The City Council on May 13 decided to allow the construction of a residential high rise at the intersection of Marion and Grove streets despite a philosophical dispute with the Planning Board over the use of eminent domain. The vote would enable the first major high rise in the Power House Arts district by a local minority developer.
The 275 rental-unit project had significant support from the local Filipino community and other groups. While the developer met with a number of local civic groups to outline the project, some property owners criticized the Planning Board and the Jersey City Redevelopment Authority for lack of notification about changes in the development plan.
Planning officials responded that notifications of changes in the redevelopment plan were not required by local ordinances. But council members said they wanted this provision changed so in the future all property owners affected by a change would be notified.
Local minority developer
Councilwoman Candice Osborne, who ultimately voted “yes,” had been poised to oppose the MGM project (named after the intersecting streets) because she opposes using eminent domain in redevelopment zones such as this neighborhood. This project, while not in any danger of condemnation, presented an opportunity for her to make that argument.
But a number of community leaders came out in favor. Civic leaders in the Filipino community argued that holding up the project would send the wrong message to local developers.
“This is someone from our community,” said Municipal Judge Victor Sison. “This is one of us who wants to give back to community. It says that Filipinos are here to stay, and not relegated to some shadowy corner. If this project is denied, then where is our sense of history?”
The developer Vidal Ledda, is a Jersey City resident who came out of the Filipino community.
Some residents objected to the project, such as Yvonne Balcer, who complained that allowing another 35-story building in the vicinity of the Holland Tunnel would increase traffic not just in that area but in all approaches to the tunnel.
She criticized the lack of a traffic study.
But city officials, including members of the council and the Planning Board, said the new construction would fit in with similar structures in the area.
Marc Simon, who lives across the street from the proposed development, also opposed the project, asking the City Council to send the project back to the Planning Board for reconsideration.
Some groups such as the Harismus Cove Neighborhood Association opposed the project, mostly because the proposed community givebacks weren’t specific enough. The project originally proposed to help redevelop the Sixth Street Embankment as a park. But since that property is still in litigation, the open space giveback is yet unclear.
City officials said the developer is offering to make 10 percent of the building’s total units affordable, double the percentage legally mandated under the city’s redevelopment requirements.
Council President Rolando Lavarro, a Filipino American, said he was very comfortable with the project.
“This developer did a lot to reach out to community groups,” he said. “This small time developer, a local guy, who has done more in that area than the deep pocket developers who have built in our city. This building is very similar to buildings already in the area. I am also comfortable with the community give backs since this will mean the city will see $2.7 million for affordable housing. This will have a major positive impact on the area.”
Get rid of the threat
During the discussion of extending notification requirements for changes in a developer’s plans, Osborne questioned provisions in state and local laws that allow city planning officials to force property owners to upgrade their properties.
A very controversial provision in state redevelopment law, generated by the 2005 Supreme Court decision expanding government’s power to condemn and purchase private property, allows planning officials to use the threat of eminent domain to force property owners to rebuild properties city officials deem as under-used. The purpose is to allow the city to collect more taxes on the improved properties.
While the state law was modified in 2011, a number of Jersey City redevelopment zones approved prior to the change in 2011 allow city planning officials to pressure property owners to redevelop or sell to other developers.
Osborne said she opposed the use of eminent domain except in cases where there is a public use such as the construction of a park or bridge. She also said eminent domain might be justified in cases where properties have clearly been abandoned.
Although couched in bureaucratic language to suggest the city would negotiate with the property owner, planning officials admitted that under the redevelopment ordinances approved prior to 2011, city officials ultimately could use the power to take property and pay fair market value to force an upgrade. A property owner could avoid this by selling the land to another developer or redeveloping the property.
The city has a list of properties that are potentially subject to taking, and a map developed from this list.
Osborne has asked the Planning Board to eliminate the list, setting the stage for a power struggle between the City Council and the Planning Board. Forcing property owners to redevelop is among the most powerful tools the Planning Board has for upgrading what it sees as under-utilized properties. Planning officials said a portion of Grove Street across from City Hall was redeveloped as a result of the use of these threats.
Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.