have they started construction on the tower in jsq?

And the PATH stations will get even more jammed with zero plans of expansion. F'kn great news.

Quote: Which I find even more interesting. I am undecided voter and pay attention to all the details. I am not excusing any of these candidates they are all full of crap but I will choose one on May 14.

Quote:

According to the article, Lopez was absent last night.

Quote:
My bad, I thought Coleman, Lopez and Lavarro was on his ticket. So that would have been four no's against 3 yes, so that would have made a huge difference.

Quote:

Everyone? You make it sound like the whole council. So let's just make it clear, the only others who are currently on the council & on his ticket are Lopez & Coleman. Even if all 3 voted 'No' it wouldn't have made a difference.

Interesting, Fulop says no, but everyone on his ticket says yes? Very interesting.

Quote:

The city must declare the area blighted (by doing a study and demonstrating the case for "blight") in order to declare an area in need of redevelopment.

But once the area is the subject of a redevelopment plan, the plan never goes away, and all new development is eligible for abatements, no matter how distant the blight has become.

If the city was doing its job, it would sunset the redevelopment areas, or the planning department would propose ending redevelopment plans once redevelopment has occurred and the "blight" has diminished or disappeared.

Isn't there verbage in the redevelopment plans required for abatements that the area must be "blighted"?

That's why Healy and most of the rest of the City Council should never have been voted into office.

Quote:

You've got it exactly right. Abatements should not be used as a subsidy to every developer's profit. They are meant to tilt the scales, to get a project built that would not happen without the abatement.

When everything is abated, the landscape becomes flat again, and the only impact is taxpayer subsidy of all large-scale new development.

Abatements are no longer needed downtown, period. Builders are not going to disregard downtown based only on abatements.

Continued abatements downtown, though, discourage investment elsewhere. Why take on the extra risk of breaking ground in a new area, when you can get a sweetheart deal downtown?

The administration's approach to development is completely misguided, and that's why no other part of the city has seen any significant development under Healy's watch.

well, at least these are 10 year abatements

Why do developers need an abatement for building in a desirable area like the waterfront? Aren't abatements used to incentivize building in underdeveloped neighborhoods?

Three Jersey City residential projects awarded tax breaks by City Council

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal
March 28, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Long-term tax breaks for three proposed Jersey City residential towers that would hold more than 1,200 rental units were given final approval by the City Council tonight.

One of the towers would be the tallest residential building in the city, if not the state. The three votes brought out dozens of union laborers who packed the council chambers and pleaded with the nine-member body to give the projects their approval.

Brenda Rivera, with a sprinkler fitters union, told the council she?s been out of work for three years.

?I would like to help my husband pay the bills,? Rivera said. ?He?s the only one working right now.?

The tax breaks for the two proposed Downtown towers were adopted 6-1, with Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop the sole ?no? vote. Councilwomen Nidia Lopez and Viola Richardson were absent.

The third tax break, for a proposed Journal Square tower, was adopted unanimously.

Fulop, hardly a shrinking violet at council meetings, nearly whispered his ?no? votes tonight. In an email to The Jersey Journal afterward, he explained his opposition.

"Under the current system I don't believe 250,000 Jersey City residents in the rest of the city need to continue to give huge tax breaks for developers directly on the Waterfront,? Fulop said. ?Once the system is changed I would be able to support this, but not as proposed today.?

The largest tower, set for 200 Greene St. along the Waterfront, would rise 69 stories and hold 763 residential units. Developed by Mack-Cali, the $243 million tower will receive a 10-year tax-break that allows the developers to pay roughly $2.2 million annually to the city instead of traditional property taxes.

Developers Toll Brothers, meanwhile, will receive a 10-year deal to build a 38-story tower housing 417 rental units at 160 Morgan St., just east of Marin Boulevard. The Toll Brothers will pay the city about $1.4 million annually over 10 years instead of traditional taxes.

That project is the first phase of a three phase project that is expected to include a total of 925 units when it is complete. The site is the former location of the old Manischewitz factory.

Finally, Hopkins Group will pay the city about $93,000 annually over 12 years to develop 56 rental units in an existing eight-story Journal Square building at 100 Newkirk St., the former home to Hudson County?s welfare division.

The amount each developer pays to the city in lieu of taxes will rise in stages as the abatements mature.

The three developers will contribute $1.8 million combined to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

The city estimates the three projects will lead to nearly 1,200 construction jobs and 58 full-time permanent jobs.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... dential.html#incart_river