[[{“value”:”
People may soon think twice before parking next to a fire hydrant in Jersey City.
A proposed contract would initiate a year-long test run of cameras catching those in the act. Business Administrator John Metro told the City Council at its caucus Monday that the recommendation was spurred by councilmembers’ calls for more effective enforcement of the city’s parking rules.
“Council, we heard your concerns,” said Metro.
At the same meeting, a tax abatement was discussed at length for a new 35-story high rise in Journal Square — what the developer’s attorney described as offering never-before-seen affordable housing options in the city. Councilmembers also addressed newly proposed regulations for the cannabis industry.
The initial focus of the new enforcement cameras would be “certain no-parking zones”, according to the proposed resolution authorizing their installation. Metro is referring to those zones as the city’s “hotspots” — adjacent to fire hydrants, bus stops, crosswalks and loading zones — where violators are commonly seen.
Drivers would have 90 seconds of wiggle room before photo evidence would be captured and possible tickets would be reviewed and later issued in the mail. Councilman Yousef Saleh asked: “Can we submit locations, like Journal Square or Christopher Columbus?”
Metro’s office has similar ideas for spots throughout the city. After the council adjourned, Metro and Assistant Business Administrator Peter Horton highlighted Downtown and Journal Square. “Christopher Columbus,” added Horton.
They noted that loading zones are particularly “problematic” downtown and in the West Side neighborhood.
If given the go-ahead, the cameras, and necessary signage to warn people of the technology, could be in place within a few weeks of the council’s approval and activated soon thereafter, according to Metro and Horton.
The proposed contract caps the amount owed to Municipal Parking Services for the technology at $44,000. The city gives up a percentage of each fine to the company, too.
“How much in fines would this possibly accrue?” asked Saleh.
Metro didn’t immediately have an answer but emphasized afterwards: “This is to improve safety and conditions of roads, adjacent sidewalks, traffic, mobility.”
Jersey City would be following the likes of other municipalities to have brought in similar cameras. Afterward, Metro noted North Arlington as an example. New Jersey is allowed to use technology for certain vehicular enforcement. Unlike neighboring New York, red light cameras are not allowed to be installed. Other states allow speed cameras to be installed.
In other business, a proposed tax abatement for an approved high rise at 701 Newark Ave. is up for introduction as part of an ordinance. Councilman Rich Boggiano and Councilman Frank Gilmore said they were against the proposal.
“Whenever I’m looking at supporting abatements or not, I’m looking at the area,” said Gilmore. “Is it an area that’s really in need of redevelopment? And for me, directly in back of that is 20,000 units going up over there already, so for me, I just can’t support a 30-year abatement for this project given that that area is essentially blossoming in development.”
Fresh off securing approval for a controversial boutique hotel a few blocks down, attorney Chuck Harrington, representing the developer, made his case for the abatement.
Harrington listed the benefits of the already approved project.
“I think we check a lot of boxes here,” he said.
Harrington said the abatement would allow his client to increase the “affordable” unit count from 20% to 25%.
Boggiano said he was concerned for current homeowners.
“The people in Ward C came out at a recent meeting, 150 people of them — the homeowners are being burdened with heavy taxes and we are giving a 30-year tax abatement to developers,” he said.
The councilman questioned whether the rents would actually be affordable. He also noted how “many people” are upset they’re losing the spaces in the parking where the tower is slated to be built.
“Stores are going out of business because there is no parking in the area,” he said. “They’re allowing all these big buildings to go up because someone in the city said, ‘Oh, nobody is going to have a car.’ It’s a disgrace.”
Harrington said the abatement, which is reportedly a requirement of Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency financing, would guarantee the project moves forward.
“We do have the project with 20% and all the union labor, but quite honestly, the numbers are getting tight, and this abatement is something that’s going to push it over the goal line to make it happen,” said Harrington.
The attorney tried to sway the council. He brought up how the units would be for people who earn less than 50% of the average median income – what he believed to be a first-of-its-kind project.
“I don’t think any other project has that,” said Harrington. “ … I don’t think Bayfront has that.”
Harrington said 100% of the construction labor would be union.
“That’s a major component,” he added.
Though only a few councilmembers spoke up, Councilwoman Amy DeGise recently highlighted how union jobs would be a key factor in her decision on another abatement.
At the same meeting, the council also discussed new cannabis industry regulations, which could be introduced as part of a proposed ordinance. A moratorium on new applications is currently in place. These newly proposed rules return to the dais with changes after being tabled several months ago.
The proposed measure would put a cap on Class 5 dispensaries – 48 or what’s eight per ward. However, Acting Corporation Counsel Brittany Murray previously pointed out how close to 70 could be in operation “to start” because of others being proposed before the moratorium was instituted.
Councilman James Solomon was concerned about the process for awarding “cannabis consumption lounge” licenses. None are in operation yet.
He was concerned, he said, about the number that are being built close together than is technically allowed because of “time of application rules.”
“I think there should be a clear date,” said Solomon, requesting “a very clear process with deadlines” to avoid such a situation with the new lounges.
“If we’re going to limit it to one per ward, it should be that you must get your application in by X date, so we have all of them to consider,” he added.
Murray replied: “We’ll make sure it’s clear” by the time the ordinance is up for adoption.
According to the city’s top attorney, other new rules would hit on how:
An applicant must go before the Cannabis Control Board once, not twice, when first seeking to open.
Planning Board approval would not be needed, only an administrative zoning determination letter.
The CCB would have seven members – all of whom would now be required to be residents– as opposed to five.
Murray also said the local licensing requirements would be “enumerated” to ensure a “robust review.”
CCB members “have to go through them and have to check them off and they have to put them in their recommendation to the council, so it’s clear what needs to be included for an application to go before the council,” Murray explained.
Certain rules would remain the same. For instance, surrounding properties would need to be formally notified of a cannabis license application.
The council’s evening meeting also marked the first time Public Safety Director James Shea stood publicly before the council since a majority approved a “vote of no confidence” in him last month, in large part, because of communication challenges.
The director addressed a proposed training contract and a recent incident, taking several questions from councilmembers. No mention was made of the vote or any displeasure with his performance.
The councilmembers also discussed several proposed infrastructure projects and heard from Acting Recreation Director Keith Donath on a proposed contract for repairs to many of the city’s basketball courts. Senior Affairs Director Joan Eccleston brought up how seniors’ financial assistance is dropping 20% for the farmer’s market.
Councilmembers didn’t broach a controversial new permit proposed for anyone looking to remove trees on their properties.
The council will consider approving that new permit and the remainder of the proposed measures at its 6 p.m. Wednesday meeting inside City Hall, 280 Grove St.
“}]] A proposed contract would initiate a year-long test run of cameras catching those in the act. Read More
