JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

what is the particular peice of land zoned for? just because a develope wants to build higher than permitted and just because the jsq area is getting hot does not mean the residents should suffer. otherwise, why nort just build mini tower everywhere that a developer wants

It's zoned for 42 storeys and the city has signed a legally binding agreement to vacate a small portion of west.

It's asinine but the community wants the city to violate a legally-binding agreement to vacate a portion of west street that was executed under the prior administration AND also down zone the property.

As Yvonne has stated, the community wasn't involved much when the property was zoned for 42 storeys. In my opinion, the elected officials did a very poor job. For example, the city received land for a park in exchange for getting additional height. However, the community doesn't want the park! The community shows their displeasure by getting their former council person voted out of office! Good for them. The Hilltop Community is still upset over this decision, but it would open the city up to lawsuits if it were to down zone the property again. I don't want my tax money to pay for Hilltop's losing battle over their continued bitterness of the poor representation by their prior ward councilperson.

I personally believe this is a good spot for a transition between the skyscrapers planned in Journal Square and the low-rise neighborhoods to the east. It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of 70 storey tower and limit the west side of Summit Ave to 2 storeys. That's how the Journal Square plan was written, and I think our planning department bears some of the blame in screwing this one up.

Before the plan, the owners of 500 Summit had permission to build up to 12 floors but the Journal Square redevelopment plan downzoned the property to just 6 floors. Understandably, the land owners were very upset and sued the city. The down zoning of property could considered a violation of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - a taking of private land without just compensation. The city realized this wicked mistake and settled with the developer to build much higher in exchange for a park.

It's a messy situation and I feel for the community that was wronged, but you don't fix past mistakes by making more bad choices such as reneging on a legal settlement and doing the exact same thing that got you into this mess in the first place. The community did the right thing by electing in a new ward councilor.

Just my two cents.

what is the particular peice of land zoned for? just because a develope wants to build higher than permitted and just because the jsq area is getting hot does not mean the residents should suffer. otherwise, why nort just build mini tower everywhere that a developer wants

JCGuys wrote:
What a bunch of NIMBY losers.

Hello McFly?! The site is directly across the street from the KRE three-tower development. The tallest reaches a height of 70 storeys. Growth should happen here due to the proximity to the PATH station.