Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Did anyone hear that the parking lot that was used by the Board of Ed was approved by the city for 30 affordable housing units last month. I heard that the Candice approved of this deal. How come this didn't come to the VVPA! After all the problems we are having with the micro unit project, why was this approved in December without any one being notified. Does anyone know anything about this.
Posted on: 2014/1/10 22:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Back up, I want to look at one paragraph line by line here
Quote:
Not really sure what you mean by this. There are plenty of non-kid related spots in that area. Cicada bar, Taqueria, Zeppelin Hall, Tilted Kilt. Long story short, there's no neighborhood that is some solely family-friendly place, nor could there ever be, really. Park Slope is one of the best neighborhoods for families in the tri-state area; they've got plenty of bars, heavy traffic and poorly-lit streets. This line is standard political nonsense where one completely overexaggerates the other person's agenda into something wildly stupid in some desire to discredit them. Quote: They want to be able to continue to enjoy paying only $30/year for the publicly owned on-street parking spaces that have a market value of $2000 - $3200/year. Wait what. I'm confused here. Are you referring to some meter parking? Do people somehow own the parking spaces there and I've been unaware of that all these years? I know I've certainly never paid anything when I've been with friends that happened to drive down and park to go to some of those aforementioned establishments. How the hell does street parking have a value of 2-3k anyhow? You gonna up the meter to 3 minutes per quarters? Also, this is probably the dumbest line in the entire post. HEY FOLKS! THESE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PAY THREE THOUSAND BUCKS FOR WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY PAYING THIRTY FOR. HOW DARE THEY. THIS DOESN'T REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE! Please. Quote: They apparently want to live a more suburban lifestyle in an increasingly urbanized area. Again, wtf does that even mean? If people wanted to live in the burbs, they'd move there. Increasingly urbanized? DTJC has been urbanized for 4 score and 7 years. What a nonsense catchphrase of a post. Quote: While we do not believe these viewpoints represent the majority of those who live in either Van Vorst Park or downtown Jersey City Lawdy you is crazy. People would rather pay 3000$ more to park a car?
Posted on: 2013/12/20 18:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
 |
Count me in the group that supports this development. I hate all the ugly surface lots all around downtown and I think every single one of them should be either built on, or made into parkland.
I think this project in particular will add some much needed vibrancy to the VVP area. I'm really not sure what everybody is afraid of.
Posted on: 2013/12/20 18:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Am I the only one that doesn't mind the new build?
So many people are up in arms about it, but it is just a crap lot that could be brought to use. It is hyperbolic to suggest children are harmed by the "taking away" of that lot. If it was so important for school children, then surely the school district should have taken over the lot years ago. They didn't, so a developer has shown up to build on it. Great, perfect, get on with life. Children won't know the better.
Posted on: 2013/12/20 16:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2013/12/20 16:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This project is under legal review with City agencies, as it may not conform to the Redevelopment Plan. If so, the Planning Board has no jurisdiction to approve or disapprove.
The Mayor has "reversed his opinion" because his Corporation Counsel has advised him -- AND YOUR ATTORNEY -- of problems in the Plan. It would be best not to engage here while this matter is under legal review.
Posted on: 2013/12/20 15:59
Edited by K-Lo on 2013/12/20 16:19:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Mr. Rushman: For me, the problem with your project is that it is taking away property that is needed by the children of Jersey City for the school system that is already desperate for space - including green space. Have you thought about those implications, or is that not a concern for you because you don't have children that utilize the Jersey City school system? While certainly you can throw it back on the City for selling the land in the first place, the implications of your project on the school system are very real, permanent and damaging. This is a by-product of your project; your conscious may be fine with this because it doesn't have any consequences for your life and you profit from it, but it does matter for those residents that live here and want better for the children. Bottom line, your project harms the children of this community because that property should have been dedicated to the school. Shame on the City as well for not making this happen in the first instance.
As a final note, I don't think you will garner much support by threatening that the project may happen by "operation of law."
Posted on: 2013/12/20 14:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
A report from the developer of the proposed project at 104 Bright Street
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Dear residents of downtown Jersey City:
I am writing to explain why the City reneged on its commitment to have the Planning Board hold a public hearing on December 17 on the site plan application for our Bright and Varick Street project. I also want to alert you to the very real possibility that if the City persists in blocking the Planning Board from taking action it will not only result in an approval of the project by operation of law but will preclude opponents of the project from presenting their arguments to either the Planning Board or a court of law. As some of you are undoubtedly aware, for the past 17 months our firm, RushmanDillon Projects LLC, has been working on an all studio apartment project that would be located at the corner of Bright and Varick Streets. At a November 12 meeting he requested, Mayor Fulop made a personal promise to me that the Planning Board would hold a public hearing on our application for site plan approval in December. On November 25, the Planning Division wrote to remind us that 14 sets of our final plans had to be submitted by December 2 so they could be distributed to Planning Board members prior to the December 17 hearing. We submitted those plans on December 2 as requested. Then on December 11, we were provided with a copy of the Planning Board?s agenda that did not include the promised hearing on our project. The City has conjured up some flimsy legal argument for doing so ? an argument that was originally brought to its attention on October 9 and which it rejected. In fact, Mayor Fulop met twice with a delegation from the Van Vorst Park Association during October to inform them that after exhaustive research the City had determined that it had no legal basis on which to block or disapprove the proposed project. Mayor Fulop made the same points to a well-attended town hall meeting he convened on November 4. The local press reported extensively on his remarks and statement that ?the City?s hands are tied?. Even though Planning Division staff and other City officials had regularly described our project as being ?as of right?, we expressed our willingness to make modifications to improve our project. During the six-week period between early October and mid November, I met regularly with senior City officials including the Mayor, former Deputy Mayor Thieroff and Corporation Counsel to explore ways to address concerns raised by some neighborhood residents. I offered to reduce the number of units in the building by up to 17+/- units, to eliminate one floor of the five-story building, and to make other changes to minimize the impact of the project on the publicly subsidized on-street parking that many current neighborhood residents enjoy. I did, however, reject the Mayor?s offer to provide a 20+ year tax abatement to the proposed project or to tap the City?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund if we agreed to substitute an affordable housing project at that location because I thought his offers raised thorny legal and/or political issues. Exactly why the Mayor has reversed his position on this project and what his next step will be is not at all clear. What is clear, and what we have cautioned the City about in writing repeatedly, is that it is taking a significant risk by not allowing the Planning Board to hear our application on a timely basis. It is our belief that our application has been complete since October 4 when the Planning Division directed us to submit plans for agent review and that the Planning Board?s statutory 95-day period for making a decision on our application expires on January 7, 2014. If we are correct and if the Planning Board fails to reschedule the hearing that was to have occurred on December 17, then there is the very real possibility that our project will be approved by operation of law. This will happen despite the Planning Board never having had a public hearing and will deprive the opponents of the project from making their views known at such a hearing and from appealing an approval that the Planning Board might have given after such a hearing. I have no doubt City officials will try to reassure you of the wisdom of their recently adopted strategy despite Councilwoman Osborn?s statement in her November 1 Weekly Blog that the Mayor, Councilwoman Coleman, the City Law Department and she had spent many hours looking for a legal loophole to no avail. She said then that it would be ?irresponsible to the tax payers of Jersey City to put ourselves in the path of a contract lawsuit we are guaranteed to lose.? We agree and are left wondering why the Mayor is so afraid of allowing the Planning Board hold its normal public hearing and instead risk an automatic approval of the project? While we would certainly like to have an approval in hand and be able to move forward with our project, we do not believe it is in anyone?s best interests for us to obtain that approval automatically by operation of law because local elected officials prevented the volunteer Planning Board from operating in its normal fashion. We believe strongly that our project addresses the largely unmet needs of one and two person households that make up three-quarters of all households in the downtown area. These households deal every day with the challenge of finding suitable housing both in terms of size and price in a market that is woefully short of studio apartments. For example, in the Van Vorst Park neighborhood, there are 2,000 one or two person households and only 145 studio apartments. This leaves many with no option but to rent a larger and more expensive apartment than would be ideal or to share three or four bedroom apartments and townhouses with a group of roommates. We believe we have designed a project that meets the unique needs of one and two person households, especially those who do not own cars (it is worth noting that in Van Vorst Park a one person household is almost twice as likely not to own a car than a larger household - 63% v. 34%). We do recognize that some who live in the neighborhood feel threatened by our proposed project. They have a vision that the neighborhood should cater exclusively to families with children (currently only 1 in 5 households living in the neighborhood actually are families with children). They want to be able to continue to enjoy paying only $30/year for the publicly owned on-street parking spaces that have a market value of $2000 - $3200/year. They apparently want to live a more suburban lifestyle in an increasingly urbanized area. While we do not believe these viewpoints represent the majority of those who live in either Van Vorst Park or downtown Jersey City, we recognize the right of residents to hold and express those views. More importantly, just as we believe we have a right to present our case for the project to the Planning Board, we believe both the supporters and opponents of the project also have a right to voice their opinions to the Board. If you feel as we do, that everyone deserves a right to make their views about the proposed project known to the Planning Board and that the project should be approved (or disapproved) by the Planning Board rather than automatically approved because the Planning Board is prevented from complying with a statutory deadline, then you ought to contact the Mayor and the Chairwoman of the Planning Board to urge them to let the public be heard on January 7. Thank you for taking the time to read this report. Contact information: Mayor Steve Fulop (201) 547-5200 FulopS@jcnj.org Roseanna Petruzzelli Chairwoman Jersey City Planning Board (201) 547-5010
Posted on: 2013/12/20 14:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Dag. My bad. I thought I was sticking it to the man. I'm happy to hear that EVERYTHING isn't finalized.
Posted on: 2013/12/16 19:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I do not believe the sale has gone through. There is still legal work ongoing in certain City departments to determine whether the micro units conform to the redevelopment plan.
I think this complaint belongs to the City.
Posted on: 2013/12/16 19:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Any update on this?
Posted on: 2013/12/16 18:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It would be nice if the micro unit developers would shovel, salt, and de-ice their area of the sidewalk. It is their property now right? They should be responsible for their sidewalk like everyone else. #horrible-neighbors-already #not-classy
Posted on: 2013/12/16 18:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You are welcome!
Posted on: 2013/12/6 0:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Thanks for posting, Yvonne. While we may not agree on everything, we can both agree that the City Council approved the redevelopment plan "with parking."
Posted on: 2013/12/5 23:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The height. SoHo did not have many tall buildings before that building was built...
Posted on: 2013/12/5 21:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What part of ?luxury condo? is out of character for Soho? Out of character for Soho would be things like ?auto body shop,? ?wholesale seafood distributor,? ?chainsaw repair,? and ?live nude girls.?
Posted on: 2013/12/5 21:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Video of ordinance 11/9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZwiN2 ... =UUPZCDR4rCUMJtCl7__MaEag
Posted on: 2013/12/5 19:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To somewhat mitigate this back and forth, I do agree that homes are a unique investment - part investment, part consumption.
However, when choosing how to behave, there needs to be a consideration of your own interests and others, specifically your neighbors' interests. Property values are a good measure of this because they appeal to both (a homeowners self interest) and your neighbors' interests (their own property values). If the measure were something different - say for example the character of the surrounding neighborhood, whatever that means, then your neighbors might or might not agree it is important. In fact, most other measures - parking, keeping historical buildings, etc. will get you different answers from different neighbors. However, if we assume that homeowners should have more say than renters in a neighborhood if we value the long-term prospects of that neighborhood (a belief I think even renters would agree on) and if we agree that no homeowner would NOT want their home values to rise, then we have an objective measure which we can apply when deciding what is best for the neighborhood.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 19:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
wrong, try again. When luxury condos are built in places like SoHo, even when it is out of character, home property rises.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 19:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
One of the things that helps maintain the value of one's home is a stable neighborhood and local zoning laws which protect the neighborhood from development out of character with the surroundings.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 19:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote:
Great point - primary residential homes are hybrid assets. Part investment, part consumption item. And how owners allocate priority between the two is their preference.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 18:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I really do not understand how if one decides to sell their home at any point in their life, how they would oppose things which would increase the value of it......I liken the analogy of taking out loans out of your retirement savings to buy a bigger screen tv..I mean really? [/quote]
I guess I consider our home a sanctuary and not an investment. Of course, no one wants to see whatever they own go down in value, but our comfort and convenience take priority. On the other hand, I am very happy when my rental property, portfolio and other investments increase in value because that is their reason for being. Just a different point of view, perhaps shared by no one else.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 17:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why would home values decrease because of inflation? If anything, buying a home protects against inflation because your mortgage payment is (usually) the same amount every month for the term of the loan.. while rents will tend to rise with inflation. Quote:
If you value quality of life over dollars and cents, then yeah, I could see why people would go for this. Again, this is a preference issue, not a right or wrong issue. I think your analogy is weak because no one is taking a loan out here.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 17:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you accept that home values decrease because of inflation then astushi, by denying development and other things which would increase the value of his home, is basically causing the decrease of value in his home and the neighborhood... I can understand if someone never decides to sell their home how they would not care about the value of their home..or how renters don't care. I really do not understand how if one decides to sell their home at any point in their life, how they would oppose things which would increase the value of it......I liken the analogy of taking out loans out of your retirement savings to buy a bigger screen tv..I mean really?
Posted on: 2013/11/12 17:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I didn't say that would raise taxes with more revenue. I said why would they lower taxes? They'll likely just spend more.
Posted on: 2013/11/12 1:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Sadly no I don't believe that any additional revenue will be returned back to us. I also don't believe that just because the system has not worked till date it will be the same. (Believe me I am not an optimist so it took a pause to say that). Having said that, it would be pretty hard for any administration to justify a tax increase if the people can see an increase in the tax base/revenue. I think if the voter base and the electorate is educated and motivated any administration can be held accountable.
Posted on: 2013/11/11 22:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, sure, but I don?t see how that addresses my point. Quote:
Well, agreed.. but again, I don?t see how this addresses my point. Quote:
I don?t understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate? Also, can you understand how someone would prefer convenient living over a rising FMV of their house? If you don?t intend to sell for many, many years (if sell at all) ? I could totally see why someone would prefer to enjoy the convenience of day to day amenities over rising FMV. You clearly prefer a rising FMV but not everyone has the same preferences.
Posted on: 2013/11/11 22:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Convenience denotes a standard of livability already... Because of inflation, your condo, townhome, whatever you own is either increasing in value or decreasing in value. So you may not be able to "live" in the value of your condo but you can definitely live in your condo while it decreases in value..
Posted on: 2013/11/11 21:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why do you assume that additional tax revenue will be returned to the tax payers? If anything, more revenue just means the government can (and will want to) spend even more.
Posted on: 2013/11/11 20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Does every residential development in NYC have to provide parking? I don't think so. If there is an issue with parking let the entrepreneur come up with parking lots, share-a-ride, car/bike rental (zip car e.g.) ... I don't get it ... we are an urban district so why is everyone up in arms about parking? I lived an entire year giving up having a car for my family as my work had re-located to the city. ShopRite and FoodDirect delivered and the cab service provided us the mobility. We distributed the savings from car payments, gas, and insurance towards cab and delivery services.
A few days ago I believe I had read that the city was going to issue new cab medallions ... do more. Hey if you can bring down the cost of taking a cab from one end of the city to the other end for $5-$10 per trip that would be amazing. The focus should be expanding the tax base by bringing in more revenue. The focus should be lowering down property taxes by increasing the tax base. If I have to give up my car today in lieu of a lower property tax bill I am up for it. If a developer wants to bring in mega residential buildings with "TAX PAYING" residents what is the problem? These tax paying residents will use the cab service or parking service or delivery service thus spending money with the local businesses. My question is very straight - Would you rather have low property taxes or high taxes and a dedicated parking? On the Whole Food question ... why not consider Journal Square for a Whole Food location? It's right by the train station and the taxi stand.
Posted on: 2013/11/11 20:28
|
|||
|
||||