The Jersey City Council approved a $26.75 million land deal with the local medical center despite protests from 32BJ SEIU at last night’s meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
During public comment, 32BJ SEIU Political Director Adrian Orozco asserted that the city should receive more concessions from the developer, Kushner Real Estate Group, who will build a mixed-used development on the site.
He added that the union believes this will be a non-labor job that also does not include affordable housing.
“The city’s choice to sell this land is troubled … This land will be used to generate huge profits for luxury developers … This has been the pattern in Jersey City for way too long, and it needs to stop.”
He called it fiscally irresponsible to fill a budget gap with a one-time land sale, claiming that land deals in Hoboken have more benefits like affordable housing and public amenities.
He said in Hoboken better deals for public land are made with more benefits like affordable housing units and facilities the public can use.
“We need a council that will vote this down … We are sick and tired of you serving the interests of developers over the rest of us!” exclaimed activist Edward Perkins.
Nevins McCann, a partner and co-chair of Connell Foley’s real estate and land us division, noted he is the city’s representative on the Jersey City Medical Center board.
While he said he understood the union’s concerns, the plan has been in the works for decades and the developer could be required to give more concessions during the planning board process.
He added that he previously committed to arranging meetings for 32BJ.
“Can we put in language in this second reading … that would be a commitment to the union?” asked Councilwoman-at-Large Amy DeGise.
“This ordinance is just removing the restriction … The redevelopment is not part of this ordinance,” replied Acting Corporation Counsel Brittany Murray.
“Is this property a definite guarantee that it would go to Kushner?” Ward C Councilman Rich Boggiano asked, but he did not receive an answer before Council President Joyce Watterman asked about removing the restriction means.
Assistant Business Administrator Peter Horton says this would remove restrictions on who the medical center sells the land to.
McCann added that the city worked with the State and the hospital to acquire land that was restricted for medical use.
“Public comment is closed!” Orozco exclaimed from the audience, to which Watterman said the council asked for clarification. McCann reiterated that the land is supposed to be used exclusively for hospital use.
“At some point this land was owned by the city? Or the city sold the land?” Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore questioned.
“We bought this piece of property from the city, which got it from the state,” McCann noted, also indicating that the city would then get half the money from the sale of the land.
Gilmore questioned the zoning of the land, to which Planning Director Tanya Marione said it was zoned for a high-rise building.
“It does not trigger the IZO [Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance],” she added.
“I do not know if the developer will come before the council, they may come before the Planning Board,” Ward E Councilman James Solomon noted regarding imposed restrictions on a potential deal.
“Is there any real room for the council to get in the middle of this and meet some of the demands of the union?” Ward A Councilwoman Denise Ridley asked.
“Is it that difficult to put a clause in there?” Watterman asked.
Murray again said that was not related to the ordinance, to which DeGise said she would like to see an affordable housing provision added.
“I don’t think it’s an appropriate avenue to do that,” Murray stated.
“There is no avenue at this point,” Ridley said.
DeGise then asked if there were any amendments they could add to the redevelopment plan at this time. Murray replied that the council could have a discussion with the planning board about that.
To that end, Watterman told Marione to expect such a proposal soon.
“This is a tough one, I commit to working with you on that and looping in the union on that conversation … I will vote aye,” Ridley declared.
“I’ll go with it as long as there is amendment changes,” Boggiano added.
Solomon reiterated his points from first reading, that this is using money from a land sale to plug a one-time budget hole – something he has vowed not to do if elected mayor. He voted against the proposal, also citing affordable housing concerns.
“I understand the financial challenges … They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place … There is no real mechanism to ensure that is included in this plan,” Gilmore stated before voting no.
DeGise said the city is committed to addressing affordable housing in the upcoming development, where they will work with the union to address concerns, before voting yes.
“I suggest you guys go to the planning board and voice concerns,” began Councilman-at-Large Daniel Rivera said, noting that patients are waiting “for hours and hours” since the hospital’s emergency room has shrunken in capacity.
“That’s not servicing the people of Jersey City! The hospital is committing to building an ER. I will always be on the side of that!”
“We don’t always want to go to taxpayers to fill the budget. We was trying not to do that,” Watterman noted before voting yes.
The Jersey City Council approved the measure on second reading 7-2, with Solomon and Gilmore voting no.
I don’t understand how building so many luxury homes helps everybody. I see so many people struggling more than ever. Even more than they did during COVID. And, I don’t understand how converting churches into condos is right either. It seems like every deal is being made in favor of the rich and making land developers richer. I see heavier taxes on landlords and business owners. I see people moving out or being pushed out. I see people not able to afford their groceries, choosing which bills to pay first, rent overdue. I see an influx of foreigners that are not natural residents of the area. So, what happens to the people of Jersey City? Are they not included in these grand plans for opulence? French museums, French schools, Korean and Japanese restaurants… are you guys trying to replace the demographic in the area? Pricing them out?