Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces 30-year tax-exemption for 701 Newark Ave amid debate over developer breaks
Summary
City council members introduced a 30-year tax-exemption ordinance for a proposed Journal Square project at 701 Newark Avenue but several members voiced concern about the size of the abatement and whether the city is receiving adequate public benefit.
The Jersey City Municipal Council introduced an ordinance (item 3.4) on April 9 to grant a 30-year tax exemption under the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Act for a development at 701 Newark Avenue. The ordinance was introduced after a first-reading vote; introduction results were recorded as 6-1-1 (six in favor, one no, one abstention) with Councilperson Gilmore voting no and Councilperson Baggiano abstaining.
Several council members said at the caucus and during the introduction that they support union jobs and affordable housing but are concerned that the city may be giving away too much in tax breaks for a site they said was formerly city-owned. Speakers questioned whether the developer could complete the project without a long-term abatement and asked for more financial documentation. One councilperson said the area (Journal Square) already has strong market incentives to build and that tax breaks should be limited there.
City staff and a council finance official said the project would increase the affordable set-aside from 20% to 25% but that the abatement would extend the pilot period to 30 years; council members asked for the parcel purchase price and staff said the sale price was approximately $6,800,000. Other questions raised included prior terms of sale and whether union labor requirements are already part of earlier agreements with the project.
Because this was a first-reading introduction, council members noted additional materials requested from the petitioner and staff could be submitted before final consideration. The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; the item was advanced for later consideration with introduction recorded 6-1-1.
Ending: Councilmembers asked staff and the petitioner for additional financial documentation and clarifications before second reading; the council’s minutes record the introduction vote and the outstanding requests for materials.
