Quote:

I'm speechless.

While I don't think that Canco and Crystal point are easy to compare Canco isn't in all the desirable a location. That Crystal Point is a stones throw away from three major transportation hubs in JC, and has stunning views on the east side, with no chance of those views ever being obstructed. Personally I'd let the developer bail on the project it'll only be a matter of time before it is picked up by someone else and completed. Real estate that plum will not stay for long.

The parking is another one that really should change. They are extremely aggressive with the boot, and it would be beneficial to the residents if a policy similar to the one SF suggested was implemented. Interesting that other council person is concerned about the decrease in revenue from that ordinance, but doesn't seem to care about the decrease in revenue from the restructuring of the abatement.

For the Pet Control, I don't really have that much insight into the situation.

let them fail, let them go bankrupt, let the greedy b@st@rds suffer.

the boom is over. get it?!

if there is an extension of the abatement, real estate taxes for everyone else will have to go up. i have no inclination to cross-subsidize inept developers that cannot accept the fact that their wonderful dreams of profit have evaporated.

there is nothing more pathetic than see grown adults cry over spilled milk.

Quote:


I Agree 100% they just did it for canco lofts,now all the developers are going to want the same deal, disgusting!!!

Quote:

It would look like the City had made a bad decision to grant the abatement in the first place, and that it had been giving away the store to developers for the past decade.

Which, of course, is what happened.

This decision just makes it look worse.

I think I should go ask the City Council to lower my property taxes so its easier for me to sell my house.

Who is with me?!

Isn't the city doubly screwing itself by sweetening the abatement? First, you extend the terms and cut the initial tax rates and lose tax money there. But I think we can all see that the developer is going to have to reduce prices further given the realities of the current market, even with the enhanced abatement terms.

So - lower sales prices mean that the valuation on which the abated rate is applied is lower as well, meaning both parts of the equation are lower. How do those seven council members not see that - or do they and not care? I, for one, will be verrrry curious to hear their remarks when the revaluation is introduced at some council meeting in the not too distant future.

The other thing I don't get is why does (or should) the city care if the developer goes under? Someone will buy the project at a discounted price out of bankruptcy and price the remaining condos based on their reduced economics, not the bloated costs of the developer. The building will sell regardless of who owns the project. Why should the city be bailing out overly aggressive developers?

i have a huge issue w/ this abatement change.

Condos starting in the mid 400's for 800sq feet? why don't these developers come down to reality? if you price them a bit more competively you may see them move. but no, they'll hold out for these prices thinking its 2006, and let the city take the tax hit. ridiculous, frustrating and absurd. and to the lovely quote as to what will it look like for one to go belly up? not sure, but there's plenty of other ones over there that seem to be hanging on. Although, with this ruling, i'm sure they're all gonna come running. this council just opened a can of worms.
time for these developers to wake up, and price these units accordingly.

Yes, no, maybe. Council debates legislation for Downtown tower, animal control and car booting
by Ricardo Kaulessar
Reporter Staff Writer

The Jersey City Council at its Wednesday meeting introduced three ordinances that provoked debate: relaxing the tax abatement for a condominium tower, the creation of a new Animal Control Committee, and how soon parking violators may get their car tires booted.

The first ordinance amends the tax abatement for the downtown Jersey City condo tower known as Crystal Point, located at the foot of Second Street overlooking the Hudson River. The 42-story, 269-unit building has a 20-year abatement with a 16 percent service charge (a percentage of annual gross revenue paid to the city in lieu of taxes.)

The amendment would increase the time to 30 years, and reduce the service charge percentage to 10 percent for the first five years, 12 percent for the next five years, then 16 percent for the final 20 years.

The building, still under construction, will have units ranging in size from 800 to 1817 square feet with prices starting in the mid-$400,000 range. The developer of Crystal Point, First Development Associates, asked for the change on April 29. According to the developer?s attorney, James McCann, in the past seven months the developer has sold only 24 of 269 units, a reflection of the tough economy.

The ordinance was introduced by a 7-2 vote. Councilpersons Steven Fulop and Viola Richardson both took issue with a condo project on the highly-desirable downtown Jersey City waterfront looking for a tax break.

Councilpersons Michael Sottolano and Bill Gaughan, while voting to introduce the ordinance, both want the abatement to revert back to its original terms when economic conditions are better.

City Council President Mariano Vega explained after Wednesday?s council meeting why the abatement should be approved.

?What would it look like if we have a prime piece of real estate on the waterfront and it went belly up?? Vega said.

The other two ordinances evoking questions included one for the creation of a citizen committee to oversee the city?s Division of Animal Control, and another establishing a policy requiring three parking tickets before a boot is placed on a car.

The ordinances introduced at Wednesday?s council meeting will be up for a second reading and public comment before receiving a vote at the next council meeting, scheduled for June 17 at 6 p.m. in City Hall, 280 Grove St.

Not everyone?s pet issue

The council introduced, by a thin 5-4 margin, an ordinance establishing an Animal Control Committee to develop standards for the division, ensure compliance with city and state laws, and to study the responses of animal control officers. Councilman Fulop proposed the ordinance to create a supervisory body as the result of problems the public has had with Animal Control.

This ordinance had been postponed for a vote at two previous City Council meetings. Some members want the ordinance overhauled to eliminate some of the committee?s duties, such as evaluating the job performance of animal control officers, and to reduce the number of commissioners.

Such changes would deal with legal and administrative issues brought up in past council meetings that the committee would supersede the role of the state in overseeing the Division of Animal Control.

However, Councilman Fulop, who designed the ordinance and voted for introduction, said there is no ?downside? to the measure and no problems with its legality. He said he has worked with City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis to make changes in the ordinance, including reducing the members from 19 to 13.

The committee would consist of two members of the public appointed by the Mayor, six members appointed by the Council and five members including the Mayor, City Council President, the Police Chief, the Director of Health and Human Services and Chief Animal Control Officer, and would allow each member to designate someone on their staff to sit in for them. The committee is to last one year, until June 30, 2010.

City Councilman Bill Gaughan opted not to vote for introduction, saying the ordinance was ?flawed? and to ?support his friend? Harry Melendez, the director of the city?s Department of Health and Human Services, who has voiced his opposition in a letter provided to the council, stating the committee ?is not required.?

Fulop and Gaughan then exchanged words when Fulop claimed that Mayor Jerramiah Healy made ?some calls? to council people, including Gaughan, urging them to oppose the committee.

Three strikes, then you get the boot

Another ordinance introduced makes several changes to Jersey City?s resident parking policy, including preventing Jersey City residents from getting a ?boot? on their vehicle for a first parking offense.

The boot is a steel contraption locked around one of the tires of a person?s car, making it impossible to drive, for violations such as parking without a residential permit for the right zone. The Jersey City Parking Authority (JCPA) issues an additional $42 ticket when they boot a car. In order for the boot to be removed, a driver has to call an automated collector and pay the $110 fine over the phone.

Residents are currently booted for parking for more than two hours on a street zoned for two-hour parking. The new ordinance would boot them only if three such tickets aren?t paid before their deadline date.

Also, if someone is found not guilty of the offense that resulted in the boot, they would be refunded fully by the Jersey City Parking Authority for the fine they had to pay to have the boot removed.

City Council President Vega expressed concerns about how much revenue would be lost to the city if the ordinance was approved and implemented. Vega after the meeting estimated $2 million in the first year might be lost. He wanted more discussion.

Fulop, who designed this ordinance, said the city was not following its own law. Except for the zone around Jersey City University, booting can only be applied to vehicles with three outstanding tickets.

Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonrreporter.com.