But soon both the warehouses and the more recent residential buildings in the area will be overshadowed, literally and figuratively, by three 30-story buildings after the city’s planning board approved a Toll Brothers’ development proposal almost four years in the making. And in a neighborhood that has been the site of dramatic change over the past thirty years — from squatting artists to city-mandated work/live allocated housing to prime real estate along a city’s waterfront that has spurred economic development for the rest of the city — the realities of long-term best intentions and the very real need for shorter-term growth are often the distorting lenses that split the difference between unconscionable action and logical progression.

“They went in for variances for buildings four times the height and double the density, and they knocked out all of the affordable housing [stipulations in the redevelopment plan] and turned it into cash payment for the city’s affordable housing fund,” says Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association President Stacy Nusbaum Woods of the drastic changes that override the PAD redevelopment plan first adopted in 2004.

Woods describes the plan as an essential document created to maintain the integrity of an area that, along with city assistance and forward-thinking residents, was already on the road to revitalization.

In particular, the group says restrictions on new construction that limit in height and mass to “support the existing fabric of the PAD” are paramount, as is considering the “adaptive reuse of existing warehouses.” Perhaps most importantly, the plan was to include affordable housing for artists in the area “when possible,” 10 percent of the total housing a nod to many of the residents who helped make the current development possible.

First submitted back in 2008, Toll Brothers’ plan was put on hold by a lengthy legal battle that ascended the judicial chain of command when the Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association (PADNA) sued the city over the drastic variances granted to the developers. In the suit, PADNA argued the proposal was “inappropriate” for the neighborhood and that keeping the character and uniqueness of the area should be at the heart of city planning.

“When you already have a neighborhood with character, with things that distinguish one city from another,” says architect and former PADNA president Jill Edelman, “that is what gives them richness, that is what makes them valuable. If a portion of one city makes it look like another, there’s no reason to choose one over another.”

But an appellate court judge thought otherwise, deciding instead that a city’s development ultimately hinges on whatever the current administration sees as best. And that’s the way it will remain for the time being, as shortly after the decision, the group’s last hope for legal intervention was squashed when the New Jersey State Supreme Court decided not to even consider the case.

At the time, city attorney Bill Matsikoudis told the Jersey Journal, “the Appellate Division’s decision completely vindicated the city’s planning process and also held that a modification to a redevelopment plan does not require a re-blighting, which would be a significant impediment to urban redevelopment.”

Now more than a year after the judge’s decision, the developers are set for the first phase of their 950-unit project that is expected to begin sometime in the spring of 2012, with the second and third phases — plans that would bring a theater and public plaza to the area and two additional towers — coming shortly after.

But the Powerhouse Arts District’s vocal neighborhood association remains concerned about the consequences to a city when variances are seemingly granted at whim.

click image to enlarge

“The money that would go towards affordable housing for artists will go into a general fund,” says Woods. “It could go anywhere the city dictates.”

“Our argument was that the redevelopment plan was working, new buildings were being developed, and hundreds of people are living here,” she adds. “You shouldn’t upend [the neighborhood] with spot zoning.”

But most worrisome to Woods is the fear that as presently constructed, the arrangement with the city allows the developers to opt out of the agreement should the risk to profits be too great. After completing the first phase — which is the construction of the first of the three residential towers — she fears that rather than build the proposed theater and plaza on Provost the developers may wipe their hands of the proposal’s public-oriented selling points.

“They could say the market isn’t strong enough and never build the other phases of the development,” argues Woods.

But Bob Cotter, the longtime director of city planning, suggests that taking a broader view of the city as a whole, and the neighborhood specifically, will show a much different undertaking than the one painted by the neighborhood association.

“The nature of my business is the management of change,” Cotter says, maintaining that Woods’ worst-case scenario of the developers abandoning the project after one phase is unrealistic. “There are lots of folks in this world who don’t want to see change, who are afraid of change.”

“We’ve spent the better part of 20 years on and off in the so-called arts district,” recalls Cotter.

In 1984, the Planning Division first had the idea to get the area designated as an historic district, he says, “but the powers that be said they didn’t want to declare it an historic district because it might limit development.”

“Back then, there were a lot more warehouses standing. Over time, some were knocked down [and] some burned down.”

It wouldn’t be until some 10 years after the idea was first hatched that the proposal of turning the area into an official arts district would gain traction, a combination of Cotter’s encouragement for the planning board to promote the area for artists along with the de facto living situation that already found artists illegally residing in the industrial buildings not zoned for residency.

Although zoning could be changed, the buildings’ owners didn’t see the percentage in making the expensive changes to be on the right side of the fire code. The squatting residents did not have the financial means to pay the higher rent that could make up for the expensive changes; after all, that is why they were living illegally in warehouses in the first place.

“Some artists lived there anyway and the city just turned the other way,” recalled Cotter. “We knew there would be hell to pay if we just kicked everyone out.”

But with the skyrocketing property value in the area beginning in the late nineties and early aughts, building owners, reassessing profits based on the new value of the area, started to see things differently. Only then would warehouses be converted, and still the city tried to stand behind the people who made the neighborhood livable, says Cotter.

“We zoned it for 100 percent live/work spaces to allow the artists there to remain.”

But the requirement undercut the developers’ profits and scared away economic growth. “Every time someone looked at doing a project there, even if they were friends of the arts, they couldn’t bank it,” he recalls.

The city “kept watering [the requirements] down” until they reached a point that stipulated the new residential buildings had to provide the current ten percent space for artists, a meager but “realistic” compromise. Soon other warehouses, who watched as manufacturing moved elsewhere, started to take notice, including a mini storage space that had been in the area for over 20 years.

“And that’s pretty much who PADNA is now,” says Cotter. Taking this longer view, he maintains, the changes to the relatively nascent area-as-legal-neighborhood do not appear so drastic.

But as the city will note, the developer’s plan does call for that public plaza and 550-seat theater, sweetening the deal for the public. And the 10 percent artists-oriented low-to-moderate housing requirement is still intact overall if not in the Toll Brothers’ massive towers specifically.

The variance granted to the developers does not leave low-income housing out of the picture completely. Along with the towers, there will be 32 units of “workforce” housing constructed in the PAD, which will be available to residents who earn 80 to 100 percent of the city’s median income. In addition, the developers will pay for the right to bypass the 10 percent affordable-housing requirement, a practice Cotter says is not uncommon among developers. The money will then be available for the city to use toward inner-city affordable housing projects.

“We’re always looking for affordable housing in the inner city and if we can squeeze it out of buildings along the waterfront, great,” he said. “The city is always looking for ways of turning vacant lots into decent housing.”

“Powerhouse Arts District didn’t work out the way the dreamers dreamed it in the 1990s, we just couldn’t get anyone to bank anything,” he says. “This is as good as we could get.”

Still, critics will likely point to the variances given to Toll Brothers as a precedent for the city to bend the rules for economic development.

The Planning Division, he says, is “planning for the entire city, not just one neighborhood.” This is just another “dot” that the city will connect to the rest of the revitalized waterfront.

Photo of 150 and 140 Bay Street courtesy of Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy; “PAD Plan vs. Toll Plan” image courtesy of PADNA

A developer’s rendering of the proposed new-look McGinley Square. The shot above is Montgomery Street looking east from Bergen Avenue; the shot below at right is a proposed pedestrian mall that would run east-west from Jordan Avenue to Tuers Avenue, in between Montgomery and Mercer Streets.

Jersey City officials say they have heard residents’ concerns about the McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan, and the administration has responded with a new version that will be introduced at Tuesday night’s council meeting. There are some notable changes meant to ease the concerns of the plan’s critics, according to Planning Director Bob Cotter, who told the City Council Monday night that it is “a better plan” than the previous incarnation.

“The residents brought things to our attention that we did not know about,” he said.

“The plan permits the development of residential, commercial, and mixed use structures up to 16 stories in height, improvements to existing public open space and the creation of new public spaces,” the summary of the ordinance reads. “The plan also provides for in-fill development opportunities and does not include acquisition of private property.”

That last part is key to the many residents who objected to the use of eminent domain in the area. After receiving letters from the city that said properties might be seized as part of the redevelopment process, residents spoke out against the idea until the city — which had said all along it wasn’t in favor of using eminent domain — changed the language in the development plan — from being in need of “redevelopment” to in need of “rehabilitation” — and gutted its own ability to utilize the controversial tactic to acquire land.

Other concerns voiced by residents have been addressed to some extent, including limiting the number of parking spaces and ensuring residential buildings will be developed in addition to commercial.

According to city planner Jeff Wenger, local artists will be commissioned to design benches to give the area a “unique feel to it.”

If the council ultimately approves the Redevelopment Plan, it paves the way for the developer of the site to begin its work. Its proposal calls for 370,000 square feet of new retail space, 230,000 square feet of new office space, five residential towers, a 150-room hotel and an entertainment center featuring a new movie theater. It would also expand McGinley Square park and create two new pedestrian-only thoroughfares, which the developer envisions as being lined with retail shops, restaurants and bars. (One would run from Tuers to Jordan Avenues in between Montgomery and Mercer Streets, and the other would run from Nevins Street to Monticello Avenue between Storms Avenue and Orchard Street.)

Assuming things go as the developer plans, this multi-phase project would break ground next August, with the bulk of the development completed by the summer or fall of 2016.

Now the study is winding down, and county planners and outside planning consultants are presenting their recommendations to the public at a meeting tonight in Jersey City. County planner Megan Massey says the preferred design incorporates bicycle and pedestrian solutions “more on the lines of a complete street,” referring to the planning ideology of making roads designed for a variety of transportation modes.

The study area atop the Palisades is all in Jersey City, in the Heights. It is bound by Palisade Avenue to the west, Franklin Street to the north, Paterson Plank Road to the east, and New York Avenue to the south.

The study area at the foot of the Palisades is in both Hoboken and Jersey City. It is bound by Paterson Plank Road (in Jersey City) to the west, 2nd Street (in Hoboken) to the north, Willow Avenue (in Hoboken) to the east, and 18th Street (in Jersey City) to the south.

THE DETAILS

Jersey City/Hoboken Subregional Transportation Study Open House; Tuesday, June 21 from 4 to 7 pm; 700 Grove Street (3rd floor meeting room).

A strong showing by members of the Harsimus Cove Association, who voiced frustration at the lack of dialogue with their organization and argued that the redevelopment plan was an abuse of the city’s power, “opening the door” to future abuses, was not enough to convince the council that the redevelopment plan would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Dan Levin, a former president of the Harsimus Cove Association and good-government activist, said he was not convinced the city should pursue redevelopment.

“The area the redevelopment is targeting is exciting, it’s a vibrant community, [and] it remains a great neighborhood because it’s not blighted and not in need of redevelopment,” he said Wednesday night.

“This eliminates [the city’s] ability to sell to the highest bidder. Our concern is about value,” he said. “This is not what the law was created to do. This is not blighted land. Put it out in open market, let zoning conform.”

As we reported earlier this month, under New Jersey law, the redevelopment process can be taken on properties that are severely blighted and/or dangerous. But it can also be taken to spur certain preferred types of development in an area if the plans are “consistent with smart growth planning principles.”

In its report on the Erie Street property, Jersey City’s Planning Division, while noting that the actual JCPD headquarters building’s structure is “in fair condition,” says the interior of the building has fallen prey to “substandard maintenance” and “deteriorating conditions,” and it dubs the surface parking lot “obsolete” and “substandard.” City planning and redevelopment officials maintain that this, combined with making sure the right kind of development goes into the area, is more than enough reasoning to designate it in need of redevelopment.

And as for the neighborhood group’s concerns, the council overwhelmingly thought their concerns were met in substance, if not in principle. Before voting for the ordinance, At-Large Councilwoman Kalimah Ahmad, told the neighborhood activists that she was convinced that it “complies with your concerns” in terms of keeping with the neighborhood’s historic integrity. She pointed instead to the lack of dialogue between the city and the neighborhood association as the problem, and something that needs to change.

“You just were not brought to the table, which we should make sure we do going forward,” she said. “You have a right to be heard [before] we draw up plans.”

At-Large Councilman Ray Velazquez, who voice similar concerns about the lack of dialogue, ultimately said that “it’s important the project moves forward” because the expected revenue is part of the budget plan. He also pointed out that just because the council is adopting the redevelopment plan doesn’t mean they will automatically accept any bid, nor issue a tax abatement.

“Clearly there’s some misinformation out there … there’s no tax abatement. We have the final say, if we don’t like the bids, [we can reject them],” he said. “But we can’t afford to waste time. We made a commitment to keep taxes stable.”

Council President Brennan was less sympathetic, pointing out that the redevelopment plan was heard and approved by the Planning Board in April.

“I don’t know how people are coming here and saying this is the first they’re hearing about it,” he said.

“We’re bad landlords, we don’t keep on top of buildings,” Brennan added, referring to the headquarters’ condition. “This redevelopment plan will enhance the neighborhood. It will improve your property.”

To allay some of the fears voiced by residents, Jersey City planning director Bob Cotter spoke at the meeting to explain the redevelopment process. He argued that because of the size of the lots in the project, the zoning restrictions in the neighborhood make it difficult to undertake worthwhile projects.

“There is very little floor play for residential units to be built” within the zoning requirements, he said. “It’s a practical thing. An apartment building that looks like five townhouses” would be more “efficient” for the space, and would look appropriate, Cotter argued. But it would technically violate the zoning.

“We’ll get the most value out of the property,” he said, pointing out that selling to the highest bidder does not always equal the best sale.

Cotter, like Jersey City Redevelopment Agency executive director Robert Antonicello, pointed to the “mistake” made at 121-125 Newark Avenue as a cautionary tale of highest-bidder selling. The city rejected a $2.3 million bid from a developer who had a plan that fit the neighborhood, they said, instead opting to sell the building at auction; it was ultimately sold to Brooklyn’s Lazer Mechlovitz for $2.61 million 15 months ago.

“The city sold the property to the highest bidder, and we got a pizza parlor that looks like something from 1962,” Cotter said, referring to Nick’s Village Pizzeria, “not something [belonging to] the 21st century [as] it should be.”

Cotter argued that more ambitious and fitting developments often cost more, and that often “takes away how much [a developer] can pay for property.” But he said the planning process must be viewed more holistically.

“[Mechlovitz] isn’t investing in Jersey City the way we need,” he said. “We should sell to the best proposal, not the proposal with the most money. Long-term investing is what’s important.”

Charles Kessler, a co-founder of the Harsimus Cove Association, said Cotter presented “interesting information,” but added that it would have been “nice if he’d come to our neighborhood association to get our feedback and tell us these things before it’s imposed on us. We want to have some feedback in the redevelopment plan.”

Meanwhile, another resident took to the podium to advocate for a different neighborhood she said is “in actual need of redevelopment.”

“What I can’t understand is how redevelopment and progress in Jersey City is happening [Downtown] and meanwhile in the Marion section we’re sitting and waiting for something to happen. There hasn’t been any progress; we’re standing still,” Jeanette Rotondo said. “I don’t understand why nothing has been done to encourage this redevelopment.”

Now that the Redevelopment Plan has been approved, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency will begin the Request for Proposals process.

Photo: Ian MacAllen/New York’s Sixth

“[The proposed settlement can] end the disputes and litigation that have continued for over five years,” the April 12 letter from Hyman’s attorney Daniel Horgan to the city reads. “These terms give consideration to the interests of the city and to all parties, but the overarching goal is to provide for the meaningful and productive use of over 25 acres of property in the heart of Jersey City that can help the city and its taxpayers in these most difficult economic times.”

Since purchasing the six elevated blocks in 2005, Hyman has been engaged in a number of legal battles with the city over his desire to develop parts of the property, as the city and Downtown activists continue to fight to preserve the land for a public park, and potentially a light rail extension.

Hyman, who has spent millions on the epic legal battle with Jersey City, often makes his case in economic terms, criticizing the city’s willingness to spend massive amounts on the various cases, as well as its unwillingness to allow him to bring new properties — and new property taxes — on line.

Hyman’s offer to the council Wednesday was a compromise deal he has been hinting at for months, and it comes about a year after he rejected the city’s plan to buy the entire collection of properties for up to $7.6 million. Under the proposal, Hyman would have kept four of the elevated parcels and sold the city two of them for $10 million, with the stipulation that the city could not transfer the deeds to another developer and would have to use the two blocks for a public park.

In addition, the city would have to create a Redevelopment Plan for Hyman’s four parcels, as well as a number of land parcels west of the Embankment under the Turnpike extension that are currently owned by Conrail, the railroad company that originally sold the Embankment properties to Hyman.

“The Conrail property has an important relationship to the sound redevelopment planning of the Embankment property, and is uniquely suited as a hub that can be served by mass transit to permit significant levels of urban development,” the proposed settlement reads.

The proposal requested the right to build 1,800 residential units on the four Embankment properties, as well as 4,000 residential units and 2 million square feet of commercial space on the Conrail properties “without any restrictions under programs of historic preservation, or otherwise, whatsoever.” It also proposed using part of the Conrail properties for a possible light rail line that would connect the Journal Square PATH station and the current light rail tracks near 18th Street and the Hoboken border.

The administration says it is glad the council rejected what it dubs a “preposterous” settlement.

“We will continue to fight for the preservation of the Embankment for the creation of a world-class elevated park and a transportation corridor, while remaining open to any reasonable settlement proposals,” city spokesperson Jennifer Morrill says. “Unfortunately this wasn’t one.”

Proposed Embankment Settlement

“It strikes us as odd that the city would be satisfied with selling 8 Erie and an adjacent parking lot — prime real estate in historic Downtown Jersey City — for a pauper’s sum of $4 million,” HCA president Mike Francisco says in a statement issued Friday (the $4 million figure comes from earlier reports published in the Jersey Journal; city officials hoping to oversee the sale contend there is no target purchase price). “Anybody who has recently looked at the price of a single-family row house knows that the stated sale price of 8 Erie and the adjoining parking lot is alarmingly low.”

Francisco’s statement also notes a lack of community planning and consultation with those who live and work in the neighborhood.

“Most troubling about this situation is that the proposed sale of this landmark building in the heart of the Harsimus Cove Historic District has not been opened up to the public,” he says. “The residents and business owners in Harsimus Cove and Downtown Jersey City should have a say in what ultimately comes of this property.”

The city’s Planning Division has recommended that the properties in question be declared “in need of redevelopment,” and has created a Redevelopment Plan to guide the future use of the site. Both of these measures were held up at the last City Council meeting, as Ward E councilman Steven Fulop questioned whether the city should keep some of the land for a municipal parking deck. But if the redevelopment measures go through, the bidding process would be altered, and the developer would also be eligible for potential tax abatements, in addition to other incentives.

Once designated “in need of redevelopment,” the bidding process would fall under the authority of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency (JCRA), the autonomous agency that fosters redevelopment of areas in the city that are blighted, and has helped bring many large-scale real estate projects here.

“The JCRA, pending council approval, is about to begin the RFP [Request for Proposals] process for the sale and redevelopment of 8 Erie Street, which by nature is open, public and transparent,” Mayor Jerramiah Healy says. “Any person or member of the development community who would like to partake in this process is entitled to do so. The city is seeking the highest and best use of the property for not only the residents of Downtown, but also for all of our taxpayers.”

But one prominent good-government activist contends that using redevelopment is not the ideal process for this situation, and thinks that step should only be taken as a last-resort measure.

“By putting forward a resolution to initiate the redevelopment plan, the city started a process that will allow them to avoid zoning requirements,” says Dan Levin, who also lives in the Harsimus Cove neighborhood and is a former president of the HCA. “By putting it under redevelopment, they can limit potential purchasers to whoever they want.”

In other words, the JCRA does not have to award the project to the highest bidder. Instead, it reserves the right to reject “any and all” proposals if they are found unacceptable, as the agency phrased it in a recent RFP.

But JCRA executive director Robert Antonicello says this fact is actually a positive for local development, not a negative. He says that when the city sells a property directly, the developer who bids the highest has to be awarded the property, no matter what they intend to do with it.

“’What did they sell it for?’ is not the only question when selling a property,” he says. “When land is sold through auction, you might get a speculator who wants to flip the land later and sits on it, so the area [continues to be] unused.”

He points to 121-125 Newark Avenue as an example of the negative consequences of a direct city auction. A developer had expressed interest in the hulking property at the triangular corner of Newark, Grove and Columbus, and it planned bring businesses that fit in with the burgeoning “restaurant row” on Newark, according to Antonicello. However, the developer was firm on paying only $2.3 million.

The administration wasn’t thrilled with that purchase price, so it sold the building directly at auction instead, ultimately receiving about $300,000 more for the property, when Brooklyn’s Lazer Mechlovitz bought it for $2.61 million 15 months ago. Since then, one storefront pizza shop did open and several commercial tenants have begun to slowly fill in the upstairs offices. Antonicello contends that if the city had chosen to designate the building “in need of redevelopment,” the JCRA would have had more leverage to force the developer to work within a certain acceptable framework, and on a tighter timeline.

And while Antonicello readily admits that the agency often has ideas about what kind of development it wants at a site, he insists that doesn’t translate to pre-determining who will get to develop that site. The agency, he says, is completely objective when vetting RFPs; if not, developers wouldn’t want to invest the time and money it takes to even submit a RFP.

“If developers thought the process was crooked, they just wouldn’t bid,” he says, pointing out that a fully realized RFP could cost a developer as much as $30,000. “The process costs so much money.”

Redevelopment has historically been an action taken to properties in areas of serious urban decay and blight, as a means to entice developers to work in conditions that would otherwise be difficult or impossible. But that began to change in 1992, when New Jersey consolidated and revised its redevelopment law, creating more municipal flexibility for redevelopment plans.

There are eight criteria used to measure the appropriateness of a redevelopment designation under the state law, including if buildings are unsafe, dilapidated, “untenantable,” damaged by natural disaster, or “detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community,” but also if the plans to redevelop are “consistent with smart growth planning principles.”

As the JCRA notes in its glossary of redevelopment terms, by using the criteria, the state has expanded the types of properties that can be determined in need of redevelopment, including “some not typically thought of as ‘blighted.’”

In its report on the Erie Street property, Jersey City’s Planning Division, while noting that the actual JCPD headquarters building’s structure is “in fair condition,” argues that the “substandard maintenance” and “deteriorating conditions” inside the building, as well as the “obsolete” and “substandard” surface parking lot are enough to qualify the property as “in need of redevelopment.”

Antonicello has also inspected the headquarters building, and he contends that the interior would almost definitely have to be gutted for either office or residential use; although he says it is “functionally operational,” he says it is too “dark and depressing” to be attractive to potential residents or business owners.

That, he says, combined with making sure the right kind of development goes into the area, is more than enough reasoning to designate it in need of redevelopment.

“Our mission at the end of the day is, how do you redevelop a city, how do you provide housing, how do you provide economic growth?” Antonicello says. “Price is only part of an analysis in a deal, we also consider, what do we want to happen here? What fits in a neighborhood? And does the developer ultimately have the capacity to fulfill his plan?”

The resolution declaring the area in need of redevelopment and a first-read ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the area will both be voted on at Wednesday’s City Council meeting. If successfully introduced, the ordinance will be up for a public hearing and final vote on May 25.

Photo: Ian MacAllen/New York’s Sixth

The donation is part of $1 million in New Jersey donations the bank is distributing through the state Department of Community Affairs’ Neighborhood Revitalization Tax Credit (NRTC) Program, which benefits community development initiatives in economically distressed areas of the state.

WomenRising’s project, which received a similar donation of $150,000 from Blue Cross Blue Shield last spring, will be a five-story LEED-certified building that will house a local supermarket, 120 affordable rental units, office space and indoor parking. The job bank/clearinghouse, which will be at a separate location, will allow adults and youth from the neighborhood to provide social service information and access to jobs and training information.

TD Bank Central New Jersey market president D. Nicholas Miceli says the bank is “especially pleased” to contribute to the redevelopment of properties into affordable housing, retail and office space.

“We think this mixed-use approach will be key to creating and maintaining jobs at a time when our communities need them most,” he says in a statement.

Jersey City’s City Council is set to introduce ten ordinances this week amending the city code to specifically prohibit natural gas pipelines in certain redevelopment zones.

“Natural gas pipelines are an unwanted use in the area,” the simple rationale for each modification reads.

The ordinances are a response to the proposal by Houston-based Spectra Energy to expand a high-volume wholesale natural gas pipeline from Staten Island sixteen miles through Bayonne and Jersey City.

The proposed pipeline would roughly follow the path of the Turnpike Extension through Jersey City before turning east near 18th Street to run under the Hudson River to a Con Edison plant on Manhattan’s West Side.

The ordinances would simply amend current laws to prohibit natural gas pipelines in ten redevelopment zones along the proposed route: the Bates Street Redevelopment Plan, the Caven Point Redevelopment Plan, the Grand Jersey Redevelopment Plan, the Greenvile Industrial Redevelopment Plan, the Jersey Avenue Light Rail Redevelopment Plan, the Jersey Avenue Park Redevelopment Plan, the Jersey Avenue Tenth Street Redevelopment Plan, the Liberty Harbor Redevelopment Plan, the Montgomery Street Redevelopment Plan and the Morris Canal Redevelopment Plan.

The ordinances also include small changes to procedures for reviewing building plans in the zones.

The council has already passed a resolution stating its official opposition to the Spectra proposal, and the Healy administration is strongly opposed to the plan.

Under federal law, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is granted sole authority to approve or deny permits for interstate natural gas transportation infrastructure. If FERC grants Spectra a permit to build the pipeline, under the Natural Gas Act of 1978 the commission is entitled to invoke eminent domain against property owners unwilling to yield property to the pipeline’s right-of-way, likely trumping actions like this taken by the City Council.

But city officials say that by formally stating that the pipeline is contrary to the city’s redevelopment agenda, the ordinances would create a record of opposition to the pipeline by the council and planning officials that could benefit future litigation.

Mayor Jerramiah Healy has vowed that the city will file as an “intervenor” against the pipeline proposal, a status that would give the municipal government access to FERC proceedings and would grant the city standing in federal court to appeal FERC decisions.

Although intervenor status is not automatically conferred, the Natural Gas Act specifically recognizes municipal governments and federal courts have ruled that municipalities have a general right to file as intervenors.

File photo: Steve Gold

The development is part of a larger HOPE VI plan carried out by the JCHA to replace the original 492-unit high-rise Lafayette Gardens public housing project. Smaller low-rise developments like Barbara Place Terrace, Woodward Terrace and the Lafayette senior Living Center have replaced the dismantled project. This broader Lafayette Gardens plan was also honored by New Jersey Future this year; the statewide nonprofit gave it a 2010 Smart Growth Award for Creative Neighborhood Affordable Housing.

“Over the past several years, the Jersey City Housing Authority has been working hard at replacing the
outdated and problematic public housing sites, with modern, sustainable, low-rise buildings in mixed-
income developments,” Mayor Healy says in a statement. “We have seen the positive impact these new
developments such as Barbara Place Terrace have had on the community and the families who live there,
and we are pleased that the efforts of the Jersey City Housing Authority have been recognized on a national
level.”

Local elected officials accept the DOT/HUD grant check on Garfield Avenue

The federal Department of Transportation (DOT) today announced that two major projects in the Jersey City area will receive a total of $12,281,426 in TIGER II grant funding, as part of nearly $600 million being allocated to 75 infrastructure projects nationwide.

The larger of the two grants is a $10,008,056 award received by the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission to modernize and coordinate traffic signals at 128 intersections in the area, including along U.S. Routes 1 & 9 and 46, and state routes 7, 17 and 120 in Hudson and Bergen counties, and a number of local roads as well.

The traffic signals “will use algorithmic intelligence to achieve the maximum roadway capacity, improve operating efficiency, and avoid unnecessary roadway widening” through the use of “real-time image-based vehicle detection, broadband wireless communication, and an adaptive control system,” according to the DOT. “This technology allows signal timing and phasing on a cycle-by-cycle basis in response to current traffic conditions, demand and capacity.”

Both of New Jersey’s senators are applauding the traffic-signal funding.

“No one has to tell commuters how difficult traffic can be in this area of northern New Jersey,” Sen. Bob Menendez says in a statement. “This major federal investment will help bring some relief through increased efficiency on the roads.”

His point is echoed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who says “better transportation technology will help prevent our region from becoming completely gridlocked.”

In addition, the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency (JCRA) received a joint Sustainable Community Challenge Grant of $2,273,370 from the DOT and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the redevelopment of the Canal Crossing area. This is an 111-acre tract of land near the Garfield Avenue light rail stop that includes PPG Industries’ chromium-contaminated site on Garfield Avenue and more than 30 brownfield sites.

“The project focus will be to create a residential, mixed-use, transit-oriented development with access to open space amenities in a community with a significant low-income population,” according to the DOT. “The process will also develop a formal legal framework to ensure that redevelopment is equitable.”

HUD regional administrator Adolfo Carrión and a number of other elected officials will be on Garfield Avenue later this afternoon to announce the grant funding.

“We’re helping local and regional planners connect all the dots in their efforts to make their communities more sustainable and livable,” HUD secretary Shaun Donovan says in a statement announcing this and 61 other grants nationwide. “These grants will help communities to hit on all cylinders, producing more affordable housing near good jobs and commercial centers which will help to reduce our energy consumption and increase competitiveness.”

TIGER II project applications had to show multiple benefits, with priority given to these criteria projects that improve the condition of existing facilities and systems; contribute to the economic competitiveness of the U.S. over the medium- to long-term; improve the quality of living and working environments for people; improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and benefit the environment; and improve public safety. The DOT received almost 700 applications.