The Place for Jersey City News

Posts

Councilman James Solomon
Aaron Morrill

Solomon Unveils Affordable Housing Plan

/in , , , , /by

Ward E Councilman James Solomon has unveiled a plan to strengthen tenants’ rights, triple the number of affordable homes and pass legislation that mandates affordable units in all new developments.

According to a press release, the plan includes stronger tenant protections, triples the number of affordable homes by leveraging city-owned land, mandates affordable homes in all new developments and develops a “Housing First” program to “ensure all residents without a home can find permanent supportive housing.” The “nationally recognized approach” to homelessness would move “individuals and families experiencing homelessness into safe, permanent housing as soon as possible, and then providing supportive services to help them remain in their homes.”

Driving the need for such a plan, Solomon points to a scarcity of affordable housing Downtown. “Downtown has roughly 30,000 total units of housing, but only less than 2,000 or those homes – 6%- are affordable. Another 3% are subject to rent control.” Only 250 of the units on the drawing board city-wide will, according to the councilman, be affordable. He goes on to point out “50% of Jersey City households spend too much on rent,” with the average rent on a studio apartment reaching $2,800, according to one analysis.

Solomon is calling out developers’ “sweetheart deals that led to runaway housing costs and displacement” and credits his election with a change in policy city-wide. “Developers received 39 special tax deals throughout the city. Since then, they’ve gotten none.”

Said Solomon, “Jersey City must remain affordable for families – period. That means building and protecting affordable housing, while at the same time passing tenant protections that actually help people stay in their homes. If Downtown is truly going to remain open for everyone, then our city government must do much more to ensure development benefits every single resident. We need more affordable housing, more housing supply, and better protection for tenants.”

Last month, a court threw out Jersey City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance (IZO), which Solomon and Councilman Rolando Lavarro had opposed. Solomon is, he says, committed to improving the overturned ordinance. At the last City Council meeting, Solomon supported Lavarro’s failed attempt to add a new IZO ordinance to the agenda. 

In an interview with Jersey City Times, City Council President Joyce Watterman pushed back on the aggressive affordable housing mandates advocated by Solomon and Lavarro, citing her discussions with officials in Newark who found such demanding mandates a disincentive to build.

Councilman Solomon’s plan can be read in full here.

 

City Hall, Jersey City
Jersey City Times Staff

Jersey City Uniquely Slow in Distributing Federal Rental Assistance

/in , , , /by

Jersey City has been uniquely slow in distributing money under a federally funded rental assistance program, according to an article published today in HuffPost. “Jersey City offers a case study in why so much of the federal aid is still not getting to the people who need it” writes Washington Bureau Chief Amanda Terkel.

According to the article, Jersey City denied 800 of approximately 1,100 applications for rental assistance, largely because the applicants did not live in owner-occupied buildings.

Adam Gordon, executive director at Fair Share Housing Center in New Jersey, told HuffPost that he wasn’t aware of any other program in New Jersey ― including the one run by the state itself ― that imposed that condition.

As a result, as of Sept. 9, Jersey City “had approved just 45 applications and handed out $450,000, out of the $7.8 million provided by the federal government.”

The decision to restrict funding to individuals in owner-occupied buildings came from Mayor Fulop according to a source who requested anonymity.

Mayoral Spokesperson Kimberly Wallace-Scalcione told HuffPost that the city wanted to first “focus on buildings where the owner lives and relies on the rental income for sustaining their own home as opposed to an owner who has a multiple investment properties or is a larger developer in the city.”

“We knew that if we broadly open the program, a couple of the very large developers/landlords that are more organized would exhaust the funds with their several hundred unit buildings,” she told HuffPost.

“We were very clear that we opened that program for 2 weeks (owner occupied), and we were very clear that after 2 weeks we are expanding to slightly larger buildings, and then again 2 weeks later larger buildings” she also said.

Gordon, for his part,  apparently acknowledged that getting rental aid to landlords of owner-occupied buildings, who are often more financially vulnerable than larger landlords, might make some sense. “That said, from the tenant’s perspective, whether or not they’re renting from a small landlord or a large landlord, they still have the financial burden and the need,” he added.

However, the article also points out that Jersey City was much slower the county and state in setting up its program, has confusing messaging on its website and is working against a federal deadline to distribute the money.

To read the full article, go here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaron Morrill

Lavarro to Introduce Inclusionary Zoning Resolution Tomorrow

/in , , /by

As the saying goes, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Such, apparently, will be the thinking of Councilman-at-large Rolando Lavarro tomorrow night as he attempts to place a resolution on the agenda that would send an ambitious inclusionary zoning ordinance [commonly referred to as an “IZO”] to the Planning Board for review.

In October of last year, Lavarro failed to get the necessary votes to amend an IZO that was ultimately passed by the City Council. The amendments, which included doing away with “community benefits” waivers and requiring 15% of the units to qualify as affordable, were voted down 7-2 with only Ward E Councilman James Solomon voting with Lavarro.

The ordinance that passed allowed developers to make as little as 5% of the units in their projects affordable and granted waivers whereby developers agreed to provide community benefits, such as swimming pools and parking garages.

Last month, a court threw out the new IZO, finding  that Jersey City officials had violated the state’s Municipal Land Use Law when they rushed to adopt it without first referring it to the city’s Planning Board for review.

The ordinance that Lavarro now wants the Planning Board to consider would up the affordable housing requirement to 20% of a project’s units and, like the prior ordinance, do away with community benefits waivers.

Asked about his resolution, Lavarro said, “Tomorrow, whether it is in morning negotiations or at the City Council meeting in the evening, the Mayor and City Council will have an opportunity to advance real affordable housing in Jersey City, or they can continue to maintain the status quo that has only served to gentrify our City, pushing more and more long-time residents out. For my part, when I sit at the table, I will be on the side of Jersey City. My demand is for 20% on-site affordable housing. No exemptions. No buyouts.”

City Council President Joyce Watterman had not responded to a request for comment at the time of this writing.

Tomorrow night’s virtual City Council meeting begins at 6 pm and can be accessed here.

 

 

 

 

 

Abandoned couch on street
Dana DiFilippo

Courts Begin To Hear Long-Stalled Eviction Cases

/in , , , /by

Republished courtesy of New Jersey Monitor

New Jersey’s eviction moratorium for middle-income renters ended Wednesday, with courts starting to hear some of the 83,800-plus residential eviction cases landlords have filed since the start of the pandemic.

But there is no tidal wave of people losing their homes and getting booted onto the street. Yet.

Instead, the process started with settlement conferences. Courts brought landlords, tenants, and attorneys into the same room — or rather, Zoom breakout rooms, because courts are still mostly virtual — to try to come to an agreement about back rent owed. Without consensus, those cases will go before judges for trial in coming days and weeks.

So despite the moratorium lifting, the action in many courts Wednesday still centered on commercial eviction cases, which resumed in June.

Affordable housing advocates had lobbied hard for both federal and state extensions of the residential eviction moratorium, saying many people continue struggling during the ongoing pandemic.

But the federal moratorium ended last week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the CDC exceeded its authority when it tried to extend the ban until Oct. 3. New Jersey’s eviction moratorium ended Wednesday for renters making at least 80% of their area’s median income. The state’s poorest residents will be protected through the end of the year.

Staci Berger, president and CEO of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, applauded state leaders for ensuring low-income renters will be protected until Dec. 31. But New Jersey has such a shortage of affordable housing that people of any income who get evicted have nowhere to go, she said.

“Evictions are not good for anybody, but they’re especially bad for young families and children,” she said. “What we’re going through is hopefully a once-in-forever pandemic. We should be doing everything we can do to keep everyone safely housed. If that means corporate landlords don’t make the same money they made in 2019, that’s what shared sacrifice is.”

Photo by Dan Meyers on Unsplash

272 Ogden Ave. Jersey City
Jersey City Times Staff

Editorial: Residents Deserve Answers on the Mayor’s New Home Purchase

/in , , , /by

Mayor Fulop’s purchase of a $2.4 million home from Dixon Advisory, first reported by Hudson County View yesterday, raises serious questions.

According to the report, the Fulops bought the new luxury property on Ogden Avenue, just up the street from their present home, in June.

Belying its modest facade, the home includes a rooftop swimming pool with views of Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty and was described in two spreads in Jersey Digs as a “trophy” property with “the celebrity cred and luxe cache to impress everyone.”

Interior and roof photos can be seen here.

A search of the MLS (the authoritative database for properties listed for sale), reveals that the new Fulop home was never offered for sale to the public at large.

The mayor, known for sharing the comings and goings of his family, neither posted nor tweeted anything about his good luck in snagging this unique property.

Now, nearly three months after the transaction, the Fulops have provided Hudson County View with a lengthy, well-crafted explanation for the purchase including a growing family and aging parents.

No one should begrudge the mayor for wanting a nice house.

However, because he is the mayor, Jersey City residents have the right to know how he got the inside track on the property.

First, a little background information is helpful.

The mayor has had a long and, apparently, mutually beneficial relationship with Dixon, an Australian investment firm with hundreds of millions in American real estate holdings, many in Jersey City.

In one of his first official acts upon taking office, the mayor cancelled the city-wide revaluation of properties begun under his predecessor, Jerramiah Healy. At the time, it was agreed by all that Downtown homeowners were paying far too little in real estate taxes when compared to other parts of the city.

With its large portfolio of Downtown properties, Dixon stood to benefit handsomely from the mayor’s decision. And, indeed, the four-year delay occasioned by Mayor Fulop’s ultimately unsuccessful litigation saved Dixon thousands, if not millions, of dollars in property taxes.

Then, in 2015, in a highly unusual move, the mayor, through the city’s now indicted tax attorney, Matthew O’Donnell, asked Hudson County’s taxation board to halt a reassessment of certain properties, including close to two dozen owned by Dixon, that threatened to result in higher taxes on them. The request was unusual because the mayor was, in essence, asking that the city receive less tax revenue.

The board ultimately denied the request and went ahead with the reassessment. But had the mayor been successful, it would have saved Dixon $84,219 in tax hikes on five properties alone, according to the Jersey Journal.

At around the same time, as Fulop geared up to run for governor, Dixon Advisory gave $300,000 to the mayor’s super PAC, Coalition for Progress. Dixon also made large contributions to the Hudson County Democratic Organization.

In a lengthy 2019 article that looked at Fulop’s relationship with Jersey City developers, Bloomberg.com catalogued the mayor’s other dealings with Dixon.

Dixon renovated the Fulop’s present home at 260 Ogden Avenue and designed and built his home on the beach in Narragansett Rhode Island. In the case of the Narragansett house, Bloomberg found that the amount Dixon charged appeared to be substantially below the rate charged by local contractors.

Dixon’s then CEO, Alan Dixon, “frequently socialized with the mayor and his wife,” according to Bloomberg. The company’s presence in Jersey City grew under Fulop.

In sum, there is a long history of mutual back scratching that precedes the Ogden Ave. purchase.

New Jersey’s local ethics law states, “No local government officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others.”

It’s hard to imagine that this transaction doesn’t at a minimum create the impression that the mayor “used his official position to secure” this property.

To resolve this issue, here are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.

  • Who approached whom about the availability of the house?
  • Did Dixon speak to any other interested buyers?
  • Did the mayor ever suggest that the house be listed publicly first to avoid an appearance of a sweetheart deal?
  • What was the appraised value?
  • Who financed the mayor’s purchase?
  • Why is the property only assessed for tax purposes at $1 million?

It’s possible the transaction is not as bad as it looks. As one local real estate professional told Jersey City Times, there are factors which argue against the notion that the mayor got a “sweetheart deal.”

For instance, the property “didn’t appraise,” meaning a bank would be less willing to finance it given uncertainty regarding its value.  The real estate professional told JCT that it appeared that, indeed, the price was high for the area. Finally, this individual told JCT that Dixon is known to make private sales without listing properties publicly.

Let’s hope our real estate professional is correct.

However, Jersey City residents should not have to take it on faith that a large transaction between its mayor and a company with a long history of political donations, favors, and business dealings with the mayor is above board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaron Morrill

Board Hands Peter Mocco a Win at City Council’s Expense

/in , , , /by

A battle may be brewing over the power to control zoning in Jersey City, at least if Ward E Councilman James Solomon has anything to say about it.

This follows last month’s decision by Jersey City’s Zoning Board of Adjustment giving controversial developer Peter Mocco a green light to move forward on a long-delayed project in the formerly Italian-American enclave Downtown known as the Village.

The decision, rendered at a hearing on July 22, allowed Mocco to move ahead with the project despite the fact that the Village Redevelopment Plan, which had been enacted in 1980, had expired. Jersey City’s zoning officer, Nick Taylor, had determined that Mocco had missed the May 2020 deadline to get approvals for a five story, 44-unit building at 303 1st Street.

In an April 2021 letter, Taylor told Mocco that his project would “require an amendment to the plan removing or extending the expiration date.” According to statute, redevelopment plans can only be created or amended by the city council.

Mocco, the developer of Liberty Harbor North, was the subject of a four part series in Jersey City Times earlier this year.

Solomon accused the board of “bending over backwards to aid a developer who defaulted on his obligation to build at the site at First and Coles over 35 years ago.” Noting that he was two years old when Mocco first obtained the right to build there, Solomon said Mocco had been given a “free pass.”

The project appears to be a classic Mocco affair, replete with colorful litigation and overt rule bending. Mocco was first designated the redeveloper of the property in 1985 and was given approximately two years to complete the project. Twenty years passed and Mocco still hadn’t begun construction.

In 2015, Mocco sued the owner of 303 First  Street, the final and fourth parcel needed for the project, claiming that the owner had breached a contract to sell the property. In response, the owner, an elderly man who spoke little English, said that, as an alcoholic with a sixth-grade education and an illness that “altered his judgment and comprehension,” he had been legally incompetent to enter into the deal in the first place. He claimed that Mocco’s agents had followed and physically assaulted him.  Whatever the truth of the claims and counterclaims, by 2018, the lawsuit had been settled and the property’s longtime commercial tenant, Hudson County Art Supplies was decamping to Central Avenue.

The building would soon be demolished and the parcels converted to a parking lot.

With all four properties in his possession, Mocco finally had what he needed to proceed. But he apparently did little despite the fact that two years later, in May 2020, the Village Redevelopment Plan would expire. And, indeed, when the RDP did expire, Mocco had yet to submit his plans for approval, let alone break ground.

Jersey City Redevelopment Areas

Village Redevelopment Area [No. 21]

Jersey City’s planners were acutely aware of the expiration problem. In November 2020, they brought the issue to the City Council, hoping to eliminate the deadlines altogether.

“It’s causing a lot of confusion; a lot of chaos, and I believe it will ultimately result in litigation at some point,” said Diana Jeffrey, executive director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Authority.

Arguing that the RDP expirations left the areas without any zoning at all, Director of Planning Tanya Marione added, “[A developer] has the right to know what their property is zoned for.”

Solomon pushed back on the elimination of all expirations. “There’s nothing stopping counsel from JCRA from working to remove dates on individual plans as they see fit.”

Instead, he argued, the city could obtain valuable “give-backs” from developers “worth millions” by re-writing the redevelopment plans.

Council President Joyce Watterman also recognized what was at stake were the deadlines to be eliminated.

“This is a concern … a serious concern … the Planning Board’s hands are tied … and the council has a concern because … we don’t want to lose our leverage,” she said.

The ordinance was tabled for further discussion.

True to form, Mocco moved ahead on his own. In March, he filed his application for a zoning determination with Taylor, who rejected it because it was late. On April 21, Mocco appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

At the July 22 hearing, Mocco was represented by his regular land-use attorney James McCann. McCann called professional planner Edward Kolling as a witness. Kolling argued that even if the redevelopment plan had lapsed, a zoning map and ordinance that had been adopted by the City Council in 2001 made the redevelopment plan’s zoning the zoning for the area.

The Board of Adjustment bought the argument and overturned Taylor’s decision, sending instructions to the Planning Board that the expired redevelopment plan’s zoning would remain in effect.

Said one Board of Adjustment member “I can’t see why you wouldn’t develop the last piece of property there … if you own it, go ahead and develop it.”

Chairman Joshua Jacobs added, “I don’t know if chaos would ensue [with no zoning], but it would be illogical for there to be any other conclusion.”

Marione called the issue “difficult” but supported the Board taking action. “We’ve gone to the City Council twice.”

Rutgers law professor Charles Auffant called the situation where it is alleged that zoning has ceased to exist, “interesting.” He cautioned that “the law abhors a vacuum.” As an alternative, Auffant said the Board of Adjustment “could have delayed its decision pending council action.”

Eric Hofmann, President of the Village Neighborhood Association lashed out at the Board’s decision.  “It is beyond perplexing that the Zoning Board would take it upon themselves to effectively implement policy and overturn the previous decision regarding the expiry of the Village RDP [Redevelopment Plan] … The whole thing smacks of a backroom deal.”

Solomon said that he “was exploring any and all options to stop this travesty from proceeding.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judge's Gavel
Aaron Morrill

Court Throws Out City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance

/in , , /by

Councilman-at-large Rolando Lavarro and a coalition of community groups and housing advocates were temporarily vindicated yesterday when a Hudson County judge threw out the city’s affordable housing ordinance.

Hudson County Presiding Judge Joseph A. Turula ruled that Jersey City officials had violated the state’s Municipal Land Use Law when they rushed to adopt it without first referring it to the city’s Planning Board for review.

In a raucous meeting in October, the council adopted the “IZO” [Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance] over the objections of many Jersey City residents, civil rights groups, and community groups, including Solidarity Jersey City, Morris Canal Community Development Corporation, the Jersey City NAACP, and the Hudson County Progressive Alliance.

As passed by the council, the law allowed developers to make as little as 5% of the units in their projects “affordable” and granted waivers whereby developers agreed to provide “community benefits,” such as swimming pools and parking garages. Lavarro’s amendments to the law, which included doing away with the community benefits waiver and requiring 20% of the units to qualify as affordable, were voted down by council members allied with Mayor Fulop in a 7-2 vote.  Ward E Councilman James Solomon was the lone council member to have voted with Lavarro.

In a May interview with the Jersey City Times, Council President Joyce Watterman defended the ordinance, arguing that the imposition of a higher number of mandatory affordable units would deter developers from moving ahead with projects. Said Watterman, “I talked to the people I knew in Newark where they already had [an ordinance requiring higher numbers] in existence, and I asked them, ‘How is it working for you, and they said, Joyce, we’re having a difficult job getting it done.'”

This morning, Lavarro offered his thoughts on the win. “Obviously, I’m very happy with the court’s ruling. While we’ve lost valuable time and countless affordable units due to these political machinations, on the bright side and most importantly, this ruling opens the door for the city to provide meaningful affordable housing opportunities. For me, it provides a glimmer of hope that we can begin to build a Jersey City for the people of Jersey City. … I intend to begin working immediately to introduce a new IZO that will accomplish that goal.” 

Said Solomon, “I voted against the current version of Jersey City’s affordable housing ordinance because it offered developers too many loopholes to evade their affordable housing obligations. Today’s ruling striking down the law provides advocates and policymakers an opportunity to work together to write a strong, smart affordable housing ordinance in line with state law.”

Adam Gordon, executive director of the Fair Share Housing Center, which brought the lawsuit said, “The decision should send a firm message to the city’s elected officials and other municipalities across New Jersey that affordable homes are not a chit to be traded away as part of backroom deals that do not benefit working families.”

Renée Steinhagen, New Jersey Appleseed’s executive director, which participated as an “amicus” in the case and filed briefs, slammed the ordinance. “[The] city’s officials have preferred to exclude the community and hammer out backroom deals often at the expense of working families in need of affordable housing.”

Affordable housing advocate and Council-at-large Candidate June Jones, was ecstatic upon hearing the news. She called it “divine intervention” and “a great win for our citizens.”

City spokeswoman Kimberly Wallace-Scalcione told Hudson County View that the city is “currently weighing [its] options on how they’ll proceed but remains focused on prioritizing affordable housing.”

Fair Share Housing Center was represented in the case by staff attorney Bassam Gergi, who filed the initial complaint and litigated it through the successful decision on summary judgement.

 

Jersey City Skyline
Adrian Ghainda

Op Ed: City’s Affordable Housing Policies Aren’t Nearly Enough

/in , , , /by

With its bounty of high-rises and aggressive urbanization, Jersey City is well on its way to becoming the sixth borough of New York. However, this progress occurs at the cost of the residents, as unchecked developers are having their way with overzealous city projects. For the right price, Mayor Steve Fulop will convince you that Jersey City is New York City’s little sibling.

Jersey City is the fifth most expensive city to rent an apartment in in the country, behind San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $3,851 per month. In a city of renters, such a price is unaffordable for nearly half of Jersey City residents. Forty-five percent of renters in Jersey City pay more than 30% of their income on housing costs alone. Considering that Jersey City is 70% renters, about one third of our households are struggling to pay for living expenses. They are “cost burdened.”

As a master’s in public administration candidate at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School for Public Service studying public and nonprofit Management with a specialization in political action and advocacy, my goal is to be a resource for my community in such a trying fight. As a lifelong Jersey City resident, it pains me to watch my friends, family, and community struggle against a deck that is vehemently stacked against them.

Jersey City’s affordable housing law needs to omit the “community benefits” provision that politically connected developers have taken advantage of. The community benefits provision allows developers to build amenities that range from parking garages, government offices, police stations, parks, and schools instead of affordable units. The city of Jersey City is being sued by Fair Share Housing, the leading housing advocacy group in the state of New Jersey, for the loopholes provided in its community benefits provision.

Jersey City’s City Council — aside from Ward E City Councilman Solomon and City Councilman-at-Large Lavarro — will convince you that the bare minimum is better than creating an affordable housing law that is substantial. The council will convince you that a minimum of 5% affordable housing with a waiver that could eliminate the entire law as it stands is better than a minimum of 20% affordable housing without any waiver. The same council will try to convince you that any of the community benefits listed above are more than adequate substitutions for affordable housing or that luxury developers should have the privilege of building affordable units away from their multi-million-dollar complexes because it’ll devastate their profits. These are the same city council members who spent the last two years attending inclusionary zoning meetings claiming that they don’t want developers to pay their way out of building affordable units, that they want a minimum of 20% affordable housing, and that they don’t want loopholes for developers. Yet, they still voted for this law with little to no hesitation.

This is the same administration that does the bare minimum in advertising important community meetings, zoning meetings, redevelopment meetings, and other integral meetings that outline the city’s plan for pending projects. This is the same administration that tried to sneak major projects into zoning meetings or community meetings with little to no community engagement to fast track these projects for the same developers they want to sell our city out to. This is the same administration that proposed a major museum development in Journal Square that would cost the city $40 million, of which $24 million is appropriated on behalf by the state of New Jersey. Yet, the state of New Jersey cut approximately $71 million in funding for Jersey City’s education budget.

As a product of the Jersey City Public Schools, saying both the city and state’s priorities are skewed is an understatement. Jersey City residents are already at a disadvantage in the fight to stay in their city. Jersey City residents feel disenfranchised from the fight because the lack of transparency on the part of their elected officials is meant to keep them in the dark until after the deal is done. Jersey City residents shouldn’t be expected to be politically connected to learn when new redevelopment projects, zoning projects, or monumental museums are voted on.

I want to shed light on the lack of affordability in my home town and provide practical solutions to tackle it through policy and political action. I want to lift the voices of my disenfranchised friends, family, and residents who feel discouraged to act against an oppressive administration. Affordable housing should be treated as a human necessity to ensure that quality of life improves within our city’s wavering socio-economic conditions. Yet, Jersey City’s elected officials will offer up our vulnerable neighborhoods on a silver platter to developers to secure their support for an upcoming election cycle.

At the end of the day, I want to build a resilient movement that shows our elected officials that, not only do we have a voice, but our voices matter. I want our administration to see that regardless of how “small” they may consider our movement to be, every opinion matters. The disenfranchised voices of the young, the old, the poor, the weary, the workers, the advocates, and all communities that reside in the robust city that is Jersey City deserve to be acknowledged. Affordable housing is a necessity for our city, and this movement can’t be ignored any longer.

We need Jersey City residents to sign the “people over profits” petition demanding that our elected officials do more to fix the housing crisis in Jersey City. We need to let the voters decide the fate of Jersey City rather than politically connected developers who would rather sell the soul of our home town to make a quick buck.

Governor Phil Murphy
Aaron Morrill

New Protections for Tenants: What You Need to Know

/in , /by

Yesterday, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law new eviction protections for tenants who were directly impacted by the pandemic. This legislation provides that New Jersey’s eviction moratorium continues through August for all state residents with household incomes below 120% Area Medium Income (AMI) and through the end of the year for certain households with incomes below 80% AMI.

Tuesday’s announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extending the nationwide moratorium on evictions for 60 days may provide additional protections for certain residents.

Said Murphy, “We have heard the continuing calls for help from New Jerseyans who are struggling to pay their rent and utilities. COVID-19 has put tenants and landlords in a difficult place, and I am pleased to say that more assistance is on the way. This bill is going to direct money to the people and programs that need it most. Housing and access to utilities are fundamental to human health and safety and we want to ensure that as many eligible applicants impacted by the pandemic get the help they need during this challenging time.”

Eviction Protection

Under the new law, renters with annual household incomes below 80% of Hudson County’s AMI cannot be evicted before Dec. 31, 2021. Those renters below 120% of AMI cannot be evicted before Aug. 31, 2021. (Renters living outside of Hudson County will be subject to their county’s AMI.)

Renters wanting these protections must complete the Income Self-Certification Form available at https://covid19.nj.gov/renter, through which they will certify their income level. The Form also asks you to certify whether you had an economic impact from COVID-19, certify whether you have applied for rental assistance, and answer some additional questions, all of which will assist the government in providing you with assistance.

To access the form as Frequently Asked Questions, go here. If you need help filling out the form or don’t have access to a computer, call 609-490-4550.

Rental Assistance

In addition to protection from evictions, there is rental assistance for those making 120% or less of your county’s median income. To see if you are eligible and to apply, go here.

Additionally, both Hudson County and Jersey City have rental assistance programs.

Legal Help

If your landlord has begun an eviction case or you think he/she may do so, you should consult with an attorney. The following legal resources are available to those who qualify.

  • Hudson County Legal Services: 201 792-6363
  • LSNJ Law: 1-888-LSNJ-LAW
  • The Waterfront Project: 551-256-7578

 

 

Loew's Theater Jersey City
Ron Leir

Changes to Historic Loew’s Theater Tentatively Approved Despite Harsh Criticism

/in , , , /by

The long and winding march to restore Loew’s Jersey theater in Journal Square took a step forward this week as the city’s Historic Preservation Commission (JCHPC) conditionally approved the $72 million restoration job slated to be performed DAE Entertainment 1 Entity LLC (DAE).

If all approvals are granted, DAE will begin work next year and complete the project by 2024. How the landmark 3,300-seat theater will operate as an entertainment venue has yet to be hammered out between Jersey City, as the property owner, DAE, the lessee, and Friends of the Loew’s (FOL).

After nearly four hours of back-and-forth between DAE’s principal architect, Brian Martinez, and attorney Frank Regan, the Preservation Commission voted 8-0 Monday, July 19, to provide the Jersey City Planning Board with a “positive recommendation.” By law, the commission can give only a “courtesy review” of the project. Nevertheless, the group’s judgment carries weight, and its recommendation is conditional on DAE’s returning with more detailed plans and drawings in October and also adhering to certain specific design changes the commission recommended.

DAE must also secure a “certificate of appropriateness” from the Planning Board before proceeding to the next level of legal sanctions needed to undertake the work.

Because the Loew’s Jersey City is listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, is being nominated to the National Register, and is city owned, DAE must satisfy design standards set by the U.S. Interior Department, said Dan Wrieden, the city’s Historic Preservation Officer. Final approvals can be granted by only the National Park Service (a division of the Interior Department) and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office for National and State Register listed properties.  The Loew’s will need approval by both agencies.

Both Martinez and Regan acknowledged their client was obligated to meet all standards — not only to deliver a remodeled building that honors its rich legacy from 1929 but also to qualify for federal and state historic preservation tax credits. Indeed, Regan noted, without qualifying for these credits, “this project won’t happen.”

As noted by JCHPC staff, DAE intends to “return [the theater structure] to its former glory with the repair, restoration, and reconstruction … of important character-defining features, finishes, and fixtures based on sight and photographic evidence as well as [on] thorough and professional research of other ‘wonder theatres’ of the period, while introducing modern conveniences and systems.”

Martinez outlined a multitude of changes DAE is reviewing for the property. For the exterior, Martinez said DAE is considering inserting digital posterboxes for the front entrance, replacing the existing sidewalk with a grey pigmented one, installing three will-call ticket windows next to the main entrance, creating a new lobby annex along the current alleyway to ease the flow of patrons and to access a new elevator to upper floors, and installing loading bays to make it easier to transport equipment to the stage, among other things.

There are two alternative proposals for loading bays: one would involve building an extension on part of what is now Square Ramp Garage behind the Loew’s that would have three loading bays; the other would cut two new bays into the existing side stage wall at the foot of Magnolia Avenue.  The latter option would require rerouting of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at certain times.

For the interior, Martinez said DAE may put in a permanent concession stand and bar inside the front entrance where the existing concession counter now stands, as well as smaller, moveable concessions on upper levels; renovate the men’s and women’s bathrooms; re-rake orchestra-level seating to create flat multiple fifteen foot wide “plateaus” and replace all of the historic fixed first floor seating with portable chairs to allow standing room only shows as well as banquettes; eliminate the auditorium’s center aisle on the first floor; add acoustic panels in the balcony to improve sound quality; and install security devices at all entrance doors, in addition to making other changes.

Even though all the preservation commissioners voted to approve the project at this stage, some were highly critical.

Commissioners Austin Sakong, Stephen Gucciardo, and Paul Amatuzzo expressed concerns about “gaps” in how the plan would evolve. And Commissioner Robert Gordon called the application, as now framed, “half-baked.”

Gucciardo said that while he wanted “to see the theater brought back to life, I’m not sure what I’m voting on now … There’s a lot of potential for big changes, and there’s not a lot of detail for me to feel confidence in moving forward.” He asked for more clarification on any new roof infrastructure, the front entrance sidewalk, a digital marquee, and modular auditorium flooring.

Amatuzzo fretted that certain types of furniture and light fixtures might be lost or discarded during demolition. “The devil’s in the details, and we haven’t gotten the details at all,” he said. “So, how do you move this forward without that information?”

Responding to the concerns, JCHPC’s senior historian, Maggie O’Neill, said that staff was “well aware of the lack of [full] information from the lessee, but we are happy with the scope and focus of the project [to date].” And Wrieden, who questioned a proposed removal of the lobby’s terrazzo floor, nevertheless, reminded the commissioners that “this is still very early in the [review] process” and that they’d have the opportunity to learn more when DAE returns in October with new information.

O’Neill, Wrieden and several commissioners also noted that they felt comfortable making a conditional recommendation at this time because they realized that the proposal for the Loew’s would also have to be reviewed by the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office and National Parks Service, and that both would require full plans before even considering the project.

The JCHPC staff also made a number of specific recommendations to change the plans to meet historic preservation requirements.  These included language to ensure important artifacts would not be disposed of, and modern-style recessed downlighting not be installed.

Colin Egan, Director of FOL, said that the group is working closely with DAE and the city to chart a good future for the historic theatre. But Egan did acknowledge that his group is in general agreement with the concerns and the comments expressed by the JCHPC staff. For instance, FOL was not in agreement with the reconfiguring of the ladies room suite on the second floor and disagreed with the plan to bolt a large screen LCD monitor to one of the historic walls in the lobby and to eliminate the auditorium’s center aisle.

Said Egan, “We think the experience of walking down the center aisle towards the ornate proscenium, the stage and movie screen is one of the defining experiences of coming to Loew’s.” Egan also expressed the hope that the original wooden restored armrests can be fitted to the new seating. Egan did assure the Commission that he was confident DAE and its architects would continue working with FOL to find architectural solutions that would overcome all of the concerns.

FOL led the effort to save the building from demolition and since 1995 has been working to restore and later operate the theater.

According to Egan, FOL will continue to be responsible for providing affordable and non-profit programming and activities in the Loew’s and will remain the stewards of the theater’s history and preservation.