Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
Does anyone know what the verdict was on the abatement vote?
Posted on: 2007/4/14 1:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
two and a half hours and this is the best you come up with? i think your proposal for cold-turkey abatement abandonment would have a negligible effect on downtown (where you live), and a catastrophic effect on the West Side and other parts of the city still in need of incentives (where I live). it's all well and good to think you can will dramatic improvements to city infrastructure and schools into being, and i applaud your idealism. But blind idealism doesn't pave roads or pay teachers better. I also think you underestimate the legitimacy of the equal-protection arguments in store once the ladder is pulled up behind downtown. as for the "West Side" claim, ask my ever-so-lovely councilwoman Mary Spinello, or her predecessor Mary Donnelly, what her Ward as a whole is commonly called. And considering how many stretches of the West Side go no further west than West Side Avenue, it seems rather gerrymanderous to confine a significant portion of a neighborhood to one block wide. But hey, what do I know, I spent my whole life here, as did my parents before me.
Posted on: 2007/4/12 3:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Of course you insinuated it. It's all over your "It's embarassing to suggest a property in McGinley Square in 2007 not receive an abatement at all (clearly directed at my original "Here's a thought" comment), while they're still being handed out like Halloween candy on the "gold coast" (note the lack of a period between the two clauses, suggesting a continuing thought, i.e., my support or at least acquiescence for Downtown abatements, with no supporting evidence).
I agree with you about the value of abatements when legitimately needed. My point, perhaps not well stated, is that, 20+ years after the building boom began in Newport, this city is well past the point of needing 'artificial' incentives (i.e., tax abatements) to lure development. At this point, and in my opinion, there is more than enough commercial and residential development everywhere in JC (aided of course by said abatements) that we can and should quit abatements cold-turkey. Any litigation that may arise can be fought--and likely won--if the administration would only grow a spine. What the city should be doing is providing 'real' incentives for development such as improving the schools, roads, mass transit options, sewer system and city services, which would draw in new residents while improving the quality of life for existing ones. (Whether the revenue from PILOTs helps or hinders us from doing this is a whole other debate.) Re: the West Side, everyone I know considers Kennedy Blvd. the eastern border of the West Side. If you grew up near the park but east of Kennedy, then you didn't live on the West Side (but at the time, this was a good thing). Finally, I'll "manage to see past the occasional typo and misspelling" after you do. 
Posted on: 2007/4/12 1:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
not everybody who peruses this here website is blessed with the good fortune of having read all of your posts on the subject, and lacking that greater context, the inference could be drawn. however, if you reread my post carefully and manage to see past the occasional typo and misspelling, you'll see that i never insinuated you were pro-downtown-abatement. i recognize that the abatment-as-of-right problem needs to stop, but political solutions, nevermind any practical solutions, do not take place in a vacuum. in terms of mapping out a practical solution to the problem, to think that it is a problem that can be solved by divorcing it from a greater context of genuine but relative "need" and abandoned cold-turkey is infantile, and will mire the city in countless and costly subsequent litigation. in terms of abatements, i am pro-abatement when the developer can demonstrate a legitimate need for one, in areas of the city still in need of incentive for development. as scary as the word "development" is to some people (most of whom are more than happy to reap the benefits said development has bestowed upon their own neighborhoods, while condemning it out of the other side of their mouths), it would be a nightmare for all development to come to a grinding halt. we can agree that the development/abatement-as-of-right issue needs a solution, but i can't go so far as to say all development is bad, and all abatements are unwarranted. i think there are plenty of problems with our prison system, but i'm not dumb enough to suggest that until we fix it, no newly convicted criminals should be sent to prison. Quote:
guess everybody i grew up with must have been referring to the greater district in which they live incorrectly. and when i tell people i live in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, south of McGinley Square, on the West Side, I've been telling them lies. tell me exactly which "Side" would you consider it. the east side?
Posted on: 2007/4/11 23:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
So my suggestion is "embarassing," (sic) is it?
For the record, I am, at this time (because I'm sure you'll search my previous posts for evidence to the contrary), against tax abatements in any and all parts of JC, due to the unchecked and rapacious development allowed by this and previous administrations. To insinuate that I don't have a problem with, or even support abatements Downtown just because I don't mention it in my post, might be a better example of a knee-jerk reaction. PS - Neither this development or McGinley Square is considered the West Side, brother. 
Posted on: 2007/4/11 23:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Since when did the Council curtail its trigger-happiness to sign an abtement deal on "need"? It's embarassing to suggest a property in McGinley Square in 2007 not receive an abatement at all, while they're still being handed out like Halloween candy on the "gold coast." I know the abatement-as-of-right knee-jerk has to stop someplace, but it'd be poetic for it to be a property on the West Side that is the first abatement refused.
Posted on: 2007/4/11 22:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
So the developer went from demanding a mega-super-sweetheart tax abatement deal (25 years, 12 percent gross annual revenues), negotiated down to a super-sweetheart deal (20 years, 15 percent) and would now agree to the regular sweetheart deal (20 years, 16 percent)? Is our Council finally growing some cojones?
Here's a thought: with the recently completed Bergen Avenue streetscape improvements, continued development around McGinley Square and the nearby Beacon, and a prime location a 10-minute walk from Journal Square and a half-block away from St. Peter's College, maybe this proposed development doesn't need an abatement at all. Call me crazy...
Posted on: 2007/4/11 16:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
McGinley Square: Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Council to weigh courthouse condos abatement deal
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 By KEN THORBOURNE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Perhaps the third time will be the charm for developers seeking to turn the old courthouse building on Montgomery Street in Jersey City's McGinley Square into a 39-unit condo complex. The developer, Imperial Properties of Pine Brook, approached the city several months ago seeking a 25-year tax abatement, paying the city 12 percent gross annual revenues. The standard tax abatement deal in the city is 20 years and 16 percent "payments in lieu of taxes." The city's tax abatement committee, chaired by City Council President Mariano Vega, gave a thumbs up to the 25-year term, but kicked up the PILOT payment to 14 percent. But when the matter came before the council last month, several council members balked at giving the project such a generous package. The matter was tabled, renegotiated, and then at Monday's council caucus, the developers proposed a 20-year, 15 percent PILOT arrangement. But several council members still weren't impressed. "My fear is once you set a precedent you're stuck with it," said Heights Councilman Bill Gaughan. "I just want to know why this (project) deserves a discount." The developers left the room for a huddle, and then returned to announced they'd agreed to a normal 20/16 tax abatement. According to a chart prepared by developer's attorney, Eugene Paolino, the difference between this project paying 16 percent PILOTs and 15 percent PILOTs over the course of 20 years amounts to roughly $250,000. The abatement is scheduled for introduction at tonight's meeting, starting at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall, 280 Grove St.
Posted on: 2007/4/11 13:00
|
|||
|
||||