Author Topic: Redevelopment Projects  (Read 7251 times)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Redevelopment Projects
« on: May 11, 2007, 09:58:16 AM »
From today's Record:

HACKENSACK -- More areas in the city are being targeted to be redeveloped.

The City Council has hired three planners to conduct studies on sections of the city and determine whether they should be declared areas in need of redevelopment. The city will spend more than $57,000 to hire the firms, City Attorney Joseph Zisa said.

Alaimo Group Consulting Engineers will be paid $25,000 to prepare a report centering on Green, Essex and South Newman streets.

Birdsall Engineering Inc. will earn $12,500 to evaluate Main Street near Banta Place, State Street and Salem Street.

Remington & Vernick Engineers will get $19,785 to conduct preliminary studies of properties on Passaic, Anderson, Park and Linden streets, as well as Panborn Place and Maple Avenue.

-- Monsy Alvarado



Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2007, 03:55:54 PM »

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2007, 07:16:01 PM »
This is sad turn of events. 

I have always thought that Tucci needed a little prodding to move ahead with his project. Even if the city made the project an official redevelopment, Tucci himself could have been selected as the developer by the city, to build HIS OWN PROPERTY.  But that way, the city would have been in the drivers seat, and totally in control of what is built, and when it is built.  The city council might not prefer a hotel,  maybe the council would have rather had a mixed use project.  I don’t know.

Peter Tucci  doesn’t like that scenario, he wants to be in control. But as far as I’m concerned, that’s what he gets for sitting on all that land for too long.
The judge’s ruling seems to mean that Tucci can move ahead independently with his hotel project, at his own pace. And that’s the problem. Even if it is approved by a city board, if it was a 100% private sector project, Tucci would have the right to shelve the project and not build it. That’s not acceptable. That property MUST be redeveloped. It looks hideous, it’s the southern gateway to the city, and it’s a waste of potentially needed ratables.

I’m also interested in seeing the area between Tucci’s holding and Moonachie Road to be redeveloped by eminent domain. The city has already outlined an area, without any residential houses, to be redeveloped.  It is along and near Moonachie Road where there are lots of small land holdings and a fragmented land use pattern. This is great case calling for eminent domain, even more so than Tucci’s larger land holding to the south. It would be a shame if the city was prevented from moving forwards on that one. 

That whole strip from the Little Ferry border up to the Record Campus will someday be the next Edgewater. It’ll be a mixed use area of retail strip centers with upscale townhouses and larger residential buildings.  And if the city has to nudge and prod land owners to move ahead, I’ll support that 100%.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2007, 08:47:24 AM »
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 12:38:57 PM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2007, 08:24:36 AM »

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 09:45:59 PM »
What is the deal with the old Alan Party Rental location?  Why has development stopped?

I found out why.  Apparently, there is an EPA issue and the developer is awaiting a certification stating that the property is clean.  The developer is also seeking to go back before the zoning board with a new application to place 32 rental units there instead of the 17 townhomes for which it was approved..  This is a 1 and 2 family neighborhood.  Needless to say, the residents in attendance at that meeting were not happy with that suggestion.  This is an application which should be denied.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 12:41:25 PM by itsme »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2007, 10:13:26 AM »

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2007, 08:14:40 PM »
REDEVELOPMENT must go on, and I encourage the Planning Board and City Council to find other areas of the city that meet the statutory requirements of "urban blight".

If all else fails, there's always Central Ave just east of First Street.  I'll grow old waiting for a city administration to redevelop that block.  Redevelopment for economic reasons will never fly politically there, but that's where the new police station and city hall should go. It's next to the high school, and it's the absolute geographic center of Hackensack. Both are great reasons for a new city complex exactly there.  No judge will stop eminent domain to build a city hall or police station.  Especially one so well situated. Not in a million years.

For some reason, the city is instead focussing on single large-lot projects.  I admire their initiative and their goals for the betterment of the city, but it is time to refocus, guys. Stop messing around with the edges of town, and go for redevelopment where it is most needed.  JUST DO IT.

And why stop with Central Ave. The judges aren't going to stop the redevelopment of the northern block of Fair Street, Meadow Street south of Kansas Street, the vicinity of Hudson and Water Streets, the north side of Lodi Street between Fair Street and South State Street, downtown Anderson Street, the south side of Banta Place, the NW corner of Union & Lawrence, among others.

Wherever there are multiple properties, small lots, mixed land use, and generally downtrodden conditions the city will prevail in any legal challenge against eminent domain. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 09:28:53 PM by Editor »

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Redevelopment Projects
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2007, 11:54:35 AM »
I wonder how the Superior Court judge would react if the city attempted eminent domain for the Tucci property on South River and Hudson Streets for another purpose ? Specifically to build a condo complex with 10% of the units officially to be sold as "affordable housing".  That would pit that State's affordable housing principle's against eminent domain case law.  Wow..... a clash of the Titans !!!

 

anything