Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ilanaspax t1_iwonrq2 wrote

>Neither building would set aside affordable housing units

17

STMIHA t1_iwop41n wrote

That’s because it’s not mandatory to get the zoning they needed. If we want to see change it needs to be done through local policy. Echo the sentiment to the council.

24

Ilanaspax t1_iwopv9b wrote

Oh wow I didn't realize city council wasn't aware lack of affordable housing is a big problem in Jersey City. Do you have a phone number I can call to let them know?? Or should I call Fulop first? We gotta get the word out!

−4

STMIHA t1_iwoqibq wrote

You can be as sarcastic as you want, that’s still not gonna change anything. We both want the same thing here. Fuck me for just pointing out the obvious.

13

Ilanaspax t1_iwovymv wrote

It’s cute that you think the lack of affordable housing is just an overlooked issue and not a result of our local government and greedy developers working hand in hand to price out residents. Let me know how complaining to city council goes - it’s working great so far.

−9

bobomerk99 t1_iwpr2vh wrote

Why not have the city build government housing that's affordable??

2

moobycow t1_iwpso2n wrote

Because it costs a fuckton of money and no one is voting to raise their taxes for it?

6

bobomerk99 t1_iwqgol6 wrote

So who's being asked to pay for it?

1

moobycow t1_iwqpkgk wrote

Now? Developers. What we do is add more units to the building so the increased density can pay for the below market units.

1

bobomerk99 t1_iwrbd0e wrote

Ah, it seems like everyone always complains about more density though lol. Also heard they get tax incentives for building affordable units which people also complain about so it's confusing... What do ppl want lol

0

moobycow t1_iwrp92n wrote

They want someone to build houses for free in some neighborhood that is not theirs. And, also, lots of parking but no traffic.

2

GeorgeWBush2016 t1_iwq1t5k wrote

the city does provide subordinate financing to make affordable projects feasible

1

GoHuskies1984 t1_iwqmyaw wrote

That will require voters to vote in a new council that supports subsidizing affordable development. That also very likely means another tax hike to pay for this.

1

moobycow t1_iwpsktl wrote

The council barely got through the last affordable housing proposal in the face of enormous opposition, not from developers, but from homeowners. Turns out the best affordable housing is the affordable housing in someone else's neighborhood and most people do not it want near them because to make the numbers work it means increased density/numbers of units and people flip the fuck out about parking, or height or whatever.

13

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_iwoq2di wrote

They know. They've put a lot effort into trying to keep it away from happening near the wealthy.

8

Positive_Debate7048 t1_iwpq2mj wrote

Set offs for affordable housing have failed miserably in nyc. It’s how you end up getting funds for public housing diverted for Hudson yards.

8

jcdevel t1_iwx0ryg wrote

What's the point of making affordable when we have school board that is soon going to make it unaffordable anyway.

1

Jazzlike_Drawer7174 t1_iwp49bx wrote

PS 16 can’t absorb those 2 buildings.

10

cC2Panda t1_iwq3bvg wrote

I see so few children that are school age in Paulus Hook aside from people coming into St Peter's. I think it's mandatory in Paulus Hook to move to the suburbs the moment your first child hits the age of 5.

8

kevstev t1_iwv90m2 wrote

I lived in PH for about a decade. The playbook was move to JC, get a dog, get married, move out to the burbs. 80% of the people that move there are there for 1-3 years, with another 10% staying for 5 if they buy a condo.

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iwpejit wrote

People talk about affordable housing but have no problem with the BOE raising property taxes. How rich…

10

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iwolzf2 wrote

GREAT!!! We need more housing

8

Jahooodie t1_iwpymcn wrote

Calling it blind, these are $6k month rental only 2 bedrooms.

6

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iwpytgr wrote

No way they're going to be 2 bedrooms. Developers haven't heard about work from home, or home offices yet. Definitely will be 1 bedroom and 0 bedroom units.

3

Jahooodie t1_iwpyz4g wrote

$5k 1br micro units, but with COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

6

BeMadTV t1_iwpe51v wrote

I wish we would start building fun things.

5

[deleted] t1_iwpt60k wrote

Can't wait for this to lower everybody's rent.

5

orb_king t1_iwpxbur wrote

BUt mUh sUpPLy aNd DeMaNd!

1

ABrusca1105 t1_iwq5gyy wrote

Well, yes. Prices would be rising EVEN FASTER as the data has shown time and time again. The problem is the proximity to New York and the fact they are failing to do the same. New York isn't building housing, so JC had to pick up the slack for both NYC AND NJ.

12

thebruns t1_iwtnv9s wrote

Why has JC, which has built so much, seen prices increase so much faster than the Bronx, which last I checked, is not just proximate to NYC, but fucking part of it?

0

FloatingWeight t1_iwvo5ru wrote

Jersey City is a lot closer to the desirable parts of NYC aka lower manhattan, also safer and cleaner.

4

Ilanaspax t1_iwqa41z wrote

Okay grandpa time to get you to bed

−4

moobycow t1_iwqau11 wrote

I would love someone to explain to me the mechanism by which having less houses makes them more affordable, other than, maybe, if you make a place shitty enough no one wants to live there.

8

orb_king t1_iwsfrkg wrote

Lack of housing is not the problem. Lack of affordable housing is the problem. All these towers use the same one or two companies to determine what rents should be…and guess which direction those algorithms all point to, over and over? They are literally colluding on prices, adding more units won’t lower the price. That market can stay irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent, as the saying goes. (For the curious, this is a good place to begin understanding how bad this problem is: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-rent-is-so-high )

−2

Ilanaspax t1_iwqcb6e wrote

I know it’s hard to imagine - but plenty of people lived here before Fulop sold out the town to developers and were totally fine with not having a sweet green and a bunch of shitty restaurants on Newark Ave in exchange for affordable rent.

They made a MAKE IT YOURS JC campaign and then it’s shocked pikachu face when the entire city gets steamrolled by development. The goal was always high rents and pricing long time residents out. That’s why it’s so funny to see the rubes on here pretending more luxury housing is the solution instead of the cause. You have to be incredibly naive or a real estate shill to think more luxury housing is going to make anything more affordable when they all work together to artificially inflate rents.

−4

moobycow t1_iwqhe6t wrote

If JC didn't build these places, where do you expect the people who now live here would live instead? Development showed up because they were filling up brownstones in Paulus Hook and VVP. I mean look at the prices in The Heights, they haven't built any fancy highrises there.

If the country built enough houses in places people wanted to live we wouldn't have to worry about this crap. In the past, believe it or not, cities had room for both rich people and poor people. Then we passed a bunch of zoning reforms, stopped building and now the cities fill up with rich people and people blame the development. As if the people with $1m homes that used to house factory workers wouldn't be in something else if it existed.

8

Ilanaspax t1_iwr1co6 wrote

Again...if people wanted to live here so badly why would they need to offer abatements and make an entire campaign to encourage development 10 - 15 years ago? This was all planned.

0

down_up__left_right t1_iwqld58 wrote

The problem here is that you think new construction is the reason people have and are still moving to Jersey City.

The real reason most people have and are still moving to Jersey City is because it’s right next to one of the biggest job centers in the entire country.

People would have come and will still come even if the housing stock is not increased.

Turning a parking lot into hundreds of homes means hundreds of people not trying to rent or buy existing homes.

4

Ilanaspax t1_iwr1qt4 wrote

Wow so I guess we didn't need those tax abatements handed out like candy back in the day to encourage development then if Jersey City was so enticing on its own?

1

moobycow t1_iwr4kvj wrote

Probably not, but then the prices of the existing stock would have had to gone up more before the projects penciled out.

1

FloatingWeight t1_iwvpjip wrote

Didn’t see prices drop when everyone left NY during Covid ? 💀

0

Hopai79 t1_iwq91k8 wrote

There goes my nice walk to the ferry. Will just go around GS then.

2

fatporkchop2712 t1_iwq3g6l wrote

Let's build more highrise buildings and get rid of all parking lots. It's gonna solve the parking and traffic congestion in Jersey City

1

jasonleeobrien t1_iwp5rex wrote

LUXURY HOUSING

−2

Jahooodie t1_iwpye5p wrote

It's 2024. The Goldman interns breath deeply in their new apartments, inhaling the smugness of 'saving so much by living in New Jersey'. The faucet leaks. The closet is not level. Expensive marble rises on all flat surfaces like the sea in climate change. They pull up r/jerseycity.

"HEY GUYS WHERE ARE THE TACOS, ALSO WHATS THAT BANGING NOISE HOW DARE THEY BUILD A NEW TOWER, ALSO WHERE CAN I FIND PARKIN....."

The circle completes itself and begins anew. LUXURY

11