Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
?Possible? wasn?t your only point. You wrote, ?It would probably be a good idea.? Would that be your advice to a client?that an ostensibly unethical abuse of eminent domain?s intent, which would also be expensive, likely to fail, and most certainly harmful to your client?s public image, is a ?good idea??
Posted on: 2014/10/27 21:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Before the crash -- and before the chromium was remediated from the site -- there was a plan put forth by the majority owner of the property to redevelop some of the land.
The main features were replace the former low rise building connecting the two towers with a parking deck. The parking deck would have included amenities and retail. When the previous 1 story retail / amenities building was removed, chromium cleanup was needed as there was contaminated soil on site. In addition to the new parking garage, two 23 story towers were planned for the section of Columbus extended from Marin Blvd. These would have been apartments with street level retail. 420 apartments. The third and final phase included two other midrise towers along Warren. Architectural renderings of the residential towers and parking deck occasional surface, but they are at least 7 or 8 years old at this point. Here is a configuration map of how the property would have looked if all phases were completed. http://newyorkssixth.com/newyorkssixt ... future-configuration.html Here are some destruction photos of the old mid-rise section being demolished: http://newyorkssixth.com/newyorkssixt ... 11/metropolis-towers.html Here is the old renderings from DMR Architects http://www.dmrarchitects.com/portfoli ... php??Metropolis-Towers-61
Posted on: 2014/10/27 20:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
 |
Quote:
It's obviously not easy (or cheap!). But it would be legally possible, which is the only point of my posts. Anyway, I actually am a NJ-qualified lawyer, though I practice in New York (and am not extraordinarily well-versed in eminent domain law--though one doesn't have to be to know that it is legally possible, which is quite a different question from feasible or advisable). (Obviously, no legal advice to the city of Jersey City is intended.)
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
|
Quote:
You mean 72 Montgomery? It's low-income senior supportive housing. It would be much harder to temporarily relocate the residents to knock down the building and replace it. http://www.bvsch.com/ Agree on 100 Montgomery.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I love how there are some laymen who claim to know exactly how to interpret a series of laws and what is Constitutional and what isn't.
It's probably asking too much, but I'd love to hear from an actual lawyer who knows what they're talking about. For what it's worth, I've never heard of anything like this in NJ and suspect anyone who acts like condemning these buildings is a given has no clue about what they're talking about.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
|
Quote:
For what it's worth, support for eminent domain is usually seen as a "liberal" cause--conservatives have mostly always looked at it askance, and Kelo was a 5-4 case of the liberal judges plus O'Connor in favor and the conservatives against. Kelo was clearly the correct decision, and eminent domain is a good thing, but don't mix up who favors and who opposes it. Anyway, NJ's statutory rules are solely procedural and certainly do not present a legal barrier to seizure of Metropolis Towers by eminent domain, though they would make the process slightly more costly than previous due to more hoops to jump through. In fact, sites like Metropolis Towers are more or less tailor-made for New Jersey's eminent domain rules, which were designed primarily to protect single-family, owner-occupied homes.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Well, what about pulling eminent domain on 48 Montgomery Street and Paulus Hook Towers at 100 Montgomery Street? They seem to be taking a lot of the desired real estate downtown as well as the Metropolis Towers.
As for being the first few high rises in New Jersey, I meant Jersey City. Either way, these buildings have the right to remain where they are, even though I don't agree with their location and aesthetic. Downtown would be much better if we developed those parking lots and would be a little more of a cohesive downtown. In the meantime, I think the development/rehabilitation of Newark Ave and Grove Street that is currently being done is probably where the market is at. Even though there are many people on this thread that want to expand the DT area, there are several store fronts that are empty and have been empty for a while (the former Pet Store on Newark Ave, the former MXYPLZYK store, A1 deli etc).
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2014/9/14 1:05 Last Login : 2016/11/26 18:55 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
10
|
Quote:
Based solely on Kelo, you may have a point - though, even this is highly debatable. But, several states, including New Jersey, passed stringent statutory restraints on Eminent Domain in the wake of - and as a result of - that SCOTUS disaster. Point is, New Jersey state law makes the "taking" proposed here virtually impossible (where virtually means 99.99999% impossible). New London, CT (the site of the Kelo case) fell so badly on its face (after taking homes in the name of subjective "economic development" -- in that case, the construction of a drug manufacturing facility and offices), other states (like NJ) fell over themselves to ensure their municipalities wouldn't make the same mistake. Kelo and its practical results were seen as so awful that even particularly conservative leaders -- like Chris Christie -- championed strict limits on Eminent Domain. Bottom line: There is zero chance Eminent Domain could ever be used at Metropolis Towers, however difficult they may be on the eye.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2013/5/19 15:36 Last Login : 2023/6/20 18:54 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
92
|
All I know is that it looks to me like all of the balconies are several years (or less) away from becoming extremely unsafe. I am not an structural engineer and could definitely be misreading the situation, but I lived across the street at 50 columbus and when you look at the balconies dead on, they look like they are hanging by a thread (some more than others).
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
|
Quote:
The 1960s were not exactly a shining beacon of urban planning, that's for sure.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
|
Quote:
Terrible idea is not the same thing as illegal. As long as the city could present a rational argument to why seizing and destroying brownstones was good public policy (which you have just provided--it doesn't even need to be particularly convincing), the constitution would allow it.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Why do you keep calling these ugly buildings the first high rises in NJ? Please stop spewing this nonsense because you are wrong. The Beacon (JC Medical Center), a few of the high rises in the square, not to mention the majority of Downtown Newark were all constructed more than 30 years before Metropolis. Unlike Metropolis, buildings like The Beacon and 1180 Raymond (Lefcourt) in Newark deserve to be preserved and are landmarked. Metropolis was a mistake since day 1, ruined the original street grid and divides the neighborhood. It's completely unrealistic to think Eminent Domain would ever be an option here, but as others have mentioned there are plans in the works to build along Columbus and redevelop the property.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29 Last Login : 2020/3/12 17:59 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
200
|
I found this video over on the thread about the "Make it Yours" marketing campaign (courtesy of neverleft). Fast forward to minute 14.00. It seems that in the 1960s, Metropolis Towers was the gleaming new image of JC that the city was promoting to entice folks to move to town.
After all this back and forth, it seems amazing that 50 years ago those hideous edifices were regarded as the JC of the future...
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
Joined:
2014/9/14 1:05 Last Login : 2016/11/26 18:55 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
10
|
Quote:
Yes, eminent domain may be used for economic development. But, it could never be used in the way you suggest . Rather than go through every court case or state statute to prove this point -- as the governmental abuse of eminent domain has been extensively litigated and legislated against, especially in New Jersey - I will attempt to explain this by way of example: Let's say the Mayor hated brownstones. After all, they are relics of a bygone era, and do not fit into Jersey City's modern, increasingly vertical aesthetic.To this end, City planners would say, in an area as "transit-oriented" as Jersey City, property density should be maximized, meaning single-family brownstones are truly out of place. Moreover, even the best-kept brownstones cannot hide their age entirely -- tiles crack, roofs leak, difficult to retrofit for modern conveniences like air conditioning, etc., meaning some people might consider them "dumpy." Further, removing every brownstone in favor of higher-density development fits your economic development standard: While brownstones (and the 1/4-acre or so of land on which they sit) are generally assessed between $500K and $1M, buildings like 50 Columbus and Grove Pointe are assessed at between $20M and $30M - just for the building(s). Add in the first-floor retail that high-rises provide (and brownstones generally cannot), and high-rises are nearly infinitely more valuable to Jersey City. That means, every brownstone we allow to stand is sitting on a "goldmine" that would be more productive as a high-rise. Given all this, per the theory of Eminent Domain espoused in this thread, the Mayor should take via Eminent Domain every brownstone in Paulus Hook and Van Vorst park, raze them all, and erect huge high-rise residences in their place(s). Of course, this is ridiculous - and clearly unlawful. That's why doing the same thing vis-a-vis Metropolis Towers is ludicrous.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't live there, but I'm also not basing my conclusion on your outdated experiences from when you lived there. The doormen (or "doormans", as you call them). are very pleasant when I've visited. The carpet on my friend's floor is pretty decent. And I've never seen a bug. Are you that unwilling to believe that things ever improve? Anyway, for those who think the city has nothing better to focus on than relieving us of seeing some ugly buildings... I'm pretty sure the owners of Metroplois understand the gold mine they're sitting on; they really don't need the city to exercise eminent domain. Let the market do its work, fellow capitalists.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 16:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't really care about this history of these ugly buildings and would prefer better mixed use buildings to be installed in its place. However, I am very leery about giving the government authority to seize private property as it chooses, with the sole criteria being the property can be put to better use (i.e. generate more taxes). Eminent domain should only be used as an extreme emergency measure, where the property is in such terrible condition it poses some kind of danger to the public. Otherwise, government should keep their hands off private property.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 16:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Although I agree with these buildings being an eyesore, they were the first high rises in all of New Jersey and I much prefer preserving anything old - even if it is ugly! 50 years from now we will look back and say no one cared to preserve the history of the area (again, these are ugly buildings but they are there for a long time!) and everything is new. I think more than the aesthetic value of the buildings, if they tore down the massive fencing and built retail or commercial along Columbus it would serve a better purpose than what is there now.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 16:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Thank you for your input. I see per the JCRA they have already approved an additional building along Columbus. So, that would be lights out on this idea if it goes forward. But, there's still a chance to stop that and to turn the property into something worth looking at and it can't hurt to mention it. I am surprised at the resistance to Eminent Domain on these buildings. They are so hideously ugly. Wouldn't Jersey City-ens be proud if they had their own massive redevelopment project at the heart of the city?
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
1. The current use of the space impedes upon the master plan of the city. 2. The city would benefit vastly from a complete redevelopment of an 8-acre property. I don't really need to argue the benefits of redevelopment, but progress in general is good for a city, especially of this magnitude. 3. The deficit in tax collection of actual vs potential on an 8 acre property could be labeled detrimental to the city's fiscal health. 4. The original WTC project was seized through Eminent Domain based on the same grounds.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58 Last Login : 2015/12/30 14:17 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
195
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what "soul" the buildings have now... Anyway, eminent domain is politically infeasible (as you can see from the comments, the general public is irrationally and angrily opposed even to its mention) even though it would probably be a good idea for the city. The project to develop the parking lots is by necessity only a half-measure that will not accomplish all it could because the existing buildings are to be preserved. This isn't a knock against the residents, only the buildings themselves, which simply cannot be integrated into a decent streetscape no matter what is built on the parking lots. It's possible that a private developer will come along one day and purchase the buildings and knock them down, but the cost-prohibitive nature of demolition means that is unlikely to happen for at least a couple of decades, and, if the parking lot project is ever actually built, probably will never happen.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Eminent domain is pointless: they're already planning to build a bunch of new structures around the existing buildings. That's been in the works for at least a decade, you can go see renderings on the wall in the building office. Construction started several years ago when they demolished the central corridor, but the discovery of chromium contamination and subsequent remediation slowed everything down.
I lived there for six years. Nothing we did would stop the kitchen roaches and we had a persistent leak in the walls, but it was quiet, roomy, reasonably priced, we had friendly neighbors from all over the world and the front desk folks were always super nice to me. Building management changed a few years ago, though, and I've heard the new company added lots of surprise fees and is a lot more difficult to deal with.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29 Last Login : 2020/3/12 17:59 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
200
|
Why is the possibility of eminent domain dismissed out of hand? Why specifically is the notion DOA?
As an alternative, as all the empty lots downtown are developed one by one, once all the undeveloped parcels are gone, would it make sense for a private developer to come in, buy out the current occupants and build something that uses the space more effectively? And that is if they could get all the residents out. Seems regardless of how much of a dump a place is to live, there are always one or two that refuse to leave (see Montgomery Gardens). As OP said, its a massive parcel of land - have any of the high rises completed in JC been on a lot as large as 8 acres? That's half the size of the WTC site. Perhaps the cost would be too great for a private developer to finance... And of course, there is the additional pressure 2,000 new units would place on Grove Street PATH. But an interesting discussion nonetheless.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No there isnt in dtjc. Sorry you still have to live there. And you pretty much confirmed every "exaggerated" claim i stated.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You may get constructive criticism once you make a constructive comment. Here's a start. Try researching and stating the standards for eminient domain, and how you think this building satisfies those standards.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
I apologize everyone. I did not mean to type "15 years" I meant to type "51 years" and I do not have an edit button to correct this. Construction began in 1963 and was completed in 1965 per the tax listings.
I see this idea has not been well received, although I think that is based mostly on my lack of credibility. There are quite a few comments on its outlandishness, but not a single example of what is wrong with it. If anyone could take time to list the flaws in this idea, please do so. I am more interested in constructive criticism than Sopranos references.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 14:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Good stuff, Yvonne, thank you.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 14:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Another tidbit of information, when they the knocked down the buildings and dug the foundation for the Gregory Complex, remnants of a sailing vessel was found. The shore line changed over the years.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 13:58
Edited by Yvonne on 2014/10/27 14:16:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
The site where the Metropolis buildings are now standing used to be the heart of downtown JC - the City Hall was located there in the 19th century.
This is a then and now photo showing a short part of the stretch of Newark that used to continue through the Metropolis towers site: http://www.jerseycitythenandnow.com/2 ... derson-st-marin-blvd.html And this photo shows the site, towards Columbus (aka Railroad Ave) after all old buildings had been razed and before anything had been built - an amazing photo: https://flic.kr/p/ivddtC The lower industrial buildings just behind the elevated railroad in center of photo were Henderson Yards, with repair buildings for Path trains. That's now the location of 50 Columbus. A different era...
Posted on: 2014/10/27 13:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Regardless of whether it's realistic or not, I vote for eminent domain! Those buildings are so ugly, inside and out. I looked into living in them when I first moved to JC 9 years ago and remember the front desk person (could never be classified as a "concierge") being really rude. I don't think we actually bothered to go up and see the unit, the "lobby" was so dirty and it felt sort of unsafe. I got the same feeling walking in there that I used to get when I'd visit a friend living in a project in Manhattan.
And then after Sandy we walked by the parking lot and there was some super fancy car that had been flooded out. I think it was an orange Bugatti. So weird. I would definitely have spent my money on a better place to live, not a ridiculous car. And if I didn't live there, I would have stowed my super fancy car somewhere a little higher than sea level.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 13:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm rarely stupefied by anything I read on here. You, sir, have managed to do it. As a bunch of people have pointed out, the buildings are a lot older than 15 years. If you've bothered to look at them, you'd know that. And your argument just goes downhill from there.
As for what they're like inside...the previous poster really exaggerates, or maybe things have taken a turn for the better. Yes, the buildings are dated. Yes, many of the residents enjoy curry. But the management addresses repairs pretty promptly, and exterminators service the building every month. Given that it has fairly reasonable rents and killer views, there are lots of worse places. And the parking lots...if you paid attention, you'd know that they just completed a huge chromium mitigation project. That was the first step in a redevelopment of the lots. So, relax. You'll have your overpriced pet-food stores and soulless bars on that property soon.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 13:20
|
|||
|
||||