jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

I just dont think option B is feasible unless they build more than 1 tower or significantly increase the height/density to get more units in. Why do you think developers are dragging their feet, when you got highrises going up all around in the last few years.

We are in full agreement on this point. Where we differ is I believe some preservation is better than no preservation. It's a respectable differences of opinion. If this new development makes a bastardization of the original powerhouse, you may have a point and the building may be better off with a dignified death. But I don't believe that will be the case.

What is your opinion on the six street embankment park?

same as everything in jc - great idea/vision, piss poor (or nonexistent) follow through. This is a no brainer to turn it into a mini highline - similar to what nyc did.

but of course nothing ever got done as far as i know - started in 2010 i remember, just politics and wasting tax payer money on legal battles that amounted to nothing. I stopped follow up on this after a few years when it's obvious this will remain as a strip of abandoned overgrown weed patch.

was there any progress at all recently by some miracle?

hero69 wrote:
more importantly, who is becky?

I just dont think option B is feasible unless they build more than 1 tower or significantly increase the height/density to get more units in. Why do you think developers are dragging their feet, when you got highrises going up all around in the last few years.

jcguy05 wrote:
who the heck will pay $1600 for a 1br in this shthole? might as well just move to bayonne which is a few lightrail stops away for the same rent, then at least it's safe and has ok supermarkets/daily shopping

MattSchapiro wrote:
We're considering a separate bathroom for Yvonne at...

FEEL THE BORSCHT
starring Judy Gold http://judygold.com/
hosted by Phil Rivo https://vimeo.com/25848975

Temple Beth El
2419 Kennedy Blvd
Saturday May 7
8pm

But don't worry. She won't be there.

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City plan requiring 30-hour workweek minimum

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 27, 2016 at 7:27 PM, updated April 27, 2016 at 7:37 PM

JERSEY CITY — A controversial measure that would require some private employers to provide minimum 30-hour workweeks to building-service workers cleared a procedural hurdle tonight.

The City Council voted 6-2-1 to advance the ordinance, which a councilman and a free-enterprise group today said will lead to workers losing their jobs.

Council President Rolando Lavarro, who is behind the measure, tonight said it will help reverse a trend of employers providing only part-time jobs with no health benefits to their workers. The ordinance would require that janitors, maids, doormen and other building-service workers receive a minimum of 30 hours a week from their bosses.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ks_in_jersey_city_ge.html

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:


The fact that it's been this long of waiting and no firm plans in place tells me two things. The wrong redeveloper was picked and the 40 story tower doesn't provide enough funding for financers to immediately jump on the project.

My guess is they are going to have to go back out and select a redeveloper with the experience and financial backing to get the job done, as well as making it lucrative enough with development rights. Maybe the current one will get it done. Time will tell.

All you zealots calling for the outight demolition are going to be disappointed. Hahaha.

1) The developer selected - Cordish Companies, is the same developer responsible for successfully developing the baltimore inner harbor project you all are raving about.

2) You got the 2nd part right, the financials still not feasible for any private developers to invest in this.

So options:

A) demolish and put some trees/green space.

B) keep the shell of a building, and stick another trump III highrise on top of it to make it feasible for development.

I choose A).

SOS wrote:
Much of the information in this thread is incorrect. I spoke to my sources in the city. They are shooting for $25 per thousand post reval. That's 2.5% which is the number they're hoping for. Don't expect it to be lower than that. And the city doesn't talk about percentages. It's always ** dollars per thousand.
Expect some significant spending cuts and revenue generation to have a post reval rate at or close to $25. This could be very ugly.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

JC_Man wrote:

Dangerous structure? It's a four story, historical structure that was there LONG before the area became a high density residential area. It can and should be easily restored. You make it like it's a 50 story building built on wooded stilts. Please.

Hello, fellow JC Man. I agree that the Powerhouse should be saved at all costs, but it was built in 1908. The 1910 census had Jersey City's population at 267,779. That is higher than it is today by over 10,000. Downtown was high density at the time, but in the tenement sense, not the luxury highrise sense.

Issue an RFP for a company to repurpose the Powerhouse for retail or some other purpose along with a sizable residential/commercial/mixed-use component to fund it, and let the proposals and private dollars flow in.

So firggin' easy. If they can do it in Baltimore, why not here with our market is much stronger thanks to proximity to the city. Current plans call for a 40-story tower to help fund the preservation, shit... make it a hundred stories with no height limit and watch how many developers are jumping over each other to save the Powerhouse. Already four 70 story towers planned for the area, why not a 100 if it gets the job done.

I can't believe I'm hearing all these calls on her to demolish Powerhouse all for a park? Seriously?? 6th Street Embankment is the next logical location for the park.

yes so "firggin easy" - just to show how out of touch and clueless you are.

No point to even continue this discussion, it's just a waste of time.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:


Create a website to spread the word and start having meetings with Michael Yun and JC Planning to indicate this is something the community wants and needs.

Based on my interaction with some of the hipster crowd at the Central Ave development meeting.. there will be some fearsome push back to any changes in zoning that increases density.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
MDM, you should join our cabal of trying to bring higher zoning to the Heights.

Count me in, what is it you're doing about it?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

AMo wrote:

In the three years that elapsed since the mayor's decision to cancel the reval, property values downtown have climbed sharply. Ironically, the very same affluent constituents that the mayor was protecting will see even bigger tax increases than they would have had he gone ahead with the reval three years ago.

This is the true irony in this mess.

They did skip out on 3 years of higher taxes, though.

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

JC_Man wrote:

Dangerous structure? It's a four story, historical structure that was there LONG before the area became a high density residential area. It can and should be easily restored. You make it like it's a 50 story building built on wooded stilts. Please.

Hello, fellow JC Man. I agree that the Powerhouse should be saved at all costs, but it was built in 1908. The 1910 census had Jersey City's population at 267,779. That is higher than it is today by over 10,000. Downtown was high density at the time, but in the tenement sense, not the luxury highrise sense.

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Is this really needed? Once all the condo towers being built in EP come online, wouldn't this happen naturally?

thor800 wrote:


I understand the reasoning, but question how accurately the tax assessor office can come up with the $10B figure so quickly which forms the basis of the 2ish% adjustment %. Is there any resource that explains the methodology behind this ?

I completely agree that properties paying greater than their share of taxes should be reduced, but basing the reval on inflated market values downtown seem to penalize owners that have no interest in selling and are more or less stuck while the tax abated luxury buildings add nothing to the end collection amount.

terrencemcd wrote:
FYI I obtained a copy of the decision in the breach-of-contract case related to the reval. I added a link to it in my most recent story on the case if anyone wants to read it.

HERE

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz ruled this afternoon that the city showed bad faith when Mayor Steve Fulop stopped the reval in 2013 and ordered the city not to pay West New York firm Realty Appraisal Co. the remainder of its $3.2 million contract.

The city must pay the firm $984,511 plus interest and attorney's fees dating to Realty Appraisal's October 2015 settlement offer, Schultz ruled.

The firm, which sued for breach of contract after Fulop stopped the reval, was "simply doing a job that it was hired to do," Schultz said today after dismissing almost every argument city attorneys made during the seven-day trial.

"The evidence in this trial is clear and convincing," the judge said. "The city simply does not want a revaluation. Period."

Mouse wrote:
The Filipino Food Boom of Jersey City

thor800 wrote:
So homeowners will be paying property taxes based on market values now as opposed to assessed values ?

Isnt the concept of market value more subjective tho ? Prices especially downtown are the highest theyve ever been but thats somewhat indicative of several factors like even crazier prices in brooklyn.

Whats to say that next year the dtjc market wont see a correction ? It seems like some sort of 3 year average would make more sense.

mfadam wrote:
Sadly it says they have been getting screwed for years and their elected representatives have been totally asleep at the wheel...