ErieStreet4Life wrote:
Yes, that would be awesome. Thank you.

Quote:

tbo wrote:
I have an old enlarger and accessories that I used to set up in my bathroom to develop prints at home if you are interested.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

The developer went to court to enforce his legally granted rights. Clearly the community had issue with the process, but that is not the developer's problem. The fact that he was willing to make concessions at all was commendable; it certainly wasn't required. The argument that this development was out of character for the neighborhood really was a stretch when you consider directly across Varick is a building with a slightly larger number of apartments.

Also the fact the city decided to appeal a case that's sure to lose at the behest of the VVPA. And there were many arguments the VVPA made up to oppose this, but parking was the one that got the most publicity. VVPA also floated a classist and borderline discriminatory argument that the type of development would bring in young 20-somethings and they the neighborhood didn't need "those people". So thanks to the collective wisdom of the VVPA, tax money is being wasted on pointless lawsuits and the area is still a blighted damn parking lot - one that could have been paying taxes and at least.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

Another example is the idiotic move by the VVPA to take the developer at Bright & Varick to court, even after it was very obvious they would lose. They decided to get the city involved and waste taxpayer and association money on an ill-fated lawsuit all because of "Wah, my free parking!".

The developer offered very reasonable concessions to the neighborhood and was well within his right to tell the VVPA to piss up a rope, which he will once the judgement comes in favor. He had originally offered Zipcar spaces and free membership for the nearby residents. Now we'll get nothing because people decided to make the central issue parking, despite there being not 1, but 2 half empty parking lots in a block radius. Thanks, VVPA!

JCman24 wrote:
The area in question has been an active industrial district since before the creation of Liberty State Park. The property is owned by 1 EDWARD HART ROAD LLC, not the city. The project in question is in the Liberty Harbor Redevelopment Area, which means it falls under the authority of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, an autonomous entity. There is no "city ordinance 15.179". If I'm mistaken, please provide the text of the ordinance.

iGreg wrote:

In a non rent controlled building, is there an actual cap on the % amount the rent can increased ?

Bamb00zle wrote:
For anyone interested:

The following item is listed on the Agenda for the Planning Board meeting today, July 21st, at City Hall, starting 5:30 pm.

?10. Review and discussion of proposed amendment to Land Development Ordinance Definitions for the addition of Cafes. Formal action may be taken.?



Here's a little background on finding these things for those who may not be familiar
Here's the link to the City's meeting Calendar:
http://jerseycitynj.gov/meetings-calendar.aspx

Not all public meetings are included. For example the Construction Board of Appeals, an open public meeting, does not appear. If you click on the name of the meeting you'll see the agendas and minutes and can open as interested.

And here's a little about Open Public Meetings:
http://hpcpsdi.rutgers.edu/NJHPg/downloads/sunshine%20Laws.pdf

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:
The ordinance changes the definition of cafes for all of Jersey City and makes the use allowable in ANY retail location.

I understand that -- though the new regulation doesn't seem to be all that much different than the existing ones.

But why would a building that has a zoning for a food shop magically get reclassified as a cafe by this ordinance? Surely they don't intend to allow every deli in JC to operate on a sidewalk.

And I can see how it takes away leverage from a neighbor, but I don't see how zoning laws overrule a legal settlement between a landlord and a neighbor (assuming such an agreement actually exists).

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
New Cafe zoning on the agenda for 10 am tomorrow. Looks like Prato may get its "variance" without doing the work.

OK, I'm missing something here.

How is adding a zoning for cafes supposed to help Prato? Won't the building also need to be rezoned as a cafe? Surely it can't be zoned as a cafe before the zoning exists.

In addition, if reports are correct, Prato can't operate in its backyard not because of zoning, but because of an agreement with a neighbor. Seems to me that a failure by the building owner to abide by that agreement could trigger a lawsuit.

Bogart wrote:
Quote:

bjay wrote:
I'm not surprised to see the linkage of City Hall with the parking lot across the street. This could be a very smart way to get the developer to pay for City Hall renovations in order to get the right to build on the parking lot. But isn't it a bit odd that the City Hall Study Area includes one single row house on York Street?

Quite odd. I bet there's an interesting story there.

hamhock wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:

today, it's a quiet bakery, with bakery hours. in five years, it could be a restaurant, and suddenly the neighbors are dealing with "indoor" noise and crowds until midnight.

Which is why the neighbors should be attempting to support Prato get a single-instance variance to help them succeed, rather than watch them fail without seating, only to be replaced by something far worse that might bribe their way to getting a permanent zoning change.

gtmarin wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Would all owners have to agree to the sale, or can the one holdout who refuses to sell be forced to sell even if they don't want to ?

That was my question; If the developer owns a voting majority of the condo association, can he basically OUTVOTE the remaining holdout to cooperate? Anyone?

fat-ass-bike wrote:

Personal opinion, myths and beliefs aside - These are the facts.

Top 5 Most popular sports in the US.

1. American Football

2. Baseball

3. Basketball

4. Ice Hockey

5. Football (Soccer)

http://sporteology.com/top-10-most-popular-sports-in-america/