Hudson Reporter Archive

Mr. Hine’s views are contradictory and self-serving

Dear Editor:

As a Hoboken resident and designer of the Sinatra Drive parking garage proposed by Stevens Institute, I must comment on Ron Hine’s attacks on the college and its plans.

Mr. Hine’s characterization of the garage as “mega-garage” — at 725 cars — is at best disingenuous. The nearby Maxwell House development plan he supports would bring to the waterfront 1,700 additional cars. By contrast, vehicles now using surface parking on campus will occupy more than 600 of the 725 spaces at the proposed Stevens facility.

Additionally, in its plans for the Center for Maritime Systems, Stevens intends to remove more than 200 of these vehicles from surface waterfront parking and dedicate approximately two-thirds of that property for a public waterfront walkway and park (I look forward to this very important project as the subject for another letter).

In his criticism of the garage proposal, and in questions pertaining generally to waterfront revival, the intentions of Mr. Hine are not clear. As an official of the Coalition for a Better Waterfront, Mr. Hine has shown himself increasingly unwilling to consider opposing views. I served on the CBW for nine years – for the record, I am one of the designers of Pier A Park – and ended my involvement approximately two years ago when it became obvious that Mr. Hine had his own agenda.

Among the many dedicated volunteers disenfranchised by Mr. Hine’s autocratic rule were several architectural and urban planning professionals. Our unwavering commitment to an uninterrupted public waterfront was reflected in our contribution to the authoring of the original CBW waterfront plan and model (which resided for a year in my office).

Our dedication has not diminished since leaving CBW. But, CBW did change profoundly. Mr. Hine has continued to describe himself and his supporters as this same civic-minded group that has served Hoboken well in the past. However, in fact, the Coalition no longer exists and only the Fund for a Better Waterfront (FBW) remains.

With a board appointed by Mr. Hine, FBW still poses as the high-minded coalition of community activists that CBW once was. If so, what became of the citizen-centered outlook of CBW? When was the last meeting open to general membership or the public? This claim of being a citizens group is just plain dishonest.

When former CBW members confront Mr. Hine regarding what they consider his abuse of authority, he is evasive. As designer of the proposed Stevens’ parking facility, I have found him anything but forthcoming. Why?

The views of Mr. Hine often are contradictory and, in my view, always self-serving.

While berating Stevens for the Technology Management Center excavation, he pushes his “alternative plan” for a garage and two eight-story office buildings and extends fully south to Fifth Street, almost twenty-five feet further than the Stevens proposal and requiring even more excavation.

Attacking Stevens for freely ignoring zoning limits by “proposing three principle structures where only one is allowed,” with the garage being too long, exceeding lot coverage and not providing minimum open space, he unashamedly ignores that, from what I can tell from presentations, his “alternative plan” has four principal structures, is 25′ longer, has more lot coverage, and far less open space.

In proclaiming that Stevens started construction without approvals, he ignores the fact that Stevens was granted permits for the foundation being constructed (but not, as yet, a clearance to house cars in the facility) by building and zoning officials.

He attacks Stevens for not being open about wanting to build a garage and yet, he has attended one or more of a number of well-advertised public meetings as well as private presentations where Stevens plans for this garage were clearly aired.

For reasons known best to him, Mr. Hine seems determined to undercut the budding spirit of cooperation between Stevens and the Roberts administration – a sadly destructive way of furthering a questionable or, at best, myopic waterfront agenda.

The unprecedented opportunity for a productive working relationship – one that would benefit the city and its premier local institution — should not be jeopardized by an arrogant individual who believes only he has “the right stuff” when it comes to deciding what’s best for our waterfront.

Demetri Sarantitis

Exit mobile version