Browsing this Thread:
4 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Some of your questions have been addressed by this Pace Law Review article
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=c ... IsLST2dwpusuO5I2dGEvFEHWA The long and short of it is, while there is no obligation to provide housing, as long as local zoning is exclusionary, the local jurisdiction must address the disparity in available housing, i.e., you can' t get rid of all those pesky poor people by simply zoning them out of town.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 15:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So you're saying renters in general won't mind living side by side with affordable housing neighbors. And if they did mind where does the dollar value start for those that do and those that don't want these affordable housing neighbors ?
Posted on: 2012/5/9 15:20
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Who determines who qualifies for affordable housing? Do they factor in assets along with income? Is there a check on assets and income every year? When these people die, do their children get to inherit these units at the same price? That would seem unfair. Since taxpayers are subsidizing their apartments, what will they give us in return? What societal benefit will JC bring in by subsidizing affordables? I see the societal benefit from roads, public education, police, fire stations,etc And if there is a societal benefit from housing certain groups like artists - why wouldn't there be as much if not more benefit from attracting groups such as physicians?
I am not inherently against affordable housing but without the proper rules, regulations, and well thought out considerations - it ends up benefiting interest groups.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 15:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are you talking renters or affordable house ownership ? Mortages are hard to come by if the property is less than 70% owner occupied.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 15:12
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Duh ! If you want that sort of thing. They tried that in Edgewater the tax paying residents cried foul. They wanted to build a mixed-income neighborhood amongst the condos and even the older residential housing.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 15:09
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The City Council already has a terrible record when it comes to supporting the arts community and the principles of its "Arts" district. How they vote on this agreement does not change that. No one should take much solace in the idea that council might not yield any further concessions in this already tragic episode. That even some council members have "reluctantly" voiced support for the agreement is disappointing.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 14:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am so disgusted at the decision for more OFF SITE affordables. I am even more disgusted at the anonymous comments here commenting on affordable housing and not wanting them in your building. What does this mean. That anyone who can\'t afford to pay $2500 a month for a one bedroom is slime, is the dirt on the bottom of your shoes? I take exception to these comments and please do come to the city council meeting tonight and voice this in public so people can see you who you really are.
These developers are getting sweetheart deals and everyone knows it. If you want to have an example of a developer who still has affordables you can research 150 Bay street where artists are still there living happily at a very reduced rate and the owner is happy to have done the program. Now for everyone on this forum in Bergen Lafayette and Greenville. It is OUR responsibility to ensure that city administration doesn\'t keep dumping all of downtowns problems on us. Offsite affordables are concentrating all people of a certain economic class into one section of our town. Not only that, the way they are constructed are low quality homes, as if just to get it out of the way...and to add insult to injury when they build them they don\'t even have the DECENCY to hire a local builder and local people so that at least we local people can make some money. It is entirely selfish of everyone who agrees with this and even though you might live in a high rise away from crime and violence it will come to you. Cornering people without diversity has proven time and time again that this does not work. What about the home owners on our side of town? Why should we accept your offsite affordables. How about if we say we don\'t want them either? then what? Affordables should be ALL over Jersey city so that everyone can mesh and live happily together. We are creating a tale of two cities and we all know how that turned out. Continue to ignore redevelopment plans and continue to be blind to the BIg picture and JC wil not improve. Crime will not go down and then you can\'t blame Healy because he will be out soon. Ward F should NOT accept this at all. WE are tired of being abused. Poor people are not all bad. Let\'s get that through please. There are plenty of bad well to do people that do drugs and that do bad things. Unfortunately Ward F doesn\'t have good representation and so many of the people there are busy working two minumum wage jobs and can\'t make it to a 6:30 council meeting. Some of the comments here make you wonder........Some need to come out of their bubbles and live reality and think before you sit and type comments about a topic you know nothing about.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 14:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
.
I found the below site ??. I think it may be outdated but it has some interesting history about 111, if you didn?t know. www.111first.com Below is a link is to a what?s new section?I found it interesting because it mentions how the city more or less FORCED the Tawil family to sell their JS property. (like I said in previous posts) The property that miraculously wound up in the hands of the geniuses (Harwood at the time) who are NOT doing anything with it. The JS Tower property. (and like fish mentioned in an above post 111 had a ton of fines against it) http://www.111first.com/news/whatsnew_detail.cfm?id_news=12327292 Unlike the Tawil family, who used to own similarly neglected properties on Journal Square and who were socked with a $1,000,000 court judgement based on their $4,000,000 in building code violations (and they had to sell their properties, to boot), Mr. Goldman by contrast, will be allowed to get off scot-free from the over $75,000,000 in fire and building code violations that have accumulated on his properties during the last few years. If the Healy Administration had taken Mr. Goldman to court and obtained the same kind of proportional judgement against him that they obtained against the Tawils, the city coffers would be richer by almost $20,000,000, thus more than halving the city?s budget deficit and demonstrating some sort of resolve. Can you imagine what the Tawil Family must be thinking now? ?Hey, how come the City went after us for a million bucks and let this other landlord off the hook without any kind of penalty, a guy who owed the city almost twenty times the amount of fines that we did and who is being rewarded for running rough-shod over a key city ordinance as well? One would think that by using our case as a precedent, the city would?ve stood a good chance of winning in court. Go figure. Maybe we should sue the city for discriminatory practices. On second thought, maybe we could?ve avoided this mess in the first place by making some well-placed campaign contributions.?
Posted on: 2012/5/9 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Of course they wouldn't. Most of THOSE people are white.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 13:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
From PADNA:
PADNA strongly opposes further capitulation to this developer. PADNA supports affordable housing ON SITE and IN the district, in accordance with the PAD Redevelopment Plan. PADNA strongly believes that the PAD Plan as written is viable zoning for the district, as evidenced by the existing rehabilitated properties and new construction, as well as planned development. Please attend the City Council meeting tomorrow to voice your objection to further gutting of the PAD Redevelopment Plan. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 280 Grove St.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 13:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
If the artists are valued at 2.5 million this year, lets imagine how much equity we grow all the following years in the district!!!
Lets just take a quick peek at Williamsburg, Dumbo, Soho and now Bushwick. I forgot Chelsea. duh.... 
Posted on: 2012/5/9 13:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think the willingness of the City to ignore/modify agreements with the developers to their advantage is one reason JC has not advanced more. IF NYC developers can do affordable housing, if Lefrak can do it, then there is NO reason why Goldman can't
Posted on: 2012/5/9 13:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Hard to imagine that enough qualified working families couldn't be found just among the employees of Shoprite, BJs and BBB.
Would people also object to young occupants who don't make enough money to pay the rent but who get subsidized by their parents - the Section Mom & Dad program?
Posted on: 2012/5/9 12:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
 |
If the "developer" cannot figure out a way to make just over 5% of the housing units affordable, then this developer does not have the competency to build the project.
As noted above, Newport was able to build affordable units integrated into the development. New York City's "80-20" program goes even further, requiring 20% affordable housing and requiring that the 20% of the units have, on average, the same size, amenities, etc as the market rate units. NYC's HPD will even ensure that an appropriate percentage of the units are on the same floors, and share the same views, as the market units. The settlement agreement was the steal of the century for the developer. No more concessions should be granted. There's also the other side of the coin. The "Affordable Housing Trust Fund" allows government officials to hold on to big pots of money. They can then say "look how much we spent on affordable housing." It's a convenient way for developers to avoid including poorer families on site, all while allowing themselves and the politicians that go along with it to pat themselves on the back for doing what they are supposed to do in the first place. Hopefully this vote will take later so I can make it to the council by the time I get out of work. This is outrageous.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 11:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What a f'n shock. Anyone that's surprised by this, please raise your hands, it'll make it easier to hand out the "SUCKER" signs. Let's see if the council has any balls and tells him to pound sand or if they cave once again. Prove my cynicism wrong, council. I'm tired of being such a pessimist. Give me one goddamn thing to point and look at that makes me the least bit optimistic about this sad-ass town in regards to the government.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 6:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
All eyes on the City Council I guess. This will be a nice way for them to show who's side they are on. Either way they go they will upset one group or another, I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 2:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm just going along with those that don't want affordable housing in their nice buildings. What, you're going after me for having the balls to say what all the other snobs are merely hinting at?
Posted on: 2012/5/9 2:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2011/11/28 22:22 Last Login : 9/8 19:51 From Jersey City yo!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
638
|
Quote:
What does it have with neo-cons? Stereotyping much?
Posted on: 2012/5/9 1:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sometimes the truth hurts. Hiding behind coded language won't mask racism.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2011/11/28 22:22 Last Login : 9/8 19:51 From Jersey City yo!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
638
|
Quote:
Dude, can you give your political BS a rest? I mean, really. It's getting tiresome.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
CSXrailfan can you be any more of douche... wow.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Do tell us what that means. This ought to be good.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
1. The further you put your workforce from their jobs, the more they will cost. That might be small, incremental costs, but it does add up. For now it seems easy enough for marginalized people to move further west, but eventually those places that are affordable on the salary you are willing to pay for maids, doorman, janitors, busboys, porters and service staff will make many of those services cost prohibitive.
2. On site does not necessarily mean in building. Good architecture could solve these concerns. Separate entrances, separate structures, there are plenty of ways to negotiate the issue. 3. Unless you are going to lift density and historic preservation restrictions in the remaining parts of the downtown, there is no free market to allow housing supply and housing demand to reach parity. Building restrictions -- which increase your property values by limiting growth -- limit the possibility of market driven low cost housing. Artificially raising housing costs requires making concessions for the less fortunate. 4. Low income housing does not necessarily mean the urban poor. Often it can include senior citizens, public employees, students and even the artists that originally were intended to live in the Powerhouse Arts District. There are plenty of ways of meeting the low income housing requirement while simultaneously restricting access.
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/6 6:21 Last Login : 2022/11/28 18:03 From Jersey City, NJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
162
|
In Newport they had an affordable program and it was not government subsidized and applicants had to prove income of at least $30000/year. Newport still has that program in a couple of buildings without a crime problem.
I believe this is similar to the program that Goldman agreed to. Integrated housing works and this developer is bound by this contract. He is threating not to build? Then his property should be condemned and sold to the highest bidder. He already screwed this city by kicking out hundreds of artists and tearing down a historic building. Will it never end? Jersey City politicians are weak, corrupt, and should be thrown out for even considering anything this developer demands. This is one of the worst developers in the history of Jersey City and we should be eager to replace him with a decent developer who is not intent on building a hideous structure that will embarrass this city. http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... pe=&topic_id=6353&forum=8
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I agree. Why stop at the western edge of downtown? Journal Square has a PATH station. Stick them up there. We all know what "affordable" means, and it doesn't mean "artists".
Posted on: 2012/5/9 0:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
While I completely agree with all the arguments for affordable housing mixed in with these market-rate units, I can say with certainty that if I had a budget of $2,700/month for an apartment on the waterfront, I'd choose Monaco, Marbella, or one of the other towers over one that had affordable housing in it. Let's face it - no one's going to want to pay top dollar to live in a building with affordable housing.
(the argument is even stronger when it comes to condos - no one's going to think buying an expensive condo in a building that contains affordable housing is a good investment). I think it would make more sense to have affordable housing in an area other than the most expensive part of the city. If it has to be downtown, how about the western edge? I think someone paying $1,500/month in rent might be less fussy about their neighbors than someone paying $2,700/month in rent for the same square footage.
Posted on: 2012/5/8 23:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
A mixed income structured building will guarantee
DIVERSITY.
Posted on: 2012/5/8 23:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Didn't Goldman owe many millions in fines that miraculously were not paid, and he got away with tearing down a landmark?
Only in Jersey City..!
Posted on: 2012/5/8 23:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Artist housing in an arts district!!
End of story.
Posted on: 2012/5/8 23:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Powerhouse Arts District developer wants to eliminate on-site affordable housing
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The problem with pushing affordable housing off site means that the low income units that are eventually built are concentrated in dense areas of poverty rather than creating a dynamic urban environment. I'm sure the quasi-racist, neo-cons have lots to say about sharing a rental building with people earning below the mean income. However, in the long run, all taxpayers end up paying more for heightened police protection, greater criminal activity and higher level of services for concentrated project housing.
Contemporary urban planning theory suggests also that interspersed incomes helps lift those on the lower end for a variety of reasons, while concentrating poverty on serves to help fuel the cycle of poverty. Moreover, assisted income housing can mean a variety of people including seniors and members of the workforce necessary to provide the cushy lifestyle luxury apartment renters want. Someone will be clean the building, maintain the vegetation, bus tables, serve drinks, hold open the door -- these are all people who are earning so little they would qualify for rent assisted housing.
Posted on: 2012/5/8 19:30
|
|||
|
||||