Request to Move Upcoming DTJC Tower’s Affordable Units Off-Site Gets Cold Reception

4
The Charlotte 25 Columbus Jersey City Affordable Housing
The Charlotte is currently under construction at 25 Columbus Drive in Downtown Jersey City. Photo by Chris Fry/Jersey Digs.

One of the major players in New Jersey’s development scene might not be getting the affordable housing flexibility they were seeking for their latest project following a big statement from Jersey City’s planning board.


Last month, we exclusively reported on a request submitted by Mack-Cali regarding their 57-story tower called The Charlotte. The project, which includes 17,000-square-feet of retail space, a 36,000-square-foot public elementary school, and 750 rental apartments, is slated to wrap construction next year.

Located at the corner of Columbus Drive and Warren Street, 5% of The Charlotte’s units are required to be set aside as affordable housing per regulations that govern the parcel. However, Mack-Cali went before the city’s planning board on November 24 asking for redevelopment plan amendments that would allow them to provide the affordable units “within one mile” of their upcoming project.

The Monaco 475 Washingon Boulevard Jersey City
Mack-Cali proposed moving The Charlotte’s affordable units to their Monaco property at 475 Washington Blvd. Image via Google Maps/Street View.

During the meeting, lawyers for Mack-Cali revealed that the company wants to provide The Charlotte’s required affordable units inside their 475 Washington Boulevard property. That mixed-use development, completed in 2011, consists of two 50-story towers with retail that includes Santander Bank, VB3 Pizzeria, and Orange Theory on the ground floor.

Mack-Cali had agreed to provide 40 units of affordable housing at 475 Washington Boulevard in exchange for the modifications, up from the required 35. Lawyers for the company testified to the board that the proposed affordable units would come furnished under the deal, with the company also agreeing to lengthen the affordability controls to last 30 years from the required 20.

Mack-Cali’s counsel said the affordable units at 475 Washington Boulevard would be provided “right away” if officials agreed to the changes, which they described as a “win-win” for both parties. They argued that the city gets more affordable units for a longer time if the modifications are approved, while Mack-Cali can meet their affordable obligation to the city at a lower cost.

Both the language in the amendments and the deal itself seemed to leave the planning board unimpressed. Chairman Christopher Langston noted during the meeting the wording of the proposed changes was “cloudy” and worried that allowing developers to move affordable housing off-site might “set a bad precedent.”

The board voted 5-0 on a motion to not recommend the changes Mack-Cali requested regarding the affordable housing, which leaves the proposal on shaky ground. The City Council can still consider the changes despite the planning board’s lack of support, but Mack-Cali would also need to convince the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency to sign off on the amendments as well.

While the affordable housing requirements at The Charlotte remain unchanged for now, Jersey Digs will continue to update our readers on any news on the matter that may emerge in the coming months.

Related:

--

Have something to add to this story? Email [email protected].

Click here to sign up for Jersey Digs' free emails and news alerts. Stay up-to-date by following Jersey Digs on Twitter and Instagram, and liking us on Facebook.

No posts to display

4 COMMENTS

  1. So let me get this straight: the socialist leaning board said no to an amendment which would have provided more affordable units, more immediate implementation of affordable units, and a ten year extension of those affordable units only a few blocks away from the original location because they were afraid that other developers might also make similar requests in the future, to which the board could easily say no? What an absolute clown show which demonizes developers at the detriment of those in need of affordable housing! The working class of JC should throw them out.

  2. I agree…unless we’re missing something major in the proposal. I was concerned they could try and push the units to a future development but this is an existing location that would start immediately. More affordable units for longer period…I don’t think the people would care if it’s in the Charlotte or whatever building. Wouldn’t also make sense to have more affordable units in one building rather than spread around? If I were lower income, I’d prefer to have more lower income residents in my building rather than being part of the 5% poor residents in a 95% wealthy building.

    For a city that bends over backwards for developers…this one is a strange one to suddenly take a stand on.

  3. I’d have to read the contract before making a determination. However, I always defer to Shakespeare in these matters, so – “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

    Personally If i were poor I would totally rather live with more affluent people than non-affluent. It’s like, would you rather live in a shanty town or would you rather live in chamber-de-bonne in Paris? Kind of a no brainer. Beauty, youth or money. Oscar Wilde had the right idea.

    The working class?? They were toast 30 years ago.

  4. @XTC it is well documented that happiness and well-being is strongly correlated to one’s RELATIVE standing within their community.

    As far as the matter in this article, it seems like the better outcome for JC’s lower income residents would have been more units, sooner, and for longer. It’s a shame to see the board vote against those interests for political gamesmanship.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here