Yvonne wrote:
Scroll down to the third page, you will see 3 separate ordinances with 3 different ordinances number. It is listed from 13.122, 13.23, and 13.24. It says to secures bonds or other obligations... http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... _Agenda/Agenda%20Document(17).pdf

Yvonne wrote:
The city is using the Redevelopment Agency to bond $30 million and the city council must approve. Which means taxpayers are responsible for the debt. Language from the ordinance "Whereas, the city further wishes to approve the execution and delivery of a pledge and assignment..." The city will say we will pay these bonds back through the abatement taxes. But no one can guarantee any developer will follow through.
I know of instances where taxpayers are on the hook to pay for development plans that went sour.

Yvonne wrote:
Taxpayers will be on the hook for 3 bond ordinances which will total $30 million for Journal Square 1, 11, 111. The ordinances are 13.122, 13.123, 13.124. So in addition to the 35 year abatements, the developer gets a bonus from taxpayers.

JPhurst wrote:
Which is, again, why I am skeptical of these "community benefit agreements" in tax abatements.

On it's face, it makes sense. The Loews is in proximity to the development, and the city wants to develop a signature entertainment venue to go along with the signature development in Journal Square.

But this can get into picking and choosing favorite non-profits. There was a period where Council President Vega was requiring contributions to the Jersey City Museum every time a developer wanted a tax break. Maybe next time it will be the animal shelter, or the Liberty Science Center, or whatever non-profit/community group is in favor with the negotiators at the time.

I'm not categorically against such contributions as part of the agreement, but it strikes me that the best thing to do is to try to negotiate the best financial package for the city, combined with appropriate affordable housing set asides (preferably on the site itself).

Having said that, I am glad FOTL will be getting funds to renovate the theater.

bill wrote:
When taking the ferry became a commute option I did not hesitate to switch. Sure, its 3x as much, but my morning and afternoon quality of life has increased exponentially.

1) Closer to my office!
2) Ferry arrival/departure can be predicted
3) No stress about fitting onto vessel
4) Other people not in my personal space
5) No panhandlers
6) I can sit if I want
7) Orderly boarding/disembarking vs Path free for all
8) Like minded pleasant voyagers, some even smile
9) Don't feel like a migrant laborer
10) Far fewer odors
11) Better looking women than Newark-WTC path line

Stringer wrote:
Jersey City delays introduction of ordinances for $600 million Journal Square development project

By Michaelangelo Conte/The Jersey Journal
October 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Jersey City has delayed introduction of ordinances which would create a 35-year tax abatement and issue a $10 million bond for infrastructure improvements in the area of a proposed $600 million, three-tower residential project that will transform Journal Square.

Tonight the council did adopt an ordinance the city says will revamp and streamline the way it works with filmmakers, making it a "premier destination" for New Jersey film productions and bringing tens of millions of dollars in revenue to local businesses.

?There has been some delay to finalize the ordinance to ensure it was fully prepared for the Local Finance Board,? Jersey City Corporate Council Jeremy Farrell told council members tonight of the three ordinances related the development project which were to have their first reading at tonight?s council meeting.

Farrell said Mayor Steven Fulop?s administration also wants to first ?meet with the Friends of the Loew?s Theatre because the ordinance includes a $2.5 million contribution to the (Landmark) Loew?s (Jersey Theatre) which will be held in trust and we are committed to assuring Loew?s management that it will be a first-class place, a world class place.?

The ordinances related to the development are now to be introduced at a special meeting to be held on Oct. 31 at 9 a.m. in the city council chambers on Grove Street.
The deal is the first market-rate project since Fulop implemented a new policy regarding the tax breaks he says will encourage development in areas outside the already lucrative waterfront.

Construction of the $240 million first tower, which will rise 54 stories and include 540 rental units and ground floor retail space is expected to take two years to complete. Farrell assured council members that the project will remain on track for a December groundbreaking.

The project is slated for a 2.5-acre lot at the northwest corner of Summit and Magnolia avenues. The developer has pledged to make improvements to the sewer lines and sidewalks, as well as creating and maintaining a new public plaza on the eastern side of the Journal Square PATH station. The developer has received $33 million in state tax credits for the first tower.

In addition, the developer will give $2.8 million to build affordable housing in the city. The $10 million in bonds will be issued by the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, but city officials say the developer will be tasked with paying them back.

Former Jersey City mayoral candidate Abul Malik, Hudson County Journalist Pat O'Melia and a city photographer all expressed concerns that the film production ordinance might have the unintended effect of impacting the work of journalists, independent photographers, and amateur or small scale film and videographers.

?I have to apply 14 days ahead of time if I want to use three cameras? Come on,? O?Melia told council members, adding that he feared police might use the law in a way that would hinder journalism. ?They say the devil?s in the details - there a lot of devils in here. I?m not even sure if this applies indoors or outdoors. There?s a lot of holes in this.?

O?Melia and Malik asked that the filming ordinance be tabled for further consideration, but the council adopted it unanimously tonight, saying it would have no impact on the areas of concern raised and pertains only to large-scale productions.

Councilman Richard Boggiano suggested that those worried by the ordinance should sit down with a Fulop aide and discuss it. He and Councilman Michael Yun said the ordinance should be amended if there is a danger of unintended consequences.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... project.html#incart_river

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
In two years you won't be able to get on a 33rd Street bound train at Pavonia Newport at rush hour. That's a promise.

based on what? show your numbers.

Vigilante wrote:
In two years you won't be able to get on a 33rd Street bound train at Pavonia Newport at rush hour. That's a promise.

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's really not that crowded guys. At least when looking at it in perspective, ie comparing to other local subway lines during rush hour.

My main beef is the sparse service on weekends and after 10pm.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

People here claim they want JC to succeed but are arguing for policies that make us more like Newark and less like Hoboken.

Just think about it...sheesh.

Yeah, I can't stand those people who clamor for Whole Foods either.

Yvonne wrote:
You don't receive a colonoscopy or give birth five days out of seven. If you work straight for 20, 30, or 40 years and take the PATH to NYC, five of the seven days then a colonoscopy or giving birth is a snap.