Dear Editor:
On March 5, I wrote a letter which appeared on this page describing Ursa Development Group’s current park proposal. In my letter, I prophesied glossy literature which would present the facts with a twist. The next week, Ursa ran a centerfold, two-page, color advertisement in this publication which was a blend of facts and omissions, resulting in a misleading message. Then last week, former City Councilman and Ursa supporter Christopher Campos was moved to respond by writing a letter for this page.
Here is the truth. Ursa, as a successor to the predecessor developer, currently is the designated developer for much of the city’s Northwest redevelopment zone, an area of approximately 18 city blocks. Community benefits were required in the 1999 agreement in exchange for the lucrative deal, such as to build three community centers for the public, each approximately 20,400 sq/ft. Back room deals with prior administrations have partially eroded these obligations, but nonetheless, twelve years later none of the community centers has been built. Ursa is now asking to be designated to develop another full city commercial block as residential, in exchange for providing an athletic field where a community center was to be built. That means much money for Ursa, in both cost-savings for the downgrade from a community center to a field and in revenue from the additional residential development.
But Ursa’s advertisement hints at none of this. Rather, the ad focuses on a failed 2005 agreement with the city. The ad omits any mention of the earlier, still-valid 1999 agreement it has with the city. The ad refers to pesky activists who invalidated that 2005 agreement, but it omits that it was a New Jersey court which ruled the 2005 agreement to be in violation of redevelopment law. The Appellate Court agreed, too. So when the ad blames “political obstructionists” that must be the judges. The ad laments that if only Ursa had not been thwarted in its illegal contract, the community center would have been built. Lastly, the ad talks of Ursa’s “consistent track record.” Yes, three community centers promised, and none built.
In Mr. Campos’ letter, he urges what he calls “sensible development,” but by his logic that means to compromise for something that is entirely inappropriate because, at the end of the day, at least you’ll have that. He goes on to parrot Ursa’s unrelated and yet laudable donations in town, but these are not at all relevant to building community centers.
As I’ve urged in the past, we need much more open space in Hoboken. So please, Ursa, build the field and donate it to the city, by all means. If you do, you are certainly entitled to negotiate a credit toward your remaining obligations under the 1999 agreement (as amended). Do not, however, condition that donation on your obtaining approvals for yet another city block of residential development. The zoning laws for that block do not allow such a use, and the Zoning Board just last year rejected your request for multiple variances for just this use. Build us the field, for the cute children shown in your ad, drop the other block of up-zoning, and provide us with the balance of the amenities we are owed. The time of the end-around, back-room deal in Hoboken is no more.
Jim Doyle