Jersey City council lifts hospital-use restriction to let medical center sell land; union and residents press for guarantees on affordable housing and jobs

The Jersey City Municipal Council on Wednesday voted 7-2 to adopt Ordinance 25-097, removing a restriction that limited a parcel at the Jersey City Medical Center campus to hospital use and allowing the hospital to sell the land for redevelopment. The vote followed a public hearing that drew labor and resident comment and a city staff explanation of the restriction’s history.

The restriction-removal vote clears the way for the hospital to monetize a portion of its land and use its share of proceeds for capital projects. Nevins McCann, a long-serving member of the Jersey City Medical Center board, told the council the hospital bought the property from the city eight years ago for $24,000,000 and that it will split sale proceeds with the city "50/50." McCann said the hospital needs the funds to build a parking garage and asked the council to approve lifting the restriction so the hospital can "continue to build what is necessary to serve the people."

The vote matters because lifting the restriction makes the parcel legally marketable to private developers. Some residents and labor representatives warned that the developer likely to build on the site — identified in public comment as Kushner Real Estate — is expected to propose mostly market-rate housing and they urged the council to require affordable units and labor commitments.

Why it matters: removal of the hospital-use restriction would increase the parcel’s value and enable a large private redevelopment that could reshape nearby neighborhoods and produce significant one-time revenue for the city. Opponents said the city should use the opportunity to secure long-term public benefits such as affordable housing and living-wage jobs.

Public comment and council debate

Dawn Orozco, political director for 32BJ SEIU, said the land sale “represents a major step forward for a large development on formerly publicly owned land” but argued the sale is “troubling” because it uses public land to fill budget gaps and, as presented, would create mostly market-rate units with “no affordable units and no commitment to creating good jobs.” She urged the council to “vote no or at least table this motion until we have certain assurances.”

Nevins McCann, who identified himself as the city’s representative on the Jersey City Medical Center board, answered that the hospital is not the developer and that the hospital acquired the property from the city and state to develop its campus. “We bought this property 8 years ago from the city for $24,000,000… We are taking our 50% and building a garage,” McCann said, and he repeatedly emphasized, “We are the hospital. We are for the people. We are for the community.” He offered to convene meetings between the hospital, labor representatives and any future developer.

Council members pressed staff and legal counsel on what the ordinance does and does not authorize. City staff and the hospital’s representatives clarified that the ordinance before the council removes the hospital-use restriction and does not itself approve any redevelopment plan or identify the future buyer. City staff said that redevelopment plans and any developer commitments (for example, on affordable housing or hiring) would be matters for the planning board or separate approvals.

Council vote and follow up

The ordinance closing the restriction was adopted 7-2, with Councilpersons Solomon and Gilmore voting no. Several council members said they will push to amend the Grand Jersey redevelopment plan and work with the planning board to pursue affordability and labor commitments. Councilmember Dejise said he would vote yes "with the commitment for the city to redo or, amend the Grand Jersey redevelopment plan to make sure that there is affordability despite there being no IZO and to make sure that the union has representation there." Council president Waterman summarized the action as “removing the restriction so the hospital can build out” and said the council will pursue planning changes to address affordable housing concerns.

What the ordinance does not do

The vote did not approve any sale price beyond the hospital’s description, did not bind a future private developer to labor or affordability commitments, and did not itself amend the redevelopment plan. City staff and legal counsel said the planning board — and future plan amendments — are the appropriate venues to require specific developer commitments. Council members asked staff to return with options to amend the redevelopment plan and to coordinate with the planning board and labor.

Next steps

Council members committed on the record to pursue amendments to the Grand Jersey redevelopment plan and to work with labor and the planning board on affordability and job-creation terms when a developer submits plans. The hospital said it would facilitate meetings between labor and any future developer but repeatedly stated that the hospital itself is not the developer and cannot unilaterally make developer commitments.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the Sept. 24, 2025 council meeting.