The Hoboken City Council voted 8-1 Wednesday night to approve an amendment that changed the dimensions of, and set height and density limits for, one of the last blocks of undeveloped property on the South Waterfront, which runs along the waterfront from First to Fourth streets. The vote clears the way for the mayor to select developers to begin building a luxury hotel and office building on that property. When built, the hotel will be the only one in the city.
An elated Mayor David Roberts said Thursday that a hotel and continued economic development are beneficial to the city and its residents.
"I cannot underscore the importance of last night’s council vote," said Roberts as he thanked the eight council members that supported his amendments. Only 1st Ward Councilwoman Theresa Castellano ended up voting against the amendment. "This is the most important accomplishment of this administration thus far."
In an official press statement, Roberts outlined why he believes having a new office building and hotel on the waterfront will be a boon for the city. "The results of this vote will have a dynamic impact on our community," said Roberts. "It will bring additional economic tools to stimulate our economy through the creation of jobs in the office building, which will have the ancillary effect with merchants on our main street."
Roberts added, "It’s about time New Jersey’s second most popular tourist destination receives a hotel of its own."
Second Ward Councilman Richard Del Boccio said that job opportunities and the prospect of having a hotel in the city far outweigh the negatives. "We have a golden opportunity," said Del Boccio Wednesday. "We should have a world-class hotel on the waterfront so that Hoboken residents can have their weddings and banquets without having to go out of town."
Disputes over the numbers
Just because it was an 8-1 vote doesn’t mean Wednesday’s City Council meeting ran smoothly. Vocal and often emotional opposition was routinely directed toward the council in the form of boos and catcalls. Most of those in opposition yelled that the proposed development is too dense and tall.
The actual waterfront proposal, including a hotel, passed several years ago. However, Roberts’ administration made amendments that he said would scale down the development, while making the hotel taller. However, some residents believed that the parts of the south waterfront development that have been built already are too big, creating a need for the middle block to be scaled down further.
The waterfront development has roots in the 1980s, when the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey entered into discussions on how to jointly develop an underutilized portion of the waterfront north of the Erie Lackawanna Terminal.
The project was divided into three portions, Block A, B and C. Development has been complete or is currently under way on both Block A and C. Block A, the southernmost block, when finished, will contain two office towers, and Block C, the northernmost block, has a 526-unit residential building which has opened and is currently leasing units.
That only left Block B left to be developed.
It is now assured that Block B will be split into two portions. The southern half will most likely be an office tower and the northern half will be a hotel.
Nebulous language in contracts between the city and the Port Authority, which owns the property, led to controversy over how big the development on Block B could be.
At the Nov. 18 council meeting, passionate opposition erupted over the density and design of the proposed Block B buildings and over proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan.
The amendments cap the maximum allowable floor area at 650,000 square feet on Block B. According to Roberts, this is a 30 percent reduction on what could theoretically be built on the site.
It also widens view corridors and increases the amount of glass that can be used in construction. The widened view corridors and increased setbacks will create several areas of new publicly accessible open space. According to City Planner Elizabeth Vendor, using less masonry and more glass will give the building a sleeker, less dense appearance.
The one giveback that is included in the amendment was that whoever is selected as a developer will be able to build the hotel tower 35 feet taller than before.
At the last council meeting and a special council "workshop" held Monday, there were several people who questioned the city’s numbers and voiced concerns that the city is planning to build bigger than what was originally intended.
Former Mayor Anthony Russo, who was mayor when the contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was signed in 1995, said Thursday that Roberts is using the vague language to promote a reduction that isn’t there. He said it was never the city’s intention to build out to what Roberts claims the maximum could be, and that he is using this "so-called" reduction as a nice press release. "It’s all spin," said Russo. "It’s just a superficial attempt to use political rhetoric to play to the public."
Better than the alternative
While there has been some confusion about the numbers and unclear wording of the Port Authority agreements, the majority of the council decided that the less dense, taller buildings are a better option.
"A vote of ‘no’ tonight is not necessarily a vote that will stop the project," said City Councilman Tony Soares. Soares has been critical of the mayor’s handling of the South Waterfront Redevelopment, and until the last minute it was unclear which way he would vote. In the end, he said voting yes is better than the alternative. "If this goes down tonight, the open space and the setbacks go down tonight," he said. "What we could end up with could be much worse."
Council President Ruben Ramos said that if the amendments were voted down, the city was contractually-bound to build anyway because of the prior agreement. "If this does not pass, we are still obligated to build the project," said Ramos. "What we are doing is listening to what people have said and are setting limits so that [the project] is as small as it can possibly be."
According to Roberts, the Port Authority has invested over $100 million in improvements to the southern waterfront. Already finished are Pier A Park and the waterfront walkway, and construction of Pier C Park is slated for the near future.
City Administrator Robert Drasheff stressed several times that if city does not use due diligence and designate a developer in a reasonable time period, the city runs the risk of losing the $19 million that the PA has set aside for the construction of Pier C Park.
A boisterous response
While the public hearing period on the amendments had officially closed at the end of the Nov. 18 meeting, Ramos officially allowed the public to comment on the project Monday and Wednesday before the vote was taken.
Ron Hine, the executive director of the Fund for a Better Waterfront, a local special interest group, said that he is not in favor of what is planned for Block B. He was one of a handful of people that expressed their concern that the project is too big. "What is clear is that the public is overwhelmingly against what is going to be built on Block B," said Hine during the public portion. "What does it take to take the public seriously?"
Cheryl Fallick of the Hudson County Alliance, a local group that is concerned about big development, also expressed her disproval of the project. "The infrastructure of Hoboken can not support this project," she said. "The citizens are speaking clearly and loudly, so show your constituents that you represent them and vote no."
Community activist Daniel Tumpson was vehement and angry when he approached the microphone.
"There is no reason to build any further," said Tumpson, who has said the nothing should be built on the site and that it should be a large public open space. "You promised to ‘put the breaks on development.’ Now it is time that you come through on your promises."
But not every member of the public who spoke was against the amendments.
Hoboken resident Perry Belfiore took umbrage to prior speakers such as Tumpson saying that "the public" and the "vast majority" of the city’s residents were against the project. Belfiore said that he supports the amendments and that Tumpson does not speak for him. "When you people talk about the ‘vast majority,’ do you have any type of quantitative analysis to back that up?" he asked.
Tom Jacobson, a Park Avenue resident, said that the project may not be perfect and some of the numbers might be uncertain, but he said that in his opinion, the city is obligated to but and putting it off any long might have negative consequences. "The benefits of proceeding now far outweigh the risks of further delays," he said.
Numbers certified
Meanwhile, the city certified at Wednesday night’s meeting numbers for what the final sizes of projects built on blocks A and C on the waterfront were. The numbers came from the city’s engineers, Schoor DePalma, as well as developers The Applied Companies of Hoboken and SJP Properties of Parsippany. The numbers were consistent with each other and what was permitted under the city’s agreement with the Port Authority, according to city officials.
Captions:
WHAT THE HOTEL COULD LOOK LIKE – Although the final design is far from complete, the city presented conceptual diagrams of what the new hotel on Block B might look like.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – Throughout Wednesday night’s meeting, the crowd let the City Council know exactly how they feel about development.
Maximum debate
Wednesday’s City Council vote has several interesting political side notes.
Going into the meeting, Roberts had six solid votes supporting his amendments. Councilpersons Tony Soares and Carol Marsh were both sitting on the fence up until the final vote.
One concern that Marsh brought to the table was that the amendment leaves language that could provide developers and the city with wiggle room to build bigger. "There has been so much talk about how vague the language is," said Marsh Wednesday night. "But we still don’t say that this is a maximum."
Before the final vote, the amendment said that Block B "is limited" to 650,000 square feet and makes no mention of a total maximum for the entire Southern Waterfront Redevelopment Area.
Marsh proposed that the language be changed to include more specific language.
At first, the city’s lawyers said that the changes were too large to be made without significantly changing the ordinance. A change would mean a vote had to take place on a separate night.
But after a 10-minute recess where all the city’s attorneys and professionals could meet to discuss the matter, it was resolved that the word "maximum" could be inserted into the language because it was only a clarification.
This seemed to sway Marsh’s mind, and she ended up voting in favor of the amendments. Soares would say Thursday that Marsh’s persistence to tighten the language was one of the reasons he voted for the amendments.
"If they had not allowed [Marsh’s] amendments I don’t know if I could have voted yes," he said. "She continued to work hard to make the best of a bad situation."
Roberts saw the changes as a political victory for his administration, of which Soares has become a harsh critic. Despite the vocal opposition from Soares and others, the mayor still was able to get almost all of the votes for his changes, even Soares’.
With City Council elections looming in May, any issue from now on has the chance to be whipped into a political firestorm. – Tom Jennemann