An additional question best put to the City Clerk relates to what constitutes legally adequate notice. Unfortunately, it's probably legally sufficient to only provide the block and/or lot number of the affected property.

That being said, the city seems perfectly capable of adding parenthetical (aka or also known as) descriptions identifying the full street address(es) associated with the Block and Lot numbers -- see agenda items (a) and (h).

The simple conclusion to be drawn is that the city simply chooses not to draw attention to particular items by not providing full descriptions.

As a matter of best practice and transparency, all agenda items affecting real property should also include the street address whether or not it's legally required. This sounds like it could easily be addressed by an administrative resolution of the city counsel to change this practice.

Because it is not illegal, does not make it right. Our council members continue to take/solicit campaign contributions from the very developers that they upzone land for, bypass city planning and fail to ensure compliance with law, then grant tax abatement agreements

As long as developers, their consultants and professionals can "buy" favorable redevelopment plans and tax abatements, nothing will change.

Civic JC has proposed a Redevelopment Pay to Play ordinance based on a model ordinance from Citizen's Campaign that has been implemented elsewhere in NJ.

For more information, see our press release at Civic JC - Redevelopment Pay to Play

These votes did pass unanimously.

While I have certainly been the most selective when voting for these tax abatements BY FAR, this situation was different. As a point, these tax abatements come before the council often and the overwhelming majority of the time I do vote "no". In this case, there were several reasons that I thought this makes sense, all of which I cited which I commented before I voted.

I will be the first to say that the duration of these abatements is an issue that I am not happy about, but the structure of the abatements is set in a tax abatement committee to which I (or most of the council) is not part of. In reality that committee could and should have more non governmental input as a balance (which I have brought up) but it is something structured by the mayor's office

Also, I do post the council agendas on my web site before every meeting so that people can see clearly and have access to what we are voting for. You can always do a quick scan and see if there is anything that you feel particularly passionate about and either shoot me an e-mail to which I will certainly respond or you can speak at the meeting. (I don?t post all the resolutions as sometimes there are many but the ordinances are always there)


Steve

Lengthy tax deals OK'd by council
Saturday, October 14, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

The Jersey City City Council granted three tax abatements Wednesday that went beyond the usual 20-year timeframe.

Two 25-year abatements were related to a project by brothers Paul and Eric Silverman to transform the former Saint Francis Hospital in the Hamilton Park section of the city into a 225-unit condo complex.

The third tax abatement, for 30 years, was for the second phase of the American Can Co. building on Dey Street, where New York City-based Coalco is renovating the old factory to build at least 511 market-rate units, 440 parking spaces, 7,000 square feet of open space, and 1,200 square feet of retail space.

The developer has previously agreed to donate $185,000 to local nonprofit organizations. Council members said the developer deserved the 30-year abatement because this section of town needs an economic jump-start.

Of the Saint Francis project, council members said the developers, well-known for their renovation of the Majestic Theater, are giving to the city several amenities, including the re-opening of a section of Pavonia Avenue and the expansion of Hamilton Park.

The developers and council members also cited the difficulty of renovating three hospital buildings that will become part of the complex - a justification for the tax abatement Jersey City resident Dan Sicardi wasn't buying.

"If there was a horrible building and it was on Central Park South . there's no question someone would try to grab that building," Sicardi said. "It's a gorgeous area. And no affordable housing is included. That (inclusion of affordable housing ) should be carved in stone."