Bayonne voted to dissolved its redevelopment agency.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... eloping_peninsula_at.html

Such agencies have outlived their usefulness. Many counties across the country have dissolved or tried to. Or at least we could reduce their sunset laws from 40 years to 10 years as some have suggested. Also the clause that would allow them to continue into perpetuity if they are in debt caused by a bloated budget should be removed. If I remember correctly, the last city council in Jersey City introduced an ordinance not too long ago to ensure the survival of our JCRA regardless. Maybe someone can cite that ordinance for further discussion.

Quote:
While I'm all for an educated public having it's say in critical development issues, I can't help but be reminded of the micro-unit development on Bright Street, for which Mayor Fulop was excoriated - "Critics of the proposal say it will increase congestion in the area, make parking difficult if not impossible for residents who already live there and create a 'Hoboken-like atmosphere.' ?

It seems to me the JCRA still has a role overcoming parochial, short sided interests.

I will confess to having little knowledge of the debt/tax issues, nor do I particularly care - (I pay modest taxes for my modest condo, if I moved out of the metro area my salary would be slashed and where would I be?) my point being costs are one factor, quality of life another. Forward thinking development has the real potential to enhance underutilized assets in JC, thus enhancing the urban experience.

Quote:

It's true! "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"

Close them all down. Not only do they not have financial controls like the (lousy ones) our state and local governments have, but they take publicly funded pensions based on their bloated salaries and benefits.

Quote:

Got my board. Surf's up?

I have been saying this for years but not as eloquent as you. For the last 20 years, I have been urging the dissolvement of the Redevelopment Agency. Citizens do not vote them into power but they have the power to bond which is scary. Taxpayers are held accountable for all debt, that power should be transferred to the city council.

Redevelopment agencies

What you don?t know can hurt you and future generations to come.

Redevelopment Agencies were created during the post depression era to rebuild the US economy shattered by the Great Depression and the economic downturn after the second world war . This was a brain child of the new Deal during the Roosevelt administration. Its major objective was to clear up blight and to secure land for development by designated developers who in turn will raise the region?s tax ratables. The end result was it will bring better quality of life to the neighborhood. In theory they were idealistic plans that will contribute to the public good. Robert Caro?s book, ?Power Broker: The fall of New York? would be a good reading in understanding how the system works.
Inevitably such schemes become cesspool for corruption and cronyism. ?Pay to play? became the buzz word where developers with deep pockets were able to influence local government in the planning process with voters having only a token say in what happens. The forty years statute will ensure that decisions made will remain permanent unless challenged. Redevelopment Agencies also have a built in clause whereby if they show a deficit they can continue to function beyond this time period in contradiction to the Sunset laws which requires them to be dissolved after the projects are completed. This almost never happen because those in charge will make sure that substantial amount of Bonds will be issued to ensure liabilities will always exist together with high compensation for office holders. Since these agencies are quasi-government. There is only limited transparency making it not so easy for even members of the city council to know the details on the transactions taking place.

To make matters worse, funds diverted to pay off redevelopment debts and related fees remove vital revenues for regular general fund operations.. or any other city engaging in creating bonded indebtedness. These siphoned off funds would be better spent to pay for schools, police and fire rather than a waterfront property redevelopment project.
While they call it redevelopment, many projects do not entail redevelopment. Many such projects in poor
Neighbourhoods could be used to fund a magnificent Redevelopment Agency funded golf course or a football field..

No one really likes to be anti-development, even those who say they do. But the truth is we do have to be vigilant

Sometimes there is confusion about who is going to pay for a recreational park or a Riverwalk. If you listen to the city, it will be paid by community contributions from developers or if there is excess budget after the municipal ?tax bucket? is satisfied.

However, the truth is that the City Council, acting as the governing body of the Redevelopment Agency, is siphoning off taxes from our total tax revenue into a different account. From that, they will contribute our tax dollars to developers for their leisure development and district. The diversion usually lasts for at least 15 years and might last for as many as 30 or 40 years.

The Redevelopment Agency also has unrestrained financial power, to the extent that they can plan and float tax increment bonds

This maneuver is pulled off through an existing legal strategy whereby taxpayers are prevented from approving any bond debt that can be struck. As a result, they unknowingly become obligated should the project not produce increased taxes,or not be completed or fail. If you will remember the decade long litigation on the lot behind the medical center which exposed the city to the tune of 21 million dollars from a lawsuit filed by the property owner. The Redevelopment Agency in turn switch the blame to the selected developer which the said was the beneficiary of the land in question. Bond Repayment is less assured, because lenders usually charge high fees and interest, making this type of bonds an expensive way to borrow money. However they do get approved because the expeditors/brokers are usually rewarded with great commissions for their hard work.

When used to offset the high costs of redeveloping blighted sites in poor neighborhoods, this type of financing can be an effective economic development tool. However, citizens recognize that the Jersey City waterfront properties are now the most affluent areas and can produce high tax revenues needed for the general fund.


Of course, we always assume that the city council would never be a party in any financial meltdown if it occurs; however floating bonds and contributing taxes against the uncertainty of property tax revenues is disgusting and deserves censure by its citizens.

These subsidies disadvantage local, independent small businesses trying to make it, because they must shoulder a higher tax burden in areas where part of the city?s property tax revenue is being diverted from city services and used instead to pay off bonds that financed selected or competing businesses.

Tax breaks for individual developers and monetary economic development incentives to encourage development could be a good idea but sometimes does not work out the way we think it should. These incentives are veiled by the city council to entice the public into believing they are getting something for nothing ?This spin prevents taxpayers from recognizing that our ?tax bucket? has been raided to serve special interests at the expense of dollars desperately needed to run our government. A case in point. When the Gulls Cove Development was built, the developer promised a donation of nearly a million dollars to purchased recreational land for the ? kids? in Jersey City. As a result they got approval easily for the sixteen storeys structure.
The condition was if the donated money was not used the developer was expected to get the money back. Within three years.
Three years later, the money was spent. The bulk was used to pay off the JCRA lawyers, planners and consultants. The City Council was then requested to authorized the disposal of what remained of the funds.
No money was ever used for its intended purpose

Our local government officials must be honest with taxpayers about the developer giveaways, costs, tax breaks and risks involved in this type of funding.
Taxpayers need to speak out against this back-breaker.

The real facts are that these ?Redevelopment Agencies/Operations? are nothing more than air cover for exploiting the citizen/taxpayers.

They purposefully lack transparency and violate all the basic tenants of sound control of activities. The very fact that competitive bidding is ignored just underscores one of the many problems with these agencies.

They become an indestructible state onto themselves. The special interest love them and they promote them for their own greedy self interest.

The NJ legislature should outright eliminate them and give the present existing ones a 10 year sunset.

Beyond the floor the ?redevelopment agency has the exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues generated in its designated project areas? be it due to improvements or resale of properties in the zone at higher values.

With redevelopment, cities have the power to directly subsidize commercial development through cash grants, tax rebates or free land. Spelled out in a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), a developer receives lucrative public funding for projects the agency favors. Some receive cash up front from the sale of bonds they will never have to repay. Others receive raw acreage or land already cleared of inconvenient small businesses and homes through acquisition also known as eminent domain. The developers purchase the land at a substantial discount from the agency. Sometimes it is free.?
Unless the voting public get more educated they will be marching on the new road to surfdom