Let’s see what they come back with. The developer should be able to handle some criticism to make it better.
It’s city planning not wanting to study it. Talk to them.
More shame to the city for even listening to nimby nonsense. Jersey City is a rapidly growing city and while community feedback is good, it should only be taken as far as is reasonable. America in general has a huge issue with overvaluing individually loud voices over the common good. There’s no good reason to be against this project, full stop. If you want to live in a place that doesn’t change then the rural counties of NJ and NY have plenty of pristine rural lots for you to live in. If you want to live in a city that’s always changing, then you fundamentally cannot be against change and growth, the end. Oh well, I hope this comes back with something soon.
5 Likes
If it makes a difference - this was a political move by the mayor and the current city council members and city planning. You give the public too much credit. Nothing the three people - that showed up to the city council meeting and sat there until almost midnight - said, would have changed the vote for this study. But there was no one from the so-called “other side” that cared enough about this study taking place to show their approval for it to move forward.
Even in suburbia, the NIMBYs in this state act like this and in some cases, its even worse.
The meme is spot-on.
It’s also worth noting that PADNA organized NIMBY group has a dedicated page for 156 Bay St.
And of course, the common NIMBY “concerns” come up:
- School funding commitment and construction guarantees
- Construction impacts (2-3 years) and traffic disruption
- Development scale relative to neighborhood character
They elaborate further on the same page and bring up things like “size of development and density concerns”. They also want to suggest the school be located elsewhere, citing that the area “will be flooded with new construction in the next 5-10 years”
5 Likes