Jersey City lauds long-awaited construction of $180 million residential tower

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal
on March 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Jersey City officials today cheered the groundbreaking of a long-awaited, 35-story residential tower set for the former site of an historic warehouse.

Construction on the tower, located at 110 First St., began weeks ago, but city officials appeared on First Street today to don construction hats and throw some dirt around in shovels emblazoned with the proposed tower?s street address.

?This is going to be a great place to live,? said Richard Mack, CEO of Area Property Partners? North American business, a leading investor in the $180 million tower.

110 First St., set for completion by March 2015, will be home to over 350 rental units and will reach 375 feet, according to Lloyd Goldman, developer of the project. The building, which will also have 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space, was approved for over 450 units in early 2008.

The residential tower will sit on the site of an historic warehouse that Goldman demolished in 2004. The warehouse was one of two ? the other was located across the street at 111 First St. ? at the center of a lawsuit between Goldman?s New Gold Equities and the city that was settled in 2006.

Today's groundbreaking was strictly ceremonial, and in fact took place on the 111 First St. site because there was construction occurring on the 110 First St. site.

Mayor Jerramiah Healy today said the city should be "business friendly."

?For our city to continue to survive and actually thrive, it?s dependent on private development,? said Healy, who is running for a third full term in May?s city election.

At about this time before the May 2009 city election, which Healy won handily, the mayor appeared in Journal Square to herald the imminent construction of a twin towers project that has yet to materialize.

Asked about that today, the mayor said the 110 First St. project is completely funded, while the twin towers proposal came soon after the 2008 economic collapse.

?It?s a different time, it?s a different place,? he said.

Goldman said the imminent completion of the new World Trade Center tower across the Hudson River is reason enough for him to be confident about the need for a new residential tower in Downtown Jersey City.

"Those workers need housing and this is the ideal location," he said.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_lauds_long-awaited.html

I'm not surprised by the city's "compromise"...the city should have demanded $5 million and I believe that goldman could get investors....its only 25 out 462 units

110 First St. developer proposes building 10 on-site affordable units, instead of 25

July 16, 2012, 4:43 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City has reached an agreement with the owner of a proposed Downtown tower to include 10 units of affordable housing in the long-awaited First Street residential and retail complex.

Lloyd Goldman, the owner of 110 First St., had agreed in 2008 to include 25 affordable units in the tower, the site of a former warehouse. But Goldman has been unable to find investors for the tower because of that requirement, and in May asked the city to reduce the required affordable units to zero.

The new agreement, which will require City Council approval, would also see Goldman contributing $1.1 million to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In exchange, Goldman promises to commence construction on the 452-unit tower within six months.

Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis at this morning?s City Council caucus framed the new agreement as a win for the city, one that will transform a vacant lot on prime Downtown property into a long-awaited residential and retail complex.

?It is a vacant lot that only generates $150,000 a year? in property taxes, Matsikoudis said. ?If this is approved, it will generate $1.5 million (annually) for 10 years.?

In May, Matsikoudis asked the council to reduce the number of affordable units in the 110 First St. plan from 25 to zero, and to allow Goldman to contribute $2.5 million to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund so the units could be built elsewhere in the city.

Some council members balked, saying they didn?t want affordable units ?concentrated? in other areas of the city.

In response to council concerns, the city agreed to negotiate another deal with Goldman, resulting in the newest proposal that would require 10 units of affordable housing and the $1.1 million contribution to the trust fund.

At least one council member still objects. Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop said the agreement is ?not a good deal,? and noted that city Tax Collector Maureen Cosgrove voted against it at the July 13 meeting of the city Tax Abatement Committee, which approved the new agreement with Goldman by a 5-1 vote.

?This thing is flawed on many front,? Fulop said at this morning?s council caucus. ?This is a bad deal.?

Goldman's First Street properties - he also owns 111 First St. - are the location of two former warehouses, one of which housed an artists enclave until 2005. The city entered into a legal battle with Goldman to keep him from tearing down the warehouse that housed the artists, saying it was a historic structure that should be preserved.

110 First St. is the location of a separate warehouse that had already been torn down when the city reached its original settlement with Goldman.

The council is set to vote on the new agreement at its meeting Wednesday, which begins at 10 a.m. at City Hall, 280 Grove St.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... st_developer_propose.html

Fair compromise? - 110 First St. development to have 10 affordable units on-site. But are they enough?

by E. Assata Wright
Reporter staff writer - July 15, 2012

For the first time in more than three decades, affordable housing units could be built in downtown Jersey City, thanks to a compromise deal reached last week between city officials and the owner of vacant land at 110 First St.

The 10 rental units that have been promised are, however, a step down from the 25 affordable units that had originally been planned for the 452-unit project.

This development has become a flashpoint of controversy because of the property owner?s insistence in recent months that the affordable units be dropped from the project altogether. It now remains to be seen whether the 10-unit compromise will be approved by City Council members who wanted to hold the property owner to the original agreement.

Attorneys for Lloyd Goldman, the owner of 110 and 111 First St., last week reached a deal with the city?s Tax Abatement Committee to begin construction on a residential rental development at the 110 site, which is currently a vacant lot. Under an earlier settlement agreement reached with the city, Goldman had originally agreed to have 25 units of affordable housing units included on-site as part of the development.

The 110 lot has remained vacant for six years and this project has not broken ground, according at Goldman attorney Robert Cavanaugh, because developers who were going to partner with Goldman on the project balked at the requirement that 25 affordable housing units be built on-site.

?Three developers have already walked away from this project. We?re now working with our fourth developer,? said Cavanaugh. ?The affordable housing requirement was not the only reason developers have back out, but it was one of the reasons they gave for not working with us. They said they either couldn?t get financing or they just couldn?t get the numbers to work out in a way that had some benefit for them.?

Earlier this year Goldman began negotiating in closed-door meetings with the city?s corporation counsel to have the 25 affordable housing units dropped from the project in exchange for giving a $2.5 million contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Goldman has already made one $2.5 million contribution to the trust fund, which helped fund the construction of the Summit Heights development.)

The City Council refused to approve this deal in May after it was pointed out that affordable housing units created from the trust fund are disproportionately built in Wards F, D, and B, with no affordable housing units built in Ward C or downtown in Ward E. The Summit Heights development is, for example, located in the Jersey City Heights in Ward D.

This revelation has led some members of the council to call for a more even distribution of affordable housing throughout the city, rather than concentrations of it in certain communities.

?Is there anything in this agreement that requires that the $2.5 million be used to create affordable housing near this development?? Ward B Councilman David Donnelly asked in May when Goldman tried to have the affordable housing units nixed from the 110 First St. development. ?I think the way to do affordable housing is not to concentrate them in one community, but to spread them out throughout the city.? Cities, he added, fare best when they are ?economically diverse and mixed.?

Old agreement

At the center of the debate are two sites on First Street that were once 110 First St. and 111 First St., the latter of which was once home to the ill-fated 111 First St. artists? studios.

More than 10 years ago Goldman waged a bitter legal battle to evict and otherwise remove artists from the 111 First St. lofts, which had been home to artists? studios since the 1980s. After the artists were forced out, Goldman fought an equally bitter legal battle with the city for the right to demolish 111 First, which the city said was an historic property.

Goldman and the city eventually settled. Goldman was allowed to demolish 111 First St. and develop both the 110 and 111 properties in exchange for numerous concessions to the city.

Among the agreements Goldman made was to include 25 affordable housing units in his 35-story development at 110 First St. and contribute $2.5 million to the affordable Housing Trust Fund. (Separate affordable housing units and artists? lofts are planned for the new 111 First St. development.) The planned development at 110 First St. would have a total of 452 units, including 427 market rate apartments. The 110 First St. development received a tax abatement from the city and obtained site plan approval.

New agreement

Under the new agreement reached last week with Goldman, he and a developer will build a 35-story, 452-unit residential project at 110 First St. The development will have 442 market rate rental apartments and 10 affordable housing units on-site. Goldman will contribute $750,000 to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which will be used to create 15 additional affordable housing units off-site.

The project will also include 343 parking spaces and 16,597 square feet of retail space.

?I spoke to [Councilwoman At-large] Viola Richardson and she said we absolutely had to have some affordable housing on-site,? said Cavanaugh. ?She was instrumental in getting on-site units back in the project.?

This compromise agreement must still be approved by the full City Council. It could be on the agenda at one of the council meetings later this month.

Meanwhile, a proposed law introduced last month by council members Steven Fulop and Rolando Lavarro Jr. that would require affordable housing trust fund projects to be built in the same wards as the developments that generated the contribution has been shelved while the council weighs how best to disperse affordable housing throughout the city.

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... ndary_stories_left_column

Quote:

Will JC take back the waiving of the height and density requirements????

110 First St. developer proposes building 10 on-site affordable units, instead of 25

Published: Monday, July 16, 2012, 3:29 PM
Updated: Monday, July 16, 2012, 4:43 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City has reached an agreement with the owner of a proposed Downtown tower to include 10 units of affordable housing in the long-awaited First Street residential and retail complex.

Lloyd Goldman, the owner of 110 First St., had agreed in 2008 to include 25 affordable units in the tower, the site of a former warehouse. But Goldman has been unable to find investors for the tower because of that requirement, and in May asked the city to reduce the required affordable units to zero.

The new agreement, which will require City Council approval, would also see Goldman contributing $1.1 million to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In exchange, Goldman promises to commence construction on the 452-unit tower within six months.
Full JJ piece?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... st_developer_propose.html

** ***

Buy the JJ?

what happened to the koollhaas design? so typical of JC - bait and switch!

Quote:
I wouldn't say 265 more than half is a "bit" off. I could imagine with an average of 2 residents per apartment, some with one and some with more than two we could see anywhere from 500 - 1000 more people in the area which means more passengers on the already crowded PATH train.

Quote:


Wall Street Journal published ... not New York Times.


"Negotiations are under way with Lloyd Goldman, one of Manhattan's most powerful real-estate investors, to strike a deal that would help him move forward with one of the district's first significant high-end projects: a roughly 500-unit tower at 110 First St."

This is a bit off - about 235 units in this building, not roughly 500.

I'm not buying this 'not economically making sense because of the downturn' argument. If the downturn were the real reason, then they wouldn't want to be building in the first place. Anybody that knows anything about the state of real estate in the NYC area at the moment knows that the rental market is on fire. Rents are rising so high in Manhattan that people are getting priced out and looking elsewhere. Why do you think all of these projects are suddenly back on track? Developers don't build huge buildings unless they think they can make money off of them...NOW. They are not in the business of spending millions of dollars on buildings that are going to sit empty.

And money is what this all comes down to.

I understand the free market, but Goldman made a deal so he could get more than he was entitled to under the zoning laws. Now he realizes he's not going to make as much money as he could if rents all of the units at market rate.

That's understandable from his perspective, but it's not the deal he struck. If he now doesn't like the deal, then he can always just go with what the land is zoned for.

Bottom line, Lloyd Goldman's profit margins aren't the city of Jersey City's problem. One less tower is not going make or break the city's budget. And my guess is that if the city sticks to their guns, he will suddenly see that he can, given the current rental market, make plenty of money and the building will get built anyway.

THE NEW YORK TIMES - NY REAL ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
By LAURA KUSISTO
June 24, 2012, 9:45 p.m. ET .

Tower Ruffles an Arts District

JERSEY CITY?When officials planned to remake a rundown warehouse district near Jersey City's waterfront into the latest luxury residential neighborhood, they promised to preserve it as a haven for the artists who populated the area by tucking cheap lofts into the new towers.

Instead, eight years later, the section?dubbed the Powerhouse Arts District?has been mired in lawsuits and seen little new development, illustrating the potential pitfalls of trying to tailor-make a neighborhood out of collection of buildings.

Negotiations are under way with Lloyd Goldman, one of Manhattan's most powerful real-estate investors, to strike a deal that would help him move forward with one of the district's first significant high-end projects: a roughly 500-unit tower at 110 First St.

Under the latest proposal presented to the City Council, Mr. Goldman wouldn't be required to include affordable-housing units in the new building. Some locals and the neighborhood's city councilman argue the deal would be the final blow to the struggling arts district.

"We're an artists' district by name only, especially if we get rid of the affordable housing," said Kevin Pollack, who lives in the area and sits on the board of the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association.

Mr. Goldman and city officials say the deal would bring long-awaited development to a lot that has sat vacant for more than six years. The tower would bring hundreds of new residents, construction jobs and tax revenue, and encourage other developers to move forward with their projects, they say.

"Originally, we were planning to have more affordable housing, but the economics didn't make sense?so we're planning to put up more off-site," Mr. Goldman said in an interview Friday. "We've been trying to get this so the economics makes sense, and it's getting close."

The controversy dates back to a 2004 rezoning of the former industrial neighborhood, which had been home to a Manischewitz matzo factory and a Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company warehouse. Over the previous decade, dozens of artists had taken over warehouse space in the gritty area, many of them possibly illegally. The central gathering place, 111 First Street, hosted studio tours.

When the city rezoned the neighborhood to allow more residents to move in, they also tried to preserve it as a hub for the artistic community. The original zoning included an unusual requirement that all residential units be live-work units catering to artists with high ceilings and freight elevators, and that 10% of the units be reserved for artists' affordable housing.

These restrictions, if they had been successful, could have upended the typical cycle, in which artists colonize gritty neighborhoods only to be driven out by new developments and rising prices. Robert Koch, a 50-year-old artist, moved seven years ago into a building at 150 Bay St., which has eight artists' lofts that were funded by the city.

"It's changed everybody's life. It's allowed us to focus on art," Mr. Koch said. His loft, with 14-foot ceilings and huge windows, is filled with his pottery, sculptures and paintings, and includes features like a slop sink. His neighbors include opera and folk-rock singers, he said.

But in many ways, he said the neighborhood has failed to live up to its initial potential. "It's not what we expected," said Mr. Koch. Jersey City's arts community "is vibrant but fragmented. There is no hub."

While the zoning may have helped some artists, developers such as Mr. Goldman said it also has created major obstacles.

Mr. Goldman, a real-estate investor with extensive holdings in offices, stores, hotels and apartment buildings, owned the warehouse buildings at 110 and 111 First St. for several decades. While he has preferred to keep a low profile, Mr. Goldman led a group that put up most of the capital to back developer Larry Silverstein's successful bid for the World Trade Center in 2001, just before the terrorist attacks, and remains an investor as Mr. Silverstein develops the site.

Mr. Goldman demolished 110 First St. in 2004, but razing 111 First St. proved more complicated. After fighting in court with the artists who lived in the building, they agreed to move out in 2005. Mr. Goldman also sued the city in nine separate lawsuits, in part arguing that the strict zoning regulations impeded on his right to build.

Under a 2006 settlement agreement, the developer was allowed to raze 111 First St. and build two large residential towers with about 1,000 units, a deal that also effectively forced the city to pull back on its zoning plan for all of the Powerhouse Arts District.

Mr. Goldman agreed, in part, that he would create 50 units of affordable housing at 110 First St., half of them on-site and half off-site. He agreed to give the city $1 million for the arts. He also won the right to build an ambitious tower designed by renowned architect Rem Kolhaas at 111 First St., which remains on the shelf.

But Mr. Goldman said the economic downturn has made a number of these requirements unfeasible, sending everyone back to the drawing board. The empty lots are still piled high with bricks and rusting metal pipes.

On other sites in the area, the dream of transforming the gritty industrial neighborhood into one of the most desirable in the city is just slowly getting under way. The city has given some concessions to other developers, including Toll Brothers, which is building a high-rise on the site of the former Manischewitz factory.

"Look, we're trying to encourage arts and artist to flock to this area of the city, but it's all about market conditions," said Mayor Jerramiah Healy.

Under the terms of a new deal that has been negotiated, Mr. Goldman would contribute about $2.5 million to build 25 cheaper units off-site, according to city officials. The developer already has subsidized the construction of 25 units in the Heights neighborhoods, farther from the waterfront, officials say.

However, in response to concerns from City Council members, negotiations are under way that could potentially keep some affordable units on-site, and officials say a deal is potentially just weeks away.

"We're going to reach an agreement that will satisfy?some council members' legitimate desire to see some on-site [affordable] housing," said William Matsikoudis, an attorney for the city.

In order for the project to move forward quickly after a long delay, Mr. Goldman would also receive an extension of a tax abatement for the project; still, he would have to begin construction within 18 months or the deal would reset to the original terms.

The deal needs approval from the City Council, and Steven Fulop, the councilman for that area, is strongly opposed to renegotiating the affordable housing component, which he said is the sole concession the city got from Mr. Goldman in 2006.

"The most important thing for me is that the city over the last nine years has shown no backbone," Mr. Fulop said. "It's created stagnation in that Powerhouse Arts District."
?Peter Grant contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... 2.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Affordable housing units constructed with funds from Jersey City?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund would have to be built in the same ward as the project that generated the funds if Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop?s proposed revisions to the city code are approved, The Jersey Journal reports.
If a developer builds Downtown and is asked to contribute to the fund instead of building affordable units on-site, Fulop told The Jersey Journal, then that contribution should be used to build affordable units Downtown, not elsewhere in the city.The right thing to do.

Quote:

There would be no affordable housing requirement if the proposed building were to meet zoning requirements. The building at 110 First Street, as proposed, is taller in height than allowed by zoning and has more units than allowed by zoning. So in a sense the developer is looking to get a whole lot of a extra floors and extra units prohibited by for that property.

Sorry, Boris, this is not an issue where your crazy, barely literate interpretation of the Constitution as some wild libertarian Utopia will be useful.

Quote:

Although I would like this developer to be tarred and feathered and forced to live in Montgomery Gardens I think you are slightly incorrect. The buildings that were torn down were supposed to be used as studios only and anyone actually living there was doing so illegally. Everyone knew people were living in those warehouses but they were not supposed to be doing that. I still miss those buildings though.

Quote:

Do any of you idiots remember that the developer is being forced to supply the affordable units because HE ILLEGALLY TORE DOWN A BUILDING WHERE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WERE LIVING?

This neo-yuppie circle jerk is pathetic. It's become obvious to me that there's absolutely no correlation between income and intelligence.

Quote:

Yes, that is a valid point. I beleive however the developers in this city are given lots of incentives (density increases, tax abatements, etc) in exchange for the units pledged for low income housing.
The constitution in no way requires the developers to accept these incentives. They are welcome to build to build at the zoned densities and no abatement.

Quote:

Ah yes, the person who doesn't know a goddamn thing chimes in with something about FREEDOM AND THE CONSTITUTION. Shocking.

This was an agreement the city and the developed made years ago that would permit changes in existing property, changes in the zoning, and etc. etc. etc. The government made a bunch of changes to allow Goldman to demolish the property, which completely destroyed the arts district. Part of that was getting the smallest of concessions back. Astonishing, isn't it, stuff that ya know... has absofukinglutely nothing to do with the constitution or compensation.

I wander what would any of you do, if the city mandated YOU to sell your house at the "affordable" price.

Have nobody read the Constitution lately? I've heard, there is something about Government being obliged to COMPENSATE people for taking over their property.

Quote:
The problem with that is "The Hill"(Greenville) would be their first choice as a location to build it. So now your adding to a higher concentration of poor in one area that is all ready low income for the most part. This eventually adds to the crime problem and making it harder to break the cycle of poverty. Also they would make the cheapest possible building they could and chances are leave the building neglected and poorly managed like has happened in the past.

Now if those same people were in that building instead of on Jackson ave they can raise their kids in a safer neighborhood and send them to better schools. The kids would now live a totally different life. Now they can look up to the Doctor with a nice car they see every day in stead of the drug dealer they see every day with the same car. The building they live in would also actually be maintained rather then neglected also.

By the way the 25 apartments are more then likely going to be in the part of the building that would have been hardest to sell. It is not like some one with affordable housing is getting an upper floor apartment with a view of Manhatten. The apartments wont be the same either. Just because the guy upstairs has a nice gold sink doesn't mean the affordable housing below has to get one too, the apartments won't be identical. This guy is complaining about losing money do you really think he is going to make duplicate apartments in the building for the affordable units?

Quote:

Precisely.

It was just another day in the Jersey City council neighborhood.
Wednesday evening's meeting attracted union construction workers supporting the Lloyd Goldman proposed residential and retail 35-story tower at 110 First St. A smaller number of artists and supporters were present to speak to the council members and bash the Goldman project.
In a way, this conflict represents the problem with the entire rebirth of the city waterfront. What they say will evolve along the Hudson River and Downtown is often something that never develops. It is always a compromise in favor of the developer, usually as taller buildings that are jammed with more people, from elsewhere.
Originally, it was agreed that the owner/developer could construct a new building as long as the structure includes 24 affordable units among about 400 planned.
Goldman argued that he can't make a decent return on his investment if he practically gives away those units. He said he could put shovels in the ground in three months if the city would just scrap that agreement and let him build what he wants. The developer claimed it would mean hundreds of construction jobs and internships for Jersey City residents. Otherwise, nothing will be done for several years.
The deal calls for the developer to match a $2.5 million payment he has already made to the city's affordable housing trust. Do they make Ikea homes where all you need is an Allen wrench?
Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis said the city is willing to drop the affordable housing albatross just to get the project moving. It was a "what else can we do?" moment.
After all, the art district is dead. The supposedly Chelsea-like Liberty Harbor North neighborhood plans (Remember all the talk about New Urbanism?) have changed back to tall buildings and a designated dense population. it is also mired in planned bankruptcy and get ready for the usual RV parking for the summer. The Powerhouse District talks are just that, talk. What could have been is just what did you expect in this town.
Matsikoudis sounded amazingly like city planning boss Bob Cotter, who used the same logic to argue to take the burden of completing the Hudson River public walkway off developers because it was too onerous. His main argument was that it was better to get the walkway built in our lifetime than wait for developers to come up with the shekels.
As for jobs: Past waterfront development used construction firms from as far away as Texas and local residents -- there may have been a few labor union interns working, as many as unicorns in the Heights. At least employment at such new places as "Newport City" did not require local residents to bring their brooms. I'm barely kidding.
In the council chamber, sitting next to me was a young lady in clown-like reddish makeup and dress who occasionally held up handwritten posters supporting affordable units and backing a return of artists. (I'm told she's well-known in the Downtown artists' world.) In the back stood those construction workers who shouted in favor of pushing the new agreement and project through.
While this was happening behind him, Matsikoudis pleaded the city's case. In return he was getting pasted -- being asked hardball questions by the anti-administration members on the City Council. (Why must all affordable housing be located in Wards F and A?)
Finally, Mayor Jerramiah Healy's chief of staff, Rosemary McFadden, looking a bit annoyed, made a quick gesture -- a hand-slash across her throat. Administration loyalist and City Council President Peter Brennan relayed the gesture with a more subtle movement and Matsikoudis stopped on a dime and in mid-sentence. The proposed deal was pulled by the administration.
Personally, from what I've seen of the artist rendering, it's an ugly building. Now, about that big empty lot up on Journal Square JJ

lux?u?ry
noun
1. a material object, service, etc., conducive to sumptuous living, usually a delicacy, elegance, or refinement of living rather than a necessity: Gold cufflinks were a luxury not allowed for in his budget.
2. free or habitual indulgence in or enjoyment of comforts and pleasures in addition to those necessary for a reasonable standard of well-being: a life of luxury on the French Riviera.
3. a means of ministering to such indulgence or enjoyment: This travel plan gives you the luxury of choosing which countries you can visit.
4. a pleasure out of the ordinary allowed to oneself: the luxury of an extra piece of the cake.
5. a foolish or worthless form of self-indulgence: the luxury of self-pity.

housing
noun
1. any shelter, lodging, or dwelling place.
2. houses collectively.
3. the act of one who houses or puts under shelter.
4.the providing of houses for a group or community: the housing of an influx of laborers.
5. anything that covers or protects.

How can anyone think a 24/7 concierge building, stainless steel appliances, floor to wall windows, a gym in the building, maybe a pool is luxury! That is absurd. Those are necessities!

That's not what I'm saying. Most lower-income people are hard-working people and should not be stereotyped as criminals or undesireable element. Actually, I think they could teach some "higher income people" a thing or two about ethics.

What I am asking, does it make sense to put the families who qualify for the affordable housing into the small apartments in the Goldman tower, or just make Goldman pay the equivalent cash to get a much bigger bang for the buck elsewhere in Jersey City?

Is all.

Is everyone forgetting that downtown JC has a bunch of low-income housing? The Villa Borinquen housing development, which are about 3/4 "assisted"/section 8. No one's going batshit because it's been there for what, 40? 50 years? Guess what, not all poor/working class people are criminals who drag the neighborhood down.

Oh man, you're really dodging the issue.

But OK, let's drop it, and discuss an issue of more substance.

Do you think an average family who would qualify for the "affordable housing" in the Goldman tower would prefer to live there (likely a 800 sqft apt), or in a much more spacious (maybe even a 1200 sq ft townhome with a yard) digs that Goldman money would help build elsewhere in JC?

Because the cost of the tiny apartment in the Goldman tower will likely be comparable to a cost of a townhome elsewhere in JC.

Not talking apartheid, just asking.

Quote:

"Luxury housing" is a term with no meaning. There is no legal definition, nothing quantitative about it, no specific defining characteristic. It was obviously charged language applied to promote a certain point of.

Oh come on, ianmac, you can do better than that.

;)

The tower that Goldman is proposing will be undoubtedly "luxury". Yet he is forced to put "affordable" units into it.

Vindication15 asked a very legitimate question. When did affordable housing morph into luxury housing?

Calling it conservative rhetoric just won't do, my liberal friend....

Quote:

Calling affordable housing units "luxury" housing is just conservative rhetoric.

As someone once said, that's tiresome.

Quote:

ianmac, care to answer that one from your POV?

Because to me it is a case of the city simply shaking down the developer to further its dubious "socio-economic diversity" agenda.

I think most of us would become bedwetters if we had to spend a few nights in that Paris building - they are called HLMs and are usually pretty horrible. I've been in a few and have friends who grew up in them in the Paris and Lyon suburbs. First thing you do if you can is move out, second is move your parents out.
(Did you know that French children are legally responsible for the economic wellbeing of their parents and grandparents?)

I want to know when affordable housing morphed into affordable luxury housing? Does that seem like a contradictory statement to you?

I'm all for offering transient affordable housing to those who qualify but that does not mean luxury affordable housing....Full service concierge building does not equate to affordable housing.

At the same time, affordable housing shouldn't be falling apart ghettos...but let's meet some place in the middle.....