The Jersey City Independent "

Although Jersey City’s City Council last week narrowly approved issuing about $7.6 million in bonds to acquire the contested 6th Street Embankment, developer Steve Hyman says he has no interest in selling the city the land. Instead, he says he will continue fighting in court for his right to develop the property.

Hyman and his wife Victoria made their intentions known in a letter sent Monday to city officials, in which they say they “do not want to sell their properties to the city,” and instead want to develop the site to include housing, preservation of the historic walls and a public park.

Reached today, Hyman says he continues to be frustrated by how the city has treated him in regards to the property, which his family purchased from Conrail in 2005.

“I’ve been trying to do something good for the city for 5 years,” he says. “I’m just fed up with them. I want to develop the property.”

But he stresses that his vision for developing the land includes crucial compromises with the city and the Embankment Preservation Coalition, which has been fighting to preserve the land for a public park.

In the letter, the Hymans say “preserving some of the Embankment walls would be a priority, along with a park [and] walking trail” in the plan to develop the parcels. Renderings done by Dean Marchetto Architects for the Hymans several years ago featured preserved walls, with parking inside and housing and green space on top.

Hyman adds that a compromise proposal would bring much-needed revenue to the city, in the form of property taxes, while still creating parkland and open space.

“It’s a wonderful opportunity for me to do something wonderful for Jersey City,” he says.

Jersey City’s top attorney, Bill Matsikoudis, declined to comment on the letter, referring us to city spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.

She says the city won’t comment on the details of the settlement process, since it is confidential, but that Jersey City “continues to be hopeful” that a settlement can be reached.

“As should be evident, the city has assembled through grants and bonds the funds necessary for acquisition should Conrail and the developer wish to cooperate,” Morrill says.

But the Hymans dispute this version of events, saying in Monday’s letter that they and Conrail put forth a settlement proposal in March that was rejected by the city — a fact not disclosed as city officials made their public case for bonding leading up to last week’s vote.

“There is not now nor has there ever been any meeting of the minds, nor mutual agreement for the acquisition by the city of the Embankment nor the settlement of any of the numerous lawsuits pending against the city, Conrail and others,” the Hymans’ letter reads.

With negotiations at a standstill, the future of the Embankment is now tied up on three separate fronts.

The first has to do with the zoning on the first two blocks of the structure (from Marin Boulevard to Erie Street). The land has been ruled to be zoned for residential — in favor of Hyman — but the city has appealed that decision. According to Hyman, an appellate court decision on that is expected in the next few months.

Meanwhile, last month Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled that Hyman is entitled to a new hearing before the city’s Zoning Board of Adjustment, regarding his petition to tear down the walls of the Embankment. That hearing is expected to be scheduled for August.

Hanging over all of this is a federal court case. The city says Conrail’s 2005 sale to Hyman should be overturned, since the rail company didn’t properly abandon the sites as specified in federal law. The city filed a lawsuit four years ago arguing that Conrail should have offered the land to the city before selling it to any developer. In a 2007 decision, the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) agreed. But that decision was overturned last year by a federal appeals court, which ruled that the STB didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case. Conrail has moved to have the entire case dismissed, but if that petition isn’t granted, the federal case will likely head to trial sometime next year.

Despite growing concerns over the cost of litigation in this drawn-out battle — a cost that the city hoped to allay by instead purchasing the property — Jersey City is in it for the long haul, according to Morrill.

“The city remains committed to acquiring the Embankment so that the historic structure can be preserved, developed into an elevated green space and trail, and used for rail purposes including light rail and trolley to connect fast-growing downtown Jersey City to Journal Square and other transit hubs,” she says.

However, she notes that the means of acquisition may change, pointing to the federal litigation and, as we reported in May, the potential of taking the land via eminent domain.

“In light of the many public purposes that would be served by acquisition,” she says, “the city of course reserves all of its eminent domain powers in connection with the property.”

Meanwhile, Hyman, who has spent millions of dollars fighting this case and has grown weary of the process, says he just wants the courts to decide if the city has the right to the property, either by overturning the sale or eminent domain.

“If they have the power to take it from me, go ahead and take it from me,” Hyman says. “I’m not going to stop them from taking it.”

But since he believes the city does not have that right, Hyman will continue his fight with Jersey City.

“I decided I did nothing wrong,” he says. “I want the court to tell me who did something wrong.”

Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.