In an editorial, Jersey City resident Ivan Ovalle expresses his opinion regarding the unintended consequences of good intentions for utilizing bird-safe glass in the city.
Advocating for wildlife protection like bird friendly designs in buildings is truly a cause worth fighting for and I have nothing but respect for animal wildlife and environmental advocacy groups.
The bird-safe glass is a good start on how we can help reduce bird collisions in areas of high risk.
The Jersey City Council willingness to amend the ordinance is appreciated by renters like me who depend on making sure we have enough new housing to help keep my costs down.
The council’s willingness to work on this ordinance to make it better sends a good message that it is possible to adopt good policies in a responsible manner.
Requirements that are overly strict and focused on only one issue (bird strikes) can have a negative impact on how housing is built in this city given the increased costs of materials imposed by this ordinance.
When said costs become significant, they incentivize design trade-offs that may not be favorable for tenants, like having smaller or fewer windows since most housing projects rely on a tight budget to remain financially viable.
The results can be having units with less natural light, making them feel less livable or units that are more expensive to make up for the increased construction costs.
Take for example the 3% payroll tax item that I heard the council discuss in their last meeting Council members like Frank Gilmore correctly pointed out how even a small percentage might not sound significant but it can mean a considerable amount of money.
The same thing is true for housing construction as costs add up quickly.
Other cities that have passed similar ordinances have taken a more targeted and practical approach than Jersey City.
They focused on high-risk areas, limited height requirements to 40ft (since most bird collisions occur below that height) and made exemptions for projects with affordable housing. That is smart policymaking.
It is to be reiterated that this is not about opposing bird safety; it is about being effective and smart with how we approach it. We can help save birds successfully while ensuring the scope is appropriately targeted so construction costs remain low.
To give an example, building codes require sprinklers in larger buildings because they save lives in the event of fire; these regulations reduce harm and save lives for a reasonable cost.
But we don’t require sprinkler systems in all newly built buildings. Many single-family homes, townhomes, and low-rise apartment buildings don’t have sprinkler systems at all because the costs outweigh the benefits.
We scope our regulations based on costs versus benefits. At the same time, we instituted requirements for two staircases in mid-rise apartment buildings for the same reason — fire safety.
While well-intentioned, those regulations made urban construction more expensive without improving fire safety compared to other measures.
That added cost has outweighed the benefits so much so that Congress recently passed legislation authorizing HUD to issue new guidelines on single-stair buildings greater than three stories in height.
And when we do know of policies that will save lives – human lives – we drag our feet.
While it doesn’t make sense to have the same 15 mph speed limit on the Turnpike as on a school street or in dense commercial areas where pedestrians regularly cross, we can make targeted improvements to street safety.
At the last council meeting, I heard from frustrated bike advocates at the council meeting fighting for Franklin Street.
It perplexes me that we will rush through a citywide, one-size-fits-all change on bird glass with no study but we will spend years agonizing over whether we should make ONE street change to help keep the residents who live here safe on a street that is home to a public school.
While I want to thank the council again for making amendments and for recognizing the potential increase in costs, all the impacts on affordable housing haven’t been studied yet.
Affordability has been a big priority for Mayor Solomon and without thoughtful amendments, this ordinance risks making housing more expensive and less livable by making it harder to build.
We can protect birds while also ensuring affordability for the residents by adjusting this ordinance to better account for risks and costs.
Ah yes, so persuasive, arguing that laws that a MAGA Congress passed are supposed to do anything other than line the pockets of billionaires. It’s too funny, these better blocks losers just love the taste of bootsoles and are willing to try to lie and peddle their nonsense as if they give a crap about actual working people.
Lorraine Freeney es una Karen de remate y se atreve a criticar a la clase trabajadora por preocuparse por la renta. Trágala perra.
Solomon cant even get snow off the street and he wasting time on birds? I got two birds for him.
Ivan, do the math before you open your mouth. Calculate number of migrating birds (pigeons are minuscule minority). Spring going North only, at first. Then, estimate percentage of these and calculate absolute number. Then, estimate average size of these birds. Then multiply in cubic feet. Then, divide by about 6 weeks of migration run. This should give you idea of dead birds daily dropping on our heads.
Where are these snow plows removing dead birds from Kennedy Blvd?
And that is spring run.
Ivan, while you may have a point, still go pound the sand.