Why is the City selling buildings and land it owns to luxury housing developers in the midst of a housing crisis? A look at some sales of city property in just one area of the city in the last few years raises this question as well as others.
612-616 Communipaw Avenue
Last year, the city sold a series of vacant lots at this location to a developer to construct a mixed-use building with 59 apartments. According to the developer’s application to the Planning Board, 4 of the apartments will be set aside as workforce housing and 1 is designated as a moderate income unit. The rest of the apartments (54), will be market rate or luxury housing. The Jackson Hill Redevelopment Plan for the area, requires that 5% of residential units constructed above the 5th floor of a building be set aside as affordable housing. .
The sale of this public property, as well as others listed below, beg the questions: Why is public property being sold to luxury housing developers when it could be redeveloped by the city for its workers and families in desperate need of housing they can afford? And, if public property must be sold, why can’t the city get a better deal for residents? Why are so few affordable housing units required in redeveloping public property in this area?
574 Communipaw Avenue
A former police station the city sold recently for a reported $200,000 to be redeveloped into an 18 unit apartment house.
One floor will be added to this building for a total of 4 which, according to the redevelopment plan, does not require any affordable housing units since it does not exceed 5 stories.
558 – 574 Communipaw Avenue
This property will be redeveloped into a 5 story mixed-use building with 20 apartments. According to the application filed with the Planning Board last year, the developer received a variance or exception to the zoning regulations for the property because the lot was smaller than the size required for the building.
Despite receiving a variance, no affordable housing was required on this project because the Jackson Hill Redevelopment Plan only calls for it on new construction over 5 stories.
336-342 MLK Drive
A lot where the Emmanuel Temple Church of God in Christ once stood, was sold by the city in 2021 to be converted into a mixed-use 6 story building with 25 housing units 1 of which will be affordable.
This project illustrates the importance of zoning in shaping how neighborhood changes and the interests being served in the process.
326-330 MLK Drive
This city owned lot was sold in 2021. The plan is for a mixed-use 6 story building with 28 housing units 3 of which will be set aside for those who fit the “moderate income” category.
The plan for this site includes a “Transit Proximity Bonus” which allows property within 1,000 feet of a Hudson Bergen Light Rail Station to have six stories in a zone with a limit of 5.
These examples are the result of a brief look at some of the sales of city-owned property to luxury housing developers in one area of the city in the last few years. And they raise questions about why the sale of city -owned properties result in so little affordable housing. Why do the zoning regulations for affordable housing only begin above the 5th floor – and why only 5% of units above this floor? What would a most systematic study of Jackson Hill, as well as the rest of the city show in terms of how much property is being disposed of in this way?
It seems particularly egregious to sell city-owned property in a historic Black community with so little return for residents. It was this community that suffered the most as factories and jobs left the city for the suburbs and beyond in the 1970’s and 80’s. And, while the suburbs welcomed other businesses and white residents fleeing a declining Jersey City, they excluded African Americans through their segregated housing policies. Now that new development is coming to Jackson Hill, why can’t its residents share more equitably in it?
The city currently lists over 200 properties it owns. How will they be redeveloped and to whose benefit? The city already has a model of how to redevelop public property in a more equitable way in Bayfront, a large city owned property along Route 440. The city, as master developer, required that 35% of the 8,000 housing units planned there be affordable for the city’s workers and families. Could it do something similar with its other city-owned properties? A Rutgers report on housing in Newark made this recommendation to the city: “Pass a right of first refusal for non-profit affordable housing developers when selling city-owned property.” Would making this the law in Jersey City help ease the housing crisis? What do you think?
Follow This Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.
- Gentrification Math & the False Promise of Affordable Housing
- Why is the City Selling Public Property to Luxury Housing Developers?
- Why So Much Luxury Housing in a City Where Most Can’t Afford It?
- Why Do So Many New Apartment Houses Look Alike?
- Signs of Gentrification: House Numbers, Their Color and Design
Jersey City Today 