Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It's obviously not easy (or cheap!). But it would be legally possible, which is the only point of my posts. Anyway, I actually am a NJ-qualified lawyer, though I practice in New York (and am not extraordinarily well-versed in eminent domain law--though one doesn't have to be to know that it is legally possible, which is quite a different question from feasible or advisable). (Obviously, no legal advice to the city of Jersey City is intended.)
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:59
|
|||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You mean 72 Montgomery? It's low-income senior supportive housing. It would be much harder to temporarily relocate the residents to knock down the building and replace it. http://www.bvsch.com/ Agree on 100 Montgomery.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:58
|
|||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
For what it's worth, support for eminent domain is usually seen as a "liberal" cause--conservatives have mostly always looked at it askance, and Kelo was a 5-4 case of the liberal judges plus O'Connor in favor and the conservatives against. Kelo was clearly the correct decision, and eminent domain is a good thing, but don't mix up who favors and who opposes it. Anyway, NJ's statutory rules are solely procedural and certainly do not present a legal barrier to seizure of Metropolis Towers by eminent domain, though they would make the process slightly more costly than previous due to more hoops to jump through. In fact, sites like Metropolis Towers are more or less tailor-made for New Jersey's eminent domain rules, which were designed primarily to protect single-family, owner-occupied homes.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:46
|
|||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The 1960s were not exactly a shining beacon of urban planning, that's for sure.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:01
|
|||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Terrible idea is not the same thing as illegal. As long as the city could present a rational argument to why seizing and destroying brownstones was good public policy (which you have just provided--it doesn't even need to be particularly convincing), the constitution would allow it.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:58
|
|||
|
Re: Jersey City Board of Education Election- The Children First Team
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The real problem is elected school boards. Things were much more accountable back when the mayor appointed school board members. The mayor would be held responsible for the school board's performance. Now, no one is held responsible because no one really knows what the essentially anonymous school board candidates really support--or, for that matter, whether they will adhere to their stated positions once in office.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:47
|
|||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what "soul" the buildings have now... Anyway, eminent domain is politically infeasible (as you can see from the comments, the general public is irrationally and angrily opposed even to its mention) even though it would probably be a good idea for the city. The project to develop the parking lots is by necessity only a half-measure that will not accomplish all it could because the existing buildings are to be preserved. This isn't a knock against the residents, only the buildings themselves, which simply cannot be integrated into a decent streetscape no matter what is built on the parking lots. It's possible that a private developer will come along one day and purchase the buildings and knock them down, but the cost-prohibitive nature of demolition means that is unlikely to happen for at least a couple of decades, and, if the parking lot project is ever actually built, probably will never happen.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:39
|
|||
|
Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think it's just Sundays, in which case it is an increase in service, bringing Sunday service in line with Saturday. I checked the pamphlets in the WTC station today, but of course they are not updated.
Posted on: 2014/10/24 20:26
|
|||
|
Re: Area between Tunnel and Hoboken
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's just some lone whackjob who sounds like Hoboken's Yvonne. I agree that decking over the railyards won't happen soon, but it will happen eventually.
Posted on: 2014/10/16 18:06
|
|||
|
Re: Jersey City seeks 20-year tax break for hotel outside Grove Street PATH station
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The stated rationale is right there in the article. Hotels (i) are cheaper than residential buildings from a city-services perspective (true, as hotels do not result in more children in public schools, for example) and (ii) provide significantly more employment opportunities than residential buildings (also true, as residential buildings will employ maybe 15-20 staff maximum, while a hotel will have at least 100-200 staff). Whether that's enough of a rationale to justify treating hotels differently from residential is a harder declaration to make. Hotels have their own social costs as well, and I worry that offering abatements to hotels but not residential developments will result in hotels crowding out residential development downtown, which would be bad for those of us who actually live here.
Posted on: 2014/10/8 23:51
|
|||
|
Re: Area between Tunnel and Hoboken
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
bill wrote: Quote:
Posted on: 2014/10/2 21:20
|
|||
|
Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
More people = more customers = better retail options and more vibrant street life. Also, development is (most of the time, anyway) visually much more appealing than vacant lots and parking lots.
Posted on: 2014/9/25 21:45
|
|||
|
Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Please don't let the NIMBYs ruin our city, Candice.
Posted on: 2014/9/25 19:56
|
|||
|
Re: Record level of new apartments for Jersey City: report
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Of the Journal Squared project? West of Summit Ave, south of Pavonia Ave, north of the entrance to the Journal Square station that's directly opposite Magnolia Ave.
Posted on: 2014/9/25 19:52
|
|||
|
Re: Embankment- Update Thread
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It would be very expensive. Eminent domain still requires "just compensation", which theoretically is market price but in practice is often well above market prices. Either way, a lot more expensive than the current method of making rather dubious but apparently judicially accepted legal claims to invalidate the prior sale.
Posted on: 2014/9/24 23:53
|
|||
|
Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't see why it would do any harm, provided that the building was not ugly, the street level interfaced with the neighborhood, etc. The idea that *height* is the main issue in whether a development is good for a neighborhood is frankly bizarre and seems to result from a sort of small-town fetishism. That isn't to say that the belief that height is bad isn't widespread--it is. But, when asked for explanation as to why, the anti-height crowd isn't very good at explaining (no, "out of context", whatever that means, isn't an inherently bad thing).
Posted on: 2014/9/23 0:21
|
|||
|
Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You live many, many blocks away from the waterfront. Of course your views aren't guaranteed or protected, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Zoning is not forever, and shouldn't be.
Posted on: 2014/9/22 21:04
|
|||
|
Re: Some experts fear end of rental market boom
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think what the article is basically saying is that construction is relying on rents continuing to move upwards rapidly, whereas we're probably headed towards a period where rents don't rise much if at all for a few years as all of the new towers are absorbed into the market. "Cooling off" in this sense doesn't mean that rents will drop, only that the massive increases we've seen recently will slow down a bit. That's probably a fair assessment, but I think there's plenty of room for developers to make money even if rents are flat for a few years--provided they already own the land they're building on rather than having to buy land at current land prices. Jersey City could also use a new condo building. There's a lot of pent-up demand for new condos and no serious supply. Just one large condo building could do extremely well if it opened in, say, 2017. Not sure the market could support more than two or so, though.
Posted on: 2014/9/22 2:32
|
|||
|
Re: Connect PATH to 6 train, or $4 billion MALL?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Amusing that the Port Authority at once hates the PATH for being a money-loser but refuses to surrender authority over PATH as it would have had to do for PATH-Lex to work.
I do question whether there would have been adequate capacity on the Lex Ave Local to support an extension to Newark, however--it's already the busiest transit line in the country (the world?), and extending the line would decrease capacity due to more delays, etc. I'm sure it could have been done, but that would have been a bigger concern than the costs of connecting the lines.
Posted on: 2014/9/15 14:25
|
|||
|
Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
We provide services because they are good for the public. A fire department is good for everyone. A police department is good for everyone. A park is good for everyone. But parking spaces? It's an outdated perspective to say that parking is good for everyone. Most cities should be discouraging driving and car ownership, not encouraging it. I mean, by that argument, why doesn't the city provide free food for everyone, or free housing, or other services? Surely food and housing are more essential than parking.
Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:48
|
|||
|
Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Except the complainers like you just want to add more parking to Journal Square and DJTC, the only places where major new construction is happening where more spaces could be mandated. So, what's your point?
Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:45
|
|||
|
Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Depends where. We shouldn't be encouraging anyone to drive anywhere in downtown. There's plenty of public transit for that.
Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:43
|
|||
|
Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why do the long-term residents get special treatment? Maybe we should get rid of all parking permits and abolish subsidized on-street parking entirely. Every street could have a nice green strip on the edges instead! (Obvious hyperbole, though on-street parking should be reduced or eliminated in a lot of places, but there's no reason to discriminate against residents of new buildings--whether you live in a new building or not shouldn't determine whether you can get a parking permit.)
Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:41
|
|||
|
Re: 30 Children at 5th Street Daycare drank bleach!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
You people with your holier than thou outrage are hilarious and pathetic. This is a mistake that could have happened to anyone. No harm happened, and no harm could have realistically happened. If there had been more than trace amounts of bleach, it would have been detectable by scent. As is, water with trace amounts of bleach is not going to be obviously different from regular water. Get over it.
Posted on: 2014/9/12 14:44
|
|||
|
Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
They DO, and they are REQUIRED to do so. Those parking garages sit empty because people feel entitled to their free or near-free subsidized street parking. Guess what! The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for YOUR car, moochers! Buck up the $150/month to park your car in a garage. There's plenty of space.
Posted on: 2014/9/10 22:50
|
|||
|
Re: Trump Plaza - Jersey City
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
"Apartment" means rentals. If it's taller than 70 Greene, it's the tallest apartment building, even if it isn't the tallest residential building. Either way, URL Harborside will be taller and is a few months ahead on construction.
Posted on: 2014/9/10 14:16
|
|||
|
Re: Would 'bus rapid transit' help spur development in JC outside of DT?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's not how it works in practice. Priority lights are (1) strongly political resisted by the car lobby and (2) mostly infeasible as a way of preventing the buses from stopping, even if they actually slow down a bit. Plus, they actually do cause huge traffic problems when they result in a lot of lights changing for BRT priority. This is also a problem with street-running light rails, of course, but that's not what I'm advocating. Quote: They also don't stop every 2 blocks, but further apart like a rail. The idea is to avoid the slow crawl of jitneys and buses up and down roads like Palisade, where one stop stops all traffic. The difference is pretty damned small. It's not that far from the Heights to the Lincoln Tunnel. Five stops versus one stop makes minimal difference, especially when there are still a bunch of stops for traffic lights, blocked intersections, etc. anyway. Quote: Comparisons to heavier infrastructure are pointless, BRT is actually possible, but rail above or below ground is simply monetarily unfeasible, unless you've got the billions personally. Wishing for it is only one step less silly than those perennially wishing for a footbridge over the Hudson. Only because we lack the political will to stand up to the car lobby and demand real money from transit and instead settle for pathetic half-measures like BRT. The footbridge is a dumb idea for entirely unrelated reasons.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 23:11
|
|||
|
Re: Nu Bar
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Maybe they're just very fashionable peas?
Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:36
|
|||
|
Re: Would 'bus rapid transit' help spur development in JC outside of DT?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Yup. There's no lack of bus service to/from the Heights currently. BRT wouldn't be any faster unless you actually got a designated lane through the Lincoln Tunnel (yeah, right!) and also didn't have to cross traffic at most intersections. It's just not workable when converting ordinary street grids rather than building entirely new BRT highways; BRT still has to stop at all of the lights and gets ensnared in traffic nearly as badly as other buses. And, although it's mildly more permanent than regular buses, it still doesn't give the permanence that real development needs. BRT is a waste of time and political effort.
Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:45
|
|||
|