Loading ...
Hoboken Rail Yards Task Force
29
April
4/29/2009:
More citizen groups required to keep city hall in check
The entire Hoboken City Council – from Cammarano to Mason to Zimmer – is on the record opposed to the gargantuan project proposed for the Hoboken rail yards by NJ Transit, FXFowle and LCOR.
That didn’t stop fiscal monitor Judy Tripodi from approving a contract extension for the planning firm described by all parties involved (even Terry Labruno!) as “arrogant” in the way they simply dismissed public input. Now a new group is forming out of the Quality of Life Coalition to address the issue. Below is their press release:
Tripodi Extends FXFOWLE Contract despite council vote
Tripodi Adds $100,000 to Total Cost of Redevelopment Plan; Intends to Move Redevelopment Plan to Completion Without Incorporating Community Feedback
“State Fiscal Monitor Judy Tripodi informed Hoboken City Council Members in a memo dated April 16 that she is moving ahead to authorize an extension of the contract between the City of Hoboken and FXFOWLE, the firm engaged to create the redevelopment plan for the NJ Transit rail yards in our city, from the original $155,000 to a new maximum of $255,000.”
READ THE REST OF THE PRESS RELEASE AFTER THE JUMP…
(Hoboken Rail Yards Task Force, continued…)
The resolution already has met with opposition twice in City Council, which first voted it down by a vote of 8 to 0 on March 4 and tabled it by a 4 to 3 vote on April 1. Several council members cited the planning firm’s failure to respond to the concerns raised at public meetings. However, a letter from FXFOWLE dated Feb. 24, included with the March 4 resolution, plainly states that the request for additional funds “does not include any additional public meetings, or new professional renderings or modifications to the existing professional renderings.”
Instead, FXFOWLE attributes the need for additional funds to the ongoing “consensus building process,” which the proposal outlines as up to six additional “stakeholder meetings” between the planning firm, NJ Transit, the City Planning Department and representatives of City Council. No citizens groups are included in these discussions.
At least some of the amount appears to cover additional costs already incurred by FXFOWLE, according to the firm’s previous proposal letter, dated Jan. 28, which cited the extension of the planning period from six to nine months, and the burden of having held three instead of the original two public meetings.
“FXFOWLE’s proposal does not cover any future public meetings or the cost of changing the professional renderings of the mammoth towers proposed for the site,” said Terry Pranses of the Hoboken Rail Yards Task Force. “So, what does this expenditure cover? It appears the additional $100,000 authorized by the State Monitor will pay for activity beyond their previously approved total, as well as for new incremental activity, though, not for any substantive changes to the plan in response to public concerns.”
FXFOWLE’s redevelopment plan reflects none of the concerns raised by members of the public in the three open meetings. The concerns expressed include the very out-of-scale buildings, an appearance that does not fit into Hoboken, and the lack of integration into the City’s streetscape.
“Because this decision is not being taken in the open forum of a City Council meeting, Ms. Tripodi’s action raises a number of questions,” Pranses added. “First, what exactly does the additional funding cover and how valid are these expenses? Whose input did Ms. Tripodi seek in making her recommendation? If not City Council, who is setting the objectives and timetable for FXFOWLE?”
While the State Fiscal Monitor has the authority to sign contracts and approve expenses, “We believe that only the duly elected City Council members should represent the people of the City of Hoboken on matters that affect the future size and scale of our community,” he concluded.
About the Hoboken Rail Yards Task Force
The Task Force was formed in the wake of the third public meeting held by the City to present the NJ Transit Rail Yards redevelopment plan, when it was made clear that the designated planners, FXFOWLE, had incorporated none of the feedback expressed by members of the community at the previous two meetings. The group advocates development of the rail yards in a scale and manner that complements the larger community it will be joining. New development at this crucial site will impact Hoboken for many generations. For more information, contact Terry Pranses at pranses@aol.com.
About the Hoboken Quality of Life Coalition
The QLC (www.qlchoboken.org) was instrumental in forging the western alignment of the Light Rail route in Hoboken, led the fight that prevented construction of a hockey stadium over the railroad tracks, and joined with several other groups fighting to secure properties at 1600 Park Avenue and 900 Monroe sites as designated parkland. Recently, QLC worked with Hoboken Heritage to protect portions of the Holy Innocents site from demolition and construction of a mid-rise building, and with the Neumann Leathers Tenants Association to save the historic factory buildings from demolition. It is currently promoting scrutiny of plans before the Hoboken Planning Board for 65-story and 45-story buildings proposed for the Erie Lackawanna train yards in southern Hoboken. In March 2008 the Coalition and its Committee for a Green Hoboken secured the unanimous passage of the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, a commitment to work for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the municipality.
April 30th 2009 - 12:48:16 |
Indie- let’s face it, We are across the river from NYC, not out in the sticks. More housing units are going to be built in this town. Some of these projects will be massive. Some of these people will have cars. We need ground rules that respect the norms of the existing town.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 13:28:01 |
plywood wrote:
As long as the citizenry is complacent, you’re right. I’m suggesting that we not accept redevelopment as inevitable. And try on another paradigm…..”if man was meant to fly he’d have wings.”
plywood wrote:
Massive buildings in and of themselves do not respect the norms of the town. Also, regardless of whether or not people who move here have cars; it is not the city’s responsibility to provide them parking. Limited and inadequate parking is a fact in Hoboken. If that’s a problem, don’t move here. And, as you state, we live across the river from NYC – you don’t need a car….well, or at least we wouldn’t if NJ Transit were adding transportation out to the suburbs instead of eliminating it so that they could use the tracks for massive high rise development.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 13:40:38 |
Let’s agree to disagree. As you suggest, public transit has a long way to go and in my mind it will never work for all people in all situations. That doesn’t mean people should be told “don’t move here” (or if you live here, have the rug pulled out). I think parking for residents has a place in city development. And I agree with your thoughts on NJT.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 14:44:33 |
So what will that do to the Hoboken terminal? Does this mean that we will no longer be a transit hub for NJT?
I have to say regardless of its infrequent service and old trains, NJ Transit does come handy sometimes if you can’t drive for some reason.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 15:26:36 |
plywood wrote:
ok
Tiger wrote:
What they seem to be moving towards it a train to Secaucus and a train to Newark. From there switch trains if you want to go somewhere else (with connection time as long as an hour wait). By and large this is speculation on my part, but I know for a FACT that they are reducing service and have eliminated many direct routes. I guess they will still call it a transit hub, it’s just not very useful. Funny, they want to create 50-75 story office towers, but are reducing the transportation to get to those office spaces, at least from the NJ side…..another reason why we should play hard ball with NJ Transit….even with Tripodi trying to hand them our town on a silver platter with no consideration for the people who live here.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 15:32:42 |
First, I think I’d rather keep 2 HFD or HPD employees on the payroll than give 100K to a crappy design firm. Isn’t their job to build consensus? It doesn’t matter if it takes 2 meetings or 10, finish the job.
Second, I agree that the development should be in keeping with the character of Hoboken, unlike the sterile environment of downtown JC, but lets face it: the land is owned by the state (not the city), and since we’ve elected the same party into power in this state for the last 40 years, we have a huge structural deficit. This land is going to be developed, and it’s going to be developed big. Hoboken needs to get as much out of it as possible. So, three main issues should be agreed upon: No PILOTS (if the land is so valuable, then the developers can pay the appropriate taxes upfront and keep the money out of the mayor’s office), mixed use (with a large percentage office/business to balance the residential development on the western side of the city and take advantage of close public transport), and adequate green space (again, to further balance the ratios in Hoboken, especially since it’s close to public transport).
Doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 15:48:42 |
Nobody wants to pay these tools, but those 2 FD workers cost a whole lot more than $100K (you are forgetting pension & healthcare), and you have to pay them every year. We can tell the consultants to crawl under a rock when Judy departs & we tell NJT they can take their redevelopment plan and stuff it.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 16:00:18 |
niceguyeddie wrote:
Actually they are being paid by the developer, not by us. Which means they work for the developer, not for us.
niceguyeddie wrote:
Are you sure about this? Question, not a snide comment.
niceguyeddie wrote:
Do you realize that you are forwarding the developers agenda by saying this? I’m suggesting that we not accept redevelpment (especially huge redevelopment) as a forgone conclusion. Vocal citizens managed to short-circuit Dave Robert’s agenda to speed certain redevelopments along before he left office. Ok, it’s just a delay, but it’s something. Committed residents where able to beat back the PA project for YEARS. OK, so in the end the state stepped in and we have projects paying only 20% of their taxes, but my point is, let’s not give up before we even try to stop this nightmare. Couple of hundred residents were willing to come out on a cold night to protest their tax bill. Let’s harness that energy and direct it towards something else. Back in the 90s Dan Tumpson researched the situation and found the referrendum law and he and others have used it time and again. Today, we might be able to pursue a different path. Maybe it’ll work, at least for a time, maybe not….but, what I’m saying is, we don’t know unless we try. Givebacks are a lie….don’t focus on getting “better givebacks” – do we want to underwrite NJ Transit becoming a developer? I’d guess the answer is “no” – so let’s put some energy into stopping this train wreck, our best hope is to try and swing the pendulum as far in the opposite direction as possible. They are starting at 75+ story towers. We need to start at no change at all. It’s our best hope.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 16:02:36 |
matt_72 wrote:
yes, indeed!
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 17:54:04 |
Why is redevelopment of the rail yards a bad thing?
Observer Highway is a pretty crappy corridor that could use some sprucing up.
100 years ago, the construction of Grand Central Terminal and burying the rail yard turned the area into the most desirable commercial office district of Manhattan.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 18:28:04 |
homeworld wrote:
Because in Hoboken’s case it is going to be redevelopment OVER the rail yards. This means at a minimum, there will be a 20-25 foot tall base erected before anything even gets built above it. “Corridor” is the right word for what Observer Highway will become – nothing but a dark, narrow hallway.
The tracks aren’t going to be buried here. They would then be underwater.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 18:45:34 |
IndieCom wrote:
Maybe if we start at requiring all development to be subterranean…
Don’t forget one more card held by NJT – they are going to “solve” our flooding problem… if we allow them to build up more. You know, like a developer give-back, i.e. something promised but never delivered.
Several of our bold and capable leaders are already on board with NJT, though they won’t admit it yet, even though they’ve likely already spent the money.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 20:12:13 |
homeworld wrote:
Do you really want a giant wall of buildings there? You do get that the only way they can justify the expense of building a platform over the tracks is to build some massive structures that will tower over all of Hoboken, right? They will make the W look like a tiny building when they are done w/ all that construction.
I say don’t change the zoning at all, that way they can’t justify building squat. Plenty of land in Hoboken that can be developed w/o putting up high-rises that blot out the sun.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 20:13:20 |
plywood wrote:
NYC built residential towers over sub-terranean parking garages from the 1950’s through the mid 1960’s. Eventually they woke up to the reality that they had created a parking demand where none had existed and the expectation that Manhattan residents could drive & park anywhere — all this in a place with plenty of mass transit. They realized their mistake & stopped building those and we should too. Lack of on-site parking is not a deal-breaker provided there are other options.
We should invest in better mass transit throughout the city and not allow any residential development to occur on this site – that designation is in our zoning ordinance anyway.
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 20:37:53 |
more parking = more traffic
Login or Register to reply
April 30th 2009 - 23:15:47 |
I personally oppose any development of the NJT train yards. What has happened in this thread is interesting however. First, the idea basically forwarded was the downplaying of cars as a transportation mode in town and no building development of any kind as the goal. Replete with “if you don’t like it, don’t move here”. OK. The conversation now begins to shift to (post 34) that we should be developing residential (yes, there are still vacant 25 x 100 lots, etc., in Hoboken) without any nod to parking. One would assume residential development without parking options will force mass transit into the forefront. Lofty, commendable goals.
So what now do we tell the person who has owned an undeveloped plot of land for years, or even minutes? Other people could develop, but YOU have to hold it to five stories or less with no parking, mass transit will catch up as soon as the market demands?
Or the person who bought a home in this town 20 years ago (to live in, not to get rich) who owns a parkingless condo or brownstone? Sorry, the new wave have legislated the idea that new housing without new parking is the way of it? That soon, in reality you will now be competing with seven people instead of two for that parking spot you come home to from your job of 20 years? It will take more like an hour to park than 10 minutes? Tough.
In that case, if you don’t like it, “don’t move here” has laid the groundwork for “if you don’t like it, sell your home and move away”? And those who get screwed, get screwed. Nice.
My earlier posts (#15. etc) were in the interest of an equitable balance. And yes, I realize that the coming oil crash will eventually end this debate anyway. And without drastic action on greenhouse gases this town will be underwater anyway. But the march to the future should take ALL residents into account. It’s going to take a while to turn this historical page, and the road is difficult.
Login or Register to reply
May 1st 2009 - 07:27:30 |
plywood wrote:
Zoning ordinances must adapt & change. If we stopped building parking, there would be no expectation that one could move here & use a car for every excursion – just like Manhattan.
When zoning changes occur, they are supposed to be applied to projects after the ordinance is passed, not during the application process as that would be “spot zoning”, highly illegal (& what was done at 9th & Castle Point)
Login or Register to reply
May 1st 2009 - 10:02:58 |
I keep saying it, but here it goes again: Tripodi is a useless btch who we will confirm is part of the problem, not the solution.
Login or Register to reply
May 1st 2009 - 10:03:33 |
hobojoe wrote:
Great explanation Joe. This is just a really bad idea all around.
Login or Register to reply