GrovePath wrote:
Jersey City, artists win affordable units case

Monday, February 09, 2009
By AMY SARA CLARK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

The New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld a trial court decision requiring that a luxury building in Jersey City's Powerhouse Arts District include seven affordable units for artists.

The builder of 311 Washington St., Washington Commons, LLC, had challenged the requirement to sell seven of the 68 units to the city for $1 each, arguing it did not understand these were the terms of an agreement with the city and these terms violated the builder's constitutional rights.

The company values the units at more than $400,000 each.

But the trial and appellate courts found the complaint had been filed too late.

In addition, both courts agreed that there was no support for a constitutional claim and that officials of the development company should have returned to the Board of Adjustment for clarification of any issues they did not understand.

"This decision is a victory for the city and its artists," Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy said in a news release.

Washington Commons has appealed the decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, city officials said.

Nicholas Buttafucco, the attorney for Washington Commons, declined to comment on "pending litigation."

Jeebus wrote:
I agree (although artistic value is closely tied to monetary value in the long term) and by no means by "best" did I mean flawless. People will freely make all kinds of bad decisions and overpay or even pay for things that are self-destructive. Regardless, individuals making free choices is both more fair and more likely to lead to happiness (partly because we would only have to live with our own choices) than having the government dictate what is of "value". In the aggregate, everyone making free choices also leads to better (or at least more agreeable) choices than a few in the government making choices for everyone.

The artist subsidy is a striking example of a connected group using government power to extract money from the general population based on privileging their chosen occupation.

In terms of Hedge funds - about 50% are going out of business and those who lost money are wealthy. It seems that the market is actively adjusting the value of hedge fund employees now that they are losing money.

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Jeebus wrote:
[snip]I submit that the best measure of the worth of what someone produces is what someone else is willing to freely pay for it. That this is a concept alien to those who work in government is not a surprise.

True, but that's only as an indicator of monetary value alone. Clearly, one's income is not proportional to their overall worth to society. "Value," is a much broader term that appeals to both rational and irrational interests. I don't necessarily agree with the city's plan to offer reduced-price housing to qualifying artists, but that was the deal.

Hedge fund managers earn more than garbage collectors, but it can be argued that the services of the latter are priceless while the other, uh....

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Jeebus wrote:
[snip]I submit that the best measure of the worth of what someone produces is what someone else is willing to freely pay for it. That this is a concept alien to those who work in government is not a surprise.

True, but that's only as an indicator of monetary value alone. Clearly, one's income is not proportional to their overall worth to society. "Value," is a much broader term that appeals to both rational and irrational interests. I don't necessarily agree with the city's plan to offer reduced-price housing to qualifying artists, but that was the deal.

Hedge fund managers earn more than garbage collectors, but it can be argued that the services of the latter are priceless while the other, uh....

ilikeglass wrote:
Its because of us artists that the rest of you even want to live here. We search and, take up residence in the large warehouse spaces where we can work and make noise with our music and hammers and saws, then what happens? the rest of you look and say, hey, they're having fun, it must be cool if artists live there...

troysmith wrote:
I would say that in our society, income is the best gauge available of one's worth to society. I can't think of a better alternative.

Perhaps to an individual, self-worth and pride is worth more than any type of monetary compensation, but unfortunately, you can't go to a grocery store and expect to use your pride as currency.

Also, the services of garbage collectors is certainly not priceless, I'd say probably between $40-60k a year. Regarding HF managers? Right on point, why do you think so many have liquidated their funds?

Jeebus wrote:
This was why I mockingly claimed to be "an artist in PowerPoint" (but why not and according to who?).

My larger point was the absurdity of the government privileging one occupation above others supposedly based on their contribution to society but actually based on them having the political influence to make it happen. I submit that the best measure of the worth of what someone produces is what someone else is willing to freely pay for it. That this is a concept alien to those who work in government is not a surprise.

jennymayla wrote:
Who determines what art is? And the value of it?

Do we support an artist who creates beautiful fine arts work but is far too niche or random to ever be able to support himself doing so OR do we give a leg up to a innovative graphic designer who might actually be able to make a decent living?

If I make beautiful jewelry out of beads, am I any more or less an artist than a industrial designer who is creating a new coffee maker? What if the world really needs more coffee makers than pretty jewelry?

WHO DECIDES?

I also get a chuckle out of the local government having any kind of saying on what makes art art. Barf.

bdlaw wrote:
The artist has to be certified by the city as being an eligible artist. From what I have heard it is very difficult to obtain this certification.

Graphic or industrial designer probably wouldn't qualify though don't quote me as I don't have a list of who has qualified previously.

....

ilikeglass wrote:
Jeebus...."Seriously, the logic of privileging artists, most of whom at some point made the choice to be voluntarily poor (do trustifarian artists qualify?), is a bit hard to understand. I think a lot of other folks such as car service drivers, cops, small business people, etc. contribute more to everyday quality of life than artists so it just comes down to artists successfully working the political system to their own benefit."

Take a look around you, do you wear clothes? they were all designed by someone...

Do you eat food? the packages they come in were designed by someone...

Do you like the park? gee, that was designed by someone too...

Do you read magazines & newspapers? Graphic artists and photographers hard at work there.

Oh and what about that expensive bottle of wine you are drinking with dinner, do you think the delivery guy drew the picture on the label for you?

Do you get my point? perhaps you do not see artists everyday like you see the bus driver or the store clerk but our contribution to society is no less valuable.

And who out there is really working the political system to their benefit anyway???Politicians? CEO's? Trump?

Basically, the arts are always the first to get kicked in the ass when time get hard.

I also believe that there need to be affordable places to live for everyone, not just one group. If you are a cop or firefighter or teacher, they also have special programs that help them buy homes based on their chosen profession. Why not artists too?

bdlaw wrote:
... but it *is* a victory for those of us who think elected officials should stick to their word and do the right thing by their constituents.

RacerX wrote:
...just sayin' it's not the main motivator for people to move here.

On the contrary.

I moved here four years ago.

I selected the PAD zone SPECIFICALLY because it was supposed to be an arts neighborhood, and not towers.

Now it appears that the city council are totally spineless chimpanzees, that blindly green-lights any variance that a developer asks for.

It's a shame.

Healy should worry about the increasing murder and crime in this city rather than commenting on things like this.

ilikeglass wrote:
Its because of us artists that the rest of you even want to live here. We search and, take up residence in the large warehouse spaces where we can work and make noise with our music and hammers and saws, then what happens? the rest of you look and say, hey, they're having fun, it must be cool if artists live there...lets burn them out of their homes and work spaces then we can build expensive carboard condos and because the artists were there first we can call it an arts district and charge those rich fools even more money than what its worth because they will look stylish...oooohhh... I don't know where you are coming from, but the arts DO pay, and we do pay our rents, we just keep it real.

ilikeglass wrote:
Its because of us artists that the rest of you even want to live here. We search and, take up residence in the large warehouse spaces where we can work and make noise with our music and hammers and saws, then what happens? the rest of you look and say, hey, they're having fun, it must be cool if artists live there...lets burn them out of their homes and work spaces then we can build expensive carboard condos and because the artists were there first we can call it an arts district and charge those rich fools even more money than what its worth because they will look stylish...oooohhh... I don't know where you are coming from, but the arts DO pay, and we do pay our rents, we just keep it real.

troysmith wrote:
Are you kidding? Has no one heard of a market economy? I still don't understand why if you're an "artist" you get special privileges. No one forced you to go into a profession that doesn't pay enough for you to afford rent. If there is too little demand for artists, that just means that in a market economy, the supply should naturally decrease. Instead, this is in effect a price ceiling and now there is a deadweight loss that the tax payers and the builder will have to swallow.

I'm sorry, but Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy is clearly mistaken when he said that this is a victory for the city. The city will actually receive LESS TAX REVENUE because they are forcing the units to be sold for $1. Blasphemy I say. And we should all require him to take a college-level economics course because apparently Villanova failed miserably at that.

And I don't feel bad for artists at all when they can get away with this: http://chelseaartgalleries.com/auctions/with?sale=P31&lot=30