Good development versus bad development

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the article by Joseph Passantino titled, “Being fair to residents or welcoming Armageddon?”
The false argument is constantly being pushed that the revitalization of all of Bayonne hinges on this one building. Therefore, anyone who is against the particulars of this redevelopment plan is against all change. These arguments are specious and meant to make any opposition look ridiculous and therefore wrong.
No distinction is being made between good development and bad development. The residents are for good development.
This is considered a “smart growth” area and smart growth calls for sustainability, open space, preserving a sense of place. The city’s own wording says that that is what they are promoting.
This redevelopment plan violates all the city’s design standards; from height requirements to open space to sustainability.
Marrying the idea of the developer’s intentions with the idea of the prosperity of Bayonne as a whole is simply another false argument. The developer wants to build as large a building as possible and have as few restrictions as possible to maximize profit.
The profit of a single company does not equal the wellbeing of an entire city and its residents. It is the city’s job to ensure the latter, not the former.
We have been the recipients of patronizing lectures on change. In turn, the council might consider the very real changes in the environment that are starting to unravel our weather patterns, our safety, our future. Smart growth is a necessity, not a polite, laughable, easily discarded option.
Common Dreams, the nonprofit progressive news center, wrote, “So what happened to your votes and your trust in your elected representatives? They were nullified and replaced with ungrateful politicians who have forgotten that the authority lies with the people.”
Please show up on August 19 and hold your government accountable.


© 2000, Newspaper Media Group