Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
24 user(s) are online (14 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 24

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 8 »


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:

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?

Yvonne, forgive me but I feel like this discussion is had over and over again, to no avail. There is very little free parking in Manhattan - the only viable comparison, since Jersey City is very much dependent on NYC for it's growth. And, it's viewed in most planning circles, by advocates for sustainable growth and cities that engage a new demographic, that eliminating cars from urban streets is a good thing http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/p ... ing-is-screwing-up-cities, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/sci ... .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think the Mayor, and his planning professionals, understand what some residents are actively fighting to ignore - that remaining a car dependent "hybrid" city does not bode well for future development, or for attracting the types of businesses and residents that make urban areas thrive.

And the "old timers" need to remember - their parking was never free, we all paid for it - and those of us who live in multiple dwellings - and pay disproportionate taxes because of the city's pandering to that particular voting block in the past are willing to put up a fight.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 18:25
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/10/18 18:59
Last Login :
Today 0:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 538
Offline

Having won the lawsuit, you can do whatever you plan to do. I think you are being a great neighbor/builder for soliciting advice but I think you should just move forward. I haven't attended any of the neighborhood meetings, but from reading the thread, it seems like the problem is the number of parking spaces. I suppose having a few token spots would be great for those driving in and out and loading their cars. There really isn't a close parking spot near your location i think (unless i'm wrong).




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.


Posted on: 2014/12/19 18:14
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4840
Offline
Quote:

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


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?

Posted on: 2014/12/19 17:55
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/8/1 19:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:08
From journal square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 258
Offline
This is a city. I understand it is geared more as a hybrid between a city and suburbia with the mall and box stores and requirements for parking are different. But still, it is evolving and there is a 24 hour Subway system and (whether it is working or not), most cities in America dont have that. I think Fulop did the right thing to reduce the amount of parking in these monstrosity garages which blight the aesthetics of the street scape downtown. Again, I know JC isnt NYC, but can you imagine if they required a parking space for all 8 million residents in NY what a disaster that would be for the city. In cities, the compromise is that there is NO guarantee for free parking.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 17:53
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2018/9/5 5:49
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2295
Offline
Yeah and that 40% is for all of JC. Downtown, the % of people without cars is higher.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 17:51
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
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

Posted on: 2014/12/19 17:42
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4840
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 17:13
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
4/5 18:29
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1904
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 15:02
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
8/14 17:34
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4971
Offline
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.


So true.. my neighborhood is not near the PATH but people use buses and lighrails. I do have a car, but I also have a garage. This is from Neighborhood Scout... American households most often have a car, and regularly they have two or three. But households in the Bayside Park neighborhood buck this trend. 30.1% of the households in this neighborhood don't own a car at all. This is more carless households than NeighborhoodScout found in 96.8% of U.S. neighborhoods.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 14:13
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4840
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2014/12/19 14:12
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
4/5 18:29
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1904
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 14:04
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4840
Offline
Quote:

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.


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.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 13:50
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
10/9 0:57
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3641
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 13:40
Top


An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/10/2 12:56
Last Login :
2014/12/19 12:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2
Offline
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.


Posted on: 2014/12/19 12:47
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
Why are we considering an project at 28 Bright Street that increases units, when we are fighting the micro unit project. This seems insane to me. Why aren't we holding the line on the present plan-22 units. The last project this developer did on Duncan Ave, has had a slew of problems that have gone unresolved by the developer. Once again, we are setting ourselves up to have a project jammed on our neighborhood.

Posted on: 2014/6/3 15:52
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/7/4 16:37
Last Login :
Today 0:43
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 537
Offline
Latest on the micro units - from wiredjc.com:

--------------------------------------------
From the VVPA:

A brief update on the latest developments as of Friday January 17th for the Bright & Varick Redevelopment Plan:

The Office of Housing, Economic Development and Commerce issued a letter to Michael Rushman and his lawyers stating that the "proposed 87 micro unit project at 268 Varick is denied based on ambiguity pertaining to density". He cited the letter our lawyers wrote to the city on our behalf saying that it "raises important questions and presents me with doubt as to whether or not your application would require a "d" variance for density under this redevelopment plan" (Read the full letter here). He goes on to say that they can appeal and have 20 days to do so.

So...GOOD NEWS!

We are not sure what happens next but we know the fight is NOT OVER...will they appeal? Will they take the city to court? Will they apply for a variance? We continue to retain our lawyers. We can use your continued support. We will be having a series of fundraisers soon. In the meantime, any donation will help us with our legal fees. You can donate online at vvpa.org. Or bring your check books to the meeting on Tuesday!!

Posted on: 2014/1/18 20:27
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
thanks for the information. What concerns me is we are going to find ourselves in the same position with 28 bright Street, that we are in with the micro unit project. My understanding is the developer designated by the JCRA doesn't have a signed contract at this point. They are requesting an amendment to the redevelopment plan. The present plan calls for 22, 1200 square foot units with parking. The JCRA affordable housing developer wants over 30 units. Why enter into a contract that will require a increase in the number of units. The city council members know what we are facing with the micro unit project. They know our concerns. Why allow the JCRA to enter into another contract that will bind us to developer and his plan or the JCRA plan. This seems backwards and on the part of the council members hypocritical. Isn't this the thinking that got us into the mess with the micro unit project in the first place.

Posted on: 2014/1/13 3:08
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1207
Offline
Candice Osborne and I must have been typing at the same time last night. She is correct. Council President Lavarro did alert VVPA, and that information was included in VVPA's December newsletter.


Posted on: 2014/1/11 13:21
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1207
Offline
The micro unit project is 104 Bright Street (formerly 268 Varick). 28 Bright is further east.

Posted on: 2014/1/11 4:08
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/10/8 15:41
Last Login :
2018/3/13 14:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 107
Offline
Quote:

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!


I think you may be mixing situations. The parking lot where teachers used to park at Bright and Varick was voted on by city council in 2011, well before I was on city council. Also, it is not part of my ward since it is west of Jersey Ave.

That is not 28 Bright though. 28 Bright IS in my ward. I know that there was something that was in Van Vorst Park that came for a vote in front of the JCRA in December but not in front of city council (I am going to assume it was 28 Bright.) The council president, who sits on the board of the JCRA, notified the neighborhood association in advance of that meeting.

I know it can be confusing with the amount of development going on and the various boards and agencies, so please do contact me if you have any questions - cosborne@jcnj.org

Best,
Candice

Posted on: 2014/1/11 4:04
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
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!

Posted on: 2014/1/11 2:26
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
That is amazing. They ignored our letters and concerns. They just ignored us completely! Its not like the city didn't know we had concerns. This is the same old politics all over again!

Posted on: 2014/1/11 1:52
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/7/19 12:53
Last Login :
2017/3/17 0:57
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
If this was up for Council Vote and was voted on Dec. of last year, the information should be found here:

http://jerseycitynj.gov/pub-info.aspx?id=13939
There were two meetings in Dec., and both Agenda and Resolution links can be found.

Jan. 15th 2014, agenda just got put up as well: http://www.jerseycitynj.gov/agenda.aspx?id=1268

Posted on: 2014/1/11 0:30
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
I didn't see this in the press. I called the council offices and they told me the JCRA approved the project and developer in December. That was the only information I was able to get from the LoVarros office.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:40
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
link?

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:33
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
Is that what is happening here! that is crazy. Why jam these projects in our neighborhood. Why no community involvement first.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:29
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/11 3:28
Last Login :
2017/1/5 1:56
From Leashless Glory.
Group:
Banned
Posts: 2889
Offline
When they shutter projects like Montgomery Gardens then those residents have to go somewhere. Allentown and Peekskill aren't an option for some of them.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:23
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
I know we had issues with this project last year and the VVPA issued a letter to the mayor opposed to the changes in the redevelopment plan because of density. The lot is in the historic district. Why not involve us in the process, since we are having so many issues with the micro unit project. Did they think we wouldn't find out.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:14
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2006/6/13 17:16
Last Login :
2017/2/3 3:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 522
Offline
I read about it somewhere.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:01
I live by the river.
Top


Re: Bright Street parking lot approved for 30 units by the city!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4840
Offline
30 affordable units could be 120 people in that area. Can that area support 120 people. I am basing this on 4 people per unit.

Posted on: 2014/1/10 23:00
Top




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 8 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017