MDM wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i hope the owner sues..i thought it was against the law to seize private property for commercial development even if it is condemned

Kelo vs. City of New London made it okay to do just that. It ranks up with Griggs vs. Duke Power and Dred Scott as some of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
The thing that really bothers me about this (having read the report found here http://goo.gl/Blo2Y0) is the total smear job they're trying to run on 202 York. I feel bad for whoever lives there. From page 8:

This three-story, five-unit multifamily building is in poor condition. The exterior has a rear yard, strewn with trash and surrounded by a chain-link fence that is falling down.
Inside, the building is dark, cramped, and lacks proper life safety updates.
The generality of the building is of substandard design with small inefficient units. An exterior survey reveals a minimally maintained building
with unidentifiable opening for possible venting and un-repaired patching.
Loose and hanging wires, and wired entering and exiting the center, side and front walls. While the vinyl siding appears new, it is impossible to determine
the true condition of what it covers underneath. The visible fa?ade that remains is a mix of stucco, brick face, tile and concrete.
The rear of the building, although it does contain a metal fire escape, requires some repairs to insure it is closed and secure. In its current state it appears to be
approaching dilapidation and obsolescence. It possesses characteristics of lacking light, air, and space, in a manner conducive to unwholesome living conditions.
Multiple windows are blocked by in window air-conditioning units, the front yard, contain as vent within the ROW indicating the presence of some
underground utility serving the building but within the City ROW. The chimney appears to need re-pointing.
Both the front and the back of the building contain an undersized person door non-compliant to current building code or safety design standards.
This site can be found to meet criteria "a" as an "area in need of redevelopment."

This describes 90% of the low rise housing stock in Downtown Jersey City. This building actually looks nicer than mine from the outside! Crappy fences and poorly installed Comcast/Fios wires do not justify the taking of property by the city for the benefit of a developer.

i hope the owner sues..i thought it was against the law to seize private property for commercial development even if it is condemned

Image here: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandh ... ity_NJ_07302_M57967-32069

(sorry - couldn't post it)

This is the house on 202 York. According to Zillow, it sold in January of this year for $615,000:

Alert
Date Event
01/05/2015
close detail
$615,000
Recording Date: 01/05/2015
Contract Date: 12/29/2014
Sale Price: $615,000
Price Type: Full amount stated on Document.
County Transfer Tax: $615
Total Transfer Tax: $2,153
Transaction Type: Insured Non-Residential Grant Deed
Document TypeDeed

...and a little colorful JC history about the address:

"Three Counterfeiters Arrested: Three men who are believed to be of a gang which has been passing counterfeit quarters and half dollars in New Jersey have been arrested by Secret Service officers in Elizabeth The prisoners gave names as John Harvey John J Haskings and Charles B Herman One was recognized the police as Joseph McArdle of 202 York Street Jersey City In his room were melting pot a sand box some le d and other articles which the Secret Service men are used by counterfeiters. Dickerman's United States Treasury Counterfeit Detector, 1909"

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
The thing that really bothers me about this (having read the report found here http://goo.gl/Blo2Y0) is the total smear job they're trying to run on 202 York. I feel bad for whoever lives there. From page 8:

This three-story, five-unit multifamily building is in poor condition. The exterior has a rear yard, strewn with trash and surrounded by a chain-link fence that is falling down.
Inside, the building is dark, cramped, and lacks proper life safety updates.
The generality of the building is of substandard design with small inefficient units. An exterior survey reveals a minimally maintained building
with unidentifiable opening for possible venting and un-repaired patching.
Loose and hanging wires, and wired entering and exiting the center, side and front walls. While the vinyl siding appears new, it is impossible to determine
the true condition of what it covers underneath. The visible fa?ade that remains is a mix of stucco, brick face, tile and concrete.
The rear of the building, although it does contain a metal fire escape, requires some repairs to insure it is closed and secure. In its current state it appears to be
approaching dilapidation and obsolescence. It possesses characteristics of lacking light, air, and space, in a manner conducive to unwholesome living conditions.
Multiple windows are blocked by in window air-conditioning units, the front yard, contain as vent within the ROW indicating the presence of some
underground utility serving the building but within the City ROW. The chimney appears to need re-pointing.
Both the front and the back of the building contain an undersized person door non-compliant to current building code or safety design standards.
This site can be found to meet criteria "a" as an "area in need of redevelopment."

This describes 90% of the low rise housing stock in Downtown Jersey City. This building actually looks nicer than mine from the outside! Crappy fences and poorly installed Comcast/Fios wires do not justify the taking of property by the city for the benefit of a developer.

i hope the owner sues..i thought it was against the law to seize private property for commercial development even if it is condemned

Rorschach wrote:
Hey, why not just give the current City Hall to a developer and have them build a 90 story residential building. Then move all City operations to the MLK Hub

hero69 wrote:
i hope the owner sues..i thought it was against the law to seize private property for commercial development even if it is condemned

DanL wrote:

I forgot the "cherry on top", the city can avoid selling the development property to the highest bidder and instead designate another friendly developer who will be touted as the best developer in the world to develop what Jersey City needs most.

Yvonne wrote:
The city is not saying what they want with the parking lot. But let's be realistic, how do people in different parts of the city attend meetings? I called people to attend meetings on matters that effect their wards and they came down but could not find parking. Since JC is almost 15 square miles, parking should be parking of any municipal plan.

Bogart wrote:
Quote:

bjay wrote:
I'm not surprised to see the linkage of City Hall with the parking lot across the street. This could be a very smart way to get the developer to pay for City Hall renovations in order to get the right to build on the parking lot. But isn't it a bit odd that the City Hall Study Area includes one single row house on York Street?

Quite odd. I bet there's an interesting story there.

JCman24 wrote:
The thing that really bothers me about this (having read the report found here http://goo.gl/Blo2Y0) is the total smear job they're trying to run on 202 York. I feel bad for whoever lives there. From page 8:

This three-story, five-unit multifamily building is in poor condition. The exterior has a rear yard, strewn with trash and surrounded by a chain-link fence that is falling down.
Inside, the building is dark, cramped, and lacks proper life safety updates.
The generality of the building is of substandard design with small inefficient units. An exterior survey reveals a minimally maintained building
with unidentifiable opening for possible venting and un-repaired patching.
Loose and hanging wires, and wired entering and exiting the center, side and front walls. While the vinyl siding appears new, it is impossible to determine
the true condition of what it covers underneath. The visible fa?ade that remains is a mix of stucco, brick face, tile and concrete.
The rear of the building, although it does contain a metal fire escape, requires some repairs to insure it is closed and secure. In its current state it appears to be
approaching dilapidation and obsolescence. It possesses characteristics of lacking light, air, and space, in a manner conducive to unwholesome living conditions.
Multiple windows are blocked by in window air-conditioning units, the front yard, contain as vent within the ROW indicating the presence of some
underground utility serving the building but within the City ROW. The chimney appears to need re-pointing.
Both the front and the back of the building contain an undersized person door non-compliant to current building code or safety design standards.
This site can be found to meet criteria "a" as an "area in need of redevelopment."

This describes 90% of the low rise housing stock in Downtown Jersey City. This building actually looks nicer than mine from the outside! Crappy fences and poorly installed Comcast/Fios wires do not justify the taking of property by the city for the benefit of a developer.

bjay wrote:
I'm not surprised to see the linkage of City Hall with the parking lot across the street. This could be a very smart way to get the developer to pay for City Hall renovations in order to get the right to build on the parking lot. But isn't it a bit odd that the City Hall Study Area includes one single row house on York Street?

tbo wrote:
From what I understand, there is no redevelopment plan yet. Tomorrow's agenda is for a Resolution to accept City Hall as a "non-condemnation" study area (fancy word for blight - essentially does the same thing)

DanL wrote:

keep in mind, a redevelopment plan is NOT necessary to develop the land according to existing zoning or to even get variances, but if this piece of land in the midst of booming Downtown Jersey City, is determined to be an area in need of redevelopment area by the blight study (and it always is), then the city will be able to do as I mentioned - break the historic district zoning and now be able to grant another downtown tax abatement.

Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
so DanL - have you learned anything more about a redevelopment plan for City Hall?

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The city is not saying what they want with the parking lot. But let's be realistic, how do people in different parts of the city attend meetings?

If you insist on driving, park at either Grove Pointe (3min walk), or 50 Columbus (6min walk). Don't be dumb AND lazy.