ceo3west wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

The developer went to court to enforce his legally granted rights. Clearly the community had issue with the process, but that is not the developer's problem. The fact that he was willing to make concessions at all was commendable; it certainly wasn't required. The argument that this development was out of character for the neighborhood really was a stretch when you consider directly across Varick is a building with a slightly larger number of apartments.

Also the fact the city decided to appeal a case that's sure to lose at the behest of the VVPA. And there were many arguments the VVPA made up to oppose this, but parking was the one that got the most publicity. VVPA also floated a classist and borderline discriminatory argument that the type of development would bring in young 20-somethings and they the neighborhood didn't need "those people". So thanks to the collective wisdom of the VVPA, tax money is being wasted on pointless lawsuits and the area is still a blighted damn parking lot - one that could have been paying taxes and at least.

Like I said before (although you edited my quote)

Wrong on all counts....you are misinformed...

So stop lying. No point in arguing with a Troll.

That guy has done nothing but troll since he signed up. Developers probably handing out $100 bills on the street to people to troll this board and come to meetings speaking out for the slumlords.

tbo wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

The developer went to court to enforce his legally granted rights. Clearly the community had issue with the process, but that is not the developer's problem. The fact that he was willing to make concessions at all was commendable; it certainly wasn't required. The argument that this development was out of character for the neighborhood really was a stretch when you consider directly across Varick is a building with a slightly larger number of apartments.

Also the fact the city decided to appeal a case that's sure to lose at the behest of the VVPA. And there were many arguments the VVPA made up to oppose this, but parking was the one that got the most publicity. VVPA also floated a classist and borderline discriminatory argument that the type of development would bring in young 20-somethings and they the neighborhood didn't need "those people". So thanks to the collective wisdom of the VVPA, tax money is being wasted on pointless lawsuits and the area is still a blighted damn parking lot - one that could have been paying taxes and at least.

Like I said before (although you edited my quote)

Wrong on all counts....you are misinformed...

So stop lying. No point in arguing with a Troll.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

The developer went to court to enforce his legally granted rights. Clearly the community had issue with the process, but that is not the developer's problem. The fact that he was willing to make concessions at all was commendable; it certainly wasn't required. The argument that this development was out of character for the neighborhood really was a stretch when you consider directly across Varick is a building with a slightly larger number of apartments.

Also the fact the city decided to appeal a case that's sure to lose at the behest of the VVPA. And there were many arguments the VVPA made up to oppose this, but parking was the one that got the most publicity. VVPA also floated a classist and borderline discriminatory argument that the type of development would bring in young 20-somethings and they the neighborhood didn't need "those people". So thanks to the collective wisdom of the VVPA, tax money is being wasted on pointless lawsuits and the area is still a blighted damn parking lot - one that could have been paying taxes and at least.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

The developer went to court to enforce his legally granted rights. Clearly the community had issue with the process, but that is not the developer's problem. The fact that he was willing to make concessions at all was commendable; it certainly wasn't required. The argument that this development was out of character for the neighborhood really was a stretch when you consider directly across Varick is a building with a slightly larger number of apartments.

tbo wrote:

It was the developer that sued the City and took the project to court. He is the one who decided to waste taxpayer money instead of going to the zoning or planning board as every developer in the City has to do. Any "concessions" that he made with the City were never realistic or came with other unreasonable demands.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

Another example is the idiotic move by the VVPA to take the developer at Bright & Varick to court, even after it was very obvious they would lose. They decided to get the city involved and waste taxpayer and association money on an ill-fated lawsuit all because of "Wah, my free parking!".

The developer offered very reasonable concessions to the neighborhood and was well within his right to tell the VVPA to piss up a rope, which he will once the judgement comes in favor. He had originally offered Zipcar spaces and free membership for the nearby residents. Now we'll get nothing because people decided to make the central issue parking, despite there being not 1, but 2 half empty parking lots in a block radius. Thanks, VVPA!

GrovePath wrote:
Careful, some might mistake you for one of the so-called "DEVELOPER TROLLS"

dtjcview wrote:

Might want to simply form your own group. None of the NAs will get millions from developers and businesses. The right city-wide advocacy and community service group would.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

This thread should really be merged.

dtjcview wrote:
When local NA's stop being a whiney group of do-nothings, they'll earn respect. Over 2 decades in JC, they simply haven't earned mine.

Why don't I engage? Why engage with kids with ADD?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
It's ridiculous how much power neighborhood associations are given in Jersey City compared to NYC. In NYC, they're more or less figurehead advisory votes and the city routinely ignores them, rightfully recognizing that most of them are made up of old crackpots and NIMBYs who in no way represent their current demographics.

Here, their asses are kissed and kowtowed to every which way. No doubt they've done some good things over the years for their areas, but they really hold back progress on a lot of different fronts like bike lanes, density, commercial development, etc.

This is SO TRUE. If you want another example of a neighborhood association that is almost singularly concerned with parking and how to stop or slow down development, check out PADNA. Personally, and one on one, they are all great people, but I wholeheartedly disagree with most of their positions, and the group could really use some fresh perspectives.

I'll bet a lot of you would be shocked to learn HPNA opposed a dog run in the park for many years. Sometimes these organizations just have belief systems.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
It's ridiculous how much power neighborhood associations are given in Jersey City compared to NYC. In NYC, they're more or less figurehead advisory votes and the city routinely ignores them, rightfully recognizing that most of them are made up of old crackpots and NIMBYs who in no way represent their current demographics.

Here, their asses are kissed and kowtowed to every which way. No doubt they've done some good things over the years for their areas, but they really hold back progress on a lot of different fronts like bike lanes, density, commercial development, etc.

This is SO TRUE. If you want another example of a neighborhood association that is almost singularly concerned with parking and how to stop or slow down development, check out PADNA. Personally, and one on one, they are all great people, but I wholeheartedly disagree with most of their positions, and the group could really use some fresh perspectives.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
It's ridiculous how much power neighborhood associations are given in Jersey City compared to NYC. In NYC, they're more or less figurehead advisory votes and the city routinely ignores them, rightfully recognizing that most of them are made up of old crackpots and NIMBYs who in no way represent their current demographics.

Here, their asses are kissed and kowtowed to every which way. No doubt they've done some good things over the years for their areas, but they really hold back progress on a lot of different fronts like bike lanes, density, commercial development, etc.

SOS wrote:
If you want to help the disadvantaged, encouraging in place renovations and new construction is important. Much of the housing stock in the village is crap. Tear it down as needed, and replace with R-5. Four stories?shocking! The only wonder is why the push for R-5 has taken so long.

SOS wrote:
I'd wager that many of those against R-5 are also in favor of the Reval, under the assumption that the revaluation will restore fairness to the property tax structure - helping some of the poorest areas in JC.

If you want to help the disadvantaged, encouraging in place renovations and new construction is important. Much of the housing stock in the village is crap. Tear it down as needed, and replace with R-5. Four stories?shocking! The only wonder is why the push for R-5 has taken so long.

corybraiterman wrote:
there's already a thread for this...