Hi All,

To Alek8 - glad you liked my post. I speak the truth. Speaking for the silent majority.

To JBat. I lived at 238 6th St on the 3rd floor for 7 years so I had a clear view of the wasteland that is there. Maybe we have had the same place?

To Do It. I've seen the top of the embankment. Even when the bridges were still connecting the whole thing. It's no park, its no green space. At ground level, still very much an eyesore.

In fact... as this is a former rail site, the whole ground is most likely VERY very contaminated. Would you want your young son or daughter playing in toxic soil? And trying to make it into any sort of park would be VERY very expensive.

Frankly, we have Van Vorst park, we have Hamilton Park... and I'd rather see my tax paying money going to finally renovate Hamilton Park. I mean renovations have been on the table for years... but have gone nowhere.

Who needs another park when a big one needs major renovations.

And what else is funny is... these embankment people tried planting trees between Erie and Jersey several years ago... and they ALL died.

Between Erie and Manila... you still have cha cha land... despite the low income being turned into "Luxury" condos.

Please.

And the insurance costs to the city would be crazy to make an elevated park where someone could fall off.

I'd rather see the money put into new cops to stop crime in JC which is on the rise.

Anyways... Thank God we live in a free country where one can speak his/her opinions. And these are only MY opinions.

Best regards all...

Fletch

Quote:

Wow.

As someone who lives directly across from the embankment in a third floor condo, I have to say that we must be seeing different "eyesores".

In the spring and summer, the trees and vegetation on top of the embankment are a wonderful relief from all the concrete and brick of the neighborhood. In the fall, especially this last fall, the leaves look gorgeous when they turn. Take a moment from obsessing about the stones and look up once and awhile. You're missing the best part.

As far as property values go, I would blame the endless rows of uninhabited new condos for lowering home values before I blame the embankment. And I would rather look out at an "eyesore" than into someone's living room.

If you have never seen the top of the Embankment, here is a photo. Each Embankment is one acre of greenspace. I hope you do not find this to be an "eyesore"....

BUUUAHHH!!! Funniest post of '09

Hi all. Just sort of had to chime in on this matter.

From 1993 to 2000 I lived on 6th street between Erie and Jersey. Seven years.

Was on the third floor, so got a good look at the abandoned eyesore... weeds, dead tress, graffiti and everything.

And today, the embankment is still an eyesore. Have you walked around it lately. Graffiti tags are everywhere. Non-historically correct advertising billboards all around. Broken lights along the walkways to "keep us safe".

Now, in 2009 as in 2008 I am a property tax paying JC citizen.

This wall needs to come down. The communities of Harsimus Cove and Hamilton Park need to come together. Tear down this wall Mr. Gorbachev... err. Mr. Healy. Tear it down.

The one thing that is driving property values down is the monstrosity of a graffiti eyesore that we have between us.

Want to know something else? Go to Cruising.dot.com and the embankment is even listed as a place for promiscuous gay sex. Believe it or not. And I am gay BTW.

So there you have it. Tear it down... remake the neighborhood. Progress is good.

Don't believe these leftest NIMBY crazy's. Putting up middle class brownstown housing will help all of our property values. A lot.

Oh did I mention the safety issue? The embankment is not safe. Period. What if a child were to fall from this new fangled park. Law suit. And those stones are not looking secure.

Just some thoughts for consideration.

Thanks

FG

Quote:

Just posted by the Jersey City Independent!

Fight Over Embankment Demolition Continues at Commission Meeting

At the special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held last night, attorneys for developer Steve Hyman and Conrail argued their case for demolishing the 6th Street Embankment in order to proceed with the construction of townhouses, while scores of supporters turned out to oppose demolition and support making the abandoned rail relic a park. It was ?probably our best attended commission meeting ever,? Historic Preservation Officer Dan Wrieden quipped.

Conrail sold the embankment site to Hyman for $3 million in 2005, and currently negotiations are continuing between Hyman, the city and the Embankment Preservation Coalition over the fate of the 100-plus-year-old structure. In August 2007, the federal Surface Transportation Board determined that Conrail never properly abandoned the site; city lawyers contend that might mean Hyman doesn?t legally own the property, and that they have to be given the option to buy it. That fight is currently tied up in the courts.

However, that was all beyond the purview of last night?s meeting, which had a very narrow focus: Do Conrail and Hyman have the legal right to demolish the embankment? After denying the developer a hearing on the same matter in December 2007, a Hudson County judge ordered the commission to hear Conrail and Hyman?s applications to demolish and issue a ruling by April 20 of this year.

In her opening remarks, attorney Michelle Donato, who represents the developer, couched the fight in Constitutional terms, saying that property rights trump a rationale for preservation that is ?weak at best.?

She said that the local activists fighting the demolition and development of the embankment were acting out of fear, and, noting that many of the members of the volunteer commission are preservation advocates, Donato reminded them that their ?advocacy must be tempered? by their obligation to apply the law ?fairly to its terms.?

Still, Donato acknowledged to the commission that her client was facing an uphill battle.

?Our crystal ball tells us there?s not likely to be an approval,? she said.

The developer and Conrail presented three witnesses who argued for the right to demolish the structure, and Embankment Preservation Coalition coordinator Maureen Crowley corralled 15 speakers, including herself, to rebut the claims that the embankment was ripe for demolition.

As the witnesses spoke, their images were projected on the City Council chambers? big screen, where they were often surrounded by white ?Save the Embankment for a Park? signs being held up by supporters in the crowd. (Later in the meeting, Hyman himself playfully got into the act, holding up a sign on screen ? upside down.)

Arguments from both sides revolved around the city?s ordinance governing demolition of ?an individual landmark building, structure, site or object or any structure contained within a historic district.?

Among the considerations when hearing a request for demolition are the site?s ?historic, architectural and aesthetic significance,? if ?its removal would be detrimental to the public interest,? and ?the extent to which it is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, craftsmanship, texture or material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty.?

Witnesses for the developer and Conrail argued that the embankment?s architectural characteristics are ?not unique,? pointing to similar structures in New Brunswick, Newark and New York City. The embankment ?is by no means unusual or uncommon,? Burgis Associates planner Steve Lydon said in testifying for the developer.

That argument was countered later by several supporters of the coalition, including Harsimus Cove Neighborhood Association president Eric Fleming. He spoke of visiting Europe and admiring architecture that could likely be found in many old European cities, saying their ?ordinariness? did not make them any less significant.

?It?s our piece of history,? he said of the embankment. ?Let us keep what we have.?

Another major thrust of the argument to demolish was that the embankment?s association with the city?s industrial past is ?grossly overstated.? This association was one of the reasons the structure was placed on the state Register of Historic Places in 1999. The witnesses for the developer said that the embankment wasn?t significant to the city?s industrial past, since there were more than a dozen rail lines coming through the city and terminating at the Hudson River, and Donato made an ill-fitting analogy. If the embankment could be considered a remnant of our industrial past, she wondered, why not the oil tank farms that line the New Jersey Turnpike?

As more than one local resident pointed out during testimony, though, the remnants of most of the rail lines serving Jersey City are gone. The embankment remains the only highly visible reminder of the time when freight came through the Downtown neighborhood to the banks of the Hudson.

The developer and Conrail also argued that those who?ve advocated for using the embankment for rail purposes are ?fooling themselves.? Mayor Healy has stated his wish to build a light rail line along the structure while preserving some of it for open space. But last night, Donato said this was impossible. ?[The embankment] cannot be used for rail purposes,? she said.

?We disagree. The embankment absolutely could support the light rail and we?ve had discussions with NJ Transit about that,? Mayor Healy tells JCI. ?The embankment should be preserved to support a greenway and the light rail through the Bergen Arches to the Lautenberg train station [in Secaucus], which would take thousands of cars off of the Jersey City streets.?

In her closing statement, Donato warned that the activists vying to preserve the park were giving ?the principles of preservation a black eye? by simply blocking development for little reason. But most of the testimony given by the coalition?s supporters went beyond mere NIMBY-ism and reflected a shared experience around a community landmark.

The requests for permission to demolish ?should be denied on their face,? Crowley said. ?[The embankment] is a landmark in its own right.?

* There will be another hearing on these applications later this month or early next month. The next hearing on these applications was originally scheduled for March 23, but conflicting schedules are forcing the commission to set a new date. It will occur either later this month or in early April.

* Since the commission limited the number of public speakers due to time constraints, interested citizens are invited to email Historic Preservation Officer Dan Wrieden with any comments they may have. Email danw (at) jcnj.org with ?Embankment Comments? as the subject line.


http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... es-at-commission-meeting/

Can someone tell me what happened last night?
I attended but had to leave early, and the lawyers were still, talking, talking, talking.

SPECIAL MEETING of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission on MONDAY, 2nd March 2009
HEARING CANCELED
DUE TO SNOW

The meeting has been rescheduled for
Monday, March 9th at 6:30pm

CITY OF JERSEY CITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
PUBLIC NOTICE

Please be advised that the following items will be heard at a SPECIAL MEETING of the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission on MONDAY, 2nd March 2009 at 6:30 pm in the ANNA CUCCI MEMORIAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Jersey City City Hall - 280 Grove Street Jersey City, NJ.
1. Call to Order
Sunshine Announcement
3. Roll Call
4. Special Business:
A. Case: H07-167
Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 247 Manila Avenue, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation
Address: 441-7 Manila Avenue
Block/Lot: 247/50.A
Zone: Sixth Street Embankment, Grove Street NDP Redevelopment Plan Area

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.
B. Case: H07-168
Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 212 Marin Boulevard, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation
Address: 437 Marin Boulevard

Block/Lot: 212/M

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment, Luis Munoz Marin Redevelopment Plan Area

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

C. Case: H07-169

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 354 Cole Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 99-105 Coles Street

Block/Lot: 354/50.A

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

D. Case: H07-170

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 280 Erie Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 618.5 Jersey Avenue

Block/Lot: 280/B.1

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.
E. Case: H07-171

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 317 Jersey Avenue, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 621-27 Jersey Avenue

Block/Lot: 317/50.A

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

G. Case: H07-172

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 389 Monmouth Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 449-53 Monmouth Street

Block/Lot: 389.1/50

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

Historic Preservation Commission Special Meeting Agenda

2 March 2009

Page 2_____________________________________________________________________

H. Case: H07-197

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 247 Manila Avenue, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 441-7 Manila Avenue

Block/Lot: 247/50.A

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment, Grove Street NDP Redevelopment Plan Area

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

I. Case: H07-198

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 212 Marin Boulevard, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 437 Marin Boulevard

Block/Lot: 212/M

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment, Luis Munoz Marin Redevelopment Plan Area

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

J. Case: H07-199

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 354 Coles Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 99-105 Coles Street

Block/Lot: 354/50.A

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

K. Case: H07-200

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 280 Erie Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 618.5 Jersey Avenue

Block/Lot: 280/B.1

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

L. Case: H07-201

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 317 Jersey Avenue, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 621-27 Jersey Avenue

Block/Lot: 317/50.A

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

M. Case: H07-202

Applicant: Michelle Donato, Esq. for 389 Monmouth Street, LLC owner and Consolidated Rail Corporation

Address: 449-53 Monmouth Street

Block/Lot: 389.1/50

Zone: Sixth Street Embankment

For: Certificate of Economic Hardship for the demolition of the municipal landmark structure of the Sixth Street Embankment / Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment.

Consideration and possible action regarding retention of financial and legal experts regarding 212 Marin Boulevard et al.

Executive Session as needed, to discuss litigation, personnel or other matters

Adjournment

Richard Winant, Ph.D. Chairman

Just received from the Embankment Preservation Coalition

Here is the website link -

http://embankment.org/whitesite/Emban ... /EmbankmentTracks_11.html

Demo Permits Back on Table
All Hands on Deck! March 2 Meeting

The Historic Preservation Commission has been ordered to hear applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition of the landmark Embankment. If the Commission denies the applications based on historic merit of the site, it must then hear applications for hardship exemptions. The first hearing is scheduled for Monday, March 2, 2009, at 6:30 pm, City Hall Council Chambers, 280 Grove Street.

The Commission previously dismissed applications based on federal Surface Transportation Board rulings that stated the property remained part of the national rail system. Conrail and its partner developer are appealing those rulings. Although the STB ruling is in effect and not stayed, Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli has ordered that the Commission hear the applications without regard to the STB rulings, title, or ownership.

The Coalition will testify at these hearings. All supporters of Embankment preservation should attend the meetings and testify. If you can attend, testify, or would like to coordinate your testimony with ours, please let us know by sending email to Maureen Crowley, moher1@aol.com . Put HPC in subject line.

? A legal fight over the control of the 6th Street Embankment -- an elevated park in Jersey City -- rages on between the city and those who'd like to see more open space -- and the developer who owns it, who wants to build housing on the land.

PARK OR HOUSING?
City, developer struggle over fate of 6th St. Embankment

Monday, February 23, 2009
By AMY SARA CLARK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Three-way negotiations continue over the fate of the Sixth Street Embankment in Jersey City.

Sidebar tactics include: court filings; the developer seeking permission to rip down the granite walls of the defunct railroad turnaround to build housing; and the City Council endorsing a recently proposed state bill.
Advertisement

On Feb. 11, the City Council voted 8-0 to support an Assembly bill that would require railroad companies to negotiate in good faith with municipalities when selling railroad right-of-way land that is proposed for abandonment. Journal Square Councilman Steve Lipski, a close friend of the site's owner, developer Steve Hyman, was absent.

The primary sponsor of the bill is Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith, D-Jersey City.

In the meantime, negotiations continue between Hyman, the Embankment Preservation Coalition, and Jersey City over a potential development agreement for the elevated stretch along Sixth Street, from Marin Boulevard to Brunswick Street.

The coalition volunteers want to preserve the 6-acre stretch as open space. Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy wants a combination of open space and a light rail link, for which no money has been allocated. And Hyman - whose wife, Victoria, purchased the property from Conrail for $3 million in 2005 - wants to build housing.

His most recent proposal is to develop the easternmost block of the embankment with about 600 units, donate the next five blocks to the city for parkland and a light rail line, and develop a portion of land west of the embankment, across Newark Avenue.

But just in case this plan doesn't fly - and so far it hasn't - Hyman plans to ask the Historic Preservation Commission on March 2 for permission to rip down the embankment walls to proceed with his initial plan to build two-family homes.

Last March, Hudson County Assignment Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled that the city must consider Hyman's permit applications. The city has appealed the decision to federal court.

Hovering over all of this is a ruling in August 2007 by the obscure federal Surface Transportation Board, which determined that Conrail never properly abandoned the site. Attorneys hired by the city believe the ruling could mean that Hyman no longer owns the land and the city has to be given the opportunity to buy it.

All of this is still tied up in court.

"We've made a lot of proposals trying to make both Jersey City and the Embankment (Preservation) Coalition happy while accommodating the need for a greenway and a light rail. But they haven't agreed to anything," Hyman said. "I'm just trying to develop what (my company) has the right to develop."

Jersey City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis said: "We will continue to pursue a settlement that would preserve the embankment, a greenway and a transportation corridor."

Stephen Gucciardo, president of the Embankment Preservation Coalition, remains wary of Hyman's latest proposal.

"The devil is in the details of what is presented," Gucciardo said. "We are hoping that there can be some more specific information about size of buildings, footprints of buildings, the number of parking spaces and a lot of other details that will show us that what is being proposed is actually doable."

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 35373976273380.xml&coll=3

I saw some notices on the embankment by Erie and 6th street today. There is going to be an emergency public hearing. I was late for work so I didn't really look at it. Does anyone know what the deal is with this?

Two posts above yours, chiefdahill, was my post quoting an article by Maureen Crowley. The last sentence in the article answers your question and this entire topic thread or better read the chronology time line and info at the Embankment Preservation Coalition's site:

http://embankment.org/


Also, where you live Van Vorst Park, is one of the active supporters of Protecting the Embankment and includes:

The Coalition would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their support and endorsement of our goals for the Embankment

EMBANKMENT

COALITION

U.S. Senator Jon S. Corzine
U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

U.S. Representative Robert Menendez
U.S. Representative Donald Payne

U.S. Representative Steven Rothman

N.J. Senator Bernard F. Kenny, Jr.

N.J. Assemblyman Joseph V. Doria, Jr.
N.J. Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley

Hudson County Executive Thomas A. DeGise
Hudson County Director of Strategic Revitalization Stephen D. Marks

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy
Jersey City Mayor L. Harvey Smith
Jersey City Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham

Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega
Jersey City Councilperson-at-large Peter Brennan
Jersey City Councilperson-at-large Willie Flood
Jersey City Councilperson Steven Fulop
Jersey City Councilperson William Gaughan
Jersey City Councilwoman Viola Richardson
Jersey City Councilperson Michael Sottolano
Former Jersey City Councilperson E. Junior Maldonado
Former Jersey City Councilperson Kathleen Curran
Former Jersey City Councilperson Mary Donnelly

Neighborhood Associations
Downtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association
Harsimus Cove Association
Historic Paulus Hook Association
Madison Avenue Block Association
Newport Waterfront Association
Sherman Place Block Association
Sixth Street Block Association
Van Vorst Park Association

Citywide Organizations
Child-Family Initiative of Jersey City
Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy
Jersey City Reservoir Preservation Alliance
Jersey City Trees Committee

Regional Organizations
East Coast Greenway Alliance
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway Alliance
Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance
NY/NJ Baykeeper
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Sierra Club of New Jersey
Sierra Club, Hudson County Chapter
Trust for Public Land

http


Fall/Winter 2007-2008 Volume XXVI Issue 3&4


Partnering to Protect a Jersey City Landmark
Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment


by Maureen Crowley, Coordinator

Embankment Preservation Coalition

Quote:

[quote]Maureen Crowley wrote:

[...]On August 8, 2007, the federal Surface Transportation Board issued its ruling. In conclusion, it reads:

?... Conrail acquired the Embankment as a line of railroad under Line Code 1420 of the FSP. Thus, the Embankment is a line of railroad subject to Federal abandonment regulation. Accordingly, the Embankment property sold to SLH remains part of the national rail system subject to the Board?s exclusive jurisdiction until appropriate abandonment authority is obtained.?

Although our hope was that a governmental entity would acquire the land through eminent domain, whether or not the STB ruling was favorable to the petitioners, it seemed unlikely that the City or others would do so without a favorable ruling. Now the STB ruling changes the landscape of decision-making. It encourages Jersey City, Hudson County, and the State of New Jersey to work as partners in securing this important transportation corridor and historic structure for multiple public uses: greenway, park, and future light rail.[...]

I havent heard anything on this topic for close to 6 months. What do you want the Embankment to be? A park? Doesnt the city want another light rail line that goes through the Bergen Arches? Sorry for the ignorance but I'm a VVP guy and don't spend so much time in HC and HP

Embankment Preservation Coalition

The Coalition urgently needs your help this afternoon, (Wed, Feb 11th)to make calls to Council people who are wavering on an important resolution:

NJ Legislation Requiring Railroads
to Conduct Good Faith Negotiations


We need the City Council to support a bill currently in New Jersey Assembly. This bill would require railroads to give local governments the opportunity to save rail rights of way.
What does the successful passing of this legislation mean for the Embankment?

If passed intact, this law would almost certainly provide the opportunity to purchase the Embankment under reasonable terms.

Five votes are needed to pass a resolution endorsing NJ legislation that strengthens requirements for railroads to negotiate in good faith with governments when they abandon a rail line.


IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED!!

What we need every Embankment Supporter, their friends and family members to do:

Go to: THE EMBANKMENT ACTION ALERT WEB PAGE*
MAKE THE CALLS SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT: 380 GROVE STREET AT 6:30PM
LET US KNOW YOU DID IT!

*http://www.embankment.org/whitesite/actionalert1.html*

FYI.....Possibly some the the Embankment folks can chime in and let us know what we can do to help push this bill ahead.

New bill that will require railroad company to negotiate in good faith with certain entities for sale of railroad right of way proposed for abandonment.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3500/3120_I1.HTM

ASSEMBLY, No. 3120

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

213th LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCED SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman L. HARVEY SMITH

District 31 (Hudson)

Assemblyman JOHN S. WISNIEWSKI

District 19 (Middlesex)

SYNOPSIS

Requires railroad company to negotiate in good faith with certain entities for sale of railroad right of way proposed for abandonment.

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

As introduced.

An Act concerning railroad rights of way and amending P.L.1967, c.282.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. Section 1 of P.L.1967, c.282 (C.48:12-125.1) is amended to read as follows:

a. In order to permit the State and its political subdivisions to receive notice of, and be afforded an opportunity to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, railroad rights of way proposed to be abandoned, any railroad company which makes application to the [Interstate Commerce Commission] Surface Transportation Board for authority to abandon any part of its right of way on which passenger or freight services are operated, or to abandon, sell, or lease any of its right of way over which services have previously been abandoned and title to such right of way currently remains with the railroad shall, within 10 days of making such application, serve notice thereof upon the State and upon each county and municipality in which any part of the right of way proposed for abandonment is located. No sale or conveyance of any part of such right of way shall thereafter be made to any person other than the State, [a] or such county or municipality, for a period of 90 days from the date of approval by the [Interstate Commerce Commission] Surface Transportation Board of the application for abandonment or from the date of service of the notice in this section required, whichever occurs later, unless prior thereto each governmental agency entitled to such notice shall have filed with the railroad company written disclaimer of interest in acquiring all or any part of said right of way.

b. During the period of 90 days in which a railroad company is prohibited from selling or conveying any part of a right of way pursuant to subsection a. of this section, such railroad company shall negotiate in good faith for the sale or conveyance of the right of way with the State, or with any municipality or county in which the right of way proposed for abandonment is located and which expresses interest in acquiring such right of way.

c. Any sale or conveyance of a right of way made after the expiration of the foregoing 90-day period to any person other than the State or a county or municipality in which any part of the right of way proposed for abandonment is located shall be subject to the right of first refusal by any of the foregoing governmental entities which shall have made an offer to purchase such right of way during the 90-day period and which offer was refused by the
railroad company. Upon exercising this right of first refusal, the governmental entity shall purchase the right of way for the same amount agreed upon between the railroad company the person to whom the company attempted to sell or convey such right of way.

d. Any sale or conveyance made in violation of [this act] P.L.1967, c.282 (C.48:12-125.1 et seq.) shall be void.

As used in this act "right of way" means the roadbed of a line of railroad, not exceeding 100 feet in width, as measured horizontally at the elevation of the base of the rail, including the full embankment or excavated area, with slopes, slope ditches, retaining walls, or foundations necessary to provide a width not to exceed 100 feet at the base of rail, but not including tracks, appurtenances, ballast nor any structures or buildings erected thereon.

(cf: P.L.1967, c.282, s.1)

2. This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT:
Current law prohibits the sale or conveyance of any part of a railroad right of way proposed for abandonment to any person, other than the State or a county or a municipality in which the right of way is located, for a period of 90 days from the date the Surface Transportation Board approves such abandonment, or from the date upon which the company serves notice of its intent to abandon, whichever occurs later. This bill would strengthen the existing statute by requiring the railroad company to negotiate in good faith with the State or any such county or municipality that desires to acquire the right of way proposed for abandonment. The bill also provides any of the foregoing governmental entities with the right of first refusal of any sale made to any other person after the end of the 90-day period, provided that such governmental entity made an offer to purchase the right of way prior to the expiration of the 90-day period. Upon exercising the right of first refusal, the governmental entity would be required to purchase the right of way for an amount equal to that which is agreed upon between the railroad company and the person to whom the company attempted to sell the right of way.

Fall/Winter 2007-2008 Volume XXVI Issue 3&4


Partnering to Protect a Jersey City Landmark
Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment


by Maureen Crowley, Coordinator

Embankment Preservation Coalition

The Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Branch Embankment is a half-mile-long massive stone structure that for nine decades brought interstate freight into the Harsimus Yards covering the Jersey City waterfront. The Harsimus Yards were a major component of the west bank of the Hudson railhead supplying the New York region and the Port of New York and New Jersey, and thus were vital to the growth of the port. The Yards are now virtually erased by skyscrapers and big box development.

The Embankment is a Municipal Landmark, listed on the State Register of Historic Places, and eligible for the National Register. The structure runs between the two Municipal, State, and National Historic Districts of Harsimus Cove and Hamilton Park. It passes two adjacent Roman Catholic church complexes: St. Anthony of Padua and Holy Rosary Church, the oldest Polish and Italian parishes, respectively, in New Jersey. St. Anthony is also a National Register-listed site. At the Embankment?s western end, an area known as the Village housed Italian immigrants, many of whom came here to work the railroads. The Embankment can also be seen from another National- Register-listed site, the William L. Dickinson High School atop the Palisades.

Placed on Preservation NJ?s ?!0 Most Endangered Sites? list in 2006, the Embankment, along with a nearby rail right-of-way, the Bergen Arches/Erie Cut, is the recommended route for the East Coast Greenway, a walking/bicycling trail from Maine to Florida. The Embankment-Bergen Arches rights-of-way are also under discussion as a ?historic use? for light rail from the Secaucus Transfer Station to the Hudson River waterfront.

The Embankment Preservation Coalition formed in 1998 to preserve the Embankment and reuse its top as habitat-oriented park and greenway. Facing mayoral opposition and many residents? dismay with the blighted state of the area, we had a hard row to hoe. We learned some things early: listen to your critics, do your research, hone your arguments, organize, and organize some more.

We took our first cues from then-Mayor Bret Schundler, who wanted to demolish the structure and replace it with market-rate housing. He told us, ?Whatever you do, don?t get it listed on the State Register of Historic Places.? So we did just that. Nine years later, we have garnered for the Embankment other historic protections and recognitions, as well as its recognition as a habitat site and priority acquisition for the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program and Hudson County. We helped the City raise millions to acquire it. We built our core group of nine worker-bees into a hive of 1000 members and subscribers, with support and endorsements from dozens of local and regional organizations and elected officials. Until recently, however, it seemed as if our efforts might all go for naught. Despite our overtures to Conrail and the City about working together to secure the Embankment for public use, Conrail sold the property in July 2005 to an investor who announced he would demolish the structure and replace it with housing--essentially the same plan as the previous 1998 one.

Our research, however, suggested that we did not have to accept the rush to development. Richard James, a historian and Coalition trustee, had written the Embankment Nomination to the State & National Registers of Historic Places. His research revealed that the Embankment was part of a ?line of rail? that could not be sold to a private developer without first going through a federal rail line abandonment process. With the help of a grant from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation and a match from NY/NJ Baykeeper, we hired an additional professional researcher, Andy Strauss of Strauss and Associates/Planners, with experience in rail projects, to confirm these findings. Then we consulted with Charles Montange, a Seattle attorney with experience in federal rail line abandonments and a co-founder of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, to advise on federal rail law.

Together, our findings persuaded the City of Jersey City to lead a petition before the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) asking the STB to exercise its jurisdiction and find that if the rail owner wishes to convert the rail corridor to non-rail use, it must follow specified abandonment procedure. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, the Embankment Preservation Coalition, and N.J. State Assemblyman Louis Manzo, who had conducted his own independent research on the matter, were co-petitioners.

The abandonment process triggers certain protections that include State Historic Preservation Office consultative comments, as abandonment is, under the National Historic Preservation Act, a federal permit. An exclusive period during which the owner has to offer the property to public bodies is also provided under state law.

On August 8, 2007, the federal Surface Transportation Board issued its ruling. In conclusion, it reads:

?... Conrail acquired the Embankment as a line of railroad under Line Code 1420 of the FSP. Thus, the Embankment is a line of railroad subject to Federal abandonment regulation. Accordingly, the Embankment property sold to SLH remains part of the national rail system subject to the Board?s exclusive jurisdiction until appropriate abandonment authority is obtained.?

Although our hope was that a governmental entity would acquire the land through eminent domain, whether or not the STB ruling was favorable to the petitioners, it seemed unlikely that the City or others would do so without a favorable ruling. Now the STB ruling changes the landscape of decision-making. It encourages Jersey City, Hudson County, and the State of New Jersey to work as partners in securing this important transportation corridor and historic structure for multiple public uses: greenway, park, and future light rail. After nine years of citizen volunteer effort that kept the Embankment up so far, our Coalition is taking a moment to savor the decision. Then we will get back to work.

ACTION ALERT: Planning Board Mtg Weds Jan 16th 530p @ School #4

Embankment Preservation Coalition

Dear Coalition Supporter:

Below is a call-out from PADNA for attendance at tomorrow's Planning Board Meeting. Please note the meeting is NOT at City Hall, but rather at school #4 on Bright Street. The Powerhouse Arts District is related to our concerns because (a) the warehouses are connected with the history of the Embankment (b) the developer bought the property knowing what the zoning was and is seeking to radically change the zoning. We support PADNA's efforts to preserve their historic warehouses and we oppose the proposed amendments to the PAD Redevelopment Plan.

If you can come out to support PADNA on Wednesday, please do!

PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY
Please note address correction:
Frank R. Conwell Middle School #4
107 Bright Street
Between Jersey Ave & Varick Street

After 5 1/2 hrs. of testimony on November 27, 2007, the Planning Board is meeting THIS Wednesday, January 16, to make a ruling on Toll Brothers proposed amendments to the Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan.

The extent of Toll's amendments are such that they obliterate the PAD Redevelopment Plan, one that is the result of over 10 years of community and Planning Department research and work (and tax payer dollars). We are against the Toll proposed amendments, not only for the destruction that will be brought upon the Powerhouse Arts District, but also because of the implications to the planning process and to Jersey City as a whole.

As part of the Downtown community, we must show up in force at Wednesday's meeting to impress upon the planning board and the politicians that will soon be voting on this that we care about this issue, we are watching them and their actions have implications.

Again, the meeting is

Wednesday, January 16th, 5:30pm
Middle School #4 Auditorium
107 Bright Street
Enter through iron gate on left side then straight through main glass doors. Auditorium/Theater is on the left as you enter

For video highlights from the 11/27/07 planning board meeting, go to www.padnajc.org

Sincerely,

PADNA


Embankment Preservation Coalition | 495 Monmouth Street | Jersey City | NJ | 07302

Quote:

I agree. Do the right thing Steve! We need the open space. We need the history. And, perhaps most important, we need to show that as a City we wont give away hard fought victories. Any good government referendum/initiative must be accompanied by good government in action.

Quote:

Wrong.

This is not a condemnation proceeding. The City has that power for ANY entity.

Having owned a railroad right of way. Conrail is OBLIGATED to offer the land for public use. Since they offered to Hyman for $3 million, there is no rationale that they can use for now raising the price.

But their true colors are now showing. They are not simply owners, but investors with Hyman. So they will just deed it to him for $1. This was probably the the plan all along.

But the problem is, a railroad company is not considered your run of the mill corporation. They received public subsidies and public rights of way, and have to offer it back to the public first.

Conrail instead is trying to discourage public use and position itself as an investor. The whole deal stinks and should be investigated. I wonder if Anne Milgram can take time away from her parking ticket jihad to investigate a real abuse of the public trust.

In my opinion, our Ward E Councilman needs to be a more visible and vocal advocate on behalf of the EPC and the creation of Embankment Park -- and against the Hyman proposal.

Although he has been on the right side of the issue, his advocacy and communications of support from my perspective appear luke warm -- perhaps a bit too politically cautious, when a clear declaration of a stand is required.

To Councilman Fulop: Nothing else is more important to Downtown Ward E, Harsimus Cove and Hamilton Park than preventing Hyman and his investors from gaining control of the Embankment. Their proposal is a not so transparent smokescreen to build high density towers in clear violation of the Master Plan and current zoning.

To the rest of City Council, Office of the Mayor, and future Mayoral Candidates: The outcome of this process will be closely watched. A worst case outcome for us will have political consequences for you.

It's time to stand up and do the right thing for Downtown Jersey City and not solely for a well-healed group of outsiders. Mr. Hyman already made out well at the expense of Jersey City by flipping the Flintkote property back in 2004. Don't let him do this again at the expense of established neighborhoods and the residential taxpayer.

History buffs can read more here... http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?ne ... =461&dept_id=523586&rfi=6

All the best.

Geoff

Merry Christmas Steve Hyman - but the city will still try to lose

Setback for developer on Sixth St. Embankment

by Ken Thorbourne Friday December 21, 2007, 12:58 PM

In the latest development in the ever-evolving legal dispute between Manhattan businessman Steve Hyman and Jersey City over control of the Sixth Street Embankment, the federal Surface Transportation Board has denied Hyman's petition to review a previous STB decision that favored the city.

The STB ruled in August that Conrail never properly abandoned the old railroad turnaround -- a property Hyman bought from Conrail in July 2005 for $3 million and plans to build townhouses on.


That decision, according Charles Montange, an attorney representing the city, means Hyman's deed will be invalidated and the city will get the opportunity to buy the elevated six-block stretch for $3 million -- the same price Hyman paid.

Hyman had asked for reconsideration on the grounds that the STB relied on materials that weren't officially part of the record. In its decision Monday, the STB stated that most of the records were public and Hyman's attorneys didn't dispute their validity during the case.

Hyman and Conrail have both appealed the original decision in federal court.

Conrail spokesman John Enright said the company plans to file papers with the STB in January to properly abandon the site.

The city, he said, would have the right to seize the property through condemnation but if that happened, the city would have to pay market value, he said.

The property is worth between $10 million and $20 million, according to appraisals by the city and Hyman.

Advocates for the embankment to be preserved only as a park have been fighting for the city to buy the property.

Mayor Healy's legacy so far is that he destroyed the Art
Center at 111 1st st, the whole vision of the Powerhouse
Arts district, historic buildings, and will continue to do so
as long as developers, contractors, lawyers, pay him and
others to get their way. HOW CAN WE STOP THIS ???

The way that the city is dragging it's feet on this matter is quite depressing.

We hear of so many cases of Eminent Domain abuse (when there's a dollar behind it) - and yet, here is an opportunity to aquire property, for the genuine good of the people, and taxpayers money is being wasted on rediculous hearings.

Hyman's proposal is obsurd. I feel that the Mayor's actions in the coming months will become his legacy.

Quote:

As G_Elkind states, while SLH (petitioner)might try to appeal this ruling by the STB upholding their prior ruling against SLH, it remains unlikely that SLH would prevail in further appeal. However, more ominous is now that Conrail has joined SLH as co-developer/partner AND also controls the "federal abandonement process" that we must all be watchful how the City proceeds as to what follows next.

The Conrail representative at the Nov 26 Council Caucus is on record as stating both in letter to the Mayor and Council that if forced to pursue the abandonement process Conrail will turn the property over to their now co-partner, SLH for $1 if the City does not step forward to acquire the property of the Embankment during the window of opportunity:

Quote:

From what I can tell from a quick read of this decision, the petitioners did not file a timely appeal from the original decision in August, and were left with a "hail mary" petition for reconsideration of the original decision in a vain attempt to keep the proceeding alive.

The STB sent them packing.

They could attempt to appeal this later decision, however, the grounds for granting such an appeal are so extremely narrow that it would be highly unlikely to be granted.

The city shouldn't even be talking to these people from this point forward... and take their lead from the STB -- send them packing!

All the best.

G

Does this mean that he can't appeal? So the STB decision sticks?

That would be good news!

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
Decision Information


Docket Number: FD_34818_0


Case Title: CITY OF JERSEY CITY, RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY, PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD HARSIMUS STEM EMBANKMENT PRESERVATION COALITION, AND NEW JERSEY STATE ASSEMBLYMAN LOUIS M. MANZO-PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER


Decision Type: Decision


Deciding Body: Entire Board


Decision Summary


Decision Notes: DECISION DENIED A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD?S DECISION THAT WAS SERVED ON AUGUST 9, 2007, DETERMINING THAT CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION NEEDS PRIOR AGENCY AUTHORIZATION TO ABANDON A PORTION OF THE HARSIMUS BRANCH KNOWN AS THE SIXTH STREET EMBANKMENT, EXTENDING BETWEEN MILEPOST 1.3 NEAR LUIS MUNOZ MARIN BOULEVARD (FORMERLY HENDERSON AVENUE) AND MILEPOST 2.54 NEAR WALDO AVENUE, IN JERSEY CITY, NJ.



Full Text of Decision




38359 SERVICE DATE ? DECEMBER 19, 2007

EB



SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


DECISION


STB Finance Docket No. 34818

CITY OF JERSEY CITY, RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVANCY,

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD HARSIMUS STEM EMBANKMENT

PRESERVATION COALITION,

AND NEW JERSEY STATE ASSEMBLYMAN LOUIS M. MANZO?

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER


Decided: December 17, 2007


In this decision, we are denying a petition for reconsideration of our decision in this declaratory order proceeding that was served on August 9, 2007 (the August 2007 Decision).[1]


BACKGROUND

In this proceeding, the City of Jersey City, NJ (City), the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment Coalition, and State Assemblyman Louis M. Manzo (collectively, petitioners) asked us to determine whether Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) needed prior Board authorization to abandon trackage known as the Sixth Street Embankment (Embankment), extending between milepost 1.3 near Luis Munoz Marin Boulevard (formerly Henderson Avenue) and milepost 2.54 near Waldo Avenue, in Jersey City, NJ. Conrail had recently sold the Embankment to a group of limited liability companies referred to collectively by petitioners (in their filings) and the Board (in the August 2007 Decision) as SLH Properties (SLH)[2] for development as residential housing without obtaining abandonment authority from the Board.


The Embankment is part of a rail line known as the Harsimus Branch, which was constructed by the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company (UNJRCC) and leased to the former Pennsylvania Railroad Company (PRR) together with other UNJRCC-owned lines. The UNJRCC main line ran between Newark, NJ, and Exchange Place, in Jersey City near the Hudson River. The Harsimus Branch connected with the UNJRCC main line at Waldo Avenue and continued over the Embankment into Harsimus Cove Yard on the Hudson River. PRR used the Harsimus Branch as part of that carrier?s main freight route between the Midwest and Harsimus Cove Yard.


As we noted in our August 2007 Decision, the Harsimus Cove Yard contained coal piers, warehouses, grain elevators, stockyards, and other facilities that were used to handle rail-marine traffic. The yard also had piers and float bridges to serve lighters and car floats to transfer cargo to vessels in the harbor and to piers and yards in Manhattan and Brooklyn and for through movement to other Northeast destinations. In addition, local shippers were served from trackage in Harsimus Cove Yard.

During the 1950?s and 1960?s rail service at Harsimus Cove Yard began to decline. PRR was subsequently merged into the Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central) on February 1, 1968.[3] Penn Central relocated much of the rail-marine traffic from Harsimus Cove Yard to Penn Central?s Greenville facility located several miles to the south, and by the 1970?s, parts of the yard were no longer used for rail service.

Penn Central declared bankruptcy in 1970, along with seven other railroads in the Northeast.[4] In response, Congress enacted the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-236, 87 Stat. 985 (1974) (3R Act). The 3R Act established the United States Railway Association (USRA) to prepare a plan for restructuring the railroads in reorganization into a financially viable, self-sustaining rail system that ultimately became Conrail.

USRA issued its Final System Plan (FSP) on July 26, 1975, describing ?rail properties? of the railroads in reorganization that would be conveyed to Conrail. Page 272 of the FSP listed UNJRCC properties to be transferred to Conrail. Included on the list was ?Line Code 1420,? described as the Harsimus Branch, running between milepost 1.0 in Jersey City and milepost 7.0 at Harrison, NJ. The FSP indicated that yards, spur tracks, and other ancillary facilities associated with the rail lines designated to be acquired by Conrail would be conveyed automatically unless the FSP provided otherwise. Page 262 of the FSP indicated that portions of the Harsimus Cove Yard were also transferred to Conrail.


The property constituting Line Code 1420 was conveyed to Conrail by deed from Fairfax Leary, Trustee of the property of the UNJRCC, dated March 31, 1976.[5] Exhibit A to the deed described the relevant property that was conveyed as follows:


Situate in the County of Hudson, State of New Jersey, and being The United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company?s line of railroad known as the Penn Central Harsimus Branch and being all the real estate property in the County lying in, under, above, along, contiguous to, adjacent to or connecting to such line.

Such line originates in the County at Harsimus Cove, passes through Journal Square, and terminates in the County near the junction with the Penn Central New York-Philadelphia Main Line, west of the New Jersey Turnpike Overhead Bridge.

The line of railroad described herein is identified as Line Code 1420 in the records of the United States Railway Association.

On April 1, 1976, Conrail began operating the rail system established in the FSP. It provided service to several shippers located on Hudson Street using the line identified as Line Code 1420, including the Embankment. According to the record, Conrail handled 3,204 cars for shippers on Hudson Street over a 1-year period ending in September 1984. Traffic declined to 637 cars in 1986. Conrail?s last customer served by the line of railroad constituting Line Code 1420 was gone by 1992.

In our August 2007 Decision, we determined that Conrail had acquired the Embankment as a line of railroad under Line Code 1420 of the FSP, and that, as such, the Embankment remained subject to Federal abandonment regulation. We also determined that the Embankment property sold to SLH remains part of the national rail system subject to the Board?s exclusive jurisdiction until appropriate abandonment authority is obtained.


On August 29, 2007, SLH filed a petition for reconsideration, asserting that the August 2007 Decision contains material error. Petitioners filed a joint reply on September 18, 2007.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Under 49 U.S.C. 722(c) and 49 CFR 1115.3(b), a petition for reconsideration will be granted only upon a showing that the prior action: (1) will be affected materially because of new evidence or changed circumstances or (2) involves material error. Here, SLH?s petition asserts that our August 2007 Decision contains material error. However, SLH has not shown material error.


Evidence issues. SLH asserts that the Board improperly relied in part on materials outside the record (ICC decisions and Internet sources) in deciding that the Embankment was a line of railroad. However, as explained in the August 2007 Decision, at 8-9, although Conrail and SLH had claimed that Line Code 1420 referred to the ?UNJRCC main line? and that the Harsimus Branch was ancillary track that was transferred along with the UNJRCC main line, neither Conrail nor SLH had presented evidence demonstrating where the ?UNJRCC main line? was located. Therefore, we properly considered the valuation maps[6]?which are a matter of public record maintained by the Board?and the Track Charts submitted by the parties in determining that the portion of the UNJRCC line that ran on ?Railroad Avenue? between Brunswick Street and Exchange Place had been marked as being ?sold,? prior to the enactment of the 3R Act, meaning that it was excluded from property conveyed to Conrail. We also took official notice of facts contained in relevant ICC decisions that confirm that what petitioners refer to as the UNJRCC main line could not have been the line of railroad transferred to Conrail in 1976 under Line Code 1420, because it had previously been abandoned pursuant to authority granted by the ICC and apparently was used by PRR only for passenger commuter service. See, e.g., United New Jersey R. & Canal Co. Abandonment, 312 I.C.C. 529 (1961) (UNJRCC Abandonment).


SLH argues that we should have provided a true copy of the relevant portions of the ICC?s published decision in UNJRCC Abandonment under 49 CFR 1114.5 and 49 CFR 1114.6. But those regulations apply to the use of official records and materials from other Board or ICC proceedings, not to Board or ICC decisions themselves. We may take official notice of this agency?s decisions and the facts contained in those decisions.

We cited the Internet sources in our August 2007 Decision to confirm that the line authorized for abandonment in UNJRCC Abandonment was indeed abandoned before it could have been transferred to Conrail. Those sources merely contain historical accounts showing that in the late 1960?s the City acquired the elevated structure that carried the UNJRCC line that ran between Brunswick Street and Exchange Place and dismantled it. One source is published by New Jersey City University as part of its Jersey City: Past and Present website.[7] The other source, which is part of a website containing historical and operating information about the New York City subway system, details the history of the passenger commuter service in Jersey City that had been provided by PRR and the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company, and now by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. (PATH).[8] And it corroborates the information contained in the New Jersey City University website.

In its petition for reconsideration, SLH does not dispute the accuracy of the materials we cited. That information is sufficiently reliable and probative for us to have considered these sources as part of our analysis of the status of the Embankment. These sources are easily obtainable, and their factual content regarding dismantling the line on which SLH relies as being the UNJRCC main line is readily verifiable.

SLH also questions our decision to include the internet citation for a portion of the valuation of UNJRCC-owned lines that was part of the ICC?s valuation of the PRR. However, because the ICC?s valuation reports, which were issued primarily in the 1920?s, are not widely available to the public, we cited to the internet version of the part of the ICC?s valuation report pertaining to UNJRCC simply as a convenience to the parties and the public. SLH has failed to demonstrate how that assistance constituted material error.


SLH also has raised competency objections to the Board?s reliance on a Verified Statement by Richard James and historic preservation materials that were submitted as Exhibits E and I to the Petition for Declaratory Order. But SLH did not object to these exhibits in its response to the Petition for Declaratory Order or any other filing it submitted to the Board prior to the issuance of the August 2007 Decision. And the information provided in these materials satisfies our admissibility requirements at 49 CFR 1114.1 and has enabled the Board, and subsequently the public, to better understand the physical description and history of the Embankment. Again, SLH has failed to demonstrate material error in our consideration of that evidence.


Location of Line Code 1420. Next, SLH asserts that the August 2007 Decision does not identify where Line Code 1420 is located, citing conflicting milepost numbers for the subject track. In support of its position that the Embankment was part of ancillary track that is excepted from entry and exit regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10906 (formerly 49 U.S.C. 10907(b)), SLH points out that there is no record of any abandonment proceeding involving the portion of Line Code 1420 that extends from milepost 1.0 at the Hudson River to milepost 1.3 near Luis Munoz Marin Boulevard and submits aerial maps showing that the segment between milepost 1.0 and milepost 1.3 has been developed with commercial buildings.[9]

However, our August 2007 Decision properly identified where Line Code 1420 is located: from milepost 1 at the Hudson River to milepost 7 near Harrison.[10] Thus, SLH has not shown that we materially erred in our determination that Line Code 1420 includes the Embankment trackage as a line of railroad.


Severance. SLH asserts that we did not consider whether the Embankment may have been lawfully severed from the national rail system by the abandonment of Conrail?s River Line in Conrail Abandonment of the Weehawken Branch?in Hudson County, NJ, STB Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 766N), et al. (STB served Jan. 17, 2002) (Conrail Abandonment). In their response, petitioners note that Conrail?s River Line connected to the Harsimus Branch at Waldo, but did not include any portion of the Harsimus Branch. Petitioners further point out that there is another active line of freight railroad that intersects with the Embankment portion of the line.


While not specifically addressed in our August 2007 Decision, we find that SLH has failed to show that the Embankment trackage has been lawfully severed from the national rail system. The Conrail Abandonment decision describes the River Line as extending from ?the connection to the Passaic and Harsimus Branch at Controller Point (CP) ?Waldo? in Jersey City (approximately MP 0.00) to the south side of Clifton Road in Weehawken (approximately MP 4.7), including the River Yard.? While the River Line connected with what Conrail now calls the Passaic and Harsimus Branch at Waldo, the abandonment of the River Line would not have severed the Passaic and Harsimus Branch from other lines connecting to the national rail system,[11] and, based on all of the valuation maps and Track Charts submitted, would not appear to have severed the Embankment trackage either, regardless of whether the trackage is considered part of the Passaic and Harsimus Branch.[12]


City?s position. SLH asserts that the City?s position that STB abandonment authority is required here is inconsistent with its active support for redeveloping the Harsimus Cove area for residential and commercial uses. But the issue of whether there is any inconsistency in the City?s positions is immaterial to whether the Embankment is a line of railroad subject to federal abandonment regulation. In any event, as petitioners point out in their response, local governments and planning agencies frequently ask railroads to participate in redevelopment or joint use projects with the understanding that the railroad will obtain appropriate authorization from the Board, if necessary. The Board has authorized a number of abandonment proposals that were submitted by rail carriers to facilitate redevelopment projects.[13] Support by a local government does not excuse the railroad from seeking abandonment authority prior to removal of a rail line from the national rail transportation system.


No legitimate purpose. SLH next argues that the Board should have refrained from declaring the Embankment to be a line of railroad when the property currently is not used for rail transportation purposes. However, as we noted in our August 2007 Decision, since 1976 Conrail has filed more than 1,100 abandonment proposals. Some of those proceedings have involved short segments of track that, like the Embankment, were no longer used for rail operations when abandonment authority was sought. Moreover, a line of railroad does not cease to be a line of railroad simply as a result of non-use. See The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company?Abandonment Exemption?In Lyon County, KS, Docket No. AB-52 (Sub-No. 71X) (ICC served June 17, 1991). In short, as we explained in our prior decision, Conrail acquired the Embankment as a line of railroad under Line Code 1420 of the FSP. Thus, the Embankment is subject to federal abandonment regulation, and the Embankment property sold to SLH remains part of the national rail system subject to the Board?s jurisdiction until abandonment authority is obtained and exercised.

Jurisdiction. Finally, SLH questions our jurisdiction to determine the status of Line Code 1420. It contends that the 3R Act authorized the Special Court, and later the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to interpret orders conveying properties of bankrupt carriers to Conrail, citing 45 U.S.C. 719(e)(2).


Petitioners have asked the Board to determine whether Conrail is obligated to obtain Board authority to abandon the Embankment trackage. That determination falls within the Board?s authority to administer Part A of Subtitle IV of Title 49 U.S.Code, including our exclusive authority over railroad abandonments in 49 U.S.C. 10903. In addition, the 3R Act expressly grants the Board authority over Conrail abandonments. 45 U.S.C. 744(g). And we have authority to issue declaratory orders to eliminate controversy or remove uncertainty. 5 U.S.C. 554(e); 49 U.S.C. 721. Thus, our determination to issue our August 2007 Decision regarding the status of the Embankment is an appropriate exercise of the Board?s authority.


In sum, SLH has not shown that our August 2007 Decision contained material error. Nor has SLH presented any other justification to warrant reconsideration of our prior decision. Accordingly, we will deny SLH?s petition for reconsideration.


This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.



It is ordered:



1. Petitioners? request to strike aerial photographs submitted by SLH is denied.



2. SLH?s petition for reconsideration is denied.



3. This decision is effective on its service date.



By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner Mulvey.

Vernon A. Williams

Secretary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Petitions for judicial review of the August 2007 Decision have been filed in 212 Marin, LLC et al. v. STB, No. 07-1397 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2007) and Conrail v. STB, No. 07-1401 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 4, 2007).

[2] SLH consists of 212 Marin Boulevard, L.L.C.; 247 Manila Avenue, L.L.C.; 280 Erie Street, L.L.C.; 317 Jersey Avenue, L.L.C.; 354 Coles Street, L.L.C.; 389 Monmouth Street, L.L.C.; 415 Brunswick Street, L.L.C.; and 446 Newark Avenue, L.L.C. By decision served January 24, 2006, SLH was granted leave to intervene in this proceeding.

[3] See Pennsylvania R. Co.?Merger?New York Central R. Co., 327 I.C.C. 475 (1966) (Penn Central Merger).

[4] The other bankrupt railroads were: The Reading Co., The Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company, Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Boston & Maine Corp., Ann Arbor Railroad Co., Lehigh & Hudson River Railroad Company, and Central of New Jersey Railroad Company. The Penn Central bankruptcy included the UNJRCC, as a lessor of Penn Central lines.

[5] The deed was submitted in Appendix XVI to petitioners? Opening Statement.

[6] The ICC had been required by the Valuation Act of 1913, Pub. L. No. 62-400, 37 Stat. 701, to establish the value of all property owned or used by railroads subject to its jurisdiction. The statute required each rail carrier to prepare maps to assist the ICC in valuing its property. See former 49 U.S.C. 10781 et seq. (1995). The valuation maps submitted in this proceeding were prepared after detailed surveys during 1915-1920 and were part of the ICC?s valuation of the PRR, including UNJRCC, that was published in Pennsylvania R. Co., 22 Val. Rep. 1 (1929).

[7] New Jersey City University, Jersey City Past and Present, Exchange Place, http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistor ... _pages/Exchange_Place.htm (last visited Nov. 20, 2007).

[8] New York City Subway Resources, Path/Hudson & Manhattan RR, http://www.nycsubway.org/nyc/path (last visited Nov. 20, 2007).

[9] The aerial photographs?obtained from Google.com?purportedly show the current area around the Embankment. Petitioners object to these photographs, contending that they are cumulative of a photo that they submitted as Exhibit B to their Petition for Declaratory Order. We will accept the photographs submitted by SLH in the interest of a more complete record.

[10] Regarding the segment between milepost 1.0 and milepost 1.3, petitioners point out that neither they nor anyone else have asked the Board to determine the status of that segment, and we have had no occasion to do so.

[11] As we noted in the August 2007 Decision, a Conrail Track Chart dated January 1982 showed the ?Passaic and Harsimus Branch? as running west from milepost 0 at Waldo to milepost 9 near Kearny.

[12] We note that SLH, in its reply filed April 24, 2006, at 4, primarily relied on the sale of the Waldo Avenue Yard to PATH in questioning whether the Embankment could effectively connect to the national rail system. Waldo Avenue Yard, however, is located south of the Harsimus Branch and its sale would not have severed the Embankment from the national rail system.

[13] See, e.g., The Kansas City Southern Railway Company?Abandonment Exemption in Jackson County, MO, STB Docket No. AB-103 (Sub-No. 17X) (STB served July 27, 2004); Union Pacific Railroad Company?Abandonment Exemption?in Merced County, CA, STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 179X) (STB served Sept. 7, 2001); Fox Valley & Western LTD?Abandonment Exemption?in Fond Du Lac and Washington Counties, WI, STB Docket No. AB‑402 (Sub-No. 7X) (STB served Jan. 31, 2000); and Norfolk and Western Railway Company?Abandonment Exemption?in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, OH, STB Docket No. AB‑-290 (Sub-No. 184X) (STB served May 13, 1998).

December 19, 2007
Dear Coalition Supporter,

It's been quite a year!

After a long wait, the Embankment Preservation Coalition and its co-petitioners (City of Jersey City, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and NJ Assemblyman Louis Manzo) won a favorable Surface Transportation Board ruling that the Harsimus Branch Embankment remains part of the national railway system. A number of federal- and state-mandated procedures must occur prior to rail line sale, none of which were undertaken before Conrail's sale to a private investor in 2005. But the story does not end here.

In late November, the investor presented a concept for development of the Embankment and nearby land. Aspects of the proposal at first appear attractive, for example, designation of 75% of the property as open space. Others are inconceivable, such as 1500 housing units in five towering buildings (projected 30 stories tall) on the historic Embankment site! But wait, there's more. The investor's alternate vision - which he is actively pursuing before the Historic Preservation Commission and in court - proposes full demolition of the Embankment.

After watching the demise of other historically designated Jersey City sites, we need you to help us keep the City on the right track. Together we can help the City fulfill a public vision for the Embankment. Member contributions have made a real difference by enabling the Coalition to hire an attorney who specializes in railroad law and who continues to counsel the Mayor, Council, and Coalition. Your donations also help fund public awareness campaigns, such as the familiar green signs that hang in windows all across town. Information and awareness are key tools in this fight.

We are a dedicated 501(c)3 group that operates on a shoestring budget. We have achieved much in the past nine years; however, the next nine months (if not nine weeks) will likely set the future for the Embankment. Please help "Make Our Park" by becoming a member of the Embankment Preservation Coalition with a monetary donation. You may send a check to Treasurer, Embankment Preservation Coalition, 263 Fifth St, Jersey City, NJ 07302 or use the Paypal button on the Coalition web site, www.embankment.org.

Be as generous as you can - you'll be preserving a slice of Jersey City's past while supporting an innovative green vision for the city's future.


Sincerely,
Christina Donnelly, Chair
Membership Committee
Embankment Preservation Coalition | 495 Monmouth Street | Jersey City | NJ | 07302


Information filed with the Attorney General concerning this charitable solicitation may be obtained from the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey by calling (973) 504-6215.

Registration does not imply endorsement