A Bayonne developer with property at 195 East 22nd St is suing the city for allegedly violating a deal that including building a new pedestrian bridge and road, alleging they are currently owed $1,464,927.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
Four subsidiary companies that own the three lots at 195 East 22nd St. in Bayonne filed a three-count lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court last week alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
According to the suit, the plaintiffs entered into a redevelopment agreement with the City of Bayonne on June 27th, 2016 that indicated they would construct a new traffic signal and other infrastructure improvements at the intersection of Route 440 and East 22nd Street.
“In addition to JDA, after the City entered into the RDA, several other owners, developers, and redevelopers in the Contribution Area proposed and/or developed non-residential projects or enlargements of non-existing non-residential projects, capital improvements, access improvements and/or parking areas,” the court filing contends.
“Thus triggering the City’s obligation to collect funds from such owners, developers, and redevelopers to reimburse Plaintiffs for it’s traffic improvements.”
Back in February 2020, the Bayonne City Council voted 4-1 to give 25-year tax abatements for three projects, two residential and the JDA storage unit referenced in the suit, with a roadway connecting East 23rd and East 24th Streets, as well as a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks on 25th Street.
“These developments will add economic value to our city. Developers will be contributing toward the cost of road and bridge improvements from which our residents will benefit,” Mayor Jimmy Davis told The Jersey Journal at the time, which is referenced in the suit.
JDA agreed in its RDA to pay $115,000 to the City for contributions to off-site traffic improvement, which JDA paid. The plaintiffs allege that, per the plaintiffs’ RDA, the plaintiffs are owed a total of $1,464,927 for traffic improvements, of which the plaintiffs allege JDA owes $163,417.
“In material breach of its obligations under RDA, however, the City failed an[d] refused to take any action to recover the pro rate contributions due to Plaintiffs by these other owners, developers, and redevelopers in the Contribution Area, and/or, like JDA, collected monies but never remitted any payments to Plaintiffs.”
A city spokesman declined to comment, noting it is their policy not to comment on pending litigation.
They should have hired the contractor who did the Connecticut bridge in 48 hours