Dear Editor:
The city is moving forward on a Redevelopment Plan for the Hoboken Rail Yards. The Rail Yards Task Force has been involved in the process since 2008 through the 2012 plan by the city.
Re-working the plan after Superstorm Sandy added up to 15 percent to the plan’s square footage. Hoboken has less than 1 percent of the state’s population, yet we are being held responsible for a huge state-wide NJ Transit budget shortfall.
The city has received many public inputs at recent Planning Board and City Council sessions. Most of the comments were negative. The Planning Board made many well-thought recommendations. However, their interpretation by Director Forbes and some council members radically diminishes the intent of those recommendations.
The 2014 plan needs change prior to enactment. Our main concerns:
1. Too much congestion. Those who walk or drive in, out, or around downtown Hoboken at peak hours know how difficult that is. This is before the opening of the Pearson building let alone the four new large office structures included in the revised plan. No one has gleaned insights from our existing large corporate tenants: Marsh, Octapharma and Wiley. Will PATH accommodate added passengers and handle increased two-way traffic on its platforms and stairs?
2. Traffic and transportation studies now. There is no comprehensive traffic study. City Council wants to do this after approval of the plan, not before. Why wait? If the impact is too severe, the plan should be revised now, not later.
3. Too many tall buildings. Most of our city representatives were elected on pledges of controlling development. Many specifically advocated a 4-16 floor range for the Rail Yards. Now, three buildings could go as high as 20-24 stories. Two, at 277 feet, would nearly equal the height of the W Hotel. Another, at 330 feet, would be much higher.
Looking at mid-rise office structures, eliminating height-based incentives, or re-thinking the overwhelming – 68 percent – commercial office allocation might help. Many on City Council seem to prefer “tall and thinner” structures, meaning more shadows and less sky for much of downtown Hoboken.
4. No specific phase-in plan. We are told that the plan has an opportunity for phasing, but no specific sequence. What if congestion proves too great? What if our infrastructure cannot support the huge increases? Here at least Director Forbes seems to understand the Planning Board’s direction to avoid a simplistic “residential first” approach.
5. What is the true impact on our real estate taxes? After the building period, there appears to be some modest tax flow to the city. However, with other development, we have heard that that Hoboken’s share of Hudson County taxes increased. Is this level of added structure truly beneficial to current taxpayers?
As the city tries to push through this plan by year-end, it’s time to remember that the impact will last decades. City Council needs to change the plan or return it to the sub-committee.
Terry Pranses
Member,
Hoboken Rail Yards Task Force