Quick Search
Categories
- Stevens Institute of Technology
- Pay to Play
- Content Research Area
- Quality of Life Issues
- OPRA (Open Public Records Act)
- Bribes, Payoffs, and Politics
- Letters to the Editor
- Voter Information
- OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act)
- FREE SPEECH and INTERNET ISSUES
- Eminent Domain
- Governor Corzine
- Editorials
- Lawsuits and Legal Actions
- Hoboken News
- Health Issues
- Employment Opportunities
- Regionalize and Shared Services
- Investigations (Restricted Access)
- Government
- Public Official Report Card
- Political Commentary
- Technology
- Payments In Lieu of Taxes
- Consumer Issues
- Affordable Housing
- 2006 N.J. U.S. Senate Race
- U.S. Senator Robert Menendez
- Homeland Security
- NJ NY Port Authority
- R.I.C.O. Act
- NJ.COM
- Editorials - New Jersey Newspapers
- POG - People for OPen Government
- Classifieds
- Politics
- Investigative Agencies
- Hoboken City Council Video
- Presidential Election 2008
- Investigative Report
- Obama
- Area Event Calendar
- Presedential electiom 2008
- New Jersey League of Municipalities
- NJ State Court System
- National Politics
- Social Interaction
- Shrink for Men
- Governor Chris Christie
- Tenant Rights
- NJ League of Municipalities
- ObamaCare
- NYC GROUND ZERO
- Political Figures
- Health Care
- Hoboken Lawsuits
- Featured News
- NYSC
- IRS TAX RELIEF
- Federal Budget
- Healthcare Fraud
- New Jersey For Profit Hospitals
- Hudson County Emergency Medical Services
Tremetiedi sees only massive MONEY, not massive building
- 2-17-2008
- Categorized in: Hoboken Municipal Garage Sale, Municipal Budget
Tremetiedi sees only massive MONEY, not massive building
02/17/2008 Hoboken Reporter
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Richard Tremitiedi's letter which appeared here on February 10. He summarized the controversial history of the Municipal Garage. He bemoaned that the City has opened itself to another lawsuit and has "left $4.6 million on the table" in its recent selection of a Garage site developer.
I agree at least with the early assessment in his letter. In 2005, it would be generous to describe the City's deficit-plugging sale and lease back of the garage as merely short-sighted. The resulting $120,000/month interest payment (for the past 18 months) is a testament to the wisdom of that decision. Beyond this, I cannot agree with Mr. Tremitiedi.
As background, the recent bidding process was the third attempt to sell off the garage property and cure the two prior flawed attempts. Bidders were offered a two-phased, closed-bid process; in the first phase, they could bid on a combined 7 to 9-story detailed redevelopment plan with established maximum density and unit numbers (240). The details of the plan were negotiated through an extensive public process, and bids started at a minimum of $25.5 million with no maximum price cap. If anyone were to bid on this phase, the high bid would win and the second phase would be unnecessary. However, if no one bid on this approach, the second phase applied. Second phase bidders were required to bid $25.5 million (no more, no less), with the variable being that each could add density to the 7 to 9-story plan up to a specific cap in density and height, not to exceed a detailed 8 - 10 - 12-story stepped building. Since all offers in the second phase would be of the same dollar value, the idea was to select the least dense (and tall) proposal to maximize benefits to the public, balancing design features, community amenities, lowest acceptable density, and revenue raised.
Two qualified bidders submitted proposals. One failed to meet the bid requirements, and the other selected bid was a "second phase" offer of $25.5M with an increase over the minimum 7 to 9-story plan within the prescribed limits. A "leftover" bid from one of the prior bid processes was halfheartedly submitted - just over $30 million and a proposal which exceeded the maximum 8 - 10 - 12-story limits. Thus, it violated both phase one (exceeds the 7 to 9-story plan limits) and phase two (exceeded the $25.5M and the maximum 8 - 10 - 12-story limits) of the bid requirements. The City could not accept it under law.
Mr. Tremitiedi fails to recognize any public benefit from this project beyond the revenue it could generate. As a candidate, he made this clear, and he continues to do so today. Thus, ignoring public sentiment and the fact that it would have been illegal for the City to accept the $30M bid, he sees only the "$4.6M left on the table" and not the additional height, additional density, and the non-conforming use that would have come with it. It is a simple balancing of dollars and density, and it is also a wash between a lawsuit against the City by a disgruntled developer and a potential suit by the entitled bidder.
Jim Doyle
Email to Friend
Fill in the form below to send this article to a friend:
Recent Blogs
- HAS PREDATORY HEALTH CARE LENDING COME TO HOBOKEN?
- The Emotionally Abusive Personality: Is She a Borderline or a Narcissist?
- Withholding Sex as a Form of Punishment
- Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men
- NJ Business Facts
- What the Parking/Transportation industry is saying about Hoboken's Automated Garage
- You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig
- Hoboken Board of Education
Recent Employment Opportunities
- Technology Consultant - City of Hoboken
- Finance Director City of Hoboken
- ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR
- Civil Service Commission Seeks Entry-Level Firefighter Applicants Applications for the entry-level Firefighter Test will be accepted for 70 municipalities and other local jurisdictions
- Senior Accountant: Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ
- City of Hoboken - Fire Department Audit
- Hoboken: ZONING OFFICER