivity in handling this issue (I assume in her heart she would want a smaller project).

I live one half block from the development and I can tell you that while i and others may not be as vocal as the opponents, there are quite a few people that are happy to see this location developed. we think packing 80-99 units of townhouses onto two deadend streets would be very awkward and would make deliveries, etc. much more problematic.

Also, many people don't have a problem with allowing young, singles to plant roots here. even hoboken is starting to "grow up" as college students that moved in 10-15 years ago are bringing up families in the new developments along the water. I just mention that because there seems to be a bit of a bias toward only encouraging families to move into the area and I don't think that is good or fair.

PeterMoccoJr wrote:
I have viewed the changes that have been proposed. And I concede that they have lowered the amount of units. That is not enough. What I fail to understand is why these developers feel the need to put up mid-rise buildings in an area zoned for townhouses?

They have lowered the amount of units from an almost 80% increase to a 33% increase over the current zoning. All I am asking (hoping), is that we do not allow developers to pay almost a quarter of million dollars into a fund for the city that will in turn, give them a variance allowing them to overdevelop our neighborhood. To me, that is unacceptable.

I repeat: What is wrong with building townhouses?

I urge members of our community to go to this meeting and voice their opinions about this project. All it can do is help. At the very least, the developers will have to come back to the table with better plan.

I live here, you live here, and together we can make a difference if we just stand up and voice our opinions. Please come to the meeting tomorrow night.

Peter Jr.