The City Council’s chamber was overflowing with interested onlookers Monday night as the governing body argued for almost two hours over amendments to the Southern Waterfront Redevelopment Plan for the property that runs from First to Fourth streets on the riverfront.
Mayor David Roberts says that he is living up to one of his campaign promises by submitting amendments to the plan that downsize the middle portion of the development area by 30 percent.
Critics, who disputed some of the administration’s numbers Monday, accused the administration of doublespeak. While the area of the proposal may have been cut, the hotel planned for that plot will rise higher. Critics say there is no real downsizing and that these amendments are only an excuse to build up.
The end result of Monday’s meeting is that the council unanimously voted to table the amendments until the Dec. 4 meeting to clear up questions about square footage numbers, among other issues.
What is the southern waterfront?
To understand the complex controversy that occurred Monday, it is important to first understand what makes up the Southern Waterfront Redevelopment. In the 1980s the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey entered into discussions on how to jointly develop an underutilized portion of the waterfront north of the Erie Lackawanna Terminal.
During those discussions it was decided that the property would be divided into three parcels, commonly referred to as Block A, B, and C. Construction is currently underway or has been completed on both blocks A and C, leaving only the middle parcel, Block B, to be developed.
On the southernmost block is the Waterfront Corporate Center, two office buildings developed by SJP Properties, a Parsippany-based commercial builder. One tower is already occupied by John Wiley & Sons and other tenants. The other, which is currently under construction, is scheduled to house Marsh & McLennan Companies, a leading financial services firm.
The northernmost block, Block C, is a 526-unit residential building at 333 River St. developed by the Applied Companies in partnership with Starwood Heller, LLC. This building is now open and leasing units.
That only leaves Block B left to be developed. A plan was already approved for it years ago, but the mayor reopened discussions in what he said was an effort to keep a campaign promise to slow down big development. However, some feel that this is not what is happening.
Monday’s amendments
It is all but assured that Block B will be split into two portions. The southern half will most likely be an office tower and the northern half will most likely be a hotel, the only one in the city.
Monday’s controversy lies with how big and tall those buildings are going to grow.
At the meeting, there was a public hearing to discuss amendments to “The South Waterfront Redevelopment Plan,” which is the official document that sets forth an approach for “flexible development controls, including use, density, street layouts and orientation, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, waterfront amenities, and special design opportunities,” according to the plan’s overview.
Monday’s amendments, which had the full support of Roberts, say they’ll reduce “at least 30 percent” of the original floor area permitted on Block B. City Business Administrator Robert Drasheff says that before the amendments, the design guidelines allowed for 950,000 gross square feet of development on Block B. According to him, the amendment will restrict the project to only 650,000 gross square feet. It also widens view corridors and increases the amount of glass that can be used in construction. According to City Planner Elizabeth Vendor, using less masonry and more glass will give the building a sleeker, less dense appearance.
The one give-back that is included in the amendment is that whoever is selected as a developer will be able to build the hotel tower 35 feet taller than before.
Wednesday, Drasheff said that this downsizing amendment was a reaction to citizens’ concerns that the project might be too big. “[The mayor] was very sensitive to the residents of the area, who throughout his campaign asked for the project to be downsized,” said Drasheff Wednesday.
The numbers game
But not everyone in attendance agreed with the mayor and Drasheff’s numbers.
“People think that blocks A and C are too big and monolithic,” said Ron Hine Wednesday. Hine, the executive director of the Fund for a Better Waterfront, a local action group, said that the proposed reduction is artificial posturing and only the product of creative math.
Hine was a member of the Hoboken Waterfront Corporation, a group appointed by former Mayor Patrick Pasculli in 1993 to tap the members of various segments of the community to work out a plan that would appeal to the majority. The Waterfront Commission was dissolved by a unanimous vote of the City Council back in 1995. “Here we have a chance to scale back. We should be talking about a much smaller project,” Hine added.
Hine and several other influential citizens said Monday that the city might be using “fuzzy” math to justify what Hine still calls a “massive project.” He also said that the 30 percent reduction really isn’t much of a reduction at all.
Without getting too technical, there are many points of controversy when it comes to the numbers.
The first is how big the already-developed parts of the project are. This is important to know, because the total project has both maximum and minimum limits for total development.
Both sides generally agree the gross square footage of Block C is 659,000 square feet.
But Monday, there were conflicting numbers when it came to the size of Block A. According to the web site of SJP Properties, the developer of that block, there will be 1.1 million square feet in the two office buildings. But according to Drasheff and Director of Community Development Fred Bado, the buildings are measured by the Port Authority and certified at 935,000 square feet. According to Bado, it was this figure that was used in the in calculating the overall current square footage of the redevelopment project.
Councilman Tony Soares waved a print out from SJP’s web site Monday night, questioning Bado as to which numbers were correct: his or theirs. The fact the size of Block A was unresolved by the end of the meeting was one reason that the council tabled the amendment.
“The council president tabled the matter until Dec. 4 with the hope of getting answers [to the square footage questions],” said Drasheff Wednesday.
Drasheff said Thursday that by the Dec. 4 meeting, the council will have official certification of whether the total square footage is 935,000 square feet for Block A.
Despite Drasheff’s promises, many in the audience were upset by the confusion. Annette Illing, a community activist who lives in Marine View Towers across the street from the project, and one of the leaders in opposition to Monday’s amendment, said that the council should not act until it has the right numbers.
“You don’t have all of the information in front of you,” she said. “The numbers are floating around by the hundreds of thousands. Until you get your facts straight I suggest that you do not vote on this tonight.”
A representative from SJP would later say that the 1.1 million number on the company’s web site was rounded up and inaccurate, and will be corrected on the web site.
The accurate size of Block A is necessary in order to deal with the night’s second number-related controversy, the overall minimum and maximum square footage limits for the entire project.
Illing and Hine contended that the maximum size for the total square footage for the entire southern waterfront can only reach 2.315 million square feet. They pointed to a line from “The South Waterfront Redevelopment Plan” document.
“If the buildings exceed the 125-foot height limit and reach the 175-foot height limit, the project could contain 2.315 million gross square feet of floor area,” reads the redevelopment plan.
Hine said this figure was always intended to be the maximum for the total project. If that is the case, he said, and Block A is 935,000 square feet and Block C is 659,000, then Block B could only be developed to approximately 700,000 square feet, not the 950,000 square feet the city claims.
Therefore, he said, this is amendment represents a small decrease in density and not the 30 percent reduction advertised by the mayor.
Not so, said Drasheff.
He said that that line from the “The South Waterfront Redevelopment Plan” does not have anything to do with the minimum or maximum limit for development. He said that the document merely says the project “could contain 2.315 million,” but that is not a declaration of maximum development.
Mayor David Roberts said Wednesday that 2.3 million total square feet is actually the minimum amount of development allowed in the redevelopment area. As proof, the mayor pointed the 1995 Municipal Development Agreement (MDA) between the Port Authority and the city for the South Waterfront. That is the agreement that sets the guidelines for the Port Authority’s involvement in the project. The Port Authority has invested over $80 million for improvements on the southern waterfront; Pier A Park, and the waterfront walkway are the tangible results of these dollars.
Roberts said that for the Port Authority to make such a large investment, the quasi-governmental body wanted assurances that it would get a return on its investment. In one section, the MDA states that the city must develop “at least 2.3 million square feet” of development or else the Port Authority would have the ability to “take independent action” and develop the site independently or the city or could even sell the property if it wanted.
“The reason for the minimum is that the Port Authority has invested $80 million in the site and wants a guarantee that they are going to receive a return on their investment,” Roberts said. “We are building to the smallest possible amount of gross square footage.”
The mayor added that according to the guidelines for redevelopment, the project could reach 2.8 million square feet. Therefore, he said, this amendment does represent a downsizing of the project.
If fact, Drasheff added that if this amendment were to pass, the total square footage of the project would only be 2.24 million square feet which, he acknowledged, is below the Port Authority’s required minimum size.
“For the past year the Port Authority and the city have been negotiating at the highest levels to downsize the project,” said Drasheff. “They have agreed to the downsizing, and because of the mayor’s negotiations, the Port Authority will accept a project that is only 2.24 million square feet. That is a big concession to the city.”
Soares said Thursday that he doesn’t believe the mayor’s story.
Soares ran on Roberts’ ticket in last year’s election, but has since had a falling out with Roberts. Many people have speculated that Soares is already gearing up to run for mayor or back a ticket against him in the spring council elections.
Soares seconded the motion to table the amendments and was highly critical of the mayor’s motives. “They don’t even know their own numbers,” Soares said. “So how can they be making be making these kinds of statements? They just wanted a nice sound bite, but now it’s backfiring on them.”
Money matters
Another issue of controversy has to do with cash. All of the components of the south waterfront project are large revenue-producers for the city through their “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” agreement. The agreement allows the south waterfront project to pay, instead of regular property taxes to the city, state, and county, an annual “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” straight the city. However, the city cannot get the money from Block B until a developer is selected for it.
Thus, as soon as a developer or developers for the property are selected, the city is due a large lump sum pre-payment. In the 2002-2003 fiscal year budget, which has not yet been approved by the City Council, the city is currently budgeting $4 million in PILOT prepayments from Block B.
Critics are saying that the mayor is rushing these amendments through so that the city can collect the money. “They are not only destroying the future of the town visually; they are sucking it dry by taking prepayments and PILOT payments,” said Illing Thursday. “They are borrowing against our future.”
But Drasheff said Thursday that while the prepayment of the PILOT agreements is contingent on the designation of the developers, Monday’s amendments in reality have no effect on how quickly the city can collect. He pointed out that if the amendments fail, the city already has approvals to build a project at that site. The amendment is merely an effort to make the project a little smaller.
“If the ordinance were to fail, the underlying zoning is still in place, and the mayor would still have the full authority to designate a developer, and the city would still collect the prepayments,” said Drasheff.
Mayor Roberts also said that the new amendments are not an attempt to expedite prepayments. “Today, as we speak, I could designate a developer,” said Roberts. “The current plan, that has all the necessary approvals, allows for 950,000 square feet to be built there, without any more public discussion. But we are listening to the public’s concerns. They wanted less density; they wanted larger view corridors and more a contemporary and streamlined architectural design. That’s what this amendment does.”
But Hine is still unconvinced. “The city is desperate for this money,” said Hine. “That is the bottom line. Money shouldn’t be the basis for planning the waterfront.”
The public wants in
Another major topic of discussion was the amount of public involvement in the process. “I’m all for a hotel in Hoboken, but I think it is extremely important that the public has some input,” said Marine View resident Jean Forrest. “This is the last piece of the puzzle. We should have more public discussion.”
Councilwoman Theresa Castellano, and ardent critic of the administration, called for the reestablishment of the Hoboken Waterfront Corporation to discuss the matter. But Drasheff said that Hoboken Waterfront Corporation was disbanded for a reason. According to him, those decisions about the guidelines were decided on and voted upon back in 1995. “We don’t think that it would be effective at this time,” said Drasheff.
Soares said that he is in favor of re-establishing the Waterfront Corporation. “We said that we were going to open up City Hall, but that hasn’t happened,” said Soares. “The public wants to and deserves to be a part of this process.”
Mayor Roberts responded that certain politicos are just using the south waterfront as ammunition against his administration. He said that even when he is downsizing a project he is accused of letting development grow too big. “There are always those individuals that take a very complicated subject and twist it for their own political agenda,” said Roberts.
City Council President Ruben Ramos, who is firmly in favor of the amendment, said that he intends for the issue to be reopened and voted on at the next council meeting on Dec. 4 at 7 p.m.