The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
9-0 Unanimous City Council Vote!
I just wanted to publicly thank the entire city council for tabling last nights vote. I am very impressed with the fact that the city council listened and agreed to hold additional public meetings to solicit additional feedback from the public.
This was a major step in the right direction and for that I say "THANK YOU".
Once these meetings are scheduled and we are properly notified about these meetings, I strongly urge all of us concerned residents to attend and voice our concerns. If we can all participate in the process and actually tell the administration what we really want (which is more open space) hopefully we can help them develop a better plan.
If we all work together, like we did last night, we can push for more open space and we can push to get this done NOW, instead of spending millions on legal battles and waiting years! We want these parks now not in the future.
If the town really wants the pool and rec center....let's have the city council and the mayor tell us what the financial cost will be yearly to run it and who is going to run it. The last thing we all need is a pool in town that no one wants to go to because it is not being properly maintained.
For the record....I would love to have a community pool and somewhere to swim. I just want it clean and maintained every day.
No office space...more open space!
We can do better.
Thank you.
David
Tags: city, council, edge, mayor, western, zimmer
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on -
David - Which building do you propose eliminating to create the open space and how much larger and higher do you support making the residential buildings (now 8 stories) to make the plan financially viable. Redevelopment is a zero sum game - you need to give to get.
Supporting much higher residential buildings and eliminating the "mixed use" comercial buildings in order to obtain a field in addition to the community center is a coherent position worthy of discussion, though I personally do not agree, particularly given the negotiations to purchase the Henkel site next door. I also feel strongly that the community center needs to be within the redevelopment zone, and there needs to be strong legal requirements to ensure that the center is built before any building is occupied. Do you agree?
Perhaps the developers, who oppose the plan, will let us know how tall the buildings will have to be to make the changes you suggest. My guess is that they will simply point to the Ursa/Roberts plan that the public trashed at the last set of public hearings.
What is your position on the old plan?
I hope you will contribute constructively to the dialogue by not only pointing out what the plan doesn't include, but also explaining the trade-offs you personally would be willing to accept to make including those things in the plan possible.
-
Permalink Reply by David A. Liebler on -
Robert,
1st question: Which building do you propose eliminating to create the open space
Answer: I was not proposing eliminating any building, I wanted to ask for more space anyway.
2nd: how much larger and higher do you support making the residential buildings (now 8 stories) to make the plan financially viable
Answer: I support the height that is currently in the plan and would request that the developers do not require more.
3rd: Redevelopment is a zero sum game - you need to give to get.
Answer: I am not interested in a zero sum game, as I looking for cooperation to build a better Hoboken.
4th: there needs to be strong legal requirements to ensure that the center is built before any building is occupied. Do you agree?
Answer: I 100% agree that everything we finally agree upon is activated immediately. We want more open space, fields or rec center and pool ASAP. Build that first. I would agree!
My two cents: If a rec center and pool is the leading candidate for the space, then I want to know what the budget will be to operate and maintain and how are you managing it? Can we agree on that?
5th: What is your position on the old plan?
Answer: I did not agree with height but I believe the old plan called for more Open Space. I am not a developer nor a planner so I can not be for sure.
Two cents: Mixed use is great in theory but I do not feel it is warranted in this area, nor do I feel there is a demand for it now or later. Tough to get a mortgage on residential with that mix. The retail is fine, as I live above Kings. I would not live here if it also had a layer or several layers of office space, then it would be to congested.
My proposal: Eliminate the office space. Allow for more residential. Barter that away for a pool/rec center, additional land?
You can try. Let's find out more what the public really wants instead of rushing. We waited this long, why not talk some more in a community forum. Can we agree on that?
David
robert randall said:David - Which building do you propose eliminating to create the open space and how much larger and higher do you support making the residential buildings (now 8 stories) to make the plan financially viable. Redevelopment is a zero sum game - you need to give to get.
Supporting much higher residential buildings and eliminating the "mixed use" comercial buildings in order to obtain a field in addition to the community center is a coherent position worthy of discussion, though I personally do not agree, particularly given the negotiations to purchase the Henkel site next door. I also feel strongly that the community center needs to be within the redevelopment zone, and there needs to be strong legal requirements to ensure that the center is built before any building is occupied. Do you agree?
Perhaps the developers, who oppose the plan, will let us know how tall the buildings will have to be to make the changes you suggest. My guess is that they will simply point to the Ursa/Roberts plan that the public trashed at the last set of public hearings.
What is your position on the old plan?
I hope you will contribute constructively to the dialogue by not only pointing out what the plan doesn't include, but also explaining the trade-offs you personally would be willing to accept to make including those things in the plan possible.
-
Permalink Reply by FAP on
-
Dave your intentions seem good but do you know what he meant by zero sum game? It doesn't mean not having cooperation and building a better Hoboken it means that if you want the developer to give you more open space, which costs the developer money, the developer will need something in return to keep the project economically viable. That usually means higher buildings.
Knowing that you can't have everything and nothing is free which do you prefer, higher buildings and more open space, less open space and smaller building or do you think the balance is currently right? Since you say in response to question 1 you want more open space how much taller do you think the buildings should go and why?
-
Permalink Reply by David A. Liebler on
-
Let me be more clear, as a person who loves watching CCN, West Wing reruns and Sunday morning political talk on a national scale, I am well aware of the meaning of "A Zero Sum Game". Not being rude.....
With that being said, the height restrictions that are currently in place seem fine. If the developers need another floor or two to give us more open space, then I am fine with that, but no more. If that is what the community agrees to. I do not speak for the community and would like to hear what they are willing to do or not do. Open more meetings to discuss options...that is all I have been asking for....and that was granted last night!
So, this project has taken years to get to this point. Old plans, Zimmer's plan...don't care for either.....
I want a new plan with this years public to have more input so we can create what we want and a timetable that works for everyone. Let's get the parks for the Spring...or rec center/pool!
Because personally, I don't want to see any legal bills suing over this and the eminent domain argument is ridiculous as the city cant afford all that land....
Are we good?
David
FAP said:Dave your intentions seem good but do you know what he meant by zero sum game? It doesn't mean not having cooperation and building a better Hoboken it means that if you want the developer to give you more open space, which costs the developer money, the developer will need something in return to keep the project economically viable. That usually means higher buildings.
Knowing that you can't have everything and nothing is free which do you prefer, higher buildings and more open space, less open space and smaller building or do you think the balance is currently right? Since you say in response to question 1 you want more open space how much taller do you think the buildings should go and why?
-
Permalink Reply by FAP on
-
I'm still confused. Since you say you get the zero sum aspect why are you surprised that the developer is being asked to give less open space when the building heights have been dramatically reduced from the prior plan? If you're only okay with 2 more floors I'm sure you realize you only get as much open space as two floors buy you, which may not be a lot.
As for open space I think keeping the buildings at a reasonable height in return for a rec center and/or town pool and purchasing the Henkel site is a far better option for our community. This would keep the small town feel and provide a significant improvement in open usable space.
This plan shouldn't have taken years. It's taken so long because people fought Dave Roberts and Fred Bado from giving away the NW and getting little in return. Many of those same people are working to make this plan a good one. As for last night's vote knowing the quality people we have on the planning board I would have rather have had the planning board hold meetings than the council.
BTW you only gave me one thing, the pool, you liked about the plan before, the others things you mentioned are not items in the plan. Besides the pool what else do you like in the plan and to be fair what are the top three things you think should be addressed to make the plan better?
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
David - thank you for your thoughtful response. Here are my thoughts:
1. The open space needs to go somewhere. If you're not eliminating a building where do you propose putting it. the only option I can think of that would increase open space without eliminating a building would be to put the community center and pool into one of the existing buildings and change the community center site into open space. To keep the economics the same, that would likely require increasing the height of that one building to 12 stories, assuming the community center would occupy 4 stories. Would you support that?
2. I agree that we should know in advance what the expected cost will be of operating and maintaining the rec center and pool.
3. You may not want a zero sum game, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. The old plan was so profitable to the developers that we could demand more "givebacks" without adding more density. All we were doing was reducing the developer profit from unbelievably excessive to very excessive. This plan appears designed to limit the developer profit to a fair return. In fact, some people like Lane Bejardi have argued that the plan is already unfair to the developer because it is not lucrative enough. While I believe we should let the free market decide whether the economics are good enough rather than Ursa or Mr. Bejardi, it is clear that we cannot ask for additional "givebacks" without paying for them with density.
4. I believe that your statement that residential mortgages are difficult to obtain in mixed use buildings is simply wrong. Perhaps you should consider how the residences above the W Hotel were financed, or in Trump Tower or any of the many other examples of successful mixed use.
5. Other than your gut reaction, do you have any basis for your assertion that commercial space located next to a light rail stop would not be successful?
6. The city has a $3 million open space grant to buy the Henkel site, and has said it is currently in negotiations to purchase it for open space. This would create a large park adjoining the zone, obviating the need for open space within the zone. I understand and agree with the position that this is not something we can count on as a certainty, but in my view ignoring its effect if it happens is equally unwise.
7. Your position on commercial space seems to assume that the Rockefeller Group proposal in the NW will be built, despite the fact that that area has not even been studied yet for redevelopment and there is enormous community opposition to the plans that have been released. Why do you, for the purposes of the planning of this zone, think its appropriate to assume the Rockefeller project will happen, but feel its inappropriate to assume that Henkel will be acquired for open space. Those viewpoints seem completely inconsistent to me.
8. Just curious - you said (I think) you have lived in Hoboken for 10 years. Did you attend any of the public meetings that were held with respect to the old plan or is your interest in this project something that represents part of the recent political awakening you described as occuring when you got involved with Peter Cammarano's campaign? If you attended, do you feel that the new plan incorporated changes consistent with the public comments that were given at that time?
-
Permalink Reply by David A. Liebler on
-
I will try to answer these questions later in the day as I am working, so forgive me as I need a little time.
I will say this though, after seeing the Mayor's release today and listening to your comments, I am confused. This Henkel property is fairly large is it not? $3m and $2m is only $5m.....is that the value of this property?
I was Never...involved in ANY meetings until a little over a year ago. I was the guy walking off the path with ear phones on and just doing my on thing. After I met Peter Cammarano, I actually woke up and realized that I could make a difference
in Hoboken so I got involved. Due to the fact that I helped him I am forever tainted and for that I am upset.
I did not agree with everything Peter stood for and at times I did not like his attitude but I was new and eager to make a difference and I did, as he won. If the occurrences that transpired did not occur and he was still our Mayor, I want ALL of you to know that I would have held him as accountable as I am with Mayor Zimmer. You will not hear from me much, unless I see something drastically wrong and I can make a difference to help.
In the year that Mayor Zimmer has had, I have only been vocal twice.
More Street Cops
More Open Space
Other items that I am interested in:
Lowering Taxes, Fixing Flooding, Better High School, More open space, Sensible Development.
When I have time, I will also start researching Wind Turbines for the Hudson, so Hoboken does not pay for electricity.
David
FAP said:I'm still confused. Since you say you get the zero sum aspect why are you surprised that the developer is being asked to give less open space when the building heights have been dramatically reduced from the prior plan? If you're only okay with 2 more floors I'm sure you realize you only get as much open space as two floors buy you, which may not be a lot.
As for open space I think keeping the buildings at a reasonable height in return for a rec center and/or town pool and purchasing the Henkel site is a far better option for our community. This would keep the small town feel and provide a significant improvement in open usable space.
This plan shouldn't have taken years. It's taken so long because people fought Dave Roberts and Fred Bado from giving away the NW and getting little in return. Many of those same people are working to make this plan a good one. As for last night's vote knowing the quality people we have on the planning board I would have rather have had the planning board hold meetings than the council.
BTW you only gave me one thing, the pool, you liked about the plan before, the others things you mentioned are not items in the plan. Besides the pool what else do you like in the plan and to be fair what are the top three things you think should be addressed to make the plan better?
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
David - I can identify with your "awakening since it is similar to my own - just a different year and a different candidate. I'm I glad that you have decided to become involved even if I don't agree with you at times.
I think you'll agree that some issues, like the police layoffs for example, have not played out the way some people who may have your ear said they would. I hope that you will consider the possibility that some of the notions that may have emerged through the people you got to know through the Cammarano campaign may have been politically biased, and that tou will start to apply the same level of sceptisim to both sides.
Also - when you say the building heights or amount of open space should be "whatever the community decides" who do you feel speaks for the "community" and how do they go about making their decision? For example, you didn't attend the meetings with respect to the last plan, and it sounds like you weren't paying any attention to it at all. Did the people who did attend speak for you?
I was one of those people who expressed their views with respect to the old plan, but I spoke only for myself and did not believe that the fact that I chose to speak meant that I was now a voice for others in the "community." We elect representatives like our mayor and city council to represent the community and to make decisions for us. I would like them to listen to my input if I give it, and incorporate my views if they make sense, but I recognize that through their votes the "community" has chosen those elected officials as the decision makers, not me, you or Lane Bejardi or any of the other individuals who attend public meetings as individual citizens. And they certainly have not chosen the developer who is secretly funding the telephone campaign opposing the current plan.
Do you think the public has the right to know who is funding those calls? Would you publicly join in a demand for the individuals behind those calls to identify themselves with a full disclosure of any financial interest they may have in the project?
-
Permalink Reply by David A. Liebler on
-
I can identify with your "awakening since it is similar to my own - just a different year and a different candidate. I'm I glad that you have decided to become involved even if I don't agree with you at times.
We can agree to disagree at anytime, that is democracy and freedom of speech.
I think you'll agree that some issues, like the police layoffs for example, have not played out the way some people who may have your ear said they would. I hope that you will consider the possibility that some of the notions that may have emerged through the people you got to know through the Cammarano campaign may have been politically biased, and that tou will start to apply the same level of sceptisim to both sides.
This is the funny thing, (insert comment as to being "Labeled" right off the bat).
I never spoke to ONE police officer. They did there own thing and we can agree that it was a shit show. No one asked me to speak on behalf of the Police...NO ONE. I really only know Anthony Romano and Vic, but I swear it is only social. I went and spoke out because my wife still does not feel as safe as she should and I wanted more street cops.
That's it!
I applauded everyone for going back to the table and the results were terrific as far as my concern.
Also - when you say the building heights or amount of open space should be "whatever the community decides" who do you feel speaks for the "community" and how do they go about making their decision? For example, you didn't attend the meetings with respect to the last plan, and it sounds like you weren't paying any attention to it at all. Did the people who did attend speak for you?
I believe the height that the city created was fine, but I was pushed into saying another floor or two max and .......let's just "hear & listen" to community input. Then the city council and planning board can make their decisions and I am fine with that. So let's agree.
Do you think the public has the right to know who is funding those call?
I would be interested in knowing.
Would you publicly join in a demand for the individuals behind those calls to identify themselves with a full disclosure of any financial interest they may have in the project?
I would be happy to hear a plan on how you purpose to do that and if enough people have this common interest, then I would support the majority decision. Short answer, most likely.
I do have a question for everyone........
Mayor Zimmers plan calls for land/put in a pool and rec center/additional open space and a new strict height requirement with office space in it and retail?
What do they get if this is a zero sum game?
This is a two way street and we need to look at both sides. Scott Siegel said it best last night to me...."They are going to want something back for the land, the pool and rec center? Right?" and I said "I would tend to agree, but hopefully it does not have to be height, because I do like that part of the plan."
David
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
David - I think you are missing something about the process. The Mayor is not proposing "restricting" the building height to 8 stories. She is INCREASING it to 8 story residential or mixed use from the 2 story industrial that is now permitted under current zoning. The trade off to the developers for the community center and other "give backs" is the significant upzone that represents. Similarly, the commercial use is an upzone from the industrial use which is currently the only permitted use.
When I say its a zero sum game, I am assuming based on the positions of both the city and the developers that the project as proposed by the city does not contain excess profit for the developer. That is one of the most important characteristics differentiating this plan from the Roberts plan, which was written by and for the developer. Since there is no big profit pool to draw on, any additional givebacks will have to be paid for by making the deal more profitable to the developer in some way. This can only be done by adding more residential density, something the "community" made clear it opposed at the last set of public hearings.
With respect to demanding disclosure of who is behind the pr campaign, why do you need an organized "plan" with a "majority decision?" Just get up at the first public hearing and demand that whoever is behind it identify themselves. That's what I plan to do. Will you join me? I think its a pretty good bet that the people behind it will be there so we can see if they man up and tell the truth.
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
Dave take a walk to the Henkel site and see it for yourself. Report back what you see.
-
Permalink Reply by David A. Liebler on
-
I looked it up online and it looks large. $5MM sounds low? No?
Environmental issues? What is the status of the clean up and cost if we buy this land?
What is going to go there?
Looks like a great space for a large park, excited!
Thanks,
David
scott m siegel said:Dave take a walk to the Henkel site and see it for yourself. Report back what you see.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
