Dear Editor:
I recently wrote a letter to the Reporter outlining my position on development. I highlighted four simple propositions — two principles, and two action items — which I believe, if reflected in our laws, would make a real difference in our quality of life. They are:
1. Hoboken is allowing more construction than we can sustain.
2. Out-of-scale, unplanned (and predominantly residential) development does not lower taxes.
3. We must reduce the density of development that our laws allow.
4. We must have the will to enforce our laws — both as to density and type of building allowed.
These ideas are NOT anti-development. They are anti-BAD-development. They actually encourage and support responsible development. I believe they are acceptable to a broad cross section of Hobokenites. I offered them in the spirit of trying to seek consensus on major goals, avoiding both personal attacks, and distortions of narrow parochial issues.
Generally reaction has been favorable. Some agreed with my propositions and thought I advanced the debate. Others felt that the points I made, while valid, were obvious. I didn’t mind that charge. Unless we discuss our broad areas of agreement, developers and politicians will use our differences to divide renter from homeowner, dog owner from parent, and new residents from old. With only one exception, in fact, all comments I have heard been positive.
Unfortunately that one exception was the lead letter in the Hoboken Reporter from a very important voice indeed. Michael Barry, employee/part-owner/who-knows-what of the Applied Companies (who developed the Shipyard and an awful lot of other stuff in Hoboken) and son of Joseph Barry (boss of the Applied Companies, long-time political powerhouse, and former owner of this paper) wrote to respond.
I welcome honest debate on my propositions, but that is not what I got. Rather than take the opportunity to address the major points in my letter, he instead offered an off-hand personal dig (yes Michael, I have been to Sinatra park, Soccer practice is Thursday at 6:00) and focused on my closing comment that buildings stand a long time and that parks, once lost, are lost forever.
What did he offer as a counter-argument? Three examples, all of them problematic.
Example One is the delightful Pier A park, built on a small portion of a gigantic assemblage of city-owned land. They could hardly have done much less. And that park supposedly justifies the massive tower at 4th Street, now being built by the Applied Companies, which will add even more residential density, and block the views from Marineview Towers, and block the sun from the Soccer/Little League field.
Example Two was the new Shipyard Park, where 13th Street would have been if it was not blocked by the Machine Shop. It is indeed a thoughtful amenity for the Shipyard — but it feels nothing like a public park. It is a small patch of green for Shipyard residents to see from their windows and as they enter their homes, cut up with paths and off-limits to dogs, but well landscaped and maintained. If non-Shipyard residents didn’t understand that this was intended as private space from the architecture and the uniformed Shipyard employees, then the Shipyard flag would make the point clear. This is not a place where the kids living just a block away are made to feel welcome.
Example Three is the 14th Street pier, a wonderful adjunct to the Hudson River walkway. Of course, it is not a park at all, so it might have been left off the list. But even if it were covered with grass it would not support Mr. Barry’s argument. This pier, and the walkway itself, comes about not because of developer generosity, but by a government mandate to insure public access. Just the kind of government involvement I am suggesting throughout Hoboken.
So what are we left with? The absurd implication that I, or anyone else for that matter, prefers “gray, off-limits, industrial property” to “well-planned development.”
I do not, and neither do any of the so-called “anti’s” of my acquaintance. They have been FOR “well-planned development” for over a decade, and without them, in my opinion, this town wouldn’t have the little “well-planned development” (such as Pier A park) that we do have.
What I DO prefer is a city asserting its right to determine the shape of development within its borders, working closely with the development community to assure that all residents benefit from the profound changes taking place. I DO NOT trust developers, without effective public oversight, to do what is in the public interest.
Based on their record, no one should.
Michael Lenz