Quote:

But used for parking, right?

Quote:

It wasn't empty. It was used by PS3.

This is a lot on the corner of Varick and Bright? Is there anything there currently? I think we are all going to have to get used to the idea of empty spaces and parking lots being redeveloped.

It is a big deal as it is way past time for JC to give up its role as the patsy in every negotiation with RE developers. Developers have made out like bandits, while taxpaying JC residents are left with ballooning city debt, crumbling infrastructure and worsening quality of life.

Furthermore it is beyond insulting that PS 3 across the street is short on space and turning away taxpaying resident's children that live in the PS 3 zone. That lot should be annexed to the school.

So yes, kind of a big deal...

It is most certainly a big deal. We are talking about major construction taking place that is offering no aid towards an infrastructure that is already ill equipped to support the current DTJC population. These developers have to do more. This is a major issue with gentrifying neighborhoods all over the country and anyone who thinks it isn't a big deal is grossly uninformed and clearly doesn't realize the residents of DTJC are being taken advantage of. "Not a big deal" ??? Keep drinking the kool aid while the rich get richer.

I for one don't think this is a big deal!

Based on the article in the JC Reporter this past weekend, the project is still in the city's hands. SO go to your mayor and council people and find out what is up with this crazy proposal. Does you newly minted mayor believe this project should get a tax abatement. You don't even want it.

What is the normal zoning for the property? I cannot see how they called this area "blighted." Well, I can, because the city routinely calls an area blighted to circumvent zoning law. But c'mon now.

you can't oppose development because of no parking. JC needs to get away from requiring parking decks in buildings. The sewers? really? i agree we need to upgrade but we can't stop development because of it, nor will we.it would be nice to see something built on the lot.

This is another example of continuing issues at the JCRA. As I understand it, no unit density number was included in the redevelopment plan for that parcel and the lot was poorly advertised - one might entertain why. Steve Fulop would be well advised to keep reorganizing this agency in addition to replacing its head. The selected developer might also find out that the proposed density is not supported in zoning or planning.

According to an article in the Jersey City Reporter, there will be a public meeting about the development project on Tuesday, October 8th at 7:00 PM. The meeting will take place at the Brightside Tavern at 141 Bright St. (Bright & Monmouth)

they put new trailers in the lot for some reason..

Any updates?

Any updates on this?

Opposed to thoughtless inappropriate development. 87 units, no parking, across the street from PS 3 and MS 4, which already struggles with parking.

Flooding and sewers already a problem, and no infrastructure plan.

THis 2011 redevelopment plan is for the trailer lot that used to house the overflow from Conwell School. Desingated a blighted area, which whatever it was in 2011, certainly isn't now.

What exactly are our concerns here? I mean, are we opposed to this development?

Just received this information from the VVPA.

The information has also been uploaded to the Bright Street Facebook page and the Beautiful Jersey City facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bri ... up/543397449043306?ref=hl

https://www.facebook.com/BeautifulJerseyCity


Bright & Varick Redevelopment Plan
Important UPDATE 9.5.13


We have been trying to gather the background and status of this project for the past month. There are numerous issues and unfortunately it took longer than anticipated, for various reasons, to get the proper facts.

The VVPA wrote a letter to the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Department which highlights the outrageous zoning that was approved for this site and requests that the redevelopment plan be reopened for re-examination and discussion.

There were meetings with city planning officials and the subcommittee. Basically we were told that an application has already been filed (on Aug 16th) and therefore changes in the zoning could not be done.

The developer is willing to meet with the community, but is under no obligation to change anything significant. Some members of the subcommittee were able to see the application at the planning office.

We are being told that currently the project has 87 residential units with no parking and a restaurant. The project is not expected to be presented to the Planning Board until October or November.

Here is some of the information we have:

Sept 2011 : This lot was considered by the planning office and the city as blighted and in need of redevelopment. It was presented and approved by the planning board and city council with little if any public input.

Nov 2011: Planning Board and City Council approve Redevelopment Plan with increased zoning standards with little if any public input.

Sept 2012: Presentation made to the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency for high density Micro Unit Housing Project. Transcript of that meeting states the project will not be the recipient of any public funding, but will require a tax abatement.

Somewhere between then and now, the ownership of the property was transferred from the City of Jersey City to the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. As of Aug. 29th, this is still the case.

Aug 16, 2013 - Developer submitted plans to the Planning Office, however they were deemed incomplete.

Aug 30, 2013 - VVPA requests to reopen the redevelopment plan.

Some other things to note:

There is a similar lot, 28 Bright Street, which is also a redevelopment area and is being considered for increased density as well.

We have reached out to the school, PTA President and Principals of PS3 and MS4 to have them weigh in on the situation.

We have reached out to the Mayor and City Council to voice our concerns. So far the only thing offered was that the developer meet with the community to hear our concerns.

We have the letters and transcripts available if you would like to see them.

More action can be done by voicing your opinions to our local officials.


Steve Fulop: fulops@jcnj.org,


Diane Coleman (Ward F) dcoleman@jcnj.org

Rolando Lavarro (At large and Council President) rlavarro@jcnj.org

Danny Rivera (At Large) drivera@jcnj.org.

Candice Osborne (Ward E) candice@candiceosborne.com

Mayors Action Bureau http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/administration.aspx?id=1204


We can also start telling more neighbors of the potential issues with this development. We can also start petitions, flyers, etc...and if anyone knows a zoning attorney that would be helpful. There is power in numbers.

There are also opportunities for public comment at upcoming meetings in the city:

Council Meetings-Sept 11 & 19th (need to sign up first 201.547.5150)

Planning Board Meeting-Check www.cityofjerseycity.com for schedule

JCRA Meeting- Check www.thejcra.org for schedule and contact information

Come to our next VVPA meeting September 17th. We hope to have Council members Rolando Lavarro, Diane Coleman and Danny Rivera--both Rolando and Diane are on the JCRA Board. The developer for the site may present as well...will verify that soon.

VVPA




Please pass this around and let me know if there are other names to be added to the mail list.