 |
| Who wants to make that 'no-Build Zone" go away? |
UPDATE: Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher has informed me that tonight's meeting was postponed due to a noticing error.
Which means Defusco's PR stunt had no bearing on rescheduling the meeting, (though that press release seemed timed to give that impression.)
More importantly, Fisher has confirmed that the feasibility study will be done by the City. Good news!
____________
A rather curious 11th hour "amendment" by Councilman Mike Defusco appears to have derailed tonight's vote on the latest iteration of Hoboken's Railyard Redevelopment Plan.
Here's a quote from DeFusco's press release, published on Hudson County View.
” … I’ve written into the redevelopment plan an essential amendment that will incorporate a designated pick up and drop off zone contained within the development area. This covered area for ride sharing services (like Lyft and Uber), taxis and shuttle buses is needed to prevent these vehicles from clogging our neighborhood streets... I spoke with Council President Jen Giattino last night and she has agreed that this element is essential to ensure we are putting a sensible traffic circulation plan in place and I thank her for her collaborative spirit.” ”
Um... why did this conversation happen last night? Why is a council member thanking the Council President for her collaborative spirit? Did someone make him the Mayor already? Why couldn't his minders issue this press release last week for him while he was tanning in Hawaii?
Call me a cynic, but this looks a lot like kicking the can down the road, with press theatrics over his support for the plan. DeFusco's "zone" for ride sharing is the kind of minutiae that doesn't need to be engineered into the Redevelopment Plan. That is just grandstanding silliness.
Expect more tonight. Instead of presenting the amended plan for a vote, the meeting is now a public hearing. Which is all good. Unfortunately, it is cloaked in a stunt.
Expect more tonight. Instead of presenting the amended plan for a vote, the meeting is now a public hearing. Which is all good. Unfortunately, it is cloaked in a stunt.
Anyway, my friend numberscruncher has raised a red flag on proposed elimination of the residential use in the plan that is contingent upon a feasibility study. Note, LCOR programmed the residential use; Hoboken has lobbied for all-commercial. numberscruncher wrote:
"...the conversion of another from commercial to residential have been made contingent on a feasibility study concluding that the changed are needed to make the Plan financially feasible.This change is only as real as the feasibility study is real. So to me the big issue is who will be conducting this study and what role will LCOR have in it?LCOR should have no role beyond paying for the study and providing answers to questions that are asked. It needs to be the City's study - not LCOR's - tasked with providing the City with an objective analysis of the minimum requirements needed to provide the minimum rate of return to a reasonable developer to be financially feasible" .
Yes indeed. Thanks for flagging that, numbers. Does anyone think this city needs more residential development- especially adjacent to the Hoboken Terminal?
FWIW, I have no idea what a real independent objective feasibility study will conclude. But the City's decisions ought to be informed by objective information not by a study designed to validate LCOR's "need" for what it wants.
ReplyDeleteSmoke and mirrors. A feasibility study is going to say whatever you tell the consultants you want to prove. Is the development MORE financially feasible for NJ Transit and the developer if there is a residential component - YES. Is the development ONLY feasible for NJ Transit and the developer if there is a residential component - NO. Depends on what up-front profit margin they are expecting. Their not concerned with long-term effects on the city, only their own short-term financial gain. If LCOR is only interested in the residential profit margin, then maybe they're not the right developer and NJ Transit should be looking elsewhere. If the City is given an ultimatum, let us build residential or we're not going to redevelop, I say fine.
ReplyDeleteAgree w/you. Hoboken doesn't need residential towers. We need COMMERICAL development for our local economy- to stimulate business and bring jobs to Hoboken. That site is the perfect site for it, perfect. There should be no compromise on this, NJ Transit will still profit.
DeleteGA - you're conflating NJT and LCOR - they are not the same.
DeleteThe whole point of a feasibility study is to find out what compromises need to be made to create a project that produces a reasonable rate of return to the redeveloper (LCOR) while still making sense for Hoboken.
The study should provide the data needed to make informed choices. For example, if necessary to make the project feasible, I'd rather have taller commercial buildings than a residential one - but others may not agree. But there is a $$ value that will have to be hit one way or another to pay for the train station improvements, other "community benefits" and provide a reasonable rate of return to the redeveloper.
It's not about compromise it's about $$ and choices.
Of course we also may (or may not) have the choice of just saying no if there isn't a financially feasible project that makes sense for Hoboken.
What is wrong with you? Obviously NJ Transit/LCOR are separate entities--LCOR is the redeveloper. My point is, that if building footprints don't accommodate "A"grade commercial tenants, then IN MY OPINION the redeveloper should consider"B" grade tenants, rather than flipping to residential, and Hoboken should put the kibosh if not. Obviously, the feasibility study data will be the basis for everyone to make an informed decsion. Tell you what--I'll hand you the keys, this blog is all yours.
DeleteA question : As all this development is proposed on NJT property will whatever is built be subject to Hoboken property and school taxes ?
ReplyDeleteIf this is built the city will receive substantial revenue either in the form of taxes or a PILOT. My guess is that it's likely to be a PILOT but either way the revenue will be substantial. As to how that nets out vs the costs imposed on taxpayers - that's a different more complicated question.
DeleteCosts would probably be lower if it were commercial so probably best to not approve residential
DeleteIf the projected financials show that the NJT development will end up costing Hoboken taxpayers money it should be rejected. The cost of increased school taxes if any residential is allowed needs to be addressed and specifically built into any PILOT that might be considered.
DeleteI am confused, didn't DeFusco and Ramos work on and presented it at a public meeting, a rail yard plan recently and now they are amending that plan again to change from mostly residential to mostly commercial. Wasn't the plan under Zimmer way back calling for almost all commercial ?
ReplyDeleteSince public input at the meeting, the project has been amended twice, and got canned at the Planning Board. It's coming back for First Reading on February 5.
DeleteHistorical info about the 2014 Redev Plan should be in here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/443760519/DRAFT-Jan-2020-Hoboken-Yard-Redevelopment-Plan-Amendment
DeFusco is a political opportunist who will say or do anything if he thinks it will move his own personal agenda forward. He has flipped flopped his position on the build out of the Rail Yard to mirror that of LOCOR and NJT. What is or is not built will have a profound affect on Hoboken as whole. Moving forward hopefully Fisher and Giattino can put their political feud with Bhalla and reign in DeFusco to make sure Hoboken's best interest are protected.
ReplyDelete