Affluence brings with it a desire to own a car. Not in every case of course, but often. Having a car is a great, great convenience.

When I think of the folks I know who live in Manhattan, all but one owns a car. Admittedly, this is a 50+, reasonably well-heeled crowd for whom a $400/month parking fee isn't insurmountable.

My hunch is that as Jersey City becomes more affluent, there will be more cars.

That's already proving true in the Heights where many of my neighbors have three or more cars! A generation ago eaxh family might have had one car and some had none.

Drivers seem to circle endlessly in search of spaces at night.

All this said...after living in JC for 6 months I got rid of one car and now have only one (and my house has off-street parking so I am in spades).

I really appreciate the feedback, and I will do my best today to take time to respond to each post. Figuring out how to make this work is important and I think it is close...

Doozer-
The disclaimer you mentioned is included in the ordinance. There is a financial penalty on the developer if this disclosure is not provided.

In general, I don't like the idea of anything that makes owning a car in an urban area like JC easier. Just as affluent communities use 2 acre zoning the ensure that new residents are of a certain economic level, maybe we should make parking sufficiently difficult that families that must own multiple vehicles find living here unattractive and people who can get by with public transit find the area more attractive. I know this is pie in the sky thinking. Okay then, how about making all parking private. I don't own a car, but i own a twenty foot wide brownstone. I can get a ticket if my sidewalk is not clean, so why can't I rent out my curb as a parking space, since apparently I own it. After a 34% tax hike that $200 bucks a month would be nice. Privatizing would eliminate a bit of the city bureaucracy - no more permits. Parking rules could remain in effect too.

Here's an implication of the proposed ordinance that troubles me. As an example: Grove Pointe. If I understand correctly, residents will not be allowed street permits because parking will be included in the project. Will there be parking over and above the necessary amount for owner/tenants to accommodate people who want to drive to our soon to blossom Restaurant Row? As much as I would like to see patrons and shoppers arrive on foot or by public transit, will the new ordinance make it difficult for people who do want to drive into the area to find off street parking because so much of it will have to be taken up by residents. This would be a hardship on merchants trying to make a success of their new businesses.

Personally, I would like to see more efforts to discourage non-resident street parking, including an increase in the fee for non-resident permits. That would not only free up spaces but also decrease commuter traffic and hopefully encourage public transportation.

First off...the important point is that you are initiating a discussion of parking which, I believe, is fast becoming a hot button issue. Old parking lots downtown are vanishing. They were there to inventory land and now that the land has value as building lots, the parking goes. Downtown is not alone in facing a parking crisis. The Heights is far down this path, too. (Thus the many, many illegal curb cuts that attempt to create private parking slots.) There just aren't enough spaces anymore. This is a problem that needs addressing, so I support your efforts. As for your specifics -- <> This is a fine idea. When I lived in Marbella, right after it opened, I paid for two parking slots (a total of $350/monthly, if I recall correctly). Much of that parking garage was empty however. Either residents didn't own cars or they fought for spaces on the streets -- but those street spaces are vanishing as new condo towers go up in the warehouse district. Street parking is not an inalienable right. Developers are required to put in off-street parking so that residents will park there and not fight for a dwindling number of street slots. Yes, this does mean an extra $175 or $200 out of pocket...but so it goes. Personally...I envision us moving back downtown or to Paulus Hook in a year or so...but I won't buy anything that doesn't offer parking. Will that cost me $$? You bet. But I'd rather pay for a spot than pay innumerable tickets.

I would be for this only if new tenants in the affected building sign a seperate document stating they are aware of the parking regulation. Otherwise, I feel too many new residents will be gouged by developers.

Here's why: In the above examples, we can not use a free market analogy, because this is not a free market and the developers clearly have a monopoly over their tenants parking situation. For example, let's say developers continue to offer rent at the current price, without included parking. If the developer decides to raise parking from $200/month to $400/month, what recourse does a tenant have? Existing tenants using parking will not have street permits, and will not have the option of getting one. If half the tenants decide to sell their cars rather than pay the premium, the developer will still earn the same amount they did before (because the doubled the price), and street parking will not be any better off. Meanwhile, tenants who were parking off street are penalized.

I would be much more in favor of a system that penalizes the building for empty spots. That would force the building to lower monthly prices until the spots are filled or open the spots to outside residents (or both). Unless the developer/building management faces a penalty, there is no reason they shouldn't raise their prices and capitalize off their new found monopoly.

There is an exemption in the ordinance for affordable housing and Senior Housing. Don't forget, this will effect only the people who will be moving in to the larger buildings, not residents who are here.

Steven Fulop

Sounds like it may be tough on the less affluent areas.

Since I have been in this position, one thing I have learned is that people are apprehensive about change regardless of the situation. Since elected, I have taken the approach to try and navigate some contentious issues to what I believe is better for JC even if I recognize there may be some political fallout. With that said, I would like you all to be aware of a significant change to the Parking Ordinance that Councilwoman Richardson and I have proposed that I believe in my heart will benefit buildings with off-street parking, buildings without off-street parking, and visitors.

This has been an interesting situation for me, as I have had some pushback from residents and pushback from developers - which is an interesting mix. It leads me to say I am missing something as these are always competing interests. With that said I will do my best to explain the ordinance, and I do welcome/hope for your feedback and perspective.

-----------Important note----------
There will be no change to anyone reading this. There is a grandfather clause in the ordinance that if you have a permit now you will have one going forward. This will only affect residents who do not yet live in JC (maybe do not know they are moving to JC) and will correct the issue in existing units over time as people move out.

----------The Goal Of the Ordinance--------
The goal is to ease the parking problem. Most large buildings are forced to build off-street parking but the city has made a mistake in the past whereas we have not forced the parking to be linked to the units. In many buildings over half the spots sit vacant as those residents get on-street parking permit. I believe this ordinance will correct this and benefit everyone involved

-----------How It Works---------
Residents in buildings of 30 units or more with off-street would no longer be entitled to on street parking permits until all spaces in that building are filled (this is the basic premise- there are nuances to this) but this the overview

--------The Comments From Critics---------
We are creating a second class of residents that are not entitled to on-street parking - which is not fair. We are forcing these people to buy off street parking at a premium.

-------My Thoughts on How It Will Ultimately Effect Buildings With Off Street parking--------
The argument above is not really true as the ordinance doesn?t affect anyone currently here and the burden of disclosure regarding the parking situation for future residents is very clear before someone signs a lease. Nobody will be blindsided.

On pricing, I think anyone who saw this as an opportunity for price increases from a landlord is mistaken and this is a knee-jerk way to look at the legislation. I will do my best to elaborate and I recognize that I don?t have the best writing skills so I hope the idea is conveyed appropriately.

If we agree that markets are self correcting and efficient over the longer term (which they are) it is difficult to make the argument that this is remotely beneficial for a developer, in actuality I would argue it is the exact apposite. This is based on the reality that the housing market in JC (or anywhere) will only hold what the individuals in the market are willing to pay. The housing market and rental market clearly do not go up indefinitely. I think we would all agree that the Jersey City market will always be at a slight discount to Manhattan, at a premium to markets like Bayonne/Weehawken, and (perhaps) similarly priced to Hoboken.

With that said, lets go with the argument that a developer who previously charged X for rent now will charge new residents X+200 automatically because parking is now included. If this was the pricing scheme it is a self correcting market and people would choose not to live here, because the value add is no longer there versus neighboring municipalities because the market is out of perspective.

The only reason that the current pricing scheme is X for rent and an optional $200 for parking today is because essentially there are currently two Jersey City offerings in those buildings for residents (off-street parking and on-street parking). The only thing that this legislation will do is eliminate the dual offerings because there will only be one way to go. Once again if you believe markets are efficient, if anything it will only decrease the value of the off street parking proposition versus rent because it will correct itself with what people are willing to pay to live in any building in Jersey City.

-----------Why I think it will benefit Residents without Off Street Parking---------
This is clear as over time it will work proactively to take cars off the street and put them in parking spaces that were built to house them

Once again, there are competing interests here that rarely see ?eye to eye? which sends an alarm in my head and your feedback is certainly appreciated. If you had the stamina to make it through this excessively long post for which I apologize, hopefully you are willing to give some perspective as it would certainly be appreciated.

Steven Fulop