Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rainbowrobb t1_ix1obln wrote

They are mostly from Newark and they are established philanthropists who have likely been giving back longer than you've been alive. I know Del Tufo has spent decades trying to save historic buildings.

As for this particular situation? I have no idea.

>In my own endeavors, I'm close with several of the city council members, so I'm wondering if I might need to intervene so that the next development doesn't get shot down.

Maybe you could ask them why they need government cars?

Maybe you could ask them why they continue to grant affordable housing waivers for new construction?

Maybe you could ask them why they keep giving multi decade tax abatements to out of state developers?

Unsolicited advice: If you're allowing an inanimate object that at-best would be 4 years from completion to upset you, consider your reasons for that.

10

ryanov t1_ix54l7m wrote

Not even government cars, giant government, SUVs.

Agreed, I really find it weird the amount of personal investment people seem to have in this project. I’m not sure what’s driving it. I can think of lots of things that I would go to a public hearing over, and actually have, like razing historic construction to replace it with parking, but this one has me scratching my head.

Not exactly the same thing, but the exemption from rent control for new residential construction for 35 years is part of the law here.

3

Rainbowrobb t1_ix5u3p7 wrote

There may be tax reasons for buying those vehicles overly 5k lbs. Not defending them, as I firmly believe they shouldn't have them.

>Not exactly the same thing, but the exemption from rent control for new residential construction for 35 years is part of the law here.

Right. In 2014, 2015 and 2017 I went to a bunch of city meetings with Newark tenants united and my local tenants organization to fight for protections. I was part of the group pushing (successfully) for building owners to have to refund illegally increased rents. I was a thorn in Maria Hernandez's side for quite some time. She was rubber stamping rent increases for many years, my only failure was not pushing hard enough for an ethics investigation.

But the affordable housing requirement for new construction is different, as you suggested. My gripe is when they are handed both a waiver for the affordable units % and those 20+ year abatements.

I know some younger redditors are irritated by my sometimes overly-curt responses. To be fair, I should really use more kind words when addressing them. I'm sure I just sound condescending.

3

ryanov t1_ixp6vqd wrote

I suppose one can always be nicer, and possibly have better outcomes when having an argument, but for what it’s worth, I think you’re right on the money. There’s a lot of stupid bullshit in here, and I don’t have much patience for it either.

1

Ironboundian t1_ix8f04o wrote

For clarification since there are about 50 comments on this thread....there are two "Landmark People" being talked about on the thread as though they are interchangable...they are not.

The Newark Preservation & Landmarks Committee (NPLC) is a non profit local organization made up of largely newark residents (based on the trustees and board listed on the website). It has no governmental approval powers

www.newarklandmarks.org

The LANDMARK & HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (LHPC) is also technically a non profit also made up of volunteers largely newark residents (based on who I know of personally on the website) but has governmental powers to approve or deny applications for demolition of buildings or change of exterior of old buildings or development of new buildings in their purview (anthing at all within a historic district, whether or not it is historic in nature on its own, and then anything "registered" all over the city even it it is not in a historic district)

https://www.newarknj.gov/card/landmark-historic-preservation-commission

2