Dear Editor:
While reading the letters to the editor in last week’s Hoboken Reporter, I was very disturbed by the one-sided view presented by the Fund for a Better Waterfront (FBW). This letter noted that Stevens Institute was the obstacle in the way of providing a continuous waterfront park. It also omitted many relevant facts.
I have seen the Stevens plans as well as the Fund for a Better Waterfront plan. So, let’s examine the facts.
At Sinatra Park and Castle Point, Stevens proposes building the Center for Maritime Studies. This is true. It is not true that they are moving the lab to the waterfront in order to build luxury housing on the current lab site. In fact, the only reason they have considered building housing on that site is to please the residents of the neighborhood. The residents have asked them to commit to only building structures, which fit the character and zoning codes of the neighboring houses. The reason that they propose to move the tank to the waterfront is to assist with their waterfront research and, by the way, they intend to provide public access to the facilities. They are choosing to make this a learning facility for the public to enjoy. Oh, and the FBW letter did fail to mention that there would be a public access park between the building and the waterfront.
At the Union Dry Dock property, Stevens does intend to build an athletic facility including a soccer field and running track. However, the plans that I have seen do not require landfill. There will be some additional decking, however, it will not jut out further than the existing docks. In fact, Stevens intends to pull back the profile of the docks, which currently jut out into the Hudson, thereby opening up the River further. Oh, and there would be public access along the waterfront. Where did the FBW get their information?
Finally, at the Maxwell House location, the FBW mentions the waterfront park that they have proposed – but, makes no mention of the 900 or so condo units (12 stories high) and 1600 parking spaces which will occupy the rest of the property. Does that make a better waterfront? I’m not so pleased with the buildings along the downtown waterfront. I personally would rather avoid making that mistake again.
Furthermore, no mention is made of the full Stevens-Hoboken plan for the Maxwell House site. The plan is to divide the property into four parts, two owned by Stevens and two owned by Hoboken. The Hoboken land would house a math and science magnet school (grades 6-12) and a baseball field on or around the original Elysian Fields site. These two parts would be all public property. The Stevens land would house their Technogenesis incubator center as well as housing for the employees of companies being funded by Technogenesis. Stevens’ intent is to provide students at the school with access to these emerging companies. Oh, and by the way, there would still be public waterfront access.
In my opinion, the latter use of the land would provide a higher benefit to the Hoboken Community than another 900+ condos.
The Fund for a Better Waterfront has helped to greatly improve the quality of life in Hoboken. They were supporters of the Pier A park, and that is a place that many Hoboken residents enjoy. However, I think that the FBW has been de-railed from their original mission. They should re-examine their agenda at this point. Perhaps they should be for a better waterfront instead of carrying on this headstrong approach and ignoring alternatives ‘not invented here.’
Annabelle Bexiga