Why should long time residents pay for parking when it was always free? It is also free in other cities. I pay enough in taxes and water, so why should parking be another liability? If developers want to make a profit on their buildings it should not be at the expense of long term residents. They should not have to fight to maintain what they have. Again, did you ask Fulop and the council to give up their free parking behind city hall?

mrushman wrote:
Dear residents of downtown Jersey City:

Last year on December 20, 2013, I posted an open letter to you regarding the City?s refusal to allow the Planning Board to hold a hearing on our development application. In that letter, I cautioned the City that it was:

? . . . 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."

I went on to state that:

? . . . 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.?

You can access a copy of the entire letter at:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=334876

As it turns out, that is exactly what happened. On August 29, 2014, Judge Turula of the Hudson County Superior Court ruled that the Planning Board failed to act within the statutory time period and granted our request for an automatic approval of the development application, which is the remedy provided in the statute. You can access a copy of the Judge?s opinion at:

http://www.brightandvarickcourtdecision.com/decision.pdf

Since then the City filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied; and the parties consented to the Van Vorst Park Association?s request to intervene. The City and VVPA have until January 2, 2015, to file an appeal (the City stated at a recent court hearing that it did not intend to file an appeal).

Despite our having won the lawsuit, we have continued our efforts to resolve this matter through compromise with the City and VVPA.

1. On September 11, 2014, our attorney wrote to the City regarding the possibility of reaching some sort of compromise.
2. On October 28, 2014, I met with the JCRA and proposed a framework for compromise that would have sharply reduced the number of units at Bright and Varick, changed them to conventional units and included some on-site parking. In return, the City would have reimbursed us for certain development and legal expenses and sold us an alternative site(s) elsewhere in the city for our micro-housing project.
3. On November 25, 2014, I wrote to the Van Vorst Park Association offering to implement a package of mitigation measures including putting a cap on the number of neighborhood parking permits that could be issued to residents of our project.

To date none of our efforts have borne fruit, but we remain open to meaningful discussions with the City and VVPA regarding the offers we have made. As we have pointed out to both parties, there is little likelihood of either being able to overturn Judge Turula?s lengthy and carefully reasoned opinion. Rather than continue to waste time and money on a lawsuit that as Councilwoman Candice Osborne correctly predicted in November 2013 that ?we are guaranteed to lose?, the VVPA and City should focus their attention on seriously considering our offers to compromise.

http://candiceosborne.com/updates/wee ... ment-on-bright-and-varick

Both the City and VVPA have repeatedly passed up opportunities to have us make significant modifications to our proposed project. In retrospect, it is easy to see that doing so was a mistake. We are giving them a final opportunity to erase that mistake and work with us to minimize the impact of our project on the neighborhood.

One other thing has happened during the past year - micro-housing is no longer an ?experiment? as some of the project?s opponents have alleged. Thousands of micro-units have been completed or are under construction or are moving through the approvals process in cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Vancouver, and Toronto. Public officials in these cities see micro-housing as an important means of addressing high housing costs, minimizing the environmental footprint of new construction and attracting the kind of workforce that is critical to future economic development. Our project offers Jersey City the opportunity to join the ever-growing ranks of cities that recognize the contribution micro-housing can make to their residents and their economies.

Over two years ago, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency Board asked us to help them address the issue of workforce housing by constructing a market rate micro-housing project. We remain committed to moving forward with our project so that the residents of the City will have an exciting new and relatively affordable housing option available to them as soon as possible.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this update.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:

Parking became a problem when Fulop proposed as councilman the change in policy for new construction. It was always one residence, one parking space. Now ration is less than 50%, so what is happening? New residents are parking on the streets. The developers are making more money because parking spaces do not pay like a rental but the overflow of cars on the street impacts people who live in older homes without parking.

Same conversation on every thread. New residents and old are more than welcome to actually pay for a spot and park in one of the many 1/2 empty decks downtown. We don't lack parking. We lack free parking. Free parking in a city is a ridiculous waste of space and money.

According to the US Census over 40% of the residences in JC don't actually own cars. Yet we're supposed to build a space for each and every new unit? That's insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... #cite_ref-bikesatwork_1-9

Yvonne wrote:

Parking became a problem when Fulop proposed as councilman the change in policy for new construction. It was always one residence, one parking space. Now ration is less than 50%, so what is happening? New residents are parking on the streets. The developers are making more money because parking spaces do not pay like a rental but the overflow of cars on the street impacts people who live in older homes without parking.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Stop forcing your beliefs system of "no parking" down the throats of everyone. People do have cars, pretending they don't will not elevate the problem.

Stop forcing your beliefs systems of "everyone will have cars always and forever" down the throats of everyone. Studies continue to show that more and more people are ditching the automobile and moving to urban centers. Pretending this isn't a trend will just increase the amount of space wasted on garages.

Did you ask the mayor and city council to give up their parking spots behind city hall? Why not?

Do you understand the difference between new construction and existing construction?

At some point, the town hall may not have parking spaces. However, for police vehicles and city owned vehicles, I can see a necessity for it.

Someone purchasing these microunits are doing so with the full understanding that, if they truly desire a vehicle, they will have to pay additional for a garage parking spot or they will be hunting for hours to find a street spot. However, this isn't the trend. This is not what millenials are doing. Prior generations, your generation, spent a lot of time with suburban sprawl. The distance between work and home created a need for the automobile. Things have changed. Transportation has changed. Suburbia is waning and the trends are reversed.

Companies like ZipCar exist now. Why do you think they are so profitable? How is Uber able to make the money that it is making? We are now at a point where people would rather have a temporary mode of transportation than own and maintain a vehicle. If you do not see this then you are willfully blind to the trend.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Stop forcing your beliefs system of "no parking" down the throats of everyone. People do have cars, pretending they don't will not elevate the problem.

Stop forcing your beliefs systems of "everyone will have cars always and forever" down the throats of everyone. Studies continue to show that more and more people are ditching the automobile and moving to urban centers. Pretending this isn't a trend will just increase the amount of space wasted on garages.

Did you ask the mayor and city council to give up their parking spots behind city hall? Why not?

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Stop forcing your beliefs system of "no parking" down the throats of everyone. People do have cars, pretending they don't will not elevate the problem.

Stop forcing your beliefs systems of "everyone will have cars always and forever" down the throats of everyone. Studies continue to show that more and more people are ditching the automobile and moving to urban centers. Pretending this isn't a trend will just increase the amount of space wasted on garages.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Stop forcing your beliefs system of "no parking" down the throats of everyone. People do have cars, pretending they don't will not elevate the problem.

Stop forcing your beliefs systems of "everyone will have cars always and forever" down the throats of everyone. Studies continue to show that more and more people are ditching the automobile and moving to urban centers. Pretending this isn't a trend will just increase the amount of space wasted on garages.

Yvonne wrote:
Stop forcing your beliefs system of "no parking" down the throats of everyone. People do have cars, pretending they don't will not elevate the problem.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

mrushman wrote:
Dear residents of downtown Jersey City:

Last year on December 20, 2013, I posted an open letter to you regarding the City?s refusal to allow the Planning Board to hold a hearing on our development application. In that letter, I cautioned the City that it was:

? . . . 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."

I went on to state that:

? . . . 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.?

You can access a copy of the entire letter at:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=334876

As it turns out, that is exactly what happened. On August 29, 2014, Judge Turula of the Hudson County Superior Court ruled that the Planning Board failed to act within the statutory time period and granted our request for an automatic approval of the development application, which is the remedy provided in the statute. You can access a copy of the Judge?s opinion at:

http://www.brightandvarickcourtdecision.com/decision.pdf

Since then the City filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied; and the parties consented to the Van Vorst Park Association?s request to intervene. The City and VVPA have until January 2, 2015, to file an appeal (the City stated at a recent court hearing that it did not intend to file an appeal).

Despite our having won the lawsuit, we have continued our efforts to resolve this matter through compromise with the City and VVPA.

1. On September 11, 2014, our attorney wrote to the City regarding the possibility of reaching some sort of compromise.
2. On October 28, 2014, I met with the JCRA and proposed a framework for compromise that would have sharply reduced the number of units at Bright and Varick, changed them to conventional units and included some on-site parking. In return, the City would have reimbursed us for certain development and legal expenses and sold us an alternative site(s) elsewhere in the city for our micro-housing project.
3. On November 25, 2014, I wrote to the Van Vorst Park Association offering to implement a package of mitigation measures including putting a cap on the number of neighborhood parking permits that could be issued to residents of our project.

To date none of our efforts have borne fruit, but we remain open to meaningful discussions with the City and VVPA regarding the offers we have made. As we have pointed out to both parties, there is little likelihood of either being able to overturn Judge Turula?s lengthy and carefully reasoned opinion. Rather than continue to waste time and money on a lawsuit that as Councilwoman Candice Osborne correctly predicted in November 2013 that ?we are guaranteed to lose?, the VVPA and City should focus their attention on seriously considering our offers to compromise.

http://candiceosborne.com/updates/wee ... ment-on-bright-and-varick

Both the City and VVPA have repeatedly passed up opportunities to have us make significant modifications to our proposed project. In retrospect, it is easy to see that doing so was a mistake. We are giving them a final opportunity to erase that mistake and work with us to minimize the impact of our project on the neighborhood.

One other thing has happened during the past year - micro-housing is no longer an ?experiment? as some of the project?s opponents have alleged. Thousands of micro-units have been completed or are under construction or are moving through the approvals process in cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Vancouver, and Toronto. Public officials in these cities see micro-housing as an important means of addressing high housing costs, minimizing the environmental footprint of new construction and attracting the kind of workforce that is critical to future economic development. Our project offers Jersey City the opportunity to join the ever-growing ranks of cities that recognize the contribution micro-housing can make to their residents and their economies.

Over two years ago, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency Board asked us to help them address the issue of workforce housing by constructing a market rate micro-housing project. We remain committed to moving forward with our project so that the residents of the City will have an exciting new and relatively affordable housing option available to them as soon as possible.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this update.

if one is living in a micro unit, maybe one does not need a car at all so maybe the developer should compromise by agreeing to 0 parking permits...besides, there are plenty of garages downtown.

mrushman wrote:
Dear residents of downtown Jersey City:

Last year on December 20, 2013, I posted an open letter to you regarding the City?s refusal to allow the Planning Board to hold a hearing on our development application. In that letter, I cautioned the City that it was:

? . . . 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."

I went on to state that:

? . . . 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.?

You can access a copy of the entire letter at:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=334876

As it turns out, that is exactly what happened. On August 29, 2014, Judge Turula of the Hudson County Superior Court ruled that the Planning Board failed to act within the statutory time period and granted our request for an automatic approval of the development application, which is the remedy provided in the statute. You can access a copy of the Judge?s opinion at:

http://www.brightandvarickcourtdecision.com/decision.pdf

Since then the City filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied; and the parties consented to the Van Vorst Park Association?s request to intervene. The City and VVPA have until January 2, 2015, to file an appeal (the City stated at a recent court hearing that it did not intend to file an appeal).

Despite our having won the lawsuit, we have continued our efforts to resolve this matter through compromise with the City and VVPA.

1. On September 11, 2014, our attorney wrote to the City regarding the possibility of reaching some sort of compromise.
2. On October 28, 2014, I met with the JCRA and proposed a framework for compromise that would have sharply reduced the number of units at Bright and Varick, changed them to conventional units and included some on-site parking. In return, the City would have reimbursed us for certain development and legal expenses and sold us an alternative site(s) elsewhere in the city for our micro-housing project.
3. On November 25, 2014, I wrote to the Van Vorst Park Association offering to implement a package of mitigation measures including putting a cap on the number of neighborhood parking permits that could be issued to residents of our project.

To date none of our efforts have borne fruit, but we remain open to meaningful discussions with the City and VVPA regarding the offers we have made. As we have pointed out to both parties, there is little likelihood of either being able to overturn Judge Turula?s lengthy and carefully reasoned opinion. Rather than continue to waste time and money on a lawsuit that as Councilwoman Candice Osborne correctly predicted in November 2013 that ?we are guaranteed to lose?, the VVPA and City should focus their attention on seriously considering our offers to compromise.

http://candiceosborne.com/updates/wee ... ment-on-bright-and-varick

Both the City and VVPA have repeatedly passed up opportunities to have us make significant modifications to our proposed project. In retrospect, it is easy to see that doing so was a mistake. We are giving them a final opportunity to erase that mistake and work with us to minimize the impact of our project on the neighborhood.

One other thing has happened during the past year - micro-housing is no longer an ?experiment? as some of the project?s opponents have alleged. Thousands of micro-units have been completed or are under construction or are moving through the approvals process in cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Vancouver, and Toronto. Public officials in these cities see micro-housing as an important means of addressing high housing costs, minimizing the environmental footprint of new construction and attracting the kind of workforce that is critical to future economic development. Our project offers Jersey City the opportunity to join the ever-growing ranks of cities that recognize the contribution micro-housing can make to their residents and their economies.

Over two years ago, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency Board asked us to help them address the issue of workforce housing by constructing a market rate micro-housing project. We remain committed to moving forward with our project so that the residents of the City will have an exciting new and relatively affordable housing option available to them as soon as possible.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read this update.

donnajc65 wrote:
Why didn't the councilwoman mention that she is now supporting the change in the redevelopment plan for 28 bright street increasing the units. Why the change? Why the increase? why no community involvement in the that decision!