JCGuys wrote:
Hahahhaa This is rich.

I thought you wanted parks instead of development, troll Yvonne. If the city proposed a FREE public parking garage on the embankment, I'd bet you be gushing over it.

Yvonne wrote:


Why is this my fault? I did not urge the city government to take someone's property. I see this as a prelude to taking Hyman's property today and others tomorrow. This stinks.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

Your logical does not make this deal smell any better. It is one thing for a crook to do this but this is government. The city is running a scam saying there will be a rail spur. It is a lie. No one should lose their property over a lie. This reminds me of the scams people get in the internet. You won a million dollars, in order for me to process the claim, give me your bank account. The government picked Hyman's pockets for years with property taxes then offered him a sum that is equivalent to two brownstones in the area.

Hyman isn't going to lose this property because of a lie. He's going to lose it because Conrail's sale/his purchase weren't legal under Federal law. That's it as far as Hyman is concerned. As for taxes he's paid to date, good question.

This thread reminds me of the quote of my mother: Rationalization is the root of all evil. The fact, people on this thread thinks the lie of a rail spur is OK and ignore the other abandonment of other rail lines. I hope no one here is involved in teaching morality.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

Your logical does not make this deal smell any better. It is one thing for a crook to do this but this is government. The city is running a scam saying there will be a rail spur. It is a lie. No one should lose their property over a lie. This reminds me of the scams people get in the internet. You won a million dollars, in order for me to process the claim, give me your bank account. The government picked Hyman's pockets for years with property taxes then offered him a sum that is equivalent to two brownstones in the area.

Hyman isn't going to lose this property because of a lie. He's going to lose it because Conrail's sale/his purchase weren't legal under Federal law. That's it as far as Hyman is concerned. As for taxes he's paid to date, good question.

This thread reminds me of the quote of my mother: Rationalization is the root of all evil. The fact, people on this thread thinks the lie of a rail spur is OK and ignore the other abandonment of other rail lines. I hope no one here is involved in teaching morality.

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

Your logical does not make this deal smell any better. It is one thing for a crook to do this but this is government. The city is running a scam saying there will be a rail spur. It is a lie. No one should lose their property over a lie. This reminds me of the scams people get in the internet. You won a million dollars, in order for me to process the claim, give me your bank account. The government picked Hyman's pockets for years with property taxes then offered him a sum that is equivalent to two brownstones in the area.

Hyman isn't going to lose this property because of a lie. He's going to lose it because Conrail's sale/his purchase weren't legal under Federal law. That's it as far as Hyman is concerned. As for taxes he's paid to date, good question.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

Your logical does not make this deal smell any better. It is one thing for a crook to do this but this is government. The city is running a scam saying there will be a rail spur. It is a lie. No one should lose their property over a lie. This reminds me of the scams people get in the internet. You won a million dollars, in order for me to process the claim, give me your bank account. The government picked Hyman's pockets for years with property taxes then offered him a sum that is equivalent to two brownstones in the area.

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

JPhurst wrote:
Maybe not. But the reason this came out was that there was a particularly tenacious group of volunteers that looked into the matter and cared enough about it to raise it. If you don't like how development proceeded along the waterfront, then maybe you and others could have raised this issue to ensure appropriate public input and best use of former railroad property.

So instead of blaming the current administration, you should be praising the Embankment Preservation Coalition.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
My arguments have nothing to do with what is happening to Hyman. It is government using its power and treasury to take property away. There was no secret about this property. Everyone knew Schundler was aware but silent so to say Conrail went about this without notifying City Hall is untrue. I believe the firm Schundler wanted for this property was JP Affordable Housing but I am not 100% sure so I did not mention this developer before. Every mayor has certain developers that develops in their administration, JP Affordable Housing was one of the developers in Schundler Administration.

Fortunately, when it comes to railroad rights of way, federal law does not allow this cozy arrangement.

It may very well be that Schundler had a developer buddy in mind, and then passed on it. The entire purpose of the federal statutory scheme, however, is to ensure that former railroad properties are not subject to such deals. The railroads made a fortune off these properties and received significant government intervention so that they were built.

So when they exit the railroad system, there is a modest requirement that they formally apply to abandon the line. This allows interested parties, such as advocates for parkland, to make their case for acquisition. It is precisely to avoid the wheeling and dealing that public officials, railroads, and developers engage in.

Conrail did not do that, and tried to sell it on the quick to Hyman. Had they followed federal law, the Embankment Preservation Coalition would have done what they were doing now, advocating for parkland. Except that Hyman could not claim that he already owned it.

But because they broke the law, Hyman is now saying that they are trying to take his property. Except that it should not have been his from the get go. If there is an injustice in this, it is that Hyman and Conrail are leveraging their violations of the law to negotiate a higher price for a sale that was improper and illegal from the beginning.

Yvonne wrote:
My arguments have nothing to do with what is happening to Hyman. It is government using its power and treasury to take property away. There was no secret about this property. Everyone knew Schundler was aware but silent so to say Conrail went about this without notifying City Hall is untrue. I believe the firm Schundler wanted for this property was JP Affordable Housing but I am not 100% sure so I did not mention this developer before. Every mayor has certain developers that develops in their administration, JP Affordable Housing was one of the developers in Schundler Administration.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
I wish there was some other local park that was originally intended to be a rail line, but got turned into a park with the understanding that it could be switched back to rail use if needed. Can anyone think of anything? I feel like there has to be something.

I do not know of any local parks in this situation. But this process, railbanking, is explicitly authorized by federal law.

http://www.railstotrails.org/build-tr ... ding-toolbox/railbanking/

This is what makes the Embankment different than your typical piece of property. It was a railroad which is considered to be in the public trust. CONRAIL was created by the federal government to acquire the assets of the bankrupt railroads. CONRAIL Shared Assets, the successor to CONRAIL, was the entity that sold the property. But the railroads are not your typical property owner. They are treated differently because if the use of eminent domain used to acquire railroad rights of way in the first place, the extensive public subsidies and rights that railroad carriers had, the bailouts that railroad companies received from the federal government to keep vital operations running, and the public interest in maintaining these corridors.

Railroads must go through the formal abandonment process precisely for the reasons here. It doesn't matter that Schundler passed on it as a favor to a developer friend. In some cases mayors can screw taxpayers that way, but not in the case of former railroad rights of way.

Hyman and Conrail Shared Assets knew exactly what they were doing, and were hoping that no one would notice. But someone did (and I know the individual who was one of the first to raise this publicly).

The key points are.

1) There is no "false pretense" under which Jersey City is attempting to acquire the property. Acquiring it as a rail line is so that it comports the requirements of federal law concerning railbanking.

2) Abuse of eminent domain can be a legitimate concern. But what is happening here is not something that can happen to you unless you circumvent federal law to acquire your property.

Compliance with federal law is what Jersey City is doing and what Hyman and Conrail Shared Assets purposely did not do.

Yvonne wrote:

And this is not a sham, the $3 million figure and the pretend that this will be a rail spur?

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
$3 million is wrong. That is the price of perhaps two brownstones in the immediate area. That is nothing but a ripped off sum.

Well that's what he bought it for, which just furthers suspicion that the transaction was a sham.

Yvonne wrote:
$3 million is wrong. That is the price of perhaps two brownstones in the immediate area. That is nothing but a ripped off sum.

T-Bird wrote:
Hyman has reached tentative agreements with the city to sell on at least three occasions, each time for considerably more money than the last. (The last one was in the tens of millions, plural.) He backs out each time because he always becomes convinced he can get more. Or he is just effing with the city. Or he doesn't like the font on the paperwork. Whatever. He certainly isn't someone to feel sorry for.

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
So if you want to maintain something as your own... why would you not pay the taxes on it - like Hyman is? Wouldn't that weaken his case for ownership? He is claiming it as his... so he is paying the taxes. You're not making sense.

Please, please, please provide the detail on the legality of ownership for the BBB property... I would find this interesting. Let me preface - mumbling conjecture is not detail or proof.

radryan03 wrote:
So if you want to maintain something as your own... why would you not pay the taxes on it - like Hyman is? Wouldn't that weaken his case for ownership? He is claiming it as his... so he is paying the taxes. You're not making sense.

Please, please, please provide the detail on the legality of ownership for the BBB property... I would find this interesting. Let me preface - mumbling conjecture is not detail or proof.

radryan03 wrote:
So if you want to maintain something as your own... why would you not pay the taxes on it - like Hyman is? Wouldn't that weaken his case for ownership? He is claiming it as his... so he is paying the taxes. You're not making sense.

Please, please, please provide the detail on the legality of ownership for the BBB property... I would find this interesting. Let me preface - mumbling conjecture is not detail or proof.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
This is also not the same thing as eminent domain because the sale of the property to Hyman was not done in accordance with federal law.

If Hyman's property is illegal then the rest of 6th St is illegal including the street where Bath, Bed, and Beyond is located. The city for years gave Hyman a tax bill, if this was illegal, why give him a tax bill? So, it is OK to require someone to pay property taxes, then take his property for $3 million, then introduce and pass an ordinance pretending there will be a rail spur knowing this is a false. The Colonist revolted against the King of England for less reasons. This is down right horrible.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
This is also not the same thing as eminent domain because the sale of the property to Hyman was not done in accordance with federal law.

If Hyman's property is illegal then the rest of 6th St is illegal including the street where Bath, Bed, and Beyond is located. The city for years gave Hyman a tax bill, if this was illegal, why give him a tax bill? So, it is OK to require someone to pay property taxes, then take his property for $3 million, then introduce and pass an ordinance pretending there will be a rail spur knowing this is a false. The Colonist revolted against the King of England for less reasons. This is down right horrible.

JPhurst wrote:
This is also not the same thing as eminent domain because the sale of the property to Hyman was not done in accordance with federal law.