Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
37 user(s) are online (21 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 37

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users






Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 362
Offline
Quote:

bdaunno wrote:
Hello, I see construction has begun on the Bright/Varick project. Does anybody know what they are actually building? Are they moving forward with the micro unit project? I cannot find anything on the plans moving forward. Thank you


https://jerseydigs.com/bright-varick-p ... -micro-units-jersey-city/

I'm shocked the VVPA allowed any retail to go in. They generally do everything they can to keep businesses out of the neighborhood.

So it looks like after 5+ years of lawsuits, the VVPA got a whopping 15 parking spaces and a tweaked facade, still out of character with the neighborhood. When you account for couples and families that move into traditional 1/2-bed units, you're going to have at least as many, if not more than 87 residents, the original proposed number of microunits. What did this group accomplish except waste taxpayer money?

Posted on: 3/19 2:49
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#24
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/3/9 14:31
Last Login :
3/22 6:00
From Van Vorst
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4
Offline
Hello, I see construction has begun on the Bright/Varick project. Does anybody know what they are actually building? Are they moving forward with the micro unit project? I cannot find anything on the plans moving forward. Thank you

Posted on: 3/15 3:04
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:04
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1355
Offline
Yes Yvonne does not even live in the Van Vorst neighborhood. She had nothing to do with that project, except that she questioned it at a council meeting. And if I recall correctly the official who answered her gave her a wrong answer.

Posted on: 1/12 18:35
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/1/3 18:17
Last Login :
Yesterday 17:53
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 364
Offline
...which, as you agree, is not the same as suing the developer. Thanks for not repeating your accusation against Yvonne. And by the way, that developer is now gone.

Posted on: 1/11 15:21
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 362
Offline
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Quote:
Let's be sure to add the city suing the Bright & Varick developer at the behest of Yvonne and the VVPA.


1. The BV developer sued the City, not the other way around.

2. Yvonne has never been involved with this issue. I have my own beefs with some of what she posts, but she had nothing to do with this dispute over this site.

You may view these corrections as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but other people may be interested in the facts.


It was the decision of the city and the VVPA that decided to pursue legally weak fated appeals after the developer received judgement. Yes, the developer sued the city first, but the dragged out appeals process and hundreds of thousands wasted was all the VVPA.

Posted on: 1/11 14:58
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/1/3 18:17
Last Login :
Yesterday 17:53
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 364
Offline
Quote:
Let's be sure to add the city suing the Bright & Varick developer at the behest of Yvonne and the VVPA.


1. The BV developer sued the City, not the other way around.

2. Yvonne has never been involved with this issue. I have my own beefs with some of what she posts, but she had nothing to do with this dispute over this site.

You may view these corrections as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but other people may be interested in the facts.

Posted on: 1/11 14:23
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 362
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
One can only hope the city administration (and the council) have done their due diligence and ensured this move to rescind the abatement is within the stipulated terms of the contract, including timeframes for claims, etc.

The last few lawsuits brought against the city have resulted in monetary losses in the form of punitive fees, including having to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs.

I am in favor of the city holding developers to their commitments, but I am definitely not cool with the city grandstanding for PR purposes, only to leave the citizens holding the bag in the end.


Every news article I've read in the past two years about legal action against the city were about the city losing the lawsuit, especially when it comes to property and development issues.

We have the reval x 2 (the contractor hired to do the old one and against the state), the robinhood property, One Journal Square's record request, 16 Perrine "arbitrary and capricious" denial, etc...

I don't fault legal consul as they are obligated to inform when there is a weak or strong case. I fault the pols for playing politics with taxpayer's money.

I'm far from an attorney, but trying to define what constitutes "a good faith attempt" to hire locally and to legally prove that the developer failed to do so seems like an uphill battle for the city. Let's be honest - a good faith attempt is wishy washy language. Put in a hard requirement: "a minimum of 40% of the construction workers must be residents of Jersey City." That would be much easier to define and to verify compliance or noncompliance.

Bookmark this thread. bodhipooh is right. This will be another lawsuit where the city is overruled on appeal and the developer is entitled for repayment of taxes plus interest and punitive damages.

Also, is the city monitoring all developer agreements that contain the good faith attempt language to hire locally... because if it's selective enforcement or they are holding this developer to a higher standard than other developers...

The one owns who really make money in this state are the lawyers.


Let's be sure to add the city suing the Bright & Varick developer at the behest of Yvonne and the VVPA. Another case involving property rights the city lost that cost the taxpayers dearly (because a couple old timer NIMBYs were scared of losing their free parking).

Posted on: 1/11 3:33
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/9 20:40
Last Login :
5/1 23:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 328
Offline
If you want to read more, I've uploaded the ordinances/default notices here.

The city has documented warnings before the votes were scheduled to revoke the abatements.

Posted on: 1/11 3:14
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Today 3:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3740
Offline
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.


The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.


But wasn't construction completed already? Could the developer even have an ample opportunity to adequately address the default? I wonder if that will play into the legal argument. While I applaud the city's efforts to make sure that developers play by the rules, this does seem punitive. I wonder what other forces are at work here.


Therein lies my concern: I 100% support the city holding developers accountable to agreed upon terms and conditions, but enforcement has to be consistent across the board, and this action seems (on the surface) to be capricious, and perhaps even punitive. Many developers renege on deals and are simply slapped on the wrist, and sometimes even left off the hook with "after the fact", retroactive agreements or variances.

This seems very sudden and targeted. I’m not saying that the city is wrong (I don’t know all the facts or details) but I just hope they are indeed in the right because, given the recent track record, if the city loses this court case, it’ll simply end up costing us more money in the long run, and that is something that seems to happen all too often.

Posted on: 1/11 2:46
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/7/9 19:50
Last Login :
Yesterday 21:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2076
Offline
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.


The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.


But wasn't construction completed already? Could the developer even have an ample opportunity to adequately address the default? I wonder if that will play into the legal argument. While I applaud the city's efforts to make sure that developers play by the rules, this does seem punitive. I wonder what other forces are at work here.

Posted on: 1/11 2:30
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/9 20:40
Last Login :
5/1 23:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 328
Offline
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
There is the opportunity for a default.


Opportunity for *extension.*

Posted on: 1/11 2:04
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:55
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 903
Offline
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.


The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.


Thanks Terrence!

Posted on: 1/11 1:53
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/9 20:40
Last Login :
5/1 23:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 328
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.


The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.

Posted on: 1/11 1:24
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:55
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 903
Offline
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.

Bad process can kill a legal case. Just saying...

Posted on: 1/11 0:42
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:55
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 903
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
One can only hope the city administration (and the council) have done their due diligence and ensured this move to rescind the abatement is within the stipulated terms of the contract, including timeframes for claims, etc.

The last few lawsuits brought against the city have resulted in monetary losses in the form of punitive fees, including having to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs.

I am in favor of the city holding developers to their commitments, but I am definitely not cool with the city grandstanding for PR purposes, only to leave the citizens holding the bag in the end.


Every news article I've read in the past two years about legal action against the city were about the city losing the lawsuit, especially when it comes to property and development issues.

We have the reval x 2 (the contractor hired to do the old one and against the state), the robinhood property, One Journal Square's record request, 16 Perrine "arbitrary and capricious" denial, etc...

I don't fault legal consul as they are obligated to inform when there is a weak or strong case. I fault the pols for playing politics with taxpayer's money.

I'm far from an attorney, but trying to define what constitutes "a good faith attempt" to hire locally and to legally prove that the developer failed to do so seems like an uphill battle for the city. Let's be honest - a good faith attempt is wishy washy language. Put in a hard requirement: "a minimum of 40% of the construction workers must be residents of Jersey City." That would be much easier to define and to verify compliance or noncompliance.

Bookmark this thread. bodhipooh is right. This will be another lawsuit where the city is overruled on appeal and the developer is entitled for repayment of taxes plus interest and punitive damages.

Also, is the city monitoring all developer agreements that contain the good faith attempt language to hire locally... because if it's selective enforcement or they are holding this developer to a higher standard than other developers...

The one owns who really make money in this state are the lawyers.

Posted on: 1/11 0:11

Edited by JCGuys on 2019/1/11 0:38:59
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:55
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 903
Offline
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:
At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.


Is this a true statement? If one unit is 'affordable' in a 500 unit building, does the building cease to be "market rate" and thus eligible for an abatement?


I believe that units are granted abatement, not buildings. So if there was a 500 unit building with 1 affordable unit, he's saying that 499 units were not abated. The other one may have been.


This makes sense for condo units, but I wasn't aware that rental properties could have some units abated and others not.

A 500-unit rental building would show up as a single-parcel on the tax roll. A 500-unit condo would show up as 501 parcels (the units plus the condo association common area).

Posted on: 1/10 23:46
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Today 3:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3740
Offline
One can only hope the city administration (and the council) have done their due diligence and ensured this move to rescind the abatement is within the stipulated terms of the contract, including timeframes for claims, etc.

The last few lawsuits brought against the city have resulted in monetary losses in the form of punitive fees, including having to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs.

I am in favor of the city holding developers to their commitments, but I am definitely not cool with the city grandstanding for PR purposes, only to leave the citizens holding the bag in the end.

Posted on: 1/10 22:03
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2006/12/28 17:08
Last Login :
Yesterday 12:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 927
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:
At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.


Is this a true statement? If one unit is 'affordable' in a 500 unit building, does the building cease to be "market rate" and thus eligible for an abatement?


I believe that units are granted abatement, not buildings. So if there was a 500 unit building with 1 affordable unit, he's saying that 499 units were not abated. The other one may have been.

Posted on: 1/10 19:22
Top


Jersey City council votes to take away — yes, take away — a tax break
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
6/18 5:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2561
Offline

Jersey City council votes to take away — yes, take away — a tax break

JERSEY CITY — Jersey City’s council did something stunning on Wednesday. It took away a tax break from a Downtown real estate developer.

Under its last two mayors, the city has approved tax abatements for nearly every developer who asked for one, unless they are related to President Trump. But Mayor Steve Fulop, who asked the council to rescind the tax break, characterized the move as a fulfillment of his 2013 promise to curtail tax long-term abatements.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/01/jers ... ake-away-a-tax-break.html


Posted on: 1/10 19:03
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/1 1:03
Last Login :
Yesterday 22:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1177
Offline
"The city told Shuster in an October notice that it had not met requirements of local employment required by the tax abatement and could not prove it made a “good faith” effort to hire locally. In one instance, Shuster offered as proof a Craig’s List post seeking Jersey City laborers that was posted online in the final weeks of construction, according to the city."

A Craigs List posting in the final weeks of construction, I love it! Yeah, they really went all out to hire local residents. This story just made my day.

Posted on: 1/10 18:51
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/7/9 19:50
Last Login :
Yesterday 21:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2076
Offline
By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
JERSEY CITY — Jersey City’s council did something stunning on Wednesday. It took away a tax break from a Downtown real estate developer.

MORE (It's Shuster by the way...)

Posted on: 1/10 18:23
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
Yesterday 11:41
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 179
Offline
"At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! "

Posted on: 1/10 11:32
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:52
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4806
Offline
The 3 Kushner buildings received 30 tax abatements in Journal Square for 30 years in 2013, the first year Steven Fulop became mayor. There are others as well, we also gave Kushner ten million redevelopment loan. Also, what the mayor calls affordable housing which received 30 year tax abatements are also renting at market rate, the example is the property on Bergen, near Montgomery across from the bagel store. I guess the mayor want to forget about the anniversary of the 75th tax abatement in which a cake was brought to a council meeting.

Posted on: 1/9 2:06
Top


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:55
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 903
Offline
Quote:
At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.


Is this a true statement? If one unit is 'affordable' in a 500 unit building, does the building cease to be "market rate" and thus eligible for an abatement?

Posted on: 1/9 0:31
Top


JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/7/9 19:50
Last Login :
Yesterday 21:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2076
Offline
Body of an email received today from Mayor Fulop:

"When I first took office as mayor in 2013, I pledged that I would curtail Jersey City’s 30-year reliance on long term tax abatements by previous mayors. I outlined a plan in the campaign, and as I first took office, we limited tax abatements downtown. We then issued an executive order as a policy to use them only as a tool to incentivize development away from the waterfront, which was successful throughout other parts of the City. Ultimately, we further limited their use citywide.

At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.

We invested in a compliance officer to monitor previously issued tax abatements. As we go through the records and find non-fulfilled commitments by developers towards Jersey City residents, we will be moving to take aggressive action and cancel their tax abatement.

The first two cancellations will be voted on by the City Council tomorrow night. One is a cancellation of a tax abatement on the West Side and one is a cancellation of a project downtown.


There are mixed opinions on the council on whether to terminate a developer’s tax abatement for noncompliance, and while many have spoken publicly about the need to do this, tomorrow is the opportunity to take action.

We will continue to work together with you and the council in moving Jersey City forward."

Steven Fulop






Posted on: 1/8 23:16
Top








[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017