Quote:

Lawsuit is a viable option, but not convinced. It sounds like from lessons learned VVPA may/will lose. Of course laywers will say ?DEFINITELY sounds like you have a case. They and their firm get paid regardless if you win or lose. And if the City gets involved in litigation- not just from VVPA but also from the developer- guess who pays? That is correct- ultimately the taxpayers!

I am skeptical about a lawsuit but am happy to be proven wrong. I lent my name, and gave some cash, to PADNA for their lawsuit to fight the city's granting Toll Brothers the right to circumvent the PAD redevelopment plan and allow them to write their own ticket. The lawyers we consulted with and hired all said "Oh sure, they can't do this, you have a great case" and of course we lost every step of the way. I don't regret helping out the PAD's cause but I do question some people's assessment of the merits of a lawsuit here. Especially when "we have a great case" is not backed up by any legal authority other than "No, really, we have a great case."

Again, not my area of law, and I would be happy to be proven wrong. Allowing planning department staff to willy nilly declare areas blighted and then write up a redevelopment plan for a single lot is wrong. But based on my experience the city has a lot of leeway to do such things.

If I have to eat my crow, I will gladly do so with some Worcestershire sauce.

The meeting in City Council chambers, called at the last minute and held at an inconvenient time for many, was nevertheless packed with concerned residents. Unfortunately, it was also a waste of time. After Fulop whined about his feelings being hurt by criticism, he offered nothing but half truths and blather.

His three "solutions" were that the developer might be willing to reduce the density from 87 units to 71, a density still far too high. They also suggested that development residents would not be allowed to buy parking permits, which is an improvement over nothing but still a band-aide on a gaping wound.

His other suggestion was a vague proposal to use available funding to turn the project into affordable housing. Various numbers regarding the number of resulting units from 20- 40 were mentioned. Whether or not this is an actual proposal or just more blown smoke and an attempt to run out the clock is unclear.

Bizarrely, Fulop listed as a third option that community groups could file a lawsuit against the city to stop the development. He was, of course, dismissive of this option, but it did suggest that he is at least partially aware of the depth of the opposition to this modern SRO dropped into a residential neighborhood next to three schools.

Given the complete lack of leadership shown by the Fulop administration, it looks like a community lawsuit may be the best option.

We pay tax dollars to the county for open space. The mayor should ask DeGise to purchase the land with open space dollars at the $1.8 million which the developer paid. Van Vorst needs more open space and the school children could benefit with an additional park.

More BS. Did you expect anything different? And if this mattered to you, why weren't you three?

So what happened at the meeting tonight?

The town hall meeting about the project is tonight at 6:00 at city hall in the council chambers.

Quote:

You may want to read this: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _agency.html#incart_river

Quote:

Not sure exactly who has the power to do what. But I have been told that Antonicello's last day was last Friday.

All - I don't have 100% confirmation yet, but let's assume this town hall will be in council chambers for now. If for some reasons it is in a different room in city hall, I will personally make sure there is a sign posted clearly showing where to go.

Candice

Binky, all the more reason that we need to stay focused, committed, united and well funded against this ill conceived plan.

Do you think he needs ward E when he has Bill Clinton at his fundraiser?

It's great Fulop is hosting a meeting on this, but I hope it isn't just to tell us he can't do anything because he doesn't want to risk a lawsuit with the developer.

It should be obvious to him by now that he will be in litigation with either the developer or the community. It is baffling to me that he would prefer a fight against his biggest support base rather than an out of town developer who has never done business in JC before!

The property has already been blighted - 2011.

Jersey City needs more park space in the Van Vorst area. Van Vorst Park is packed especially on the weekends. Mocco's property brought in more people without the additional open space for the number of residents. Blight the property and bring in more parks.

The City currently owns this land through the JCRA. The district had a long term lease for that land because they were required to provide pre-K and the school was already out of space. The district used trailers for the overage. In 2011, the city "blighted" the lot out from under the school and then later gave the district 30 days notice on a 5 year lease. That's why 3 year olds in pre-k are being bussed to schools in other neighborhoods.

Can the City exercise the power of eminent domain and take over this piece of property for school development? Jersey City schools are desperately in need of green space and better facilities. Their is a compelling need and interest on part of the City to acquire this space.
Should have been done in the first place! Why wasn't it?

Candice, its great you and the Mayor are hosting a Town Hall on this.

This issue you face also ties into something up here in Ward B that recently happened in the summer. I think our learnings match yours and we need to do something bigger if possible - REVAMP THE ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

Backstory: A few months back when McGinely Sq. was faced with a large development of micro-apts. with seriosuly unsubstantial parking in its plans, we forced a community mtg. with the developer. This happened long after the project was rushed through the zoning approvals in the last days of the Healy admin. because the current process does not encourage developers to be proactive in reaching out to the communities they plan to build in. Due to my invitation, Council Members Lavarro, Watterman, Coleman and Ramchal attended this neighborhood mtg. The developer gave a lot of push back during the meeting to any community concerns raised (as did the rep from Zoning who was present) and only lip-service to the community's requests to revisit the plans based on our feedback (which was not sought during the development phase).

Subsequently, this project has been postponed/cancelled due to unrelated circumstances (the property owner can't finalize the dale to the developer due to bankruptcy). But post-meeting, I emailed with the Council persons who were present, asking that our take-away from that meeting be that the whole Zoning Approval process be re-vamped by the council to require more transparency and pro-active outreach by the developer to the community wherein they wish to build as a pre-requisite to getting approved by zoning. Developers should be required to hold community meetings that are well publicized prior to gaining approvals from the Zoning Board. And reasonable community requests coming out of this newly required dialogue should be put into the plan prior to gaining approval. Right now, Zoning Dept. process does little, if anything, to protect resident's concerns about what gets built in their own neighborhoods, and that is just wrong.

At the time (prior to the project's postponement), it seemed there were no changes we residents could affect on this project, and we were at the mercy of the developer who didn't seem to want to adjust a thing or give a care what residents thought. So we chose to focus on what we could do going forward to keep areas like McGinley Sq. & JSQ, which are poised to be the next redeveloped areas, from being re-developed without community input. We have a chance to really do it right up here - we didn't want to miss that chance.

So when I asked these Council people to take this project on (changing the zoning approval process to include the community dialogue), and to work with a group of residents and local business reps to re-vamp what is required of developers prior to getting zoning approval, most of them just wrote back saying "well, we have to discuss this among our fellow council members." and "I agree with my colleague - we have to discuss this." To which I replied, "Sure, I understand. Will you please do that/start that?" To which I got ZERO replies or any indication that any of them were willing to take this on as a governing body. This was highly discouraging.

It sounds like you, Candice, see the merit in the re-vamping of the process to require more community input as do I and my fellow Ward B neighbors. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - will you talk to the Mayor about this project we're proposing and get your fellow council persons going on this with you? Because it seems the root of this on-going, repeated issue lies within the current lack of required dialogue/outreach from the developer to the community where they want to build, and the subsequent lack of the required incorporation of reasonable revisions to their proposed plans prior to gaining approval. DTJC residents have gotten the shaft by this lack of input for far too long - its why I sadly left there last summer after 18 years. Council persons in the other wards really should be invested in joining efforts to change this approval process so as to ensure their wards get "smart" re-development and not the all too often thoughtless/non-smart re-development that DTJC has suffered for the last 15+ years.

Hi all -

Just to help get the word out there to give as much notice as possible. The Mayor is having a townhall about this on Monday night at 6pm. I will post back once I have the definitive location. But for now, hold your calendars.

Best,
Candice

Quote:

So keep expectations low?

If he can't get rid of him, how about stating as such?

I don't know about mechanics- I am not mayor. How about mobilizing supporters to help rid the town of this person?

Take some out-of-town speaking engagements, and start raising money for a gubernatorial run, maybe?

Quote:

Fulop doesn't have the power to fire him, what exactly do you expect him to do?

Quote:

VVPA has shared these options with the mayor and legal counsel.

Quote:

That's been effective. Still around. Talk=cheap!

Quote:

I agree completely. The council and new (new is debateable- it has been over 3 month now!) administration were elected in favor of changing the status quo. This is a perfect opportunity. If they really wanted to stop this, I'm sure something could be found. The fact that rationale for not doing so is not crystal clear worries me about motivations. Why are our elected officials hiding behind legalese???? Isn't this what we elected them to end????

Quote:

Hasn't Fulop already demanded the resignation of the head of the JCRA?

Quote:

So you seem to be in the know...what are these options that they are not taking?

I attended the Bright side meeting as well. I can confirm it was not only about the parking. The unit density was heavily debated as well as the noise and transient characters it may generate. The JCRA redevelopment plan that was put forth does not have stated limits on density which enables the developer to propose a building way above the adjacent buildings.

The JCRA official who wrote this Christmas tree plan as well as the council who approved it have showed gross negligence and/or carelessness at best. If the new administration is consistent with making sure that the "spirit of the law" is always followed instead of its letter, some disciplinary action needs to be taken NOW at the JCRA imho.

In the meantime, I can't understand how the sewer capacity is not a factor in bringing some sanity to this. I am not against a project there as well.

I too live not far from this project and I am definitely not against a project there. My issue with the proposed project is that the city made a huge policy change by allowing micro-units, super high density, no parking, etc - which they had never previously permitted for any other new development downtown. They made this policy change in total secrecy without any discussion/input - it was purposefully hidden from the community which simply isn't good planning and isn't the way I want my government to work. Whenever Bloomberg has rezoned areas of NYC, it is a several year process where there is lots of public input. In Jersey City, apparently the way it works is that whenever a developer wants land to be re-zoned to be more profitable (ie higher density), as long as they can get the planning dept on board, they can push it through in total secrecy. This should be a major issue for everyone in JC because there are a lot of vacant lots out there...

And I absolutely don't buy that the mayor can't do anything. This project still requires approval from the planning board, whose members are appointed by the mayor. Even if the city can't get out of the redevelopment plan that was previously approved, the planning board still has a ton of discretion in determining if the proposed project meets the requirements in the (incredibly vague) redevelopment plan. The planning board doesn't have to be railroaded by the developer's interpretation of the plan.

Quote:

This is exactly my objection. They want to charge ~$1800 for 300sqft! No one will pay that when you can get a real apartment here for that price, so they'll have to lower rents, and then there won't be budget for upkeep or the activities for residents they're promising, and instead of a "hip dorm for adults" it'll just be a poorly-maintained SRO. And so a building supposedly designed to alleviate blight will instead create it.