Residents of the West Side are likely to clash at the May 27 City Council meeting over whether a historic zone should be set up in portions of Ward B and Ward F. A controversial ordinance, scheduled for a second reading and possible adoption, would set strict controls over how residents can redevelop their property in exchange for protection against unwanted development.
Supporters of the plan say it would protect the neighborhoods in the zone from large-scale developments of the type that are currently being planned for areas like Journal Square and McGinley Square. Opponents claim there is no threat of large development yet in the area, and that the restriction would impose an additional burden on home owners and eventually drive people who rent out of the neighborhood.
Although unable to speak directly to the issue prior to the City Council’s vote on first reading, many opponents and proponents used their five minutes during the public speaking portion to make their case, a possible prelude to an even more heated debate at the May 27 meeting.
The ordinance establishing the first historic zone outside downtown was approved by the Jersey City Planning Board in March. The council delayed a vote on the ordinance twice, once because Ward F Councilwoman Diane Coleman said passage would impose a financial hardship on people in her ward. While the proposed historic district is mostly located in Ward B, a one-block sliver is located in Ward F.
“[This is about] property rights versus collective ability to better an area.” – Candice Osborne
____________
She said she might be willing to support the ordinance if the block in Ward F was removed. But supporters, including some residents living in the Ward F portion, said this could set the stage for others in Ward B to opt out, gutting the ordinance.
The proposed zone would affect about 650 homes and would require owners to abide by a set of rules that would limit development options and add a layer of bureaucracy to doing even simple repairs.
Boundaries of the new district
The proposed West Bergen-East Lincoln Park Historic District would cover an area that is largely more suburban that the downtown districts currently historically protected. The new district would run roughly from Lincoln Park on the west to Bergen Avenue on the east, and from Fairmount Avenue on the north to Harrison Avenue on the south.
Dan Sicardi, of Kensington Avenue, who opposed to the historic district, said he would not even accept a modified plan. Patrick Finn also opposed the plan because of the additional cost and oversight that it would cause. Residents Shy Rivera and E.J. Centeno said it would negatively affect residents who rent, driving up costs to owners and increasing rents as a result. Renters, Rivera said, would have little or no choice but to move out.
Charlene Burke, of Duncan Avenue, has been working on establishing a historic district for this area for about a decade.
Future protection
She and others got together after the closing of the Montgomery Campus of the Jersey City Medical Center. Although the redevelopment of that site turned out all right, the change made some residents fear for the future of other, less historically-sensitive development in the area.
Burke argued that the historic distinction would help do for the West Side what the downtown districts have done and would retain the character of the neighborhood.
She said without the protection, home owners or developers could subdivide properties and begin constructing homes that would change the historic look in the area.
Burke and others say the cost of repairs may not go up as a result of the distinction, and that the district could seek out appropriate contractors that would keep costs lower.
Opponents, including Finn, said residents in the area would have to jump through additional bureaucratic hoops in order to do repairs or make changes to their own homes. Someone seeking to do work would have to go to the city’s Planning Department and seek approval from the city’s Historic Commission before they could do any work inside or outside the house. They see this as an unwanted intrusion into their private lives.
Michael Selender, who said he supported establishing an historic district, suggested the City Council delay the implementation.
“The process is no good,” he said. “We need more public input.” He suggested that the council establish a public forum where people could talk about the district and get more information.
Councilwoman Candice Osborne, who represents Ward E containing the existing historic districts, told The Jersey City Reporter that this is a complex issue.
“[This is about] property rights versus collective ability to better an area,” she said. “It is really kind of a legacy problem of cities. In new developments in suburbs there are extremely strict rules about what you can and can’t do.
“The problem is that cities developed before areas could kind of self-govern/structure as neighborhoods,” she added. “New neighborhoods, you know what you are buying into before you do so, and you have a choice. This is a tough one. I had the idea of basically grandfathering existing owners at time of conversion so they didn’t have to do the more expensive things if it fell into a category of maintenance, but only if it fell into a category of renovation. Then on sale of the property the new person would have to do maintenance as well, but they would know what they were buying into. But it isn’t clear that is possible.”
Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.