Those of us in McGinley Square are already linked to the PATH - just walk to Journal Square. It doesn't take long.

As for the idea of a trolley running the length of Montgomery, I like it. There are buses that do part of that route, but the Newport Mall and West Side buses have cut their schedule.

Too bad the light rail doesn't run along a good part of Montgomery so that those in McGinley Square could be linked into the PATH...but its not a huge walk either

This plan is huge for this area of the city! This neighborhood has plenty of potential. New developments over the past decade have already begun to improve the area. Along with the college and some of most beauitful pre-war buildings in Jersey City. I would love to see a trolley run the entire length of Montgomery Street. From West Side Ave to the River.

Jersey City officials meet with neighbors to address displacement concerns on McGinley Square project

Published: Tuesday, September 20, 2011, 3:00 AM
By Kate Kowsh/The Jersey Journal

Continuing an effort to reassure McGinley Square residents that they won?t be displaced due to a redevelopment plan for their neighborhood, Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy and others participated in a community meeting last night.

?From the first introduction of this (McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan) to the city by the developer, by Saint Peter?s College, we didn?t want anyone being displaced, whether that be a resident or a business,? Healy said to somey 20 people at St. Paul?s Episcopal Church on Duncan Avenue. ?I just wanted to make that clear to everybody.?

Proposed earlier this year, the plan calls for market-rate and workforce housing, ground-floor commercial, retail space and restaurants, and will permit larger entertainment uses such as theaters and bowling alleys. It also calls for new dormitory rooms for Saint Peter?s College.

Fifty-two property owners in the neighborhood were informed in July that the community had been designated ?an area in need of redevelopment,? a classification that gives the city the right to take properties through eminent domain. But after a public outcry, city officials decided to designate the neighborhood an ?area in need of rehabilitation,? which all but nixes the ability to invoke eminent domain.

?I like the general concept, but Jersey City has a history...of rolling over and giving away rights which we hold in common as residents and citizens of the city, for, in essence, not a lot in exchange,? said Paul Bellan-Boyer, a McGinley Square resident, said at last night?s meeting, which was sponsored by Bergen Communities United and the West Bergen/Lincoln Park Neighborhood Coalition.

The plan is slated to go before the City Council next Tuesday.

I'm very excited at the prospect of McGinley Square East getting redeveloped and experiencing captial improvements.
There's no specific notation on here of what blocks are involved, but much of Monticello Ave is abandoned storefronts. Vital business and services are much needed. I don't care if it's more chinese food and another nail salon, it'll be better than empty storefronts. With luck the original plan including stores, restaurants, a theater, a club, etc may even be seen to fruition!

McGinley Square East plan stalls
City to reconsider controversial redevelopment

by E. Assata Wright
Hudson Reporter staff writer

McGinley Square property owners protested the redevelopment plan last week at the City Council meeting.

The city is asking for a do-over on the McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan, which has caused controversy over the last month and has led to fears about the potential use of eminent domain.

Late Wednesday, Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy pulled a controversial ordinance and resolution concerning the redevelopment plan from the Aug. 10 City Council meeting agenda amid lingering questions about the developer attached to the plan and resistance from property owners.

_____________

Flocco?s involvement in the redevelopment plan ? which has been unexplained until now ? began with St. Peter?s College.

____________

The agenda had included a resolution that, if approved, would have recognized McGinley Square East as an area in need of redevelopment and rehabilitation. The agenda had also included the first reading of an ordinance adopting the McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan, which was drafted by the Division of City Planning.

Residential and commercial property owners in the McGinley Square community fear that language in both the ordinance and resolution could open the door to their property being seized by the city. Over the past month they have organized a citywide campaign against the use of eminent domain, which is the power of government to condemn private property and pay fair market value for its use in the public interest.

Property owners first became concerned about the prospect of eminent domain several weeks ago after dozens of them received letters from the Jersey City Department of Housing, Economic Development & Commerce Division.

The letters read, in part: ?The Jersey City Division of City Planning has completed a study of the McGinley Square East Study Area, which includes property you own?This will designate your property as subject to taking by eminent domain for redevelopment purposes and will authorize the City of Jersey City and/or the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency to acquire ownership by purchase of the property referenced above by condemnation.?

This means the city can seize the property against the owners? will, even though they would be compensated.

Genesis of the plan

The McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan calls for the redevelopment of a roughly three-block area that will eventually include a combination of new housing and commercial space. Specifically, it calls for market-rate and workforce housing, offices, new retail, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and theaters, in addition to museums and art galleries. The plan also includes new parking to accommodate the expected increase in population and commercial traffic.

There are approximately 52 properties that are tentatively affected by the redevelopment plan. In recent weeks Gary Flocco, managing director of the development firm Corvus, from White Plains, N.Y., has been approaching property owners in the area to see if they are willing to sell.

Flocco?s involvement in the redevelopment plan ? which has been unexplained until now ? began with a project at St. Peter?s College, Corvus?s first work in Jersey City.

According to Robert Antonicello, executive director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, St. Peter?s hired Corvus, whose previous projects have mostly been in New York, to do some work on its student center and a parking lot the school owns across the street from the Jersey City National Guard Armory. Two owners of commercial properties on Mercer Street approached Flocco and voluntarily sold their lots to the developer as well.

The school, at 2641 Kennedy Blvd., wants to expand its campus. But space is limited because there is a cemetery to the west, and the Hudson County Occupational Center to the east.

Flocco, Antonicello said, ?was tasked with finding a relocation option for the Occupational Center so the college can expand as close to Bergen Avenue as possible.?

Working with St. Peter?s, Flocco began exploring ways to grow the campus. As a part of this process, Flocco purchased a parking lot from the Parking Authority located across the street from the St. Peter?s lot.

In the meantime, the city had a redevelopment plan for the Journal Square area that stopped at Academy Street. At the same time, businesses in McGinley Square argued that they were in need of some economic renewal for their district.

Flocco began meeting with the city, and soon a vision for the area began to take shape.

?We really feel McGinley Square is a natural extension of Journal Square,? said Antonicello. ?There was some private investment coming in [to McGinley Square], but everybody was struggling?We wanted to see if there was a way that we could energize both St. Peter?s and McGinley Square. We wanted to help the college grow and help McGinley Square grow and stabilize. [Flocco then] does what most developers do. He says, ?Well, I?ve got this site. I?ve got that site. I?m here, I?m investing. I?m going to put a plan in place for my properties. Maybe I could put a much broader plan in place?.?

This is essentially how St. Peters? chosen developer became attached to a city redevelopment plan.

Antonicello said Mayor Jerramiah Healy stated explicitly that he did not want whatever plan was drafted to include eminent domain.

The Division of City Planning eventually did a study of McGinley Square and drafted the McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan, a plan that seems to mesh with several key elements of Flocco?s vision for the area.

Designated developer

While some residents may find it troubling that Corvus has apparently been tapped for a major city redevelopment plan without a public bidding process, Antonicello said that being selected as a ?designated developer? comes with many strings attached that most developers would not want.

?The city is giving a large entitlement to develop a property above and beyond what the normal zoning would give them. So, what do you want to come out of that? You want that [developer] to then enter into a performance contract. That means he is held responsible for a time schedule, he?s going to be under the gun.?

The city, Antonicello said, currently has 84 redevelopment plans in place, only three of which have a designated develop attached to them.

Square One

Residents and Ward F City Councilwoman Viola Richardson, who represents McGinley Square, have been critical of the process that led to the McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan. They argue that while Flocco and city planners were developing their vision for the neighborhood, the community was excluded.

At a meeting for property owners held last month Robert Cotter, director of the Division of City Planning, admitted that mistakes were made and said this had been ?a learning process.?

Antonicello agreed, stating, ?I don?t think we did a very good job of explaining that draconian letter that went out? At the end of the day, it?s not about redevelopment, it?s really about how do we renew McGinley Square? What good is renewing McGinley Square if you?re leaving out residents who have been property owners in good times and bad? We need to take a step back. We need to give residents as many assurances as possible that there will be no takings.?

The city now seems prepared to revisit some of its previous decisions regarding the McGinley Square East Plan.

It remains to be seen how much of the current plan will be reshaped by community input ? and how long Flocco is willing to wait for the city to approve a revised plan for the area.

?This is a project that I like in many respects,? McGinley Square resident Paul Bellan-Boyer told the City Council Wednesday night. ?What I would like you to consider when the redevelopment plan comes back for a vote, is the process. A good process tends to give us a good result. When the development process starts with the threat of eminent domain, when the development process starts with the city planning department working with a single developer ? working together to craft a vision which is in many ways against the interests [of the community], you wind up with distrust?There are ways we can do development that respects the people who are there.?


Read more: Hudson Reporter - McGinley Square East plan stalls City to reconsider controversial redevelopment

Good point about the Armory, it gets very little attention, but it's an amazing building with the potential to be a cornerstone of the neighborhood.

Quote:

Please sign the petition:


http://www.petitiononline.com/noed1/petition.html

like most JC redevelopment plans, this seems like an attempt to increase population/density inorder to create demand for and in turn create more retail and sevices in the area. what it seems to lack is a vision as why we would see increased population growth in this area.

any redevelopment plan should assess the area and build on its strengths (as this does referring to bus services), however, the Armory and its potential as a destination gets scant mention while having the potential to drive this area's redevelopment. keep in mind - do we need more subsidized (tax abated) market rate housing or do we need living wage jobs? something this plan (like most) is missing?

to learn more about the potential of the Armory, read about the Armory Track and Field Center at the 168th St. Armory in NYC - http://ny.milesplit.com/pages/about-us

Homeowners in Jersey City's McGinley Square area skeptical of city's redevelopment plan

Published: Saturday, July 23, 2011, 3:00 AM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City may have decided against using eminent domain to seize properties in the McGinley Square redevelopment plan, but property owners still appear jittery about the square?s planned makeover.

City officials speaking Thursday to a group of about 120 residents and laborers who gathered at City Hall to offer opinions on the redevelopment plan stressed early on the city no longer plans to use eminent domain as part of the proposal.

Still, residents peppered officials with questions about the possible land grab, and whether the city could utilize it in the future. Officials confirmed they could, with the City Council?s approval, and that?s behind the community?s anxiety, residents said.

The redevelopment plan, set to receive approval from the Planning Board and the City Council in August, calls for ground-floor commercial, retail and restaurants, and will permit larger entertainment uses such as theaters or a bowling alley.

Assunta Folcarelli of Mercer Street told Cotter to cancel the plan altogether, and questioned the city?s decision to label many of the properties in McGinley Square as in ?fair? or ?poor? condition.

?My area is a very good area, and I don?t know what you?re talking about,? said Folcarelli, 51. ?You should stop this whole thing right now because we don?t want it.?

Folcarelli was one of 52 McGinley Square property owners who received a letter earlier this month notifying them that the city might use eminent domain to seize their properties by force as the redevelopment progresses.

After an outcry, City Planner Bob Cotter said at a community meeting on Sunday that the eminent domain plan is on the back burner.

Gary Flocco, the developer behind the plan, said he will use his ?best efforts? to get equitable prices for homeowners who wish to sell. Referring to home ownership as ?the American dream,? Flocco said he will not offer bargain-basement prices to get people to move.

?I?m trying to come up to a price that would give people the equity they have to restore the American dream back to them,? he said.

Quote:

In this case, like in any other case, - the developer doesn't want to pay market price, - so they force the owners out. Essentially, robbing them.


Quote:

Yes, exactly, current owners want to get the true value for their property, - the one that includes not just the price they paid, but all future benefits.

Same as when you sell anything that may generate future income, - business, stocks, bonds, land, - your want a price that compensates you for the loss of that future income!

And the developer wants to take all that future income and benefits for themselves, - without paying for it.

So, "eminent domain" and corrupt politicians to the rescue of the poor, helpless developer!

And you say, - "it couldn't be avoided". Yeah, right, damn homeowner was not going to give up his property for a bargain price!!! Ay-ay-ay, those greedy owners...

Say thanks to all the judges who voted in Kelo.

Quote:

Well then the developers can either wait or make do with the property they can buy. If there is a real demand for this area to redevelop it will do it without the government's help.

Somehow cities have managed to survive and rebuild themselves for a longtime without the government forcing one private party to subsidize the profits of a second by giving them land at less than they would otherwise have to.

I'm generally against eminent domain if it can be avoided.

However, in this case, we're talking about a neighborhood that can reasonably be expected to gentrify eventually, although it might take 20-30 years to happen. It makes sense for property owners to want to hold out so they can sell on the tail end of the gentrification, and I have a feeling that these developers won't be offering what some of the owners think they might eventually get.

The developer's plans include a movie theatre, Applebee's and places where people can buy "nice shoes" as the director of the Planning Board stated at a community meeting. There will also be a St. Peter's dormitory and residential units that can be bought by the public (like the city needs more condos). It is a joint project between a private developer and a private school. St. Peter's wants to attract and house more student dollars and the developer will be able to sell retail and office space in a prospering college town. They both make LOTS OF MONEY. But if they want the property, shouldn't they have to negotiate to buy it directly from the owner? When did the city become a real estate broker?

Everyone wants to see the area look better. Some properties in the area were neglected and should be condemned. But using eminent domain against the property owners who maintained their property to allow the developer to buy all of the properties it wants for a fraction of the true market value is not right. Defending your property against eminent domain is time-consuming and expensive ($50,000-$100,000 easy). No landowner wants to go through this.

With eminent domain, there is no such thing private property anymore. You're just waiting for the government or a developer to take it from you for a fraction of its worth. Property owners have to stick together and demand that the city council does not allow eminent domain!

Remember the Golden Cicada? The adjacent Catholic school had a football field that was just under regulation size, so they claimed eminent domain and wanted to take that guys bar away from him. Not to build a new football field, they already had one there, they just wanted one a little bit bigger. Can you imagine? and somewhere at city hall there were elected officials happy to try to make it happen. Thank goodness they failed, but the fact that they even tried is sickening.

You are phenomenal people.

It used to be that the Government was allowed to take man's property only out of necessity for a government function, - and the Constitution says so.

Now, it is just "hey, look at this nice fat piece of property! We want it! We take it!"

And the whole lot of explaining how we are not doing it out of greed. Oh, no, not greed. It is just that we need it more.

Disgusting.

Its a tough situation to consider. While there are several well maintained owner occupied houses in the "redevelopment zone" most are poorly maintained buildings full of rentals. While it is certainly not fair to the owner/residents of these better maintained properties, it would definitely be a big improvement for the neighborhood. This area is severely lacking in dining and entertainment, and St. Peter's is the only positive thing spurring development around here. I also find it laughable that someone would say there is no trash on the street in this neighborhood, its filthy, and that is thanks to many of the residents of the ramshackle multi unit buildings, some of which have been targeted for the redevelopment.

Quote:
That would be a ripple effect in the right direction. Absente landlords are a blight to the neighborhood to begin with. Sometimes tenants don't care nor have the incentive to either. That area has a seedy look to it already be glad that the state has a law to implement such improvements. As far as a fair market value is concerned if the landlords really cared then they would have invested into their property by now, if not then they shouldn't be in the home owner business. Last but not least when you are a tenant you have to expect these consequences along the way.

Speculation: most of the housing stock around McGinley square is in bad shape and is controlled by slumlords who do the bare minimum in terms of upkeep. The retail and dining situation is pretty bad there too.

St. Peter's wants to expand, but for these reasons, the area is very unattractive to potential students. My guess is that St. Peter's would love to create more of a 'college neighborhood' feel in the medium to long term, and this is a big step. I support them in this, and at the same time, I hope that the existing residents get fair deals on their property.


Quote:

It looks like, for now, the properties are off the chopping block...

JERSEY JOURNAL

Sunday, July 17, 2011, 4:19 PM

Anxious Jersey City homeowners told their properties are being taken off eminent domain list


At a meeting at City Hall this afternoon, some 53 property owners in the McGinley Square area of Jersey City were told that their properties are coming off an eminent domain list.

The properties were placed on the list as part of the McGinley Square Redevelopment Plan, an city initiative that encompasses about four blocks, bordered roughly by Bergen Avenue on the west, Jordan Avenue on the East, Mercer Street to the north, and Storms Avenue to the south.

The plan is to create ground-floor commercial, retail, and restaurants in the area, and permit uses such as theaters and bowling alleys.

But many of the local homeowners were shocked when they received letters from the city earlier this month saying their homes might be seized by the city to bring about the makeover.

Today, many were relieved to find out their homes had been removed from the eminent domain list and the developer -- New York-based Corvus -- would have to negotiate with them individually to buy their properties.

"We don't have a problem with development itself, but we don't want to be threatened with eminent domain," said Donna Dequina, who owns a three-story building on Tuers Avenue.

Planning Director Robert Cotter ran today's meeting.

"I'm happy with the outcome (of the meeting)," said Ward E Councilman Steven Fulop, who represents some of the area. "It looks like they are going forward without a list of properties."



http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... rsey_city_homeowners.html

while this change - changes the city's stated intent, by being in the redevelopment area (and design of the plan) eminent domain remains an option or possibility.

a plain language document explaining the redevelopment process and what powers a redevelopment plan has under state law looks to be sorely needed for the public to understand better.

Quote:

From the Hudson Reporter:
Quote:

Does anyone have a link to the plan online? The idea that someone's home could be demolished for an essential use such as a bowling alley (who comes up with this?) is terrifying.

JC is full of abandoned lots and 1/4 used parking lots. There is simply no excuse for eminent domain in an area that has so many spots in need of redevelopment that don't need to be taken by the government.

Quote:

Agreed.

There should be a provision somewhere that forces vacant lots over a half acre to be temporarily turned into open green space until construction begins.

Same thing at 111 First Street.

The owner/developer should be responsible for the costs to maintain the space. Watch how quickly construction starts.

BACK TO TOPIC: What "specific" role does St. Peter's College have in all of this?

Call me crazy, but isnt there a huge vacant lot at Journal Square that needs the attention of developers? Maybe City Hall could get the ball rolling on that eyesore, instead of abandoning it as they have. No homes would need to be bulldozed.

Property owners in McGinley Square fear eminent domain threat

Monday, July 18, 2011
By Terrence T. McDonald
The Jersey Journal

More than 50 property owners were stunned to learn earlier this month that the city plans to seize their properties via eminent domain in its efforts to redevelop portions of McGinley Square.

Some of the property owners, more than a dozen of whom have properties the city classifies as in ?good? condition, are livid that they may lose their homes to pave the way for newer homes and restaurants, and possibly a bowling alley.

City officials say eminent domain is only option they can utilize to give McGinley Square a makeover, and they are ?reluctant? to use it. But the option remains, and residents in the area who spoke to The Jersey Journal said they are scared they?ll be kicked out of their homes.

?Nobody wants to sell,? said Claudia Collazo, who lives on Storms Avenue with her husband and two children. ?It?s not good.?

Donna I. Cabell, president of a Mercer Street community group, said the letter ?scared the hell? out of residents young and old. The neighborhood is fine without any planned redevelopment, she said.

?The people around here have pride in their property,? Cabell said. ?It?s clean. There?s no garbage in front of their houses . . . It?s very nice here.?

A meeting to inform residents of the city?s plans was held on Thursday. Collazo said city officials had little information to share.

?All the questions that we asked, they didn?t know,? she said.

The McGinley Square Redevelopment Plan, scheduled to go before the Planning Board on Aug. 9, may include ground-floor commercial, retail and restaurants, and will permit larger entertainment uses such as theaters and bowling alleys, according to city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill.

?This administration does not favor eminent domain and is reluctant to use it, but is required by law to advise the public of the potential use whenever seeking to designate an area in need of redevelopment,? Morrill said in an e-mail.
A community meeting to discuss the redevelopment plan is scheduled tomorrow at 1 p.m. at City Hall, 280 Grove St.

The council is scheduled to vote on the redevelopment plan at its Aug. 10 meeting, with a final vote scheduled for Aug. 31.

St. Peter's has been expanding as of late... (click links) http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _college_launches_62.html http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... church_in_jersey_cit.html
View Larger Map

This is currently in the council's hands. They can vote yes, no or even instruct the planning division to revise the plan before voting on it. Call EVERY council member and tell them you do not support condemning perfectly good homes. Tell them that you do not support Resolution #11-455.

I have started a Facebook page on this for Jersey City residents that wish to support this. http://www.facebook.com/groups/235954 ... #!/groups/235954699758824

"We Do Not Approve of The Use of Eminent Domain In McGinley Square"

Dan,
This is very scary. A lot of us live in areas with redevelopment plans. Have we no rights to our property?

What can we do to help the property owners in McGinley Square, and to ensure theat either this system is changed or modified to protect individual property owners rights?

Will our council members be of help?