brewster wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

OK, so back to DATA rather than hysteria! What is the average car ownership rate in Downtown new construction? Has ANY Downtown development topped out it's parking?

As I've said before, the traffic doomsayers about the Home Depot are my touchstone in being very skeptical about the next Development Apocalypse.

ProdigalSon wrote:
I can also tell you that I have gotten permits for two different homes that both had available parking for them. I don't think the parking authority is doing due diligence when someone applies for a permit.

Stop me if you've heard that one before, a rule is on the books in Jersey City and never enforced...

jklm wrote:

Parking eligibility interpretation has a learning curve - I appreciate the details.

Upon asking a senior parking official, "If 'they' provide a letter from ownership/management Co. stating there are no spaces available they are eligible for an on-street permit. They have to proof annually because availability is subject to change."




Quote:

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.


But if a resident in a building of FIVE or more units, that has off-street parking, is not able to get a space in that lot because is full and therefore UNAVAILBLE to them for lease or for free, they can get a street permit.

And the threshold of 5 of more units might pertain to why Prodigal son got a spot, depending on how many units that home had. Under 5 unit in building/home - get as many dang permits as you want. This happens in my hood. There's a homeowner in our parking zone with a 4 unit house, that has converted the back yard into a parking lot with about 5 spaces. He rents all those out for cash, and gets street permits for him and his family. They do not park their own cars there. Its infuriating.

JC also has no limit on number of vehicle permits per address. This is a big problem in terms of discouraging less car ownership. At least in Hoboken they increase the yearly cost of permits on a tiered price increase after the first permit.

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.


But if a resident in a building of FIVE or more units, that has off-street parking, is not able to get a space in that lot because is full and therefore UNAVAILBLE to them for lease or for free, they can get a street permit.

And the threshold of 5 of more units might pertain to why Prodigal son got a spot, depending on how many units that home had. Under 5 unit in building/home - get as many dang permits as you want. This happens in my hood. There's a homeowner in our parking zone with a 4 unit house, that has converted the back yard into a parking lot with about 5 spaces. He rents all those out for cash, and gets street permits for him and his family. They do not park their own cars there. Its infuriating.

JC also has no limit on number of vehicle permits per address. This is a big problem in terms of discouraging less car ownership. At least in Hoboken they increase the yearly cost of permits on a tiered price increase after the first permit.

jklm wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

OneSkirt wrote:
Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

jklm wrote:
Buildings that come with off-street parking - even if it's not 1:1. Are NOT eligible for zone permit parking.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

E. Parking permits shall be issued to motor vehicles only upon application by the following persons:
(1)
A legal resident of the residential permit parking zone who (a) has a motor vehicle registered in his/her name or available for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control; and (b) resides in a property in which no off-street parking is available to residents, whether the off-street parking is provided free of charge or is only offered for a separate fee or rent.
(2)
A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential permit parking area or employee thereof (pay stubs shall be submitted for proof of employment). However, no more than one (1) parking permit may be issued for each employee for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such a person.
(3)
A person who is a current student of an educational institution (proof of current registration required) located in the residential parking permit zone.

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

sepecat wrote:
Not enough of parking per unit? Deed it out to certain unit, and move it it around for a profit of 70K. Glad the city is on the developers side.

sillyscorp wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Is the developer going to give something back to the community for this release from the agreement? I don't understand how they can get so close to being finished and then asked for these roll backs.

I agree with this comment -- the fight about should we have parking or shouldn't we and how much should have been had long ago (and probably was) with the planning board but unless there has been some crazy big change on the site that was impossible to expect (and no bad soil, contamination and flooding isn't in this category... that is pretty much a known issue here) then why are they getting out of the agreement that was decided on?

This is the biggest issues we have here IMO.... developers are able to get away with whatever they want and the public and the government do not hold them accountable.

sillyscorp wrote:
This is the biggest issues we have here IMO.... developers are able to get away with whatever they want and the public and the government do not hold them accountable.

sillyscorp wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
It's sad that our culture views a developer that wants to produce less parking that was previously agreed upon as a bad thing. Folks on JJ are talking about pulling the abatement.

If the developer wanted to build more parking than was previous agreed, would folks celebrate on JJ be celebrating. Would JCListers still defend keeping to the original agreement without changes.

They are asking for the ok. Simply don't approve it at the planning commission and it shall be there.
personally I would still be asking what has changed.... any changes to the original agreement (more parking, less parking, more units, less units, more open space, less open space, roof decks etc) should come with compromise. Its not like the developer here is taking out some parking spots and putting in a nice community garden or a citi bike station. They are probably going to squeeze in another unit or something like that which means more money for them and "less" for the community. Will they be reducing over all height? or adding more green space? having additional services for the community? putting in permeable ground cover to decrease run off issues? doesn't sound that way to me

If it makes you feel better replace parking with any other amenity - the bottom line is there was an agreement based on one set of conditions and now they want to switch that up but don't want to change anything else and that to me isn't ok

JCGuys wrote:
It's a self selection issue. Buildings built without parking are going to attract mostly residents that don't own a car. Buildings built with parking enables car ownership and will attract residents looking to keep their cars in the city.

It comes down to what kind of residents the city wants to attract.

JCGuys wrote:
It's sad that our culture views a developer that wants to produce less parking that was previously agreed upon as a bad thing. Folks on JJ are talking about pulling the abatement.

If the developer wanted to build more parking than was previous agreed, would folks celebrate on JJ be celebrating. Would JCListers still defend keeping to the original agreement without changes.

ProdigalSon wrote:
Is the developer going to give something back to the community for this release from the agreement? I don't understand how they can get so close to being finished and then asked for these roll backs.

user1111 wrote:
IMO car owner ship is very high or you people have a lot of visitors with cars. I go dtjc about 2 x a month and there is never anywhere to park on the street.

Stringer wrote:

Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
February 22, 2016 at 2:35 PM

JERSEY CITY — A developer's request to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a building going up on 10th Street has residents worried about a coming parking crunch in the neighborhood.

Developer LeFrak had originally agreed to set aside 163 spots for the 163 units in its Revetment project, a six-story building going up on a block of the 10th Street Embankment in the Hamilton Park neighborhood. But tomorrow it will appear before the Planning Board to request lowering the required number of spaces to 123.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... development_decrease.html