Dear Editor:
I feel obliged to respond to James T. Dette’s letter of April 22.
There is only one reason why the proposed waterfront road is only 15 feet wide, one-way and absent on-street parking. This is because the developer wants it that way.
One of Friends of the Weehawken Waterfront’s (FWW) major positions regarding the townhouse section of the waterfront (as well as for the rest of its length) is the call for a 37-foot waterfront road, which would accommodate two-way traffic and on-street parking. There is no 22-foot limit that physically prevents such a road. The limits are entirely a matter of politics and design.
The technical issue of available land from NJ Transit’s right-of-way was properly explored by experts many months ago, early in FWW’s negotiations with the developer and Township. Our architect/planner Craig Whitaker met in Trenton with engineers from NJT and Roseland. Based on these discussions and detailed analysis of the physical plans, our architect concludes there are dozens more feet available than NJT’s offer.
Dan Censullo, who is an upper-level political appointee, not the technical expert on the matter, simply confirmed NJT’s organizational decision. Note that the Township of Weehawken did not send its own expert, but instead relied on the opinions of experts representing the other interested parties. Censullo would only give Dette a different answer if sufficient political pressure was put on NJT to swap more land. On the contrary, the Town has allied itself with the developer’s position, and stated that the 22 feet are sufficient.
But all of this is moot, since the issue is not 22 feet, but rather the configuration of the entire width of land between the light rail and the waterfront walkway park. That width comprises many elements. Did you know, for example, that the plan calls for a private two-way road with on-street parking and a sidewalk west of the townhomes for use solely by their owners? In addition, there is land allocated to Port Imperial Boulevard, future widening for the Blvd., a barrier wall, townhomes of varying depths, front yards, a four-foot sidewalk, as well as a 15 foot one-way road.
Almost every one of these components can be adjusted to accommodate a public, two-way road with on-street parking east of the townhomes — without any more land than what the developers currently own plus NJT’s 22 feet. Also, the circuitous water’s edge could be straightened to gain additional footage with Army Corps of Engineers approval, which Roseland must already seek regarding several other aspects of its application. Continued pressure on NJT to allocate more land for public use along the waterfront would be a very good thing for many reasons, but that alone is not necessary to meet the specific demand for a 37-foot waterfront road. The “Community Plan” drafted by Craig Whitaker with local input clearly documents that there are technical solutions to all of these configuration issues.
FWW’s lawsuit over this amended application is one of four aimed at correcting not only the semi-private waterfront road, which will jam regional traffic and inhibit access to the waterfront walkway park, but also the many other huge problems associated with the proposed development. These include not only planning flaws that will cause irreparable harm to our quality of life, but also serious violations of law that occurred during the Town’s approval process, both of which should outrage every resident of Weehawken.
I hope this clarifies the matter, and that all of you who are concerned about the future of our town will join FWW’s fight for a better waterfront development plan.
Benjamin A. Goldman Ph.D.