[deleted] t1_j7cuiwa wrote
It's nice to finally see this subreddit come together behind one of the biggest issues facing the city. the building or not building of a glass inanimate object... the passion. the fire. wow. this is one of the most pressing matters of the decade.
felsonj OP t1_j7cy6l7 wrote
The YIMBY cause is much bigger than one building. It's about removing barriers to new housing. There's a principle at stake here. For more on this, note Matt Yglesias' work, in particular his book, The Rent is Too Damn High.
To her credit, Gov. Hochul of New York has recognized the problem and pushed for change. I wish Gov. Murphy would do the same. Outside of JC and a few other places, NJ is just as problematic as NY.
recnilcram t1_j7dmdyv wrote
What Hochul is doing, requiring all NY municipalities to provide for affordable housing, is something that has been in the NJ State constitution for decades (See Mt. Laurel case from ~1973). The only part of the policy that goes further in NY is a proposal to supersede local zoning and permit accessory dwelling units in all single-family zoning districts.
Of course, NJ's process is highly convoluted and messy, as the courts took over enforcement jurisdiction in 2015 from the Council on Affordable Housing, deciding that COAH and its methodology was defunct. Now affordable housing obligations are mostly enforced through litigation.
Jersey City was actually late to adopting this "round" (i.e. 2015-2025) of affordable housing mechanisms, only adopting its ordinances last summer. Given that it is by some metrics the most expensive city to rent in in the country, I wouldn't cite them as an exemplar.
recnilcram t1_j7dmq2t wrote
Also hello upstairs neighbor š
felsonj OP t1_j7e10ev wrote
Hello, I thought Hochul was advocating for more than this, such as lifting FAR caps and changing rules to encourage office to residential conversions. Regarding Jersey City, my understanding was that Fulop has made it much easier to build in JC. Yes prices have increased but likely would have increased that much more without all the development. Also I think itās as much about increasing utility as reducing prices. More development has meant more people get to enjoy downtown JC.
I say this as someone who was basically priced out of much of downtown JC.
If I was priced out of downtown Newark after the place exploded with development and became that much more desirable, I would still be happy with the outcome.
recnilcram t1_j7e670d wrote
Interesting about Hochul, I'll need to read up more. A similar law died in committee in NJ that would allow 50%+vacant office and commercial complexes to be converted to multifamily. Nevertheless, NY is decades late to the party.
I'm certainly a fan of Fulop and he's done great work over there. My understanding is that much of the development has been via redevelopment (i.e. through the Local Housing and Redevelopment Law), which is a distinct statute from the Municipal Land Use Law that typical zoning operates under. The redevelopment law gives the City much more power over what is developed in areas deemed "in need of redevelopment," and can include an affordable-housing set-aside.
That said, JC was late to the main component through which all NJ towns require affordable housing: adopting a city-wide set-aside ordinance where any new development with 5+ residential units must set aside a portion as deed-restricted affordable (often 15% or 20%). I was at an industry event 2 summers ago, and the hosts work closely with Elliot Spitzer (infamous former NYC mayor and real estate developer). He gave the key-note address and explicitly said he prefers working in JC over NYC because JC doesn't require him to allocate for affordable housing.
Regarding the pricing, it's an imperfect indicator that shows both good and bad outcomes. The blend of pandemic migrations, changing preferences, taxes and fees, construction costs, and the intended market for the housing stock all have an effect, among many other things.
NeoLephty t1_j7d1nyn wrote
Building more market rate housing with only the bare minimum allocated to affordable housing is not going to solve the housing issue in Newark. Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again - there is already more empty housing than homelessness in Newark (and every other city/town/county/state in this country) and the residential buildings that have been going up over the last 15 years hasnāt done anything but cause average rent prices in Newark to skyrocket.
This doesnāt help the community. This helps the developer make more money. Thatās all.
Nathanial_Jones t1_j7f1wiz wrote
Bare minimum is still nearly 70 new units of affordable housing. And while they could still be more affordable, it's still something.
The issue is that prices everywhere have skyrocketed over the past 15 years. But NYC has not kept up its housing supply, and so its unfilled demand is overflowing into JC and then into here. That doesn't have to be a bad thing either, walking through the city past by the empty lots and boarded-up buildings it's obvious it's still not nearly full. There's plenty of room for old and new Newarker's to live here.
Think you might also enjoy this video on vacancies in the U.S: https://youtu.be/3xZXdXxYBGU
NeoLephty t1_j7g4llm wrote
Did you know that NYC also has more empty housing than homelessness? Did you know that the majority of high end housing in NYC at the top of skyscrapers are empty and still on the market?
Almost like continuing to develop new rentals for the sole purpose of making more money for the developer isnāt actually a solution to anything the city needs.
Also - none of the affordable units that will be going to are 2 bedrooms. Families donāt need affordable housing? The developer included the absolute minimum affordable housing because this project isnāt designed to help Newark - itās designed to turn a profit as quickly as possible. Iām not mad at the developer for this - it isnāt their job to use their money to fix Newarks problems. But weāre talking about the city government approval boards here. And as a city government, this isnāt where we need to focus our energy.
ESPECIALLY if there is ANY kind of tax incentive. We need to stop leveraging our education fund in Newark for the sake of more developments. (Education being funded with property taxes).
Nathanial_Jones t1_j7g6t2t wrote
>Did you know that NYC also has more empty housing than homelessness? Most vacancies are not just empty, ready to move in apartments, that aren't on the market.
>none of the affordable units that will be going to are 2 bedrooms. Families donāt need affordable housing?
I agree, that's not ideal. But imo there's value in not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
>Almost like continuing to develop new rentals for the sole purpose of making more money for the developer
The result is not just the developer making money. It's also providing a place to live for over 500 people. Unfortunately, very little happens in the world without a company making money along the way.
>And as a city government, this isnāt where we need to focus our energy.
You seem really passionate about this subject, genuinely curious, in your opinikn where should the city government focus its energy?
NeoLephty t1_j7g99d8 wrote
I think the city has spent too much time trying to change the demographics within the city by building new housing and getting large companies to move 2 towns over for a huge tax break. None of this actually helps Newark residents since those tax breaks come at the expense of our ability to pay for public education and those companies are bringing their workforce with them.
​
Investing in the people currently in the city is how I think that they should spend their energy. What doe this mean... Firstly, a housing first agenda. There is zero reason we should have homeless people when we have the ability to solve the problem morally. There are solutions to "solve" the homeless "problem" by just moving homeless people out of the city. This is morally wrong and doesn't solve the problem. Give them homes, no questions asked.
​
Second is to increase social services for everyone in the city. This includes people in the housing first program as just getting housing isn't the end solution for the problems some people face. Drug addiction, PTSD and other mental health issues, lack of training, etc. These are all problems the city can solve while transforming the once homeless population into members of the workforce.
​
Thirdly, reinvestment in education. A lot of buildings have tax abatements which eats directly into our education funds. I know teachers/principals from multiple places in the state and can confidently say the problems Newark teachers face in the classroom can be resolved with simple things like free school lunches, after school programs, and mental health services in school.
​
I won't keep going but there is a lot more. Electrifying and sprucing up our public transportation, creating more green spaces like parks, adding tree cover to our city streets so they're more walkable, transforming driving streets into walking only sections (like Ferry St. or Halsey St.), or even opening up community gardens so we have fresh fruit and vegetables available in grocery stores all over the city and not just at Whole Foods... There is A LOT that can be done that doesn't involve building another residential tower to bring in more people from outside of Newark. That's just an attempt to "solve" the problem by displacing the current residents (pricing them out). It is the same effect as moving the homeless population out of your city to say you solved the problem.
Nathanial_Jones t1_j7gmqia wrote
You know I think we actually see eye to eye on most things, I basically agree 100% with all your proposals here. Housing first is the only way we're going to solve the homelessness problem, and while it's the official stance of the administration, it feels like progress is painfully slow. And seriously, hmu if you ever start a petition or something for turning ferry into a pedestrian only, that'd be the dream.
Unfortunately though, most projects require significant amounts of money, money that Newark scarcely has. Looking at schools for example, something like 80-90% of the funding comes not from Newark's property taxes, but from state and federal funding. Beyond fighting for more support from the state and federal government (which we should continue to do), that leaves the other group who controls massive amounts of capital: big businesses, as well as the more affluent crowd that will live in many of the new apartments. Big transformations will require large amounts of money. The best way forward is harnessing the resources of those forces, and using it to improve the city as much as possible, while making sure current residents get to enjoy the benefits without getting displaced. Imo better to focus on further tenant protections and getting close to real affordable housing for all than cutting off the big spigot of private capital.
Newarkguy1836 t1_j7hbeva wrote
Developers have to lobby lending institutions. They're the ones who set the rules on what theyll lend & what rates of repayment. You need profit to repay the banks & have money to pay themselves & all parties involved. If the math doesn't work out & leads to break even or red, it ain't happening.
That's why it was infuriating when I read some commie Newark official tell Newark developers seeking to save the Riviera Hotel "We don't go by math & e economics alone. People need to live there". As if Newark is supposed to be a 24sq mi. Welfare hotel!
NeoLephty t1_j7hcpp2 wrote
This is an asinine comment. Helping the current residents of the city doesnāt make Newark a ā24sq mile welfare hotelāā¦ whatever that means.
You should read a bit about how investments into communities have guaranteed economic returns. Make cities more walkable? More commerce emerges. Make transportation better and free? More people freely move about to commercial centers without clogging streets with cars and traffic. Provide housing and social services? More people have the capacity for work, paying taxes, buying products and housing, having children, getting educated, and leaving our streets safer and cleaner.
Itās all basically guaranteed based on multiple historical reference points from multiple parts of not just this country, but the world. Itās not even up for debate.
Or we can keep building residential towers like New York City and MAYBE weāll have some huge companies headquartered here and the employees of those companies might drop a couple of pennyās on our homeless as they step over them on their commute home. Again, historical evidence everywhere.
If you REALLY want the city to succeed, you should want the city government to be the backbone helping the PEOPLE of the city MAKE it succeed.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments