The Jersey City Council approved a 30-year tax abatement for a senior housing building at 259 Van Nostrand Ave. after some heated exchanges with Hudson County Commissioner Bill O’Dea (D-2) at last night’s meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
O’Dea, also a candidate for mayor, grilled them on the details, showing frustration when he couldn’t get a direct answer on whether or not it was a 30-year abatement.
“Brittany?” Council President Joyce Watterman asked.
“I would defer to the attorneys here,” Acting Corporation Counsel Brittany Murray said.
“I would think the government folks would know the answer, right councilwoman? Not the attorney for the developer,” O’Dea asked.
“Otherwise, you would be simply deferring to the developer’s attorney to tell you what they’re doing as opposed to internally reviewing it.”
Watterman acknowledged that he was right.
Assistant Corporation Counsel John McKinney said the abatement is necessary for rehabilitation work being done at the property, as well as that the tax rate for the abatement is two percent.
“Two percent of project cost as opposed to a percentage of rental income?” O’Dea asked.
McKinney said it was in the ordinance but O’Dea said he didn’t have a copy and McKinney eventually said the payment rate is 11 percent.
“So, it’s 11 percent of your gross rentals or your rentals. What was the abatement on the prior?” O’Dea asked, to which McKinney didn’t have a clear answer.
“Did you increase the percentage from where the prior PILOT was? How much rehabilitation work is going to be done on the building? What is the project cost?” O’Dea pressed.
“We should table this because they can’t answer and this is their time to answer. He has a valid point,” Watterman, who is also running for mayor, stated.
O’Dea still wanted to know how much it would cost to fix it, noting senior affordable housing preservation was a good idea.
Shortly thereafter, City Clerk Sean Gallagher said that O’Dea’s time was up.
“As an elected official who represents this area, I would ask to be extended a courtesy,” O’Dea began before Watterman jumped in.
“…We’ll table the ordinance since these questions haven’t been answered,” Watterman said to applause. “I know some on the Council have the same concerns.”
Attorney Tom Leane spoke on behalf of the developer, The Alpert Group.
“This is a continued commitment to provide 100 percent affordable housing for 67 senior units, all making less than 60 percent of AMI (Average Median Income),” he argued.
Leane claimed about $25 million is going to be spent on the rehab, arguing it was vital for the abatement to be adopted to move forward with the repairs.
Ward A Councilwoman Denise Ridley argued the answers were in the ordinance.
“We have to make sure we’re prepared to answer those questions. The questions brought up were good questions,” she said, also noting that existing senior tenants would stay in their homes.
“I was surprised to see some of the repairs that needed to be done … I think it’s important that we move this forward.”
Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore agreed that the issues were spelled out clearly in the ordinance and said he would still prefer to vote on second reading.
“This project was completed in 1995 with low-income tax credits and also a PILOT [payment in lieu of taxes],” Ward D Councilman Yousef Saleh noted.
“…They’re making it ADA (handicap) accessible. I urge the public to read through this. Not all PILOTs are created equal.”
Suddenly, O’Dea shouted out from the back of the room, to the dismay of Gallagher.
“Can it afford to pay 12 percent and not 10 percent?!! O’Dea shouted from the back of the room.
“Bill! Do you do that at Commissioners meetings? I don’t’ know why you’re shouting out. You’re disrupting the meeting! You’re not coming up to the mic. It’s not your time to speak!” Gallagher exclaimed.
O’Dea then rushed to the podium angrily, wanting to know if minority contractors would benefit.
“Did anyone do a review to determine whether 11 percent can be afforded or 12 or 13 percent can be afforded?” he asked.
“Taxes are going up and your budget hasn’t been introduced yet. Those are basic questions! They’re not in any document that has been provided here. You could have answered my questions!” O’Dea shouted.
“The questions you asked were answered!” Gilmore replied.
“Really?!” O’Dea asked.
“You asked additional questions,” Gilmore said.
“I was told it was going to be tabled, so I stopped asking questions!” O’Dea exclaimed before Gallagher had enough.
“You’re listed as a public speaker. You can come up and talk then!” Gallagher declared.
Watterman said that they would move forward with the vote since Ridley had made her case, also telling O’Dea that she would not go to a county meeting and interrupt the proceedings.
Saleh said this is an endeavor to help people in need before voting yes, though it wasn’t long before O’Dea began interjecting again.
“Bill please don’t yell out,” Gilmore stated.
“I can’t believe how disrespectful you’re being Bill. I don’t understand that. You’re an elected official sir! Please have the respect!” Gallagher exclaimed.
“This is pretty embarrassing, right? This is what happens when we don’t answer questions and we really don’t pay attention with what’s going on,” noted Councilman-at-Large Daniel Rivera, one of O’Dea’s running mates.
“I’m not a fan of saying no to the seniors. We were in agreement to vote on this project,” Ridley persisted.
Watterman still defended O’Dea, acknowledging while the whole scenario was a bad look, his questions were legitimate.
“This is an election year, and all this crazy stuff happens in an election. We been working together all this time.”
It passed 8-0-1, with Ward C Councilman Rich Boggiano abstaining.
“I apologize for earlier for being a little bit upset, but I had questions and no one had answers. If you come to our meeting, I’ll answer any question you ever have,” O’Dea said during public comment.
