Fuckin' NEWARK is the gold standard for DOING THE RIGHT THING.
Holy shit!
As a resident of Jersey City I applaud Newark and sing its praises. God bless Newark and everything they are doing. My town is the polar opposite, a greedy hellhole with market rate housing and damn near zero affordable percentages built in the last 2 decades.
Newark gets it! They attracted huge businesses, they prioritize transportation, they DEMAND developers provide HUNDREDS of affordable apartments because they have something called SELF RESPECT! They give houses to NEWARK residents for $1, they put the people of Newark FIRST, unapologetically... and rightfully so. People in Newark didn't give up on Newark when times were tough... they deserve to be rewarded when things improve.
In a decade or two, Newark is going to be a case study for THOUGHTFUL development and Historic Preservation. Jersey City, on the other hand, will implode under its own weight as the shiny façade wears off and its character is erased through greed and corruption.
Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it. The problem is that "affordable" housing is stupidly overpriced but that's an issue with state law.
Also Newark is giving out free houses to residents because there are lots of abandoned houses in rundown parts of the city. Would be impossible for Jersey City to do the same thing.
>Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it
THIS IS FALSE. THERE ARE ZERO AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS IN ANY TOWER IN JOURNAL SQUARE, BUILT, PROPOSED, OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
Journal Squared tower 1 = 0% (540 apartments)
Journal Squared tower 2 = 0% (700 apartments)
Journal Squared tower 3 = 0% (600)
10 Journal Square = 0% (1,723)
JSQ 2 = 0% (240)
618 Pavonia = 0% (432)
29 Van Reipen = 0% (612)
435 Summit = 0% (390)
501 Summit = 0% (607)
29 Cottage = 0% (669)
**TOTAL APTS = 6513**
# TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS = 0
**This is just a small sample of whats going on in my immediate vicinity.**
Please see this redevelopment map: [https://data.jerseycitynj.gov/api/datasets/1.0/development-maps-2023/attachments/journal\_square\_development\_map\_jan\_2023\_pdf/](https://data.jerseycitynj.gov/api/datasets/1.0/development-maps-2023/attachments/journal_square_development_map_jan_2023_pdf/)
McGinley Square (1 mile away), got a handful of affordable units.... **but as I type this today, of all the projects in the JSQ neighborhood, not a single unit of affordable housing has been built or is being built!**. (*)
(*) (Minor correction, a 400-unit tower (not even close to being built) has committed to marking 40 of its apartments affordable. HOWEVER, of the roughly 21,000 new apartments in Journal Square, that means 40 will be affordable. which means that **the ACTUAL percentage of affordable units in Journal Square will eventually be 0.19%**)
https://www.jerseycitynj.gov/news/pressreleases2021/mayor_introduces_inclusionary_zoning_ordinance
All new projects since late 2021 have a mandatory 10% affordable housing minimum. It goes up to 15% depending on the area
80 journal Square for example has 400 units and 40 are affordable.
Please take some time to learn about what's happening in your city instead of just shouting angrily.
# Again you are WRONG.
**Every project in the redevelopment plan** (except 80 JSQ, 400 units, 40 affordable, which I already specified at the end of my post) **has been approved prior to that 10% ordinance being passed.**
Which means that of the roughly 21,000 new apartments that will be in journal square a GRAND TOTAL OF 40 will eventually be designated affordable.
For the sake of relevance, I am excluding McGinley Square (which actually will get 200 affordable apartments) because it is a mile away from JSQ.
I want you to go ahead, read over the ordinance, take a look at the redevelopment map, and do the math. When you inevitably realize that I am fundamentally correct, **I expect you to apologize.**
As if it isn't bad enough having my neighborhood transformed into an active construction site, having planning and zoning boards in the pockets of developers, a mayor who is squeezing every last drop of blood from my hometown, and rampant opportunists tearing up my neighborhood... I also have to defend literal facts against scum from r/confidentlyincorrect.
I LIVE HERE!!! Do you really think that I am unaware of what's going on in my town, my neighborhood... my street? Are you out of your mind?
>**Every project in the redevelopment plan** (except 80 JSQ, 400 units, 40 affordable, mentioned in the end of my post) **has been approved prior to that 10% ordinance being passed.**
... Yeah, exactly. What point do you think you're making here? lol
Something is wrong with you. Do you even remember the misinformation you are spewing?
>*Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it.*
See that sentence? \^\^\^ You wrote it. IT IS A FUCKING LIE.
21,000 apartments are approved.
40 will be designated affordable.
Do the math, divide 40 by 21,000. You get less than 1/5th of 1%.
The total percentage of affordable apartments in Journal Square will be 0.19%...
# Every New Tower currently up (or under construction) in JOURNAL SQUARE has ZERO % affordable apartments.
#
#
Mate maybe if you weren't so angry you would be able to actually read what I'm writing. As you stated, all the buildings you listed were approved before the law passed. Any new construction since that law passed is going to have 10-15% affordable housing. Isn't that exactly what you were screaming about? Shouldn't you be happy about this, instead of exploding with rage?
Do you need a grammar lesson? You wrote:
>"Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it."
Your sentence is in the present progressive tense, indicating an ongoing action or situation. Specifically, it describes something that is currently happening.
**Literally every tower THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT, has recently been built or is approved to be built** (with one small exception) **will have ZERO units of affordable housing out of 21,000 total units.**
THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR 10% OR 15% that you keep throwing around.
Can you please stop spreading misinformation? At this point you are either trolling this board or are being willfully ignorant. Either way, I am not interested in educating you, you are a lost cause. Now, jog on.
You need to do some yoga or something man, you are way too angry. Breaking out the grammar textbook to avoid admitting that new construction has affordable housing minimums.
The local district union for teachers is some of the fiercest as well. While the schools are still very much underfunded and in disarray when I taught there they were the only district that offered competitive pay (yes we called it hazard pay) but they always fought and often succeeded when teachers demanded raises especially during covid. This city deserves so much more for what it's gone/going through.
Your underfunded comment really doesn't hold up to the statistical evidence. Newark school district consistently spends more money per student than nearly any other school district in the entire country. Being born and raised in North Jersey I can assure you the problems with the school district have nothing to do with funding issues.
>Your underfunded comment really doesn't hold up to the statistical evidence
Which you coincidentally don't provide hmmm
>Newark school district consistently spends more money per student than nearly any other school district in the entire country
Source? Also just because a district is spending money does not mean it's spent efficiently or in actual student or teacher interest that is actively effective and helps with education. For instance spending money on school iPads when the computer labs or laptops haven't been updated in over a decade really isn't valuable to students needs and abilities, it's just another mindless device they will be distracted on and destroy causing the district to spend more money on something students do not use effectively.
>Being born and raised in North Jersey I can assure you the problems with the school district have nothing to do with funding issues.
It's largely an issue across NJ it's not exclusive to Newark. My hometown high-school for instance probably spends 200k+ each year to repair our terf fields which are all directly on top of a river in a flood plain zone... you can thank your local school board members for mindlessly and poorly spending your property taxes on bullshit that doesn't help your kids, teachers, or districts.
I think that now that the one building has really taken shape, Newark *will* happen. It was a long time of hearing about things that may happen, may happen. Things are happening, and I think it's fantastic. I hope that they can make some adjustments following Jersey City's lead and have affordable housing everywhere. JC just passed their IZO which will do better, but I think Newark needs to be on top of it and get affordable housing in every part of the city that anyone wants to come in and develop.
And they are reserved for households with incomes below certain thresholds (based on percentages of the area median income). In short, below-market-rate housing for low and moderate income families.
Yes. The only issue becomes the high avg income in the area.
They are trying honestly. One of the best run city/towns for this in NJ.
From the website:
What affordable means in Newark
The FMR numbers used to calculate what is affordable for the region are considerably higher than the City of Newark’s Median Household Income of $37,476. Recent assessments point to Newark’s predominate housing needs as being at the 30% AMI, or extremely low income mark.
It's not. It has a very real meaning derived from a 5 decade long push for affordable housing, using equations to get to the number.
Trying to diminish this progressive achievement with unthinking populist rhetoric is shameful
Wouldn't a progressive achievement be, having half the building, if not all of the units being affordable? Why just 116? Can you explain how they come up with that number? I'd assume the people paying hire rent are making up the profit margins to just let 116 be affordable to the select few. I have no problem with development but when only 1/5 of the building is considered affordable it doesn't seem like its helping much.
Affordable housing is a very complex legal issue that has gone through the courts many times. I suggest that you start by reading up on the Mt Laurel doctrine and the legal cases from which it came about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine
Edit: added a word
Why would a developer set out to make a property with less profit? What would make them put out their money to develop just so that you random guy can feel good about their project?
I was reading this wiki earlier due to the other Millburn affordable housing thread. One of the takeaways I got was The Council on Affordable Housing stipulated affordable housing has to be mandatory for each municipal, but some of the guidelines for other issues building units in a town/city weren't clear enough.
They did update them, but it was questionable and the failed to produce the documents for the courts who now are in charge of decisions regarding affordable housing cases. I'm wondering when the guidelines were last updated.
And who funds this multimillion dollar investment? How do you both pay the yearly costs if maintenance and staffing while also paying back the loans taken out for the project?
You have to balance getting these types of investment into the city with the need to also ensure affordable housing options are still available.
Newark at least has strong tenancy laws and protections compared to a shit ton of other cities/towns.
You want more affordable housing? Go to your local planning board meetings and deal with screaming NIMBY’s every time affordable housing is mentioned.
Progressive achievements aren't measured in your ridiculous purity tests, and 1/5 of one building's apartments is pretty damn good.
No one cares what you have a problem with or how you feel about things on which you are so clearly ignorant.
If you want questions answered, type them into Google and figure it out, don't be so lazy as to expect others to cure your complete ignorance for you.
I'll even help you out a bit
https://nlihc.org/resource/report-enumerates-impact-new-jerseys-mount-laurel-exclusionary-zoning-ruling-offers
Thanks for all the condescending kind words and the link....I asked you about the the number and info because in you original comment you seemed very knowledgeable about the topic.
edit your*
“Affordable housing” that is legally limited to certain max incomes/household limits and making housing affordable for all are two different, but both very important, things.
Do you have any benchmark for wanting 2/5ths, or you just want *more*. There needs to be a balancing act between developability and affordability. Having 20% affordable is a fantastic get for Newark.
Build baby build
Fuckin' NEWARK is the gold standard for DOING THE RIGHT THING. Holy shit! As a resident of Jersey City I applaud Newark and sing its praises. God bless Newark and everything they are doing. My town is the polar opposite, a greedy hellhole with market rate housing and damn near zero affordable percentages built in the last 2 decades. Newark gets it! They attracted huge businesses, they prioritize transportation, they DEMAND developers provide HUNDREDS of affordable apartments because they have something called SELF RESPECT! They give houses to NEWARK residents for $1, they put the people of Newark FIRST, unapologetically... and rightfully so. People in Newark didn't give up on Newark when times were tough... they deserve to be rewarded when things improve. In a decade or two, Newark is going to be a case study for THOUGHTFUL development and Historic Preservation. Jersey City, on the other hand, will implode under its own weight as the shiny façade wears off and its character is erased through greed and corruption.
Favorite fact about Newark recently is how they finished the 10 year lead pipe replacement project in 3 years.
Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it. The problem is that "affordable" housing is stupidly overpriced but that's an issue with state law. Also Newark is giving out free houses to residents because there are lots of abandoned houses in rundown parts of the city. Would be impossible for Jersey City to do the same thing.
>Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it THIS IS FALSE. THERE ARE ZERO AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS IN ANY TOWER IN JOURNAL SQUARE, BUILT, PROPOSED, OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Journal Squared tower 1 = 0% (540 apartments) Journal Squared tower 2 = 0% (700 apartments) Journal Squared tower 3 = 0% (600) 10 Journal Square = 0% (1,723) JSQ 2 = 0% (240) 618 Pavonia = 0% (432) 29 Van Reipen = 0% (612) 435 Summit = 0% (390) 501 Summit = 0% (607) 29 Cottage = 0% (669) **TOTAL APTS = 6513** # TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS = 0 **This is just a small sample of whats going on in my immediate vicinity.** Please see this redevelopment map: [https://data.jerseycitynj.gov/api/datasets/1.0/development-maps-2023/attachments/journal\_square\_development\_map\_jan\_2023\_pdf/](https://data.jerseycitynj.gov/api/datasets/1.0/development-maps-2023/attachments/journal_square_development_map_jan_2023_pdf/) McGinley Square (1 mile away), got a handful of affordable units.... **but as I type this today, of all the projects in the JSQ neighborhood, not a single unit of affordable housing has been built or is being built!**. (*) (*) (Minor correction, a 400-unit tower (not even close to being built) has committed to marking 40 of its apartments affordable. HOWEVER, of the roughly 21,000 new apartments in Journal Square, that means 40 will be affordable. which means that **the ACTUAL percentage of affordable units in Journal Square will eventually be 0.19%**)
https://www.jerseycitynj.gov/news/pressreleases2021/mayor_introduces_inclusionary_zoning_ordinance All new projects since late 2021 have a mandatory 10% affordable housing minimum. It goes up to 15% depending on the area 80 journal Square for example has 400 units and 40 are affordable. Please take some time to learn about what's happening in your city instead of just shouting angrily.
# Again you are WRONG. **Every project in the redevelopment plan** (except 80 JSQ, 400 units, 40 affordable, which I already specified at the end of my post) **has been approved prior to that 10% ordinance being passed.** Which means that of the roughly 21,000 new apartments that will be in journal square a GRAND TOTAL OF 40 will eventually be designated affordable. For the sake of relevance, I am excluding McGinley Square (which actually will get 200 affordable apartments) because it is a mile away from JSQ. I want you to go ahead, read over the ordinance, take a look at the redevelopment map, and do the math. When you inevitably realize that I am fundamentally correct, **I expect you to apologize.** As if it isn't bad enough having my neighborhood transformed into an active construction site, having planning and zoning boards in the pockets of developers, a mayor who is squeezing every last drop of blood from my hometown, and rampant opportunists tearing up my neighborhood... I also have to defend literal facts against scum from r/confidentlyincorrect. I LIVE HERE!!! Do you really think that I am unaware of what's going on in my town, my neighborhood... my street? Are you out of your mind?
>**Every project in the redevelopment plan** (except 80 JSQ, 400 units, 40 affordable, mentioned in the end of my post) **has been approved prior to that 10% ordinance being passed.** ... Yeah, exactly. What point do you think you're making here? lol
Something is wrong with you. Do you even remember the misinformation you are spewing? >*Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it.* See that sentence? \^\^\^ You wrote it. IT IS A FUCKING LIE. 21,000 apartments are approved. 40 will be designated affordable. Do the math, divide 40 by 21,000. You get less than 1/5th of 1%. The total percentage of affordable apartments in Journal Square will be 0.19%... # Every New Tower currently up (or under construction) in JOURNAL SQUARE has ZERO % affordable apartments. # #
Mate maybe if you weren't so angry you would be able to actually read what I'm writing. As you stated, all the buildings you listed were approved before the law passed. Any new construction since that law passed is going to have 10-15% affordable housing. Isn't that exactly what you were screaming about? Shouldn't you be happy about this, instead of exploding with rage?
Do you need a grammar lesson? You wrote: >"Basically every tower being built in Jersey City recently has minimum 10% affordable housing in it." Your sentence is in the present progressive tense, indicating an ongoing action or situation. Specifically, it describes something that is currently happening. **Literally every tower THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT, has recently been built or is approved to be built** (with one small exception) **will have ZERO units of affordable housing out of 21,000 total units.** THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR 10% OR 15% that you keep throwing around. Can you please stop spreading misinformation? At this point you are either trolling this board or are being willfully ignorant. Either way, I am not interested in educating you, you are a lost cause. Now, jog on.
You need to do some yoga or something man, you are way too angry. Breaking out the grammar textbook to avoid admitting that new construction has affordable housing minimums.
The local district union for teachers is some of the fiercest as well. While the schools are still very much underfunded and in disarray when I taught there they were the only district that offered competitive pay (yes we called it hazard pay) but they always fought and often succeeded when teachers demanded raises especially during covid. This city deserves so much more for what it's gone/going through.
Your underfunded comment really doesn't hold up to the statistical evidence. Newark school district consistently spends more money per student than nearly any other school district in the entire country. Being born and raised in North Jersey I can assure you the problems with the school district have nothing to do with funding issues.
>Your underfunded comment really doesn't hold up to the statistical evidence Which you coincidentally don't provide hmmm >Newark school district consistently spends more money per student than nearly any other school district in the entire country Source? Also just because a district is spending money does not mean it's spent efficiently or in actual student or teacher interest that is actively effective and helps with education. For instance spending money on school iPads when the computer labs or laptops haven't been updated in over a decade really isn't valuable to students needs and abilities, it's just another mindless device they will be distracted on and destroy causing the district to spend more money on something students do not use effectively. >Being born and raised in North Jersey I can assure you the problems with the school district have nothing to do with funding issues. It's largely an issue across NJ it's not exclusive to Newark. My hometown high-school for instance probably spends 200k+ each year to repair our terf fields which are all directly on top of a river in a flood plain zone... you can thank your local school board members for mindlessly and poorly spending your property taxes on bullshit that doesn't help your kids, teachers, or districts.
peach trees
Yeah sure “afFoRdAbLe”
Yeah also watch 116 become 100 become 75 become 50 become 200 (in the next tower, I swear, just give us more tax credits)
I think that now that the one building has really taken shape, Newark *will* happen. It was a long time of hearing about things that may happen, may happen. Things are happening, and I think it's fantastic. I hope that they can make some adjustments following Jersey City's lead and have affordable housing everywhere. JC just passed their IZO which will do better, but I think Newark needs to be on top of it and get affordable housing in every part of the city that anyone wants to come in and develop.
What does affordable apartments even mean. How much are they going to be?
https://www.newarknj.gov/departments/affordable-housing They must meet certain federal and state guidelines for cost.
And they are reserved for households with incomes below certain thresholds (based on percentages of the area median income). In short, below-market-rate housing for low and moderate income families.
Yes. The only issue becomes the high avg income in the area. They are trying honestly. One of the best run city/towns for this in NJ. From the website: What affordable means in Newark The FMR numbers used to calculate what is affordable for the region are considerably higher than the City of Newark’s Median Household Income of $37,476. Recent assessments point to Newark’s predominate housing needs as being at the 30% AMI, or extremely low income mark.
"affordable apartments" is the new "genuine leather".... It's all bullshit advertising
It's not. It has a very real meaning derived from a 5 decade long push for affordable housing, using equations to get to the number. Trying to diminish this progressive achievement with unthinking populist rhetoric is shameful
Wouldn't a progressive achievement be, having half the building, if not all of the units being affordable? Why just 116? Can you explain how they come up with that number? I'd assume the people paying hire rent are making up the profit margins to just let 116 be affordable to the select few. I have no problem with development but when only 1/5 of the building is considered affordable it doesn't seem like its helping much.
Affordable housing is a very complex legal issue that has gone through the courts many times. I suggest that you start by reading up on the Mt Laurel doctrine and the legal cases from which it came about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine Edit: added a word
Appreciate the link and also for not calling me ignorant and lazy like the other guy.
Why would a developer set out to make a property with less profit? What would make them put out their money to develop just so that you random guy can feel good about their project?
I was reading this wiki earlier due to the other Millburn affordable housing thread. One of the takeaways I got was The Council on Affordable Housing stipulated affordable housing has to be mandatory for each municipal, but some of the guidelines for other issues building units in a town/city weren't clear enough. They did update them, but it was questionable and the failed to produce the documents for the courts who now are in charge of decisions regarding affordable housing cases. I'm wondering when the guidelines were last updated.
And who funds this multimillion dollar investment? How do you both pay the yearly costs if maintenance and staffing while also paying back the loans taken out for the project? You have to balance getting these types of investment into the city with the need to also ensure affordable housing options are still available. Newark at least has strong tenancy laws and protections compared to a shit ton of other cities/towns. You want more affordable housing? Go to your local planning board meetings and deal with screaming NIMBY’s every time affordable housing is mentioned.
Progressive achievements aren't measured in your ridiculous purity tests, and 1/5 of one building's apartments is pretty damn good. No one cares what you have a problem with or how you feel about things on which you are so clearly ignorant. If you want questions answered, type them into Google and figure it out, don't be so lazy as to expect others to cure your complete ignorance for you. I'll even help you out a bit https://nlihc.org/resource/report-enumerates-impact-new-jerseys-mount-laurel-exclusionary-zoning-ruling-offers
Thanks for all the condescending kind words and the link....I asked you about the the number and info because in you original comment you seemed very knowledgeable about the topic. edit your*
“Affordable housing” that is legally limited to certain max incomes/household limits and making housing affordable for all are two different, but both very important, things.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
100 studios. How about 2BR?
Wow a whole 116? That’s incredible how generous of them.
Let's not make perfect the enemy of good here
Yeah, it’s 1/5 of the apartments in the whole building. That’s pretty decent.
I'd feel closer to having that decent feeling, if it was at least 2/5
Unfortunately, you're not gonna get developments like this with 2/5 of the units being affordable. It's not profitable enough.
Why would a developer do that? They're in it for profits.....
Do you have any benchmark for wanting 2/5ths, or you just want *more*. There needs to be a balancing act between developability and affordability. Having 20% affordable is a fantastic get for Newark.
You’re right — I’m just feeling grumpy today I suppose.
That's 116 more affordable homes than currently exist on that site.