Hondo202 wrote:
Update: https://jerseydigs.com/jersey-citys-sc ... gets-10-million-donation/

justJC wrote:
Ready, set, discuss!

Why did these docs have to be OPRA'ed?

Did the Council members read them?

What's a science specialty hotel?

And there's this: Bleeding edge technology is a category of technologies so new that they could have a high risk of being unreliable and lead adopters to incur greater expense in order to make use of them. So has City leadership adequately protected JC with this land hand-off?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wndxx3kEacX2t3NnUwN2xQR3M/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wndxx3kEacLXUzd2tyZ0hGVXc/view

Mao wrote:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/15b16bbeb4dfba06

Above is the link to the Memorandum of Understanding. Esther Winter went through the trouble (FOIA request) and expense (over $200) to get a copy of it. Guess what? She got it after the vote. So much for transparency.

Although personally, a fan of Charter Schools, why did the Council act coy, to say it as politely as possible, and say it was undetermined whether the school was to be a Charter or a regular public shool?

Also, the hotel is described in terms that suggest it will also assert non profit status (provide lodging for science visitors etc). Corp. Counsel Jeremy said that it would be for profit.

So this new entity will have one member and owner, namely the Science Center. An LLC with only one member is treated as an entity disregarded as separate from its owner for income tax purposes (but as a separate entity for purposes of employment tax and certain excise taxes), unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation.

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CREATE LIBERTY HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THEY MERELY AMENDED IT FROM IT'S 1973 CREATION TO PAVE THE WAY FOR FULOP'S VISION OF SCITECH CITY 2015,, AFTER DOING NOTHING FOR 2 YEARS ,, AND PUSHED IT THROUGH ON 01/25/17...WITHOUT DUE PROCESS SUPPORTED WITH ONLY SLOPPY PLANNING DIVISION WORK/MAPS & RENDERINGS.... IN A BUMS RUSH TO MEET FULOP'S ELECTION YEAR TIMELINE REQUIREMENTS.

As relevant as your comments are, I suggest that you TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK ON YOUR KEYBOARD! It's annoying.

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Yvonne, can you be more specific about what type of public school? Magnets and charters are public schools.

The city told me it would be a traditional public school.

Council President Lavarro said the JCRA would possible vote to amend the redeveloper agreement with SciTeh Scity tonight (6 pm, 30 Montgomery) to make that specific in the agreement.

light12v wrote:
CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CREATE LIBERTY HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THEY MERELY AMENDED IT FROM IT'S 1973 CREATION TO PAVE THE WAY FOR FULOP'S VISION OF SCITECH CITY 2015,, AFTER DOING NOTHING FOR 2 YEARS ,, AND PUSHED IT THROUGH ON 01/25/17...WITHOUT DUE PROCESS SUPPORTED WITH ONLY SLOPPY PLANNING DIVISION WORK/MAPS & RENDERINGS.... IN A BUMS RUSH TO MEET FULOP'S ELECTION YEAR TIMELINE REQUIREMENTS.

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CREATE LIBERTY HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
THEY MERELY AMENDED IT FROM IT'S 1973 CREATION TO PAVE THE WAY FOR FULOP'S VISION OF SCITECH CITY 2015,, AFTER DOING NOTHING FOR 2 YEARS ,, AND PUSHED IT THROUGH ON 01/25/17...WITHOUT DUE PROCESS SUPPORTED WITH ONLY SLOPPY PLANNING DIVISION WORK/MAPS & RENDERINGS.... IN A BUMS RUSH TO MEET FULOP'S ELECTION YEAR TIMELINE REQUIREMENTS.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

JUST FINISHED READING ORD#17-002 DOCS. AND YOU WERE THE ONLY SPEAKER AT THE 01/25/13 COUNCIL MEETING THAT I SEE ON THE DOCUMENTS

Yes, I was. Council-President Lavarro tried to cut me off by saying this not about transferring the land but I reminded him this is step one.

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

JUST FINISHED READING ORD#17-003 DOCS. AND YOU WERE THE ONLY SPEAKER AT THE 01/25/13 COUNCIL MEETING THAT I SEE ON THE DOCUMENTS

Yvonne wrote:
Several months ago, when the city council created the redevelopment plan I spoke against this. Councilman Boggiano said the city told him this land was worthless at that meeting. His comments were picked up by Al Sullivan for the Jersey City Reporter. I don't remember the issue but I am sure you can still find it.

Monroe wrote:
Anyone saying this land is worthless is missing the fact that a plot half as large, across the street, sold for $35 million dollars TWO YEARS AGO.

And dolomiti, do you think Fulop is going to make people from downtown drive Grand/Pacific/Johnston/Phillips to get there....

And yes, if the donors were donating the money-why would JC have to wait for (whoever it is) to be paid back first?

And in the revised plan, JC will be getting half the 'profits' (if any) from the get go.

It's a jello plan. You can't grab it, you can't examine it.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
[quote]
That's not my understanding.

1. LSC fundraises and gets $78m from donors
2. LSC will invite investors for another $55m worth
3. LSC takes out loans for the rest of the project
4. Nothing has to be repaid to the donors
5. The city starts getting paid for the land, after the project makes $78m in profits; they are paid 50% of subsequent profits.
6. Once the land is paid off, the city's share drops to 20%.

In my opinion, not getting paid back until $78m in profits was a poor deal for JC. JC should be getting a % of revenues from day 1. It doesn't have to be 50% - it could even be 1-5%.

But the current deal just incentivizes LSC to delay profitability. Or redefine what profit is (using accounting tricks).

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

stc4blues wrote:
I still don't understand what's going on with this $78M. De we have:

1. Doners' giving $78M to a non-profit entity, which then
2. loans it to a for-profit entity (against the value of the land?),
3. which must then repay the loan to the non-profit entity. Hence,
4. The City's 50/50 split of the net doesn't kick in until that loan is repaid.

Is that what's going on?

That's not my understanding.

1. LSC fundraises and gets $78m from donors
2. LSC will invite investors for another $55m worth
3. LSC takes out loans for the rest of the project
4. Nothing has to be repaid to the donors
5. The city starts getting paid for the land, after the project makes $78m in profits; they are paid 50% of subsequent profits.
6. Once the land is paid off, the city's share drops to 20%.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Quote:

Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?

Why not also include a hotel and conference center on a portion of the site if it makes the project and Sci-Tech City more economically feasible.

10 story hotel and huge conference center is not a good fit for the site in general.

That said, it sounds like the site will have a small conference center, and 50 units of temporary housing for visitors.

It's also a little difficult to have a big hotel and conference center occupying the same space as a project that combines commercial, residential and a school.

I don't disagree with any of your points, Dolomiti. I'll clarify my point: I don't believe Sci-Tech City, as originally planned, is economically feasible and thus will never be built or significantly scaled back from the fancy renderings we're seeing now. This reliance on philanthropic dollars is fantasy and the rushing through of this without an appraisal of the land reeks of something.

Don't get me wrong, the land could be worth $100 million. I still think it's a great project. I just lack confidence that the appropriate funding is in place without tapping into that land value by selling a portion for traditional development with proven track record of producing income (i.e. offices, residential).

The entire site is 16 acres. Three or four or those acres will need to be sold to traditional developments to maximize the highest and best use of the land in order to fund the other improvements, in my opinion. I hope my opinion is wrong, but I just don't see Liberty Science Center's board pulling this off.

Please, someone, prove me wrong and demonstrate that Liberty Science Center has the financial capacity to carry out SciTech City as planned.

JCGuys wrote:
You guys are nuts. If this land was sold at market value, we wouldn't get any of the community benefits coming from SciTech, such as the K12 school, the science and technology incubator, or the unique architecture. This will also have economic spin offs bringing much needed jobs!

This $20 million subsidy from the city is needed to make this happen, or we would just get the run of the mill apartments and condos here.

I think the city already does a good job at marketing and selling vacant and underutilized city land for redevelopment and having it produce revenue in the form of PILOT payments or property taxes. I would just put that process on steroids sell to whatever developer is willing to pay the most money up front plus whatever would generate the most in taxes. I think that's already happening in Journal Square with all the big mega towers going up.

hero69 wrote: Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Fulop critics urge Jersey City Council to rethink $20M Liberty Science Center land deal

HUDSON COUNTY VIEW -By  John Heinis  February 24, 201

Two consistent critics of Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop’s administration urged the city council to rethink a $20 million, 16-acre land deal with the local redevelopment agency to move the Liberty Science Center’s “SciTech Scity” project forward.

“So you plan to giveaway 16 acres [of land] worth $20 million? Wow. But first you want to transfer it to the JCRA (Jersey City Redevelopment Agency). What is [sic] JC residents getting for giving away $20 million in real estate?,” Josephine Douglas-Paige asked the council at Wednesday’s meeting.

http://hudsoncountyview.com/fulop-cri ... science-center-land-deal/

this is why its time for fulop to go! does this guy have any ethics! the building looks nice but i didn't realize he was gifting $20 million to the developers?

annieruiz wrote:
"Funding for the project is expected to come largely from venture partners and philanthropists"

Sounds great! I just hope they already know who is paying for this so we dont get stuck with the bill in a few years. Looking forward to it though.