Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.
Posted on: 2014/9/9 20:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit. Quote:
Posted on: 2014/9/9 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I'm not understanding why this is controversial. I'm excited about the units, I hope my friends move into them. I wonder how much they will be.
Posted on: 2014/9/9 19:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal September 09, 2014 at 11:16 AM A Hudson County Superior Court judge has given the OK for a developer to build 87 "micro-units" in Downtown Jersey City that residents fear will create a "Hoboken-like" atmosphere in their neighborhood. Judge Joseph A. Turula has granted what is known as "automatic approval" to developer Rushman-Dillon Project's plans for the micro-unit development, saying city planning officials failed to act within 95 days of deeming the developer's plans complete. Turula's 12-page ruling, filed on Aug. 29 and released yesterday, allows the developer to move ahead with its site plan without a review by the Planning Board. The ruling deals a blow to the city's last-minute attempts to halt construction on the project. After initially calling Rushmon-Dillon's site plans complete in October 2013, the city reversed course in January, denying the developer's application after hearing complaints from residents. Rushman-Dillon then sued the city. In his ruling, Turula called the city's eventual denial of the developer's plans "untimely made and ... therefore, void." Construction on the five-story building is expected to begin next spring at the corner of Bright and Varick streets. Rushman-Dillon believes the compact units, smaller than 400 square feet each, will attract recent college graduates and other young, urban professionals to the area. The development will include zero parking spaces. Read more from the Jersey Journal
Posted on: 2014/9/9 17:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
K-Lo did not write that.
Posted on: 2014/9/9 16:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why isn't the development "workable"?
Posted on: 2014/9/9 15:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think you've answered my question. Thank you.
Posted on: 2014/9/9 2:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The planner followed the local and state laws, as they have done for years. The same laws that rebuilt the city and made it desirable for guys like you and other finger pointers to live here. Without their work, you would be living in Maplewood!
Posted on: 2014/9/9 1:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
 |
show me where the proposed density changes were disclosed and presented to the neighborhood association (the people that lived there) in advance of the changes made. were the changes summarized on a website, other than buried in a document. they withheld information.
yeah, they saw it as it was, but failed to give those nearby a chance to have a say. And to make it worse, Yvonne Balcer is on tape asking what the changes were at the council meeting where the changes were approved and the city failed to disclose them accurately. stop blaming the people who care and are vested in their community. Quote:
Posted on: 2014/9/9 1:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's the way I see it. Do you work for Government, Donna?
Posted on: 2014/9/9 0:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Dan, so, are you saying that the planners lied to the community.That the planners deliberately deceived the community to up zone the lot on Varick and Bright Street, because they are part of a vast development conspiracy to change the city to resemble Manhattan! You know better. The planners wrote the plan the way they saw it. Many of then live in the neighborhood and own homes in the neighborhood. They wrote the plan as they saw it. And in the process tried to address the critical need to entry level housing. That is what we pay the planners to do, plan and address the needs of the city!
Posted on: 2014/9/9 0:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
Why should the development have been stopped? Why would the approvals not have been agreed to?
Posted on: 2014/9/8 23:27
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
no the problem was that the city lied to the community from the get go and gave approvals that most people had they known would not have agreed to. welcome to the jersey city way.
its should have been stopped before approvals. unfortunately the city up zoned and create a new right of. Quote:
Posted on: 2014/9/8 23:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
The stubbornness of the VVPNA couldn't understand the legalities of contracts and planning agreements - Its a pity the VVPNA couldn't be forced to cough up the funds needed to pay the court costs - The VVPNA's committee have proven to be inept and their lobby caused our taxes to be wasted.
This is a case of society (this lobby group) having no understanding of the legal issue, but still pushing forward - The VVPNA should review their committee and dump them for new one's. Note: Cityhall basically acts on behalf of the community and unfortunately 'he who barks the loudest' in this case should NOT have been heard!
Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:42
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No seriously, why would he?
Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
the developer followed the rules. He didn't make them up. He followed them. The city tried to change the rules mid-stream. That is an injustice. The judge saw thru it and ruled in favor of the developer. You can't change the rules mid stream.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Why indeed.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why should the developer negotiate?
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As already noted, the developer refused to negotiate, but I bow to your superior knowledge of the machinations of city politics and our local courts. It sounds as though you are well-versed in it.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The planning office has processed thousands of site plan applications and missed time lines have never-never- been an issue. Why was it an issue here, because the process was corrupted buy the politicalization of the process. Apparently, that is what the Judge saw thru in the delays, caused by the politics. The community, should have been before the planning board negotiating a workable site plan, not in the gallery of a court room watching the city attorneys get trounced!
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No, the judge ruled on an alleged missed deadline. He did not address any of the merits of the case.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well, Judge Turula heard the case, and decided differently. I will defer to the Judge on this issue. He heard the case and decided in favor of the developer. Everyone knows that the site plan application became a political hot potato. Apparently, the Judge saw thru the politics. Take the politics out of this and the application would have been before the Planning Board and the residents would have had input into the site plan and project.The planners in this city get a lot of grief, but they have done an amazing job for the residents of the city and more specifically downtown.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The merits of this project notwithstanding, the Planning Board said it had no jurisdiction to hear because there was a zoning issue that needed to be resolved. The City's Zoning Officer determined that the zoning issue could not be resolved and that the project fell outside the Redevelopment Plan.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
according to the planners, that was the idea behind the project, to provide entry level housing for those starting out on their own. My first apartment in JC 30 years ago cost me $160 a month, with a view of NY. Today that same apartment cost almost $1800 a month! We have done nothing to address entry level housing in the city.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The judge is a local and very familiar with JC and the issues associated with development in the city. By all accounts, he is not a developer yes-man. That said, this case belonged in front of the Planning Board, not a judge.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Joseph A. Turula.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Who was the judge that heard this?
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This is interesting. I hadn't heard about this before. As a resident of downtown, I sympathize with the public parking concerns. But, on the flip side, what a great way to bring affordable housing to Jersey City without government subsidies. Also, any time you move in next to vacant property in a rapidly growing city, you have to expect that there will be growth.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The VVPA tried very early on to talk to the developer, even before the 'spirited' meeting at Brightside. The first words out of his mouth were "I won't negotiate." During the lawsuit, the City also tried to come to an agreement.
It's easy to reduce this issue to parking and then dismiss the neighborhood as a bunch of entitled babies. As with most things, it's far more complicated than that. It's also unfortunate to see the City condemned for the lawsuit that the developer began.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I agree. The legal route was a very bad idea!! I can't remember a time when the city won one of these cases.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 18:11
|
|||
|
||||