fraulein wrote:
Tern: It depends on if you are for demolishing or not. If not, it's a good thing...for now, until the hearings/debate over the Certificate of Appropriateness.


Corybraiterman: Deciphering through your post (sorry, I was distracted by 'point of you' instead of, what I assumed you meant, 'point of view').... you seem to project a future for the Embankment that's based on utopia and not reality, as if Hyman is a philanthropist and not a developer... And JC is a fair and balanced city...

If you review any of the posts here on taxes, developers, abatements (the list goes on...) you will see that your points are refuted by the 'simple thing' that JC government is corrupt: pure and simple. To think that Hyman will create a highline park... or that he will be taxed appropriately... or that the high rises will be zoned appropriately... gives a bit too much credit to our City, who looks for any opportunity to have a greased pocket.


One can only hope that the Board does the right thing with the next step, Certificate of Appropriateness.

HamiltonParker wrote:
We were at the hearings last night - can't beat them for real life drama. Hyman's lawyer repeatedly stated that the city had never put forth an offer to purchase the Embankment.

I'm confused, then, regarding the $7million bond that was presented by the JC Council back in June. Can anyone clarify?

gt2220 wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Option 2: get rid of it. Small townhouses, 3-4 story buildings for apartments or condos, brownstones, ground-level park - these are all workable options that don't cost the city money and in at least a few of those cases, give the city taxable assets. Hell, have a ground-level parking lot on one block so us locals that have cars can get easier parking in the neighborhood.

There are a lot of churches in this part of town sitting on very valuable land that pay no property taxes, do we tear them down too in order to build taxable properties? I don't attend church, why should my property taxes support that? Now, I don't really mean that but the point is you shouldn't destroy a historic part of downtown that carries meaning to many, many people with the argument it's not taxable land - if you have a problem with taxes demand the city revoke abatements along the waterfront, that's where the real tax deficit comes into play. There are plenty of culprits contributing to the deficit Jersey City is currently in, making the Embankment a scapegoat for that is beyond ridiculous.

The naivete of some on this board astounds me - you think Hyman is spending all this money fighting the city to put in a few small townhouses with some public greenspace scattered about? If the city grants him an economic hardship (because after all, can you think of one person in all of Jersey City who has suffered more financially than Steve Hyman?) he's tearing the Embankment down and it will either sit vacant for years until the market turns around or large condo high-rises are going up.

That's just one of MANY plans (more than 6 years old) Hyman's architect has come up with over the years. It seems their 'visions' for the embankment parcel is whatever they feel will get them the rights to 'develop' at that time. Remember this one (sorry for the poor scan, it ran in Jersey Journal a few years ago):

See those white things on top of those dark gray things... yeah, 30 story towers.

JerseyCityKid08 wrote:
http://www.dmarchitect.com/

The renderings can be found on this site. This looks like a major improvement.

JerseyCityKid08 wrote:
The planned development for the embankment looks nice. Of course plans never materialize, but seriously the city will never be able to transform this into a park and the state will never fund another useless light rail extension.

ogden1 wrote:
Amen to that.
I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe someone will build 2 family homes on this Property.

corybraiterman wrote:
Option 2: get rid of it. Small townhouses, 3-4 story buildings for apartments or condos, brownstones, ground-level park - these are all workable options that don't cost the city money and in at least a few of those cases, give the city taxable assets. Hell, have a ground-level parking lot on one block so us locals that have cars can get easier parking in the neighborhood.

spider wrote:
Quote:

gt2220 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

And that, in a nutshell, is the main problem with the state of our city at this point in time. Crime is obviously a key issue, but the city's current infrastructure is an even more important issue. The administration has allowed (and fostered) the speedy development of the waterfront and other areas of the city, but we are not keeping up with the growth, and the impact can be seen everywhere. Our roads are in very poor condition, the PATH is usually stuffed during the rush hour commuting hours, countless water mains are breaking all over the place, the police force (as a ratio of beat officers to citizens) is getting smaller and smaller... If we continue down this path, the city will collapse under its own weight. And, what a shame... a more balanced approach to growth could, and should, yield better results for everyone. Instead, we are all getting the shaft by the effects of poor planning to maintain and grow the city's infrastructure.

This is exactly it - if you remove a huge watershed like the Embankment and replace with 1500 condo units that are now hooking into the decrepit sewer lines, that water has to go somewhere. And that somewhere is probably resident basements, once again. It's easy to be in favor of this when you don't lives anywhere near an area where the ramifications would be felt.

Yes the water has to go somewhere, that's why the civil engineers hired by the developer are required by law to design something to manage the stormwater, such as an underground detention basin. Your basement might flood but it will not flood because they put condos where the embankment is.

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:

Tear it down, build historically correct town homes, and let them be taxed.

icechute wrote:
Quote:

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
It's also dangerous. ....folks are still getting mugged around there. And its a graffiti magnet. Sketchy at night.

Based on that criteria, you would then have half of Jersey city torn down.

Save that argument for where it's appropriate (i.e. Montgomery Towers).

gt2220 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

And that, in a nutshell, is the main problem with the state of our city at this point in time. Crime is obviously a key issue, but the city's current infrastructure is an even more important issue. The administration has allowed (and fostered) the speedy development of the waterfront and other areas of the city, but we are not keeping up with the growth, and the impact can be seen everywhere. Our roads are in very poor condition, the PATH is usually stuffed during the rush hour commuting hours, countless water mains are breaking all over the place, the police force (as a ratio of beat officers to citizens) is getting smaller and smaller... If we continue down this path, the city will collapse under its own weight. And, what a shame... a more balanced approach to growth could, and should, yield better results for everyone. Instead, we are all getting the shaft by the effects of poor planning to maintain and grow the city's infrastructure.

This is exactly it - if you remove a huge watershed like the Embankment and replace with 1500 condo units that are now hooking into the decrepit sewer lines, that water has to go somewhere. And that somewhere is probably resident basements, once again. It's easy to be in favor of this when you don't lives anywhere near an area where the ramifications would be felt.

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
It's also dangerous. ....folks are still getting mugged around there. And its a graffiti magnet. Sketchy at night.