An open letter to the Jersey City Planning Board:
I was disheartened by the majority decision on 10/17/00 to recommend for approval to the City Council the proposed Grove Street Redevelopment Plan II Project in its present form. I am most concerned of the Planning Board Chair, directed by Jeffrey Kaplowitz representing the majority opinion, who cited the following rationale for the approval recommendation:
1. This project as proposed will spur the revitalization of the “blighted” Newark Avenue Shopping District (a/k/a the SID).
2. The proposed project at 66,000 square feet and parking for a smaller building density (FAR rating of eight) will not negatively impact the traffic situation Downtown any further. 3. The neighborhoods of Hamilton Park, Harsimus Cove and Van Vorst “Approve of the project as amended and proposed by the Planning Board in its current form.”
To these positions I correspondingly urge the Planning Board to consider the following counterpoint perspectives:
1. The existing office building across from the proposed site, The Pershing Plaza Building, has obviously contributed little if anything at all to the revitalization of the Downtown SID as the area is still classified as being “blighted.” Indeed the retail tenants turnover rate in the street level of the Pershing Plaza is quite high. In my observations, the comment by Jeffrey Kaplowitz “The only way to revitalize the Newark Avenue SID is to build an office building” is poorly founded. How will this project in its proposed form offer anything better?
2. The choice of the Planning Board to not further study how the proposed redevelopment project will affect the downtown traffic situation is irresponsible. Consider that there already exists traffic gridlock in the downtown area on the major roads with the situation to get worse once the Hudson Bergen Light Rail starts to cross at grade over Washington Blvd. in the not too distant future. The blaming by the project developers of traffic gridlock on the taxi lane downtown is a farce and is an affront to the common sense and reason of me and my fellow downtown residents.
3. The developers and Planning Board are obviously not interested in community development as the developers are at best lukewarm to the idea of opening up their parking deck to the public during off hours to accommodate parking for the Restaurant Row concept that has yet to come to fruition. Perhaps the Planning Board should study the NYC and Red Bank, NJ Restaurant Rows and the revitalization of downtown shopping districts in such areas as Montclair, NJ and Millburn, NJ and even Hoboken, without the bar/restaurants. All of these areas’ success stories have come to fruition without the erection of a multi-story office building(s).
4. The neighborhoods of Hamilton Park, Harsimus Cove and Van Vorst were not given sufficient time to learn of the study and to render an informed decision or share feedback. The small number of people who attended the 10/17/00 Planning Board meeting from these neighborhoods were by a large margin opposed to the project as presently recommended to the City Council, myself included. Jeffrey Kaplowitz has no right to represent the neighborhood community as having given a general consent to the approval of the project.
Above all, the eight members of the Planning Board who were present and who voted at the 10/17 meeting did not have a command of all of the relevant facts. They thereby rendered an uninformed decision, especially those six people who represented the majority decision in favor of recommending the project to the City Council for final approval. Such actions are irresponsible from the perspective of ensuring a diligent and thorough planning process that safeguards the public interests, which the Planning Board as agents of our government represents. Ultimately, the Planning Board is part of an overall process that if conducted with integrity, highlights the democratic process of government that is of for and by the people. In allowing for decisions to be made with a command of the relevant facts and for adequate time for public input to be shared, more responsible decisions can be rendered on the Grove Redevelopment II Project, and other, future projects of such scale, that will better withstand future business cycles and respect our community.
Alan Singer