Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association Responses from At-Large Candidate Andrew Hubsch GENERAL How do you see the PAD best contributing to Jersey City? As envisioned and originally approved by citizens and Municipal Council, the Powerhouse Arts District should be a live/work neighborhood showcasing Jersey City's amazing artistic talent; a human-scale, adaptive re-use of our city's concentration of legacy warehouses; and a regional draw for patrons of fine and performing arts. DEVELOPMENT Were you aware that Mayor Healy's administration radically amended the PAD redevelopment plan April, 2008 to accommodate the development goals of national homebuilder Toll Brothers despite overwhelming citizen outcry? Yes, as one of the public speakers AGAINST the proposed Toll Brothers' monstrosity at both the Planning Board AND the Municipal Council meetings, I have credibly fought for the Powerhouse Arts District on sheer principal, long before entertaining a political candidacy. In fact, as a then-Trustee for Civic JC, I advocated for that non-profit agency to join the PADNA's litigation, as an amicus curae appellant against the developer and the City, which was approved. I stand 100% behind (and in front of) the PADNA's efforts. Are you aware the extent of these amendments as listed below? (see original questionnaire for list) Yes, as described above, I am sadly (and sorely) aware of the City's sorry sequence of repeated capitulations to the Toll Brothers' "amendments" and "deviations," and the evisceration the changes represent to the original, approved Powerhouse Arts District Redevelopment Plan. If you were elected to office what would you do about these amendments? Rescind them, immediately. As articulated in the PADNA lawsuit, the process (and results) were sufficiently flawed to merit tossing the entirety of Toll Brothers abomination. Currently there are four developments that have had final site plan approval since 2005. They have not broken ground despite there's being a major building boom at that time. It is widely supposed that the developers of these sites were waiting to see what Toll brothers" got" in order to then demand the same for themselves (elimination of affordable housing, greater density and height, demolition of warehouses). How will you address these developers? Provide a titanium backbone to the City, by hard-lining against the Toll Brothers' massive refutation of the PAD's very raison d'etre, and the development principles enshrined in its original approvals. What steps will you take to ensure the Powerhouse is maintained and does not sink into further disrepair than it already has? Will you actively lobby for its development during your administration? If so, what steps will you take to secure the funding and consensus so that it is developed? Resources await for the Powerhouse, from multiple sources, county, state, federal. First and foremost, the Port Authority needs to relocate its transformers, and a blue-ribbon, PUBLIC, transparent redevelopment process must be initiated to entertain proposals for its adaptive re-use. QUALITY OF LIFE The Powerhouse Arts District currently has no street cleaning services from the city. In addition, there are many unoccupied warehouses and lots with private owners that are currently covered with trash (around the Butler Brothers Building, Manischewitz and Caputo Lots, lots on First Street) and graffiti. Currently we have individual members of our neighborhood organization calling owners to request they clean up; as a group, we organize neighborhood cleanups at least twice a year. Neither of these methods has proved satisfactory in keeping our neighborhood clean. What will you do to rectify these issues? Property owners must be held accountable for their holdings. Specifically, city agencies (including police) need to monitor and fine those property owners that are not maintaining their properties, per existing municipal codes and ordinances, especially for any vacant and/or "undeveloped" sites. After any heavy rain, the neighborhood is filled with the odors that emanate from the combined storm/sanitary sewer. Although the city constantly claims that there is adequate capacity in the system, it is not clear that this so. An additional problem with the sewers is the existence of hexavalent chromium which was used as fill under the sewer lines along Warren and Bay Streets. What would you do as mayor to address the concerns that the sewer system might not be adequate to support all of the new development, and the further concern that new development in the area will potentially expose, disturb, and spread a dangerous contaminant? The problem(s) must be fully dimensioned, and - with the neighborhood's awareness and direct input - remediative plans must be formulated and initiated. Municipal government must bring together all relevant departments and resources, to a common end, and the public must drive this process. As well, a re-constituted Environmental Commission should be at the center of this pursuit for truth, and actionable anwers. [Too often, municipal government tries to skate by shifting responsibility from one department to another; such equivocation/delay cannot be allowed any lonegr.] OPEN SPACE The Powerhouse Arts District has virtually no public parkland/open space. Do you support open space initiatives? How would you propose to bring more open space in to this district? Yes, I support an Open Space tax for Jersey City, akin to Hudson County's dedicated funding source for the purchase and/or rehabilitation of open space. Relieve the potential density, by re-establishing (and re-asserting) the original PAD Redevelopment Plan - starting with the rescinding of the Toll Brothers' mega-lith - resulting in fewer total residents and vehicles crowding the area. While more land and/or open space within the PAD will be a shared challenge - land is finite, after all - keeping pending new development at the originally-planned human-scale will help alleviate the pressure(s) for elbow room. Do you support the use of the triangle adjacent to the Powerhouse as a public park? Yes. 100%, yes. The 6th Street Embankment provides an opportunity to retain elements of Jersey City's industrial past, protect existing historic structures, as well as provide much needed green space and additional transportation alternatives in downtown Jersey City. Do you support the retention of the 6th Street Embankment from demolition? Do you support the Embankment's use as a public park? Again, yes. 100%, yes. To infinity, and beyond. TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The traffic problem on Marin Boulevard is getting worse and worse. It is very difficult to make a turn onto Marin from the PAD, and crossing the street on foot is almost impossible. New construction slated in our neighborhood will add hundreds if not thousands of new residents with cars, yet the city is saying the traffic level on these streets is not even close to capacity. What will you do to make these streets less crowded and safer? By retaining the original PAD Redevelopment Plan and its parameters, the City's infrastructure will be LESS taxed. Marin Boulevard narrows, approaching Christopher Columbus Drive, and cannot be physically widened to accommodate another lane (in either direction). Neither Grove Pointe nor the "new" PATH entrance can be moved, so the City's Planning Department has created a vehicular chokepoint, yet they now wish to sanction 925 additional parking spaces at the Toll Brothers project, plus hundreds (actually a thousand or more) future parking spaces at the coming Columbus Towers structures. This is incompatible with the existing streets, which cannot be widened, and are already maxed-out with congestion. And it is contrary to the vision of Jersey City - and the PAD - as a pedestrian-friendly city. Various plans have been proposed to better link downtown to Liberty State Park. Many residents have grave concerns about additional vehicular traffic attempting to bypass the Turnpike by using our residential streets as through streets to the Holland Tunnel. Do you support a pedestrian bridge between downtown to Liberty State Park? Do you support a vehicular bridge between downtown and Liberty State Park? I support a pedestrian bridge for Jersey Avenue. I am 100% against a vehicular bridge for Jersey Avenue, even as I understand fully the anxieties experienced in the Lafayette section of Downtown, awash with commuter traffic backed-up on their residential streets. However, the answer is to keep (encourage) commuter traffic to stay on the Turnpike - especially vehicles heading to Newport, Exchange Place, or the Holland Tunnel (via the C.C. Drive extended ramp, and by the discussed "14-D" ramp that would connect to the existing Newport Mall/ Washington Blvd. "flyover") - not to reward them for getting off "early" at exit 14-B to cut through the heart of Downtown. Relieving the suffering of Lafayette is a genuine need, but the planned Jersey Avenue bridge - which the incumbent mayor has already authorized, over sustained objections from the Van Vorst and Paulus Hook neighborhoods - is a bone-headed response, increasing traffic, not abating it. The commute via Path train has reached an alarming capacity. During business hour commuting, it is routine to wait while train after train passes, unable to absorb even one more body. Various stations are in need of upgrades. Do you agree that the PATH will be unable to support the additional proposed high rise building that will be added downtown? How do you propose to absorb the additional residents that will be moving in to downtown and commuting via PATH train? The PATH concedes that it cannot handle more trains through its tunnels. And while the Grove Street PATH station will be lengthened, allowing for longer trains (with more cars), weekday service will still be at or near capacity. Meanwhile, on the weekends, the PATH still short-changes Jersey City residents with fewer trains, routed through Hoboken. More residents - and more commuter parking clustered at Marin Blvd. and C.C. Drive - will only make the needs more acute. What is your position on the JERSEY CITY MOBILITY 2050 project? Do you think it will address its stated goal: "to create an action-oriented plan for a citywide transportation network that will be pedestrian friendly and reduce future traffic congestion?" No. Having attended the 2050 public meetings, I expect happy horse-shit from the consulting firm, T&M Associates, nothing more. We have pressing transportation needs for 2010, and actionable items that the next administration should implement, including dedicated bicycle lanes and more direct encouragement of the existing mass transit. Case in point: every major construction project should be required to have its crews utilize the HBLRT (and PATH) - that alone will remove several hundred non-residents' vehicles (pick-up trucks from Staten Island, etc.) from our streets (and sidewalks). This process VERY successfully worked when the Goldman Sachs building was under construction (for nearly three years), but has been abandoned by the City since, due to lack of political will by later administrations, the present crop included.