Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
22 user(s) are online (13 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 21

tern, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/17 18:08
Last Login :
2016/1/5 17:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 54
Offline
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

Can you name one development that has been built in DTJC that has failed?


Can you name one that is so different in so many ways from its surroundings? There is no precedent for this- that I'm aware of

And for develpments that have failed- how about the Beacon that was supposed to be condo and went rental? Or how about 77 Hudson with an owner tower and rental tower?

Yes failure is in the eye of the beholder, but having rents significantly below Developer's estimate would I think be considered failure, but impossible to know. Then not enough money for all the other stuff.


77 Hudson just sold a condo for the highest amount ever in JC. 77 Hudson is the opposite to failure. 77 Hudson is to failure as Christie is to Olympic Athlete.

I said, name a DTJC development that has failed. The Beacon is a failure but is not in DTJC.

The measure of failure is not whether it fits in the neighborhood. The measure of failure is whether these establishments increase property values.

What fits into Newark Ave near the Grove PATH is more 99 cent stores but that does not mean more should be built..



Beacon not downtown. Okay will give you that. Sorry for messing that up.
Regarding 77 Hudson- whatever you say. Successful is not what I have heard.
Regardless, we can agree to disagree about that. However, I offered examples- one was incorrect and another you disagree with. Fair enough. Can you please answer my question now? Name another development that is so different from surroundings? Hamilton Square comes to mind, but it is not a good example as the Silverman’s extensively sought input from HPNA about its creation frorm St. Francis. The polar opposite of this situation.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 17:32
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5561
Offline
Quote:

bcgirl99 wrote:
Why are you so nasty Brewster? I never attacked anyone, I'm just unhappy with the building being planned that's next door to my property.


Sorry, but I'm reacting to your sanctimonious and NIMBY "I only want what's best for me and my family". The horror of upwardly mobile young people living on your block! Having a number these people as neighbors in my building probably scales larger than having them on your block, and I can tell you, your fears are unfounded. But you have made clear you are impervious to reason or other people's experience. When you list a few dozen more people on the street walking to the PATH in the morning as a ding on your "quality of life", you've lost the benefit of the doubt from me.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 17:24
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/12/23 15:40
Last Login :
2018/7/16 0:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 236
Offline
Anyone who says that The Beacon is a failure, must never have been there. The 2 condo towers sold out years ago. I bought my apartment in 2012 and have loved living there for the last 18 months.
The fact that the newly renovated buildings are rentals has to do with the market, which is why no new condo tower has been built in Jersey City in several years. The rents at the Beacon are the same price / square foot as the waterfront. As soon as a building is added to the rental market it fills.
The Orpheum is almost full. residents will start moving into the Paramount in a month and into the East Tower a few months later.
The 510 car multilevel garage is complete with a beautiful park on top where I see Beacon children playing soccer after school.
If this is your definition of failure, what is success?

Posted on: 2013/11/6 17:08
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/2 11:56
Last Login :
2018/10/5 14:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 735
Offline
Quote:

bcgirl99 wrote:
The Building in question is too big, and is totally inappropriate to put across the street from an elementary school. It's going to change the nature of this neighborhood that is family in nature, that's extremely quiet at night and on weekends. We enjoy a lot of privacy. This is going to change.


I don’t know what what’s so inappropriate about putting an apartment building across the street from a school, but the family-oriented neighborhood argument doesn’t hold water. During the past seven years that my wife and I have lived across the street from VVP, “family in nature” has been responsible for a continually increasing amount of racket—alllll daaay looong—every Saturday and Sunday when the weather cooperates. It certainly isn’t young bachelors and bachelorettes who live in small apartments whooping it up out there.

Personally, I think the proposed building looks awful like most of the new residential projects in our neighborhood, and I’m not thrilled with the design intent, but those are matters of taste. I’d rather not see it built, but too bad for me--I’d also rather VVP didn't get noisier every year, but thanks to families, it does.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 16:00
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

Can you name one development that has been built in DTJC that has failed?


Can you name one that is so different in so many ways from its surroundings? There is no precedent for this- that I'm aware of

And for develpments that have failed- how about the Beacon that was supposed to be condo and went rental? Or how about 77 Hudson with an owner tower and rental tower?

Yes failure is in the eye of the beholder, but having rents significantly below Developer's estimate would I think be considered failure, but impossible to know. Then not enough money for all the other stuff.


77 Hudson just sold a condo for the highest amount ever in JC. 77 Hudson is the opposite to failure. 77 Hudson is to failure as Christie is to Olympic Athlete.

I said, name a DTJC development that has failed. The Beacon is a failure but is not in DTJC.

The measure of failure is not whether it fits in the neighborhood. The measure of failure is whether these establishments increase property values.

What fits into Newark Ave near the Grove PATH is more 99 cent stores but that does not mean more should be built..


Posted on: 2013/11/6 15:46
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/17 18:08
Last Login :
2016/1/5 17:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 54
Offline
Quote:

Can you name one development that has been built in DTJC that has failed?


Can you name one that is so different in so many ways from its surroundings? There is no precedent for this- that I'm aware of

And for develpments that have failed- how about the Beacon that was supposed to be condo and went rental? Or how about 77 Hudson with an owner tower and rental tower?

Yes failure is in the eye of the beholder, but having rents significantly below Developer's estimate would I think be considered failure, but impossible to know. Then not enough money for all the other stuff.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 15:38
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

But you are in dtjc, not greenville. Renters who can afford 2100+ a month only increase safety...


Are we certain of rental amounts? Yes the developer has an initial estimate- but let’s be honest, for $1600 you can get a lot more space than smaller than a studio if you are in JC. I believe $1600 was his estimate, but he said market rate, $1600 is just that- an estimate.


Does it really matter? They are studios, if they rent for $1,200 you're still not exactly pulling from the dregs of society.

Quote:
Clearly the administration and council are for this- doesn’t make sense why they are not fighting. Part of what feels like blasphemy is that many feel betrayed by this versus what the administration said they stood for. The process reeks of “the Healy way” of doing business. What gives?


It makes a lot of sense. Everything was done legally, fighting it sets up the city to lose money it doesn't have. Whether they are for or against it is irrelevant, they don't have a case and they don't have the money to throw at a lost cause.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 15:27
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

But you are in dtjc, not greenville. Renters who can afford 2100+ a month only increase safety...


Are we certain of rental amounts? Yes the developer has an initial estimate- but let’s be honest, for $1600 you can get a lot more space than smaller than a studio if you are in JC. I believe $1600 was his estimate, but he said market rate, $1600 is just that- an estimate. Given some time (a year?), the price point could go much lower. The other thing that folks fail to focus on is that while if this experiment (cause that’s what it essentially is) succeeds- great. All are happy. If it fails, those living in the neighborhood are left with this. That doesn’t seem like a wise risk in an established neighborhood.
Clearly the administration and council are for this- doesn’t make sense why they are not fighting. Part of what feels like blasphemy is that many feel betrayed by this versus what the administration said they stood for. The process reeks of “the Healy way” of doing business. What gives?


Can you name one development that has been built in DTJC that has failed?

Posted on: 2013/11/6 15:24
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#99
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/17 18:08
Last Login :
2016/1/5 17:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 54
Offline
Quote:

But you are in dtjc, not greenville. Renters who can afford 2100+ a month only increase safety...


Are we certain of rental amounts? Yes the developer has an initial estimate- but let’s be honest, for $1600 you can get a lot more space than smaller than a studio if you are in JC. I believe $1600 was his estimate, but he said market rate, $1600 is just that- an estimate. Given some time (a year?), the price point could go much lower. The other thing that folks fail to focus on is that while if this experiment (cause that’s what it essentially is) succeeds- great. All are happy. If it fails, those living in the neighborhood are left with this. That doesn’t seem like a wise risk in an established neighborhood.
Clearly the administration and council are for this- doesn’t make sense why they are not fighting. Part of what feels like blasphemy is that many feel betrayed by this versus what the administration said they stood for. The process reeks of “the Healy way” of doing business. What gives?

Posted on: 2013/11/6 15:04
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

bcgirl99 wrote:
Come to our block at 8am, watch the madness that occurs here every morning with school drop off and the parking dance that goes on. It's BONKERS. Even if zero cars come with the new building adding 100 more humans into the AM mix will still create more chaos.

The Building in question is too big, and is totally inappropriate to put across the street from an elementary school. It's going to change the nature of this neighborhood that is family in nature, that's extremely quiet at night and on weekends. We enjoy a lot of privacy. This is going to change. We asked a lot of questions and were given push back and shrugs.

Safety is an issue, buildings that don't suit the neighborhood are an issue because it can damage the value of our investment, our homes. I'm not a wealthy person by any means and my family put our savings into our home and it's a VERY big deal how it affects the value of our home and the nature of the neighborhood where we're raising out children.




again, I'm not exactly sure you know what increases/decreases property values. let's take manhattan for example...

NYC - especially manhattan is extremely noisy at night..no one can argue that property values are not high there...

manhattan is one of, if not the most crowded developed cities in the world - high property values again

Too big for the neighborhood...all new high rises in manhattan, no matter how large and no matter in what neighborhood - all result in higher property values unless the building blocks a direct view of the river or central park. DOn't think we have to worry about that with bright street...

I agree - safety is an issue. But you are in dtjc, not greenville. Renters who can afford 2100+ a month only increase safety...

So please use the right arguments...if you are genuinely worried about property values then you should not be against this...

Posted on: 2013/11/6 7:19
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

bcgirl99 wrote:
Why are you so nasty Brewster? I never attacked anyone, I'm just unhappy with the building being planned that's next door to my property. I think it's bad for my family, bad for the 4 schools in this neighborhood, and a bad idea. We are reasonable people that are not expecting miracles to occur but think that there has not been enough daylight in the process. When we bought our condo in 2011 there was nothing on this in the records we researched only the lease for the school ground until 2017.

I don't expect my neighborhood to be dipped in amber and to stay the same, but I do expect better notification and better communication in my ward.

IT was a shady situation, and we're looking for a fair way out.

The thing that sticks in my head is that the Developer stated that they originally wanted to do this in NYC but Bloomberg had a huge RFP process and required extensive approval process and they found that in JC there was nothing like that and they could get a project done quickly. That says everything to me. They chose JC because it the city was asleep at the wheel and wasn't protecting the interests of it's citizens.

I have a huge problem with that. Perhaps I'll be wrong an this will be an awesome addition to the area, and I'll have egg on my face. I welcome being wrong. But we've talked to people that know more about city planning and development and we don't think changing the density in our area is a good idea for our neighborhood. I stand by that and there a lot of us in our neighborhood or that have children at PS 3 or MS 4 that do not want this development and we are well within our rights to fight it and will do so until we can find a fair middle ground.

Take it down a notch will ya? You are talking to people who put every dime they had to buy a home and now are worried about what is happening to it.


if you are worried about property values then you should be praying that they build....

last time I checked empty lots do not raise property values but new construction - whether it be rentals or condos do result in increased property values


Posted on: 2013/11/6 7:12
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#96
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/10/6 15:31
Last Login :
2014/4/2 4:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 17
Offline
Why are you so nasty Brewster? I never attacked anyone, I'm just unhappy with the building being planned that's next door to my property. I think it's bad for my family, bad for the 4 schools in this neighborhood, and a bad idea. We are reasonable people that are not expecting miracles to occur but think that there has not been enough daylight in the process. When we bought our condo in 2011 there was nothing on this in the records we researched only the lease for the school ground until 2017.

I don't expect my neighborhood to be dipped in amber and to stay the same, but I do expect better notification and better communication in my ward.

IT was a shady situation, and we're looking for a fair way out.

The thing that sticks in my head is that the Developer stated that they originally wanted to do this in NYC but Bloomberg had a huge RFP process and required extensive approval process and they found that in JC there was nothing like that and they could get a project done quickly. That says everything to me. They chose JC because it the city was asleep at the wheel and wasn't protecting the interests of it's citizens.

I have a huge problem with that. Perhaps I'll be wrong an this will be an awesome addition to the area, and I'll have egg on my face. I welcome being wrong. But we've talked to people that know more about city planning and development and we don't think changing the density in our area is a good idea for our neighborhood. I stand by that and there a lot of us in our neighborhood or that have children at PS 3 or MS 4 that do not want this development and we are well within our rights to fight it and will do so until we can find a fair middle ground.

Take it down a notch will ya? You are talking to people who put every dime they had to buy a home and now are worried about what is happening to it.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 6:37
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5561
Offline
Quote:

bcgirl99 wrote:
Come to our block at 8am, watch the madness that occurs here every morning with school drop off and the parking dance that goes on. It's BONKERS. Even if zero cars come with the new building adding 100 more humans into the AM mix will still create more chaos.

The Building in question is too big, and is totally inappropriate to put across the street from an elementary school. It's going to change the nature of this neighborhood that is family in nature, that's extremely quiet at night and on weekends. We enjoy a lot of privacy. This is going to change. We asked a lot of questions and were given push back and shrugs.

Safety is an issue, buildings that don't suit the neighborhood are an issue because it can damage the value of our investment, our homes. I'm not a wealthy person by any means and my family put our savings into our home and it's a VERY big deal how it affects the value of our home and the nature of the neighborhood where we're raising out children.


The semantic content of your post is as follows:

I don't want any change at all. Unless it's my property value going up or my taxes going down. A new coffee shop might be nice, or a Whole Foods! But no change that I don't personally benefit from. No sir! When I move in, the neighborhood should be set in amber. Except for those exceptions I listed above.

Your fears have little basis in fact. The area around Hamilton Sq, school and all, could have made the same objections, and the area has seen little downside and much benefit from having hundreds of new residents. You speak like it's a low income housing project, not starter apartments for budding yuppies.

Calling it an SRO as some have is simply ignorant and provocative, there's PLENTY of similar sized units all over the metro area, some of them are quite pricey if they're in the right neighborhood. In my youth I lived 3 years in one across the street from the Chelsea Hotel, googling shows the average rental in the building is now $2300.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 4:46
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#94
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/10/6 15:31
Last Login :
2014/4/2 4:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 17
Offline
Come to our block at 8am, watch the madness that occurs here every morning with school drop off and the parking dance that goes on. It's BONKERS. Even if zero cars come with the new building adding 100 more humans into the AM mix will still create more chaos.

The Building in question is too big, and is totally inappropriate to put across the street from an elementary school. It's going to change the nature of this neighborhood that is family in nature, that's extremely quiet at night and on weekends. We enjoy a lot of privacy. This is going to change. We asked a lot of questions and were given push back and shrugs.

Safety is an issue, buildings that don't suit the neighborhood are an issue because it can damage the value of our investment, our homes. I'm not a wealthy person by any means and my family put our savings into our home and it's a VERY big deal how it affects the value of our home and the nature of the neighborhood where we're raising out children.



Posted on: 2013/11/6 3:58
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/9/24 1:55
Last Login :
6/18 15:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 231
Offline
+1, Brewster.

One of the other points that came up last night, that no one bothers to mention because it blows major holes in the whining, is that this project came before the public four separate times over the past two years - between council meetings and planning board meetings. Why wail and moan about what it is "being done to you" when you had every opportunity to get up off your couch and say something when it would have mattered?

Uncle Steve can't solve all of your problems for you. Sometimes, you have to do it yourself. Or at least carry your share of the load. All of the histrionics last night don't conceal two main points: this is about parking and it is a major case of NIMBY. There is no constitutional right to free street parking.

Also - the Fulop idea to block parking permits highlights a dirty little secret in DTJC. Many thousands of residents downtown are prohibited from getting onstreet parking permits. One of these days, people who have been barred from getting permits are going to wake up and file a class action suit against the city and suddenly there will be thousands of previously prohibited cars competing for onstreet parking.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 2:01
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/10/12 12:58
Last Login :
2016/5/8 0:52
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 258
Offline
I'm sure if many of those at the meeting looked in the mirror objectively they would/should probably throw the words "racist" and "classist" at themselves.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 1:55
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Today 2:10
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5561
Offline
I think I've rarely heard such a pile of self serving hooey as this whole controversy. "Fulop is corrupt" for not illegally stopping something they don't like, such as this project that predated his administration, but "responsive" when he sucks up to this same exact brownstone owning constituency by illegally cancelling the reval to perpetuate their ridiculously low taxes at the expense of the rest of the wards. The sense of entitlement to get their way ALL the time is mind blowing.

I rent several sub 500ft apartments frequently to 20 somethings, and they're great tenants who don't act like Hoboken frat boys. This project isn't an SRO as accused, but the opponents know that. They want NO change, same as suburbanites who are horrified at the idea of letting people convert their garage or upstairs to a rental. "It will bring in undesirables", ie: people with less money than them. My experience has been that most of my young tenants will go on to earn far more than I do. Some of them already do, but don't see a reason to spend it on an apartment they're barely ever in. I rarely see or hear them, if they wanted a party scene they'd be living 4 to an apartment in Hoboken or Brooklyn.

Posted on: 2013/11/6 1:36
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01
Group:
Banned
Posts: 1041
Offline
Meet the new boss, same as the old piece of sh*t boss (despite being less bloated, drunk and belligerent).

The old saying needs adjustment: there are THREE certainties in life: death, taxes and corruption/mismanagement in Hudson County politics.

Oh Fool-op, this bodes ill for your eventual senate/governor run.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 22:42
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/9 20:40
Last Login :
5/1 23:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 328
Offline
Downtown Jersey City residents flay Fulop over 'micro-unit' development

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop was grilled by a group of Downtown residents last night over his administration’s handling of a controversial 87-unit residential development proposed for a lot near Schools 3 and 4.

The residents, about 80 of them assembled inside the council chambers at City Hall, accused administration officials and Fulop’s allies on the City Council of being unresponsive to their complaints about the development.

Some even uttered a word Fulop often hurled at the previous administration: corrupt.

READ MORE

Posted on: 2013/11/5 22:36
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
Yesterday 21:27
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1365
Offline
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:


This is good news. Thanks for the info. What was the criteria used to say "these are good developments" ?


There was no algorithmic criteria as far as I could tell. VVPA was and is fortunate that there are people with relevant experience in certain matters. Members have included architects, construction professionals, and members of the planning board, so they can offer some insight on to issues. At the end of the day though, it is simply the community, who by virtue of being the community, has input on what goes up around them. I found that such input was exercised responsibly.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 20:53
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Do groups like VVPA and other community groups argue and advocate for stuff and not just against stuff? Not asking in a disparaging way just out of curiosity. If so, what is the criteria for the stuff you argue for? Instead of the generic answer "improving the neighborhood", I wonder what that means?




I used to live in the Van Vorst Park neighborhood and regularly attended VVPA meetings. VVPA, like each of the neighborhood associations in historic districts, tends to be wary of large development that is out of character with the neighborhood but is certainly not a NIMBY group.

Most members of the group were in favor of Restaurant Row. And the group did not oppose several large scale projects including the relocation of the medical center, the Liberty Harbor North development, and the construction of P.S. 3/M.S. 4. Certainly in each of these cases people raised concerns about how things were done, but they were generally supportive of all the projects.

The Historic Paulus Hook Neighborhood Association welcomed development on the waterfront, and some people felt they were TOO welcoming. They also developed protocols and guidelines for construction in historic districts.

And The Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association actively met with the Silvermans to discuss the development of the St. Francis Hospital site. Again, several critics felt that HPNA was too eager to have development and should have opposed it.


This is good news. Thanks for the info. What was the criteria used to say "these are good developments" ?

Posted on: 2013/11/5 20:26
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
Yesterday 21:27
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1365
Offline
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Do groups like VVPA and other community groups argue and advocate for stuff and not just against stuff? Not asking in a disparaging way just out of curiosity. If so, what is the criteria for the stuff you argue for? Instead of the generic answer "improving the neighborhood", I wonder what that means?




I used to live in the Van Vorst Park neighborhood and regularly attended VVPA meetings. VVPA, like each of the neighborhood associations in historic districts, tends to be wary of large development that is out of character with the neighborhood but is certainly not a NIMBY group.

Most members of the group were in favor of Restaurant Row. And the group did not oppose several large scale projects including the relocation of the medical center, the Liberty Harbor North development, and the construction of P.S. 3/M.S. 4. Certainly in each of these cases people raised concerns about how things were done, but they were generally supportive of all the projects.

The Historic Paulus Hook Neighborhood Association welcomed development on the waterfront, and some people felt they were TOO welcoming. They also developed protocols and guidelines for construction in historic districts.

And The Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association actively met with the Silvermans to discuss the development of the St. Francis Hospital site. Again, several critics felt that HPNA was too eager to have development and should have opposed it.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 20:21
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#85
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/8 15:16
Last Login :
2018/3/27 20:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 86
Offline
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:

LOL. I'm sure some lawyer told you that this was a slam dunk case, but it's not. The city would be insane to spend millions of dollars now to bring this developer to court, when the developer followed the rules. If Mayor Fulop committed to bringing this to litigation, it would likely end up costing the city millions of dollars in legal fees, and the case law suggests the city will lose any such lawsuit. This is NOT a slam dunk case and the case law is just so strongly favoring the developer. In addition, I know that the city's chief counsel looked into all legal options the city had to block this, and none such option exists.


You have done a good job quoting the party line. Congratulations. And no, one by the way, said that this is a slam dunk case. I am not shocked that the city counsel doesn't support us. Nevertheless, there is indeed a case.

Better to fight it than to give in to Jersey City "politics as usual" preference for developers' money over the well being of the community.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 20:19
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
10/15 21:24
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3751
Offline
Because they don't want to lose their free parking spaces?

Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
I don't get why so many people hate 'poor' recent college grads?

Posted on: 2013/11/5 19:57
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/10/12 12:58
Last Login :
2016/5/8 0:52
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 258
Offline
I don't get why so many people hate 'poor' recent college grads?

Posted on: 2013/11/5 19:27
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/6/10 16:06
Last Login :
2018/9/22 10:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 267
Offline
Quote:

RickSp wrote:
Every aspect of the development process was flawed and the proposed development doesn't follow the approved plan. We have a case.

Given that the Fulop administration is effectively offering nothing of substance, the only choices may be to sue or to surrender. In the former, we could win or lose. In the later losing is absolutely guaranteed.

If we don't fight this parasitic development, we could be seeing it all over JC. And yes, the Fulop administration is promising to improve the development process. At this point, however, I see no reason to have confidence in any of their promises.



LOL. I'm sure some lawyer told you that this was a slam dunk case, but it's not. The city would be insane to spend millions of dollars now to bring this developer to court, when the developer followed the rules. If Mayor Fulop committed to bringing this to litigation, it would likely end up costing the city millions of dollars in legal fees, and the case law suggests the city will lose any such lawsuit. This is NOT a slam dunk case and the case law is just so strongly favoring the developer. In addition, I know that the city's chief counsel looked into all legal options the city had to block this, and none such option exists.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 19:19
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Do groups like VVPA and other community groups argue and advocate for stuff and not just against stuff? Not asking in a disparaging way just out of curiosity. If so, what is the criteria for the stuff you argue for? Instead of the generic answer "improving the neighborhood", I wonder what that means?

To me, and I think to most homeowners in the area, it means things that would increase prop values - better transportation, better city services, less empty lots, more well known businesses, better schools like McNair, etc. Now I definitely understand arguing against the pipeline because it falls in line with decreased prop values but some of these other issues...


Posted on: 2013/11/5 18:42
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/1/19 4:04
Last Login :
2017/4/20 19:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 996
Offline
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Candice, its great you and the Mayor are hosting a Town Hall on this.

This issue you face also ties into something up here in Ward B that recently happened in the summer. I think our learnings match yours and we need to do something bigger if possible - REVAMP THE ZONING APPROVAL PROCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

Backstory: A few months back when McGinely Sq. was faced with a large development of micro-apts. with seriosuly unsubstantial parking in its plans, we forced a community mtg. with the developer. This happened long after the project was rushed through the zoning approvals in the last days of the Healy admin. because the current process does not encourage developers to be proactive in reaching out to the communities they plan to build in. Due to my invitation, Council Members Lavarro, Watterman, Coleman and Ramchal attended this neighborhood mtg. The developer gave a lot of push back during the meeting to any community concerns raised (as did the rep from Zoning who was present) and only lip-service to the community's requests to revisit the plans based on our feedback (which was not sought during the development phase).

Subsequently, this project has been postponed/cancelled due to unrelated circumstances (the property owner can't finalize the dale to the developer due to bankruptcy). But post-meeting, I emailed with the Council persons who were present, asking that our take-away from that meeting be that the whole Zoning Approval process be re-vamped by the council to require more transparency and pro-active outreach by the developer to the community wherein they wish to build as a pre-requisite to getting approved by zoning. Developers should be required to hold community meetings that are well publicized prior to gaining approvals from the Zoning Board. And reasonable community requests coming out of this newly required dialogue should be put into the plan prior to gaining approval. Right now, Zoning Dept. process does little, if anything, to protect resident's concerns about what gets built in their own neighborhoods, and that is just wrong.

At the time (prior to the project's postponement), it seemed there were no changes we residents could affect on this project, and we were at the mercy of the developer who didn't seem to want to adjust a thing or give a care what residents thought. So we chose to focus on what we could do going forward to keep areas like McGinley Sq. & JSQ, which are poised to be the next redeveloped areas, from being re-developed without community input. We have a chance to really do it right up here - we didn't want to miss that chance.

So when I asked these Council people to take this project on (changing the zoning approval process to include the community dialogue), and to work with a group of residents and local business reps to re-vamp what is required of developers prior to getting zoning approval, most of them just wrote back saying "well, we have to discuss this among our fellow council members." and "I agree with my colleague - we have to discuss this." To which I replied, "Sure, I understand. Will you please do that/start that?" To which I got ZERO replies or any indication that any of them were willing to take this on as a governing body. This was highly discouraging.

It sounds like you, Candice, see the merit in the re-vamping of the process to require more community input as do I and my fellow Ward B neighbors. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - will you talk to the Mayor about this project we're proposing and get your fellow council persons going on this with you? Because it seems the root of this on-going, repeated issue lies within the current lack of required dialogue/outreach from the developer to the community where they want to build, and the subsequent lack of the required incorporation of reasonable revisions to their proposed plans prior to gaining approval. DTJC residents have gotten the shaft by this lack of input for far too long - its why I sadly left there last summer after 18 years. Council persons in the other wards really should be invested in joining efforts to change this approval process so as to ensure their wards get "smart" re-development and not the all too often thoughtless/non-smart re-development that DTJC has suffered for the last 15+ years.


I'm definitely not pro-developer but this anti development stance you and others on this board advocate for has to stop.

What you are mandating is that developers should be good citizens to the community. I agree with you and others that you should, but you can't mandate that. Developers should care about the sewers? Residents not having parking? Really?

In return, they agree to these "small" demands and ask for huge abatements - which is also opposed by you and others.

So you want the developers to give but receive nothing in return?

Instead of this nonsense, why not end this game and let the market decide. No abatements - ANYWHERE and no DEMANDS ON DEVELOPERS to build affordable housing, build to a certain height, etc. This whole game breeds favoritism. Just sell the land for more money..or at least market value. Need money to fix up the sewers - factor that in the price. Need money to build a parking structure to accommodate increased capacity - factor that into the price.

What exactly is smart redevlopment? Redevelopment that conforms to your standards? You mention DTJC...last I checked DTJC and Newport are the most in demand areas in JC with the highest price points. It seems like the market disagrees with your "smart" development strategy.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 18:28
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#79
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/4/8 15:16
Last Login :
2018/3/27 20:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 86
Offline
Every aspect of the development process was flawed and the proposed development doesn't follow the approved plan. We have a case.

Given that the Fulop administration is effectively offering nothing of substance, the only choices may be to sue or to surrender. In the former, we could win or lose. In the later losing is absolutely guaranteed.

If we don't fight this parasitic development, we could be seeing it all over JC. And yes, the Fulop administration is promising to improve the development process. At this point, however, I see no reason to have confidence in any of their promises.


Posted on: 2013/11/5 16:20
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1207
Offline
Developers sometimes lose too. Embankment comes to mind.

Posted on: 2013/11/5 16:00
Top




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017