Well...how many new condo projects are underway right now in DTJC? Perhaps the market has not become ripe...isn't there only the one by the Powerhouse, and nothing is for sale there yet.

That is what we are all asking.

Is the lot adjacent to Gulls Cove, to the west, going to be built on any time soon JPhurst?

Tabled.

Quote:

Well, maybe. Failure to re-start Gulls Cove at least is inexcusable at this point. If he can't finish the Gulls Cove project, why do we think he can even start this one? I'm a huge proponent of development (and would rather there were less parking associated with this development rather than more), but this sounds like a shyster milking the city for all it's worth, not a legitimate development proposal.

Would anyone be interested in developing JSQ without abatements- that's the question.

JSQ as is is a waste. An ideal location for commuters, but few nice and new buildings, aside from Canco and a few others, to offer.

The more affluent residents = more amenties = more affluent residents = more amenities.

Those projects in the OP stopped because of the economy (Esperanza in particular) not because of the developer.

Re: parking, aren't there garages around?

According to the Tier Program, this area qualifies for a 10 year abatement. But Fulop is allowing the developer to buy an additional 10 years to bring it up to Tier 11. So why are we giving a development a break when my county and board of ed taxes are going up? The irony is Healy was cutting back on abatements and gave 12 years in Journal Square to a property that was in worse shape.

I live in Canco (basically next-door to this), and agree with Yvonne that there is a serious concern for parking, particularly since the area already has a lack of any - and a 266-unit building with ~125 spots for parking is unrealistic, at best. We're half a mile from any mass transit (PATH or NJT), and on the West side of town, where I'd say it's more likely that people will have cars than not.

The developer has said that all of the units in the building will be rentals - not sure if that would increase or decrease the likelihood that tenants will have cars. However, and again, personally, I'd prefer a building with at least partial if not a majority of units as condos, where owners at least in theory have a vested interest in the improvement of the area. As we can see from the multitudes that are renting in the Little India area, most really don't care about the area's upkeep at all (there's garbage everywhere...) - and I'm concerned that this is likely to be replicated here.

I think part of the abatement discussion is the developer agreeing to have some sort of childcare center or something on the property, but IMO it'd be more in the area's best interest if they had a larger parking capacity.

I live in Gulls Cove, so I don't exactly speak from a non-biased perspective.

The issue a lot of us in the building are having is that the developer has failed to complete Gulls Cove. The result is that he can claim that the required percentage of units are not sold so that control of the board of directors is transferred to the residents. Because the required percentage includes units that are part of the overall plan, but not yet built, he has held onto control for 5+ years at this point even though the building is almost entirely sold out.

My feeling is that if you are giving tax abatements as an incentive to develop areas, a condition of those tax abatements should be that the developer actually completes the projects that they have already received abatements for.

Parking is not the issue before the council tonight. A tax giveaway to a developer with a history of failure and fraud is what the council will be voting on - and although the mayor's policy would dictate the developer should apply for a ten-year abatement, the developer is opting to utlitze the "buy-up" provision for a 20-year deal.

Quote:
Did Danny mess up on the voting again ?

If you read what I wrote La_Verdad, I said Councilman Rivera changed his vote. I was not aware of the change when I left the council meeting. At that point it was defeated. And yes, I do favor parking. I do not believe only 126 people out of 266 will have cars. This is new construction not a building being converted. The older condos in the area have one to one parking and do not impact the community. This is 2014, people have cars and some have more than one car in a family.

doesn't the city deny parking permits to those living in tax abated buildings?

doesn't the city deny parking permits to those living in tax abated buildings?

That's incorrect, Yvonne. The initial vote was 4-4, but much later in the meeting Danny Rivera changed his vote and it passed. Final vote for adoption is tonight.

Quote:

Again with your parking.

The vote was 4 to 4, it did not pass, Councilwoman Watterman was absent. Councilman Dan Rivera, changed his vote. Here is a project with not enough parking spaces in a neighborhood filled with one and two family homes. 266 units and 128 parking spaces. That space should become a parking lot for India Square instead.

The city council will be considering a 20-year tax abatement for a 265-unit project near Journal Square called "25 Senate Place". The developer (an LLC specific to 25 Senate Place) is comprised of common ownership and management of Metro Homes, LLC. Metro Homes is the developer who built Trump in JC (ultimately went bankrupt and never built the second tower), The Esparanza in Asbury Park (bankrupt, partially built), Gulls Cove (failed to build second phase) and the Belmont in Hoboken - for which Metro Homes received a judgment of $6.3 million against it last year for consumer fraud.

Abatements have their place. But should the city be granting incentives to a group that has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of completing projects larger than 70 units? As eager as the Ward C councilman is to see this project go forward and spark revitalisation west of the square (which I agree, is needed), isn't it worse if the city ends up with yet another unfinished project in an area that already is horribly blighted? What about the developer's proven questionable business practices? Should the city be subsidizing someone who has been found liable for committing fraud in a related endeavor? And the abatement for Gulls Cove was granted based on the completion of two phases - the developer claims he can't get financing for phase 2 and yet he can get financing to build in a much less desirable area?

Tomorrow night is the second council reading on this ordinance. If you believe that granting an abatement for this project (and to this developer) is inappropriate, come to the meeting and be heard.