4th Ward “revisionist” history

11/5/2007:

Here’s an interesting read that sets the story right about who really “fought for the residents” in the 4th Ward.

Who really fought the developers in an attempt to stop harmful development in the fourth ward?

sky-club-flooding-2007-hoboken.jpgIn the Hoboken Reporter dated October 21, 2007 fourth ward Council Candidate Christopher Campos provided the citizens of Hoboken with what can only be classified as revisionist history with regard to the saga of the Sky club, (FKA 101 Marshall and Gateway One). In this week’s Hoboken reporter the same myth, that Chris Campos had much of anything to do with the fight to stop the flood damage caused by the developers of the Sky Club, is further perpetuated in two additional letters to the Hoboken Reporter, first by an anonymous 4th ward resident and by resident Perry Belfiore. Mr. Campos, Mr. Belfiore and the anonymous resident all refer to the legal battle to stop development of the Sky Club.

The history of the Sky Club is complicated. However, for those who are curious about the references in the three letters to Mr. Campos’s so called “hard work” to fight the flood problems in the fourth ward only two things are certain:

  1. It was a citizens’ group. The HCA (The Hudson County Alliance), who were the ones who took on the developers of the Sky Club and did ALL of the work in an exhaustive and intensive legal fight to try to stop the project due to their certainty that the project would harm the community by exacerbating dangerous flooding problems in that area of the city…. they were right.
  2. Chris Campos was/is NOT a member of the HCA and, while no one in the group can know what conversations Mr. Campos may have had with the Mayor or fellow councilmember’s in conversations outside of city council meetings, Mr. Campos never contacted anyone in the HCA, never offered to assist with any of their efforts and never sat in on any HCA member meetings or planning sessions.

For the benefit of any of Hoboken’s citizens who are interested, below is a copy of a letter submitted to the Hoboken Reporter on September 15th 2002, by the President of the HCA at the time. It is obvious that the effort to stop the development rests with the HCA, not Chris Campos. The letter references an appeal which was in play at the time that the letter was penned. The HCA lost this appeal. They, however, continued to fight the project through August of 2004, but ultimately without success.

For the record, Chris Campos put forward a resolution for Hoboken’s attorney to review the case for the purposes of having the council seek to intervene as an interested party, which the city council did. He also seconded a resolution for review of the sewerage authority approval for the project to connect to Hoboken’s sewers. This represents the entire extent of Mr. Campo’s known “efforts” to fight the developers of the Sky Club. It is unfortunate that HCA was unsuccessful in their efforts and we are all now seeing the end result, in exacerbation of the flooding situation in Hoboken’s fourth ward. It is also disturbing that a candidate for office is putting forward this revisionist history and taking credit for the hard work of others.

HCA explains suit to stop Gateway One Towers

Citizens of Hoboken and Jersey City:

sky-club-flooding-2007-hoboken-2.jpgThe Hudson County Alliance (“HCA”) is a grass roots organization of Hudson County residents that was formed to protect public health, safety and the quality of life from harmful development.

Recently, the HCA filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court to stop the construction of Gateway One Towers (“Gateway”) at 101 Marshall Street in southwest Hoboken and to overturn approvals by the Hoboken Zoning Board, the North Hudson Sewerage Authority, and the Hoboken Construction Official needed to build Gateway’s two 17 story towers and parking garage.

The City of Jersey City and the City Council of Hoboken joined forces with our group in this litigation by asking the court to reverse the zoning approvals and stop construction of the project.

On August 21, Superior Court Judge Arthur D’Italia denied the joint request for a stop work order and dismissed all the complaints filed, save one HCA complaint against the sewer approval.

The HCA intends to appeal the judge’s decision. And, we have just learned that both Jersey City and the Hoboken City Council intend to do likewise.

Our organization filed our lawsuit July 1, 2002 in response to a project that we feel is a threat to public health and safety, where the public’s right to have and participate in a lawful public zoning process was ignored. We feel that is important that you be informed about the lawsuit and its progress. We also hope that you will consider helping us to insure that our government acts in accordance with law and the public interest.

Gateway’s Zoning Board approvals date back to 1998. They involve variances for more than ten violations of Hoboken’s Zoning Law, including construction of 158-foot towers where only 40-foot structures are allowed and completely covering the land with buildings where only 60% coverage is permitted. The convoluted history of Gateway involves two other major decisions by the Zoning Board at the request of the developer: in 1999, the project was reduced in size to four 6-story buildings with parking beneath the structures, and in 2000, the project returned to its 1998 configuration of two 17-story structures and a separate garage.

Read the rest of the letter after the Jump

According to HCA’s complaint, none of these approvals were given legally. No notice was given to the Jersey City Clerk or Hudson County Clerk prior to any of the Zoning Board hearings, as required by law. The 1999 and 2000 site plan approvals were characterized as “interpretations”: i.e. no public notice was given at all that the amendments were being considered and no formal hearings were held, as required by law.

In order for the Zoning Board to issue a variance, the developer must demonstrate that there will be no harm to the public. The public must be told about the hearings so they can present testimony about how a project may affect them. If the project presents harm to the public, this is a basis for the Zoning Board to NOT approve the variance.

For example, lack of notice to Jersey City denied residents any say on a project that would block their views of the Hudson River and could worsen flooding on Jersey City property and roads below the palisades. Recently more than 500 Jersey City residents signed a petition opposing these structures. If Jersey City had been given proper notice of the 1998 Zoning Board hearings, their opposition could have stopped Gateway’s variances from being approved.

If no proper public notice is given, the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction to hear the case or to give the approvals for variances. Thus, according to the HCA complaint, the Zoning Board approvals never happened.

And without legal Zoning Board approvals, approvals given by the Sewerage Authority for the project to connect to Hoboken’s sewers and the building permits issued by the Construction Official are all invalid, so that the construction of Gateway is illegal.

HCA’s complaint also points out that all of the variances granted in 1998 expired in 1999 because by law they last only one year. The Zoning Board’s “interpretation” in 2000 that the developers of Gateway could go back to the 1998 version of the project was therefore also illegal, since the 1998 variances had expired a year earlier.

The Judge ruled that even if the approvals were illegal, the public had 45 days after each approval to challenge it in court, and by failing to do so, the public “sat on their rights” and so lost them.

Let’s follow the reasoning: Without proper notices given, the Zoning Board had no power to issue variances, and so the 1998 variances were illegal. Even if the 1998 variances were legal, they expired by 1999. So no legal variances existed on September 13, 2001 (2 days after the WTC collapsed), when the Construction Official issued a permit to build the Gateway foundation. The foundation permit was therefore illegal. But NO public notice of this permit was given other than a piece of paper posted somewhere on the work site, so the public had no way of knowing the permit was issued or that it was illegal. 45 days passed, and an unaware public did nothing. According to the Judge’s reasoning, the illegal construction permit and project are now magically legalized because we the (uninformed) public “sat on our rights.”

Even more troubling is that, in his ruling, the Judge ignored one other HCA complaint that was filed WITHIN the magic 45 days and so was NOT “out of time”. That complaint involved the fact that the Sewerage Authority sewer hookup approval was conditioned on making “changes” to the project — in particular raising road grades surrounding the project and building sewer ejector pits and a storm water retention system on site — which were NOT part of any version of the Gateway project that were approved by the Zoning Board. Since the project was thus significantly different than the ones “approved” by the Zoning Board in 1998, the project should have gone BACK to the Zoning Board for new hearings and approvals.

There are very good reasons why these “changes” need to be considered by the Zoning Board. The Sewerage Authority required the “changes” to protect the residents of Gateway — the raising of road grades would allow access to Gateway during floods (which are frequent in SW Hoboken) and the ejector pits would prevent sewerage from backing up into the lower floor dwellings during such a flood. But these “changes” are potentially very dangerous to public health and safety. Raising road grades will, in the written opinion of Hoboken’s engineering consultant Schoor-DePalma, “exacerbate flooding” of the properties surrounding Gateway, and ejector pits will “surcharge the system”, i.e. pump the raw sewerage out of Gateway and into the sewer where it can mix with flood waters, spill out onto the streets, or back up in neighbors’ basements. Thus these “changes” which have NEVER been approved by the Zoning Board could significantly harm the public, and are a basis for REJECTING the project altogether!

The Sewerage Authority sewer hookup approvals, conditioned on these dubious “changes”, requires that the project go back to the Zoning Board, which never happened, so the permit issued by the Construction Official to build beyond the foundation, issued on May 31, 2002, was illegal, since the required zoning approvals for the “changed” project were never given. In fact, neither the Sewerage Authority approval nor the May 31st building permit can be legal until AFTER the Zoning Board reconsiders and approves the “changed” project, which has never happened. Even though this part of the complaint challenged Sewerage Authority and Construction Official approvals within 45 days of their occurrence, it was never even addressed by the Judge.

In rejecting HCA’s motion for a stop work order, the Judge ruled that the harm to the developers by being forced to stop work exceeds the public’s harm if the building continues. But the developers are counting on the fact that the more they build, the less likely it becomes that the court will order the buildings torn down.

So here is the crux of our situation: the lower court has ruled that private interests are more important than the public interest. The public’s right to have zoning and construction laws properly enforced, to have their legal right to have an input into the zoning approval process and to have their legitimate public health concerns addressed therein has been subordinated by the judge to the developers’ right to protect their investments and profits, and to defy the law and trample on the public’s right to have a say. If a developer can abuse the approval process and get away with it, then zoning protection in Hoboken is dead and all citizens suffer.

The HCA therefore intends to appeal Judge D’Italia’s decision and to ask the Appeals Court to impose an immediate stop work order. The City of Jersey City and the Hoboken City Council also consider the construction of Gateway to be so detrimental to the safety and quality-of-life of our communities that they have joined HCA in this appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be filed by September 23rd of this year.

We need help to get the word out, so if you would like to participate in any way, including donations to the HCA legal fund, please contact us at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
XXXXXXX, President
Hudson County Alliance

Leave a Reply

35 Comments on "4th Ward “revisionist” history"


ron mexico
Member
ron mexico
8 years 10 months ago

Campos stated that Sky Club was approved by a prior council and threw in some jabs about how the approval occured.

Journey
Member
Journey
8 years 10 months ago

[quote comment=”51617″]was Campos even in hoboken when the Skyclub aka 101 Marshall was approved?

According to his bio Chris was attending law school in Washington until May 2001. The building was approved in 2000.[/quote]

Chris, himself, claims to have fought it so…

Journey
Member
Journey
8 years 10 months ago

Can anyone prove that he has someplace outside of town to live?

johndoe
Member
johndoe
8 years 10 months ago

was Campos even in hoboken when the Skyclub aka 101 Marshall was approved?

According to his bio Chris was attending law school in Washington until May 2001. The building was approved in 2000.

Beejay
Member
Beejay
8 years 10 months ago

[quote comment=”51592″]I’m sure if he doesn’t live there – the ‘roomate’ is a friend and would vouch for him. Is there some kind of requirement that you are a resident of the 4th ward to run for council? I doubt it, but I don’t know.

[/quote]

You would absolutely need to be a resident of the 4th ward to represent the 4th ward. It is ironic that he and McCann are trying to deny voting rights of HHA residents (the ones that support Dawn) that are not on the lease, when his Hoboken address is little more than a post office box.

wpDiscuz