“The organization wants 5% of the total construction cost.”
From the NJ SCI 1971 report
POINT BREEZE AREA OF JERSEY CITY
An initial investigation by the Commission’s staff not only indicated substance to the irregularities allegation, but also convinced the commissioners that a further probe could bring to public light a clear and informative example of improper, questionable and wasteful procedures in a vital development project dependent for success on the actions ‘Of a municipal government.
Accordingly, the Commission authorized a full field investigation with subsequent private hearings. Public hearings were held October 27 and
Reclamation and development of municipally governed lands throughout the state are of vital concern to the taxpaying public of New Jersey. Without proper safeguards, it is all too possible for improper procedures to be employed with resulting misuse of public and private funds and gross misuse of public trust.
Employment of improper procedures also can inhibit the attraction of private capital and expertise to realize the full potential of valuable lands in the best interest of the state as a whole and of the municipalities in which the lands lie.
We believe the results of this investigation and these hearings point the way toward areas of study and action that could increase the safeguards and close loopholes, all in the interest of spurring proper
and productive reclamation of valuable lands through development and redevelopment projects.
The Commission’s recommendations for possible areas Of study and action at the state level are given in detail in this report. The recommendations are the result Of extensive analysis and thought by the Commission and its staff, and the Commission believes they are worthy ‘Of in-depth consideration.
The Port Jersey Corporation plan for a private development Of Point Breeze as a modern containers-ship port and an associated industrial park is strongly favored by the Commission. All these involved in the investigation were unanimous in finding that plan to be a necessary and excellent development project for the Jersey City area and the state as a whole.
28 in the State Senate Chamber. Chairman McCarthy at that time summarized the intent and results of the Point Breeze probe with these remarks: It’s the Commission’s hope that the clearing of the air by public hearings has aided .in the achievement of completion of that project.
in turn contacted Ezra Sensibar, president of Construction Aggregate-s Corporation, who’ visited the site and conceived the idea ‘Of a containership port which would surpass any services then being Offered to Ocean going vessels by the city of New York. These three men formed a corporation known as
public auction, the city accepted a $2,040,000 bid by E.S.C.A. for approximately 223 acres of its waterfront area.
$102,000 IS PAID
However, in this instance a commission of $102,000 was paid by the city to the C. B. Snyder Realty Company, which was controlled by C.
The sum of $51,000 was paid to Mr. Abrams, himself a 25 per cent shareholder in the purchasing corporation. Mr. Abrams, in turn, deposited this amount in the trusteeship account which he kept in the name of the purchasing corporation and from which he paid its bills. In effect then, one half of the commission found its way into the hands of the actual buyer.
The remaining half was distributed by C. B. Snyder to himself and various people in his employ. One such person was Gerard Kelly, who joined Snyder’s company two months after the purchase. Prior to that, he had been the executive director to the Area Development Council and as such, had the prime responsibility for soliciting developers for the Point Breeze area.
Since the public hearings exposing the improperly paid commission, the City of Jersey City has demanded the return of the $102,000 commission from the Snyder firm. The city has said it will go to court, if necessary, to get the money returned to the City’s treasury.
Ezra .Sensibar, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
A. After we were the successful bidder on the property I began to think about the implications of what Mr. Snyder had told me, that the Kislak Organization seemed to .him to be the preferred buyer as far as the city was concerned, and I thought that we ought to find out whether we would be treated fairly, whether we would get reasonable cooperation or whether we would be treated with hostility.
And what steps did you take to find those things out?
And did he do this?
When you say “we,” who are you referring to?
J. V. Kenny and I.
Where was this meeting?
It was in the office of Mr. Bernard Kenny.
And that would be the architectural firm of Kenny, of
And this meeting actually took place in the private office of Mr. Bernard Kenny. Is that right?
It did, yes.
Can you tell us, to the best of your recollection, what the conversation was at this particular meeting.~
,ground of our company, of Construction Aggregates Corporation. I explained to him of interest in this project; that it was not to any great degree in the industrial park portion.
I must say that the property at that time consisted of a garbage dump of about sixty acres surrounded by ten or fifteen acres of marshland. The rest of the two hundred thirty-five acres that we had bid on was land under water covered by’ anywhere from eight to twenty feet of water.
I pointed out to Mr. Kenny that we had very little interest in the shoreward end of it, that we intended to remove the garbage dump and convert the area into an industrial park which would cover something like a hundred acres but that our real interest was in the outward end, in the land that was under water, which we could fill by methods that are historical with our company, which formed the basis of our business, and that we had the dream of converting that into a major container port. I explained to him what that meant, what that should mean to Jersey City and the area in terms of investment and employment.
J. V. Kenny in some detail the back
And did you say anything else to Mr. Kenny?
]1 said at that time we had only $50,000 invested in this project and if he felt that we were not going to be treated correctly and given the full cooperation we were entitled to, we would rather leave our $50,000 and go away rather than continue.
And by “cooperation”, did you also mean that you wanted to be free from all demands that anyone might make upon you as a price for this cooperation?
And what was Mr. Kenny’s reply?
by the city, and they wanted us there. And he said that if any son-of-a-bitch asked for money, to come to him and we would take care of him.
Mr. Sensibar testified:
Was it also apparent at. this. time that you needed the city’s help ·in the tax structure of the project itself?
to compete with the Port Authority. It was extremely essential
Now, what do you mean, competition with the Port Authority? Could you explain to the Commission?
Now, these two advantages make it extremely difficult for any private operator
to develop port facilities, and the only chance that a private operator has is to have the advantages offered· by the Fox-Lance treatment in respect to future taxes. Now this is not on the land, but on the buildings, ‘on the improvements that are put on the land.
Were you aware of the high tax rate which Jersey City had prior to your purchasing the property?
Yes.
This was a stumbling block, then, that you bec.ame aware of after,’ you had purchased the property?
Was one of your problems also trying to attract clients into your project?
Between January and February of 1969, Mr. Sensibar received constant complaints from Port Jersey’s men on the site that the city was doing nothing towards those items of cooperation already agreed upon. In February of 1969, at a meeting in the Downtown Club of Newark, Clinton Snyder and Arthur Abrams heard their architect, Bernard Kenny, deliver a message that, “the organization wants
Mr. Abrams, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Ezra Sensibar, when told about the demand, requested Bernard Kenny to arrange a meeting with Thomas Flaherty, President of the Jersey City Council, at Sensibar’s hotel room in New York City. Mr. Sensibar testified:
And at this time, Mr. Abrams, what was the anticipated cost of construction of the project, approximately?
Over a hundred million dollars, wasn’t it, sir?
I mean, now it looks big.
Well, did Mr. Kenny indicate to you who composed the organization; on whose behalf was he speaking?
Well, did you ask him?
I did not.
Did you ask him how it would be paid over?
Did he suggest manners through which you could raise this type of cash or did he go into detail? No.
Did he say what was going to be done with the money? No.
Did he say that it could be turned over to him. personally for distribution to the, quote, organization, unquote?
I don’t recall that. I don’t recall that.
You mean he simply said to you that” we want· five per cent”?
He left himself out? Yes.
Do you know which organization he was referring to?
Well, as a result of this meeting-~well,
Now, do you recall Mr. Snyder or MI”. Abrams telling You, where they had met with Mr. Bernard Kenny and discussed this?
No, I do not.
All right. Did you make arrangements to meet with Mr. Flaherty?
arrange a meeting with Mr. Flaherty.
Why did you ask Bernard Kenny to perform this?
Was
Did Mr. Bernard Kenny manage to set up a meeting between you and Mr. Flaherty?
Was Mr. Bernard Kenny there, also?
Was Mr. Bernard Kenny there, also?
Can we fix a time for this meeting with Mr. Flaherty?
Of .969?
It was right up close to the 1st of February.
Will you tell the Commission as nearly as you can recollect how the conversation went at this particular meeting?
Mr. Flaherty said, yes, he knew about that, but that the organization needed money and he thought that we should contribute three per cent of the value of our construction work.
Sensibar then asked Bernard Kenny to arrange for a second meeting with John V. Kenny to discuss Flaherty’s demand. Mr. Sensibar testified:
A. I continued, of course, to receive complaints from our people, and when I went back to Chicago and thought about this thing, the more I thought about it the more angry I became.
Were you aware that previous to this Mr. Bernard Kenny had met with Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder in N e1va”k in the Downtown Club and there had told Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder that the organization was requesting five per cent of your total construction cost?
As far as you can recollect, then, when Mr. Flaherty met with you”, in New York he was “eq1testing three per cent of Yo1tr total project?
And what did you do when you were faced with this particular demand?
He said it was-that he knew about that, but it was nevertheless necessary; and that he was the man appointed to collect funds for the organization; they had
I had told him that nevertheless we couldn’t pay it, and the meeting broke up on that note.
Kenny had promised us cooperation, promised us that we would be free of harassment; and that I intended to proceed on that basis. 1m expensive political campaign underway; they needed money; they had to look to the larger people like ourselves to make the contributions and that he couldn’t take no for an answer.
And what did you”, do?
And did he set 11p an appointment for you with Mr. John V. Kenny?
Where did this meeting take place?
This would be, then, someti1ne in-
Of 1969?
Would you tell the Commission, as nearly as you can recollect, the conversation that took place at this particular meeting with Mr. John V. Kenny?
Mr.
J. V. Kenny said that he remembered it; he remembered our initial discussion, that he would stand by it. He said nevertheless that they did have an expensive campaign; that Mr. Flaherty was the man who was delegated to raise funds for the campaign, and that it would be appreciated if we would make a campaign contribution.
With the project still stalled by municipal delay and daily costs mounting, Sensibar asked Bernard Kenny to arrange another meeting with Thomas Flaherty on April 16, 1969, Mr, Sensibar testified:
A. By sometime in early April Mr. Snyder and Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kenny, Bernie Kenny, said that they were so stymied at city hall that they thought it was
necessary that I should have another meeting-with
Mr. Flaherty.
What did you say in reply to this, if anything?
that note.
N010, was there any change in your position as regards to your financial commitment into the project at this time?
Now, with your knowledge that your men on the scene were running into these drawbacks did yon, in fact, arrange for another meeting with Mr. Flaherty?
I had another meeting-with him on April 16th.
And who arranged for that meeting?
Where did the meeting take place?
And who was at that meeting besides Yourself and Mr. Flaherty?
This time Mr. Snyder did not accompany yon?
Would you tell the Commission, to the best of your recollection, what the conversation was at that meeting?
” I turned the conversation away from the question of any basis and tried to put in on a platform
This as far as the meeting went, then, was probably merely
Now, did you dismiss with Mr. Flaherty how the money was to be paid?
How did you arrange to generate this $20,000 in
A. I had Mr. Abrams on behalf of Port Jersey send me a check for $20,000, which I had cashed in Chicago.
in Chicago?
Now, I show you what has been previously marked as Exhibit C-l-C-4, I’rn sorry, and I ask you if that is the check which Mr. Abrams did send to you
It is; it is.
And did you have someone cash this check at a bank in Chicago and receive the currency?
Now, at every point in your discussions either with Mr. Kenny or with Mr. Flaherty were you advising your two partners, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder, of what was taking place?
Did these men warn you prior to your coming into this project in New Jersey that it would be unr
Mr. Clinton
Now, after you received the $20,000 from Mr. Abrams in the form of this check and Y01′ cashed it on, I believe it was, April 23rcl-let me get that check -on April 23rd, 1969
Did you give the $20,000 to MI’. Snyder in any sad of container or package, or was it just in cash?
It was in an envelope in cash.
Did you instruct Mr. Snyder what to do with it or did he already know?
Do you know–1AJell, as for as you know, then, Mr. Snyder delivered that money to Mr. Flaherty?
B. Snyder was called to testify. However, upon being warned of his rights he gave the following response:
Mr. Snyder, did you participate in any payoff to any city official in Jersey City or Hudson County?
A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me.
Mr. Edward Patterson, a witness of this conversation, also testified as to what he remembered was said:
M. Gerard Kelly denied making the statement at all:
C. B. Snyder Realty Company, testified that he participated in a conversation with Mr. Edward Patterson and M. Gerard Kelly regarding Port Jersey development:
Mr. Light, I
And in what capacity were you employed?
At that time, sir, was there also one M. Gerard Kelly employed on the premises of C.
And what were his responsibilities?
Were Y01t, sir, at this time also endeavoring to attract clients to the Port Jersey project?
Were you having difficulties doing this?
Well, at any time, sir, during the month of August, 1969,
It had cost $50,000 for the securing of the abatement, but he said it was well worth the Investment because now the building could go forward and all of the rest of the development could move.
Did he explain to Y01, what he meant by the payment of $50,000?
Mr. Paterson, were you during the month of August, 1969,
And in what capacity, sir?
And you have this morning, sir, heard the testimony of M. Gerard Kelly, is that correct, sir’?
And have you also heard the testimony of Mr.. Edward Light?
Is Mr. Edward Light’s version of what transpired at this meeting an accurate representation of the conversation?
Is there anything you wish to add to it?
Mr. Kelly, did you ever’ make a statement referring to Port Jersey that it “cost us $50,000, for tax abatement, but it was well worth it”?
Not all property can be blighted-only that land which satisfies one of five statutory conditions can be so designated. To this end the City planning board commissioned Alvin E. Gershen Associates to make a blight survey of the entire waterfront area. They recommended to the Planning Board that this entire area be declared blighted. After a public hearing, the Planning Board made the same recommendation to the City Council. The Council, however, designated only the property owned by the Port Jersey Corporation and an area belonging to the federal government known as Caven Point.
Mr. Alvin Gershen and his employee, Elwood Jarmer, were both duly sworn and testified as follows:
And one of the accounts that you had on a consultant basis was the Jersey City account. Is that correct?
You! were a consultant to them?
And did you also aid Jersey City by sitting on what is
Was that part of your consulting duties?
It was.
In addition to that, were you commissioned by the city council to make a blight survey of the area known as the Jersey City waterfront?
Did you make stl.ch a survey, or did your firm make such a survey in conjunction with the Jersey City Planning Board
And who actually did the field work?
I show you what has been marked previously as C-6 for identification, which is
Is that the blight report which you submitted in July of 1970 to the Jersey City Planning Board?
* •
Did you know why you were asked to make such a survey?
Well, do you know why Jersey City was interested at this point in determining whether this waterfront area was blighted?
All right. If I may get back to Mr. Gershen. Mr. Gershen, did you learn later on that the Jersey City V01bncil had declared a portion of the waterfront area a blighted or renewal area?
And I believe this particular resolution or decision was made on September 15th, 1970. Is that correct?
Now, in your opinion as a planner is it in the best interests of the City of Jersey City in developing the property as a whole, in developing the waterfront as a whole, that they should single out only a small portion of that particular property and designate it as a blighted area? It is not. That’s in my judgment as a planner.
Now, is it possible in your judgment to designate only the area in blue which was owned by the Port Jersey Corporation under construction at that time as a blighted area?
If you are saying would we recommend that the blue area at the bottom of that map, if that were the only area to be presented for a blight determination, would we recommend that it be blighted? .
Yes.
Now, Mr. Gershen, in your experience as a Planner have you
This particular statute, can you tell the Commission briefly what sort of benefit it gives to a developer who comes in and starts to redevelop an area?
Now, prior to such treatment it’s necessary that the municipality blight the area it’s dealing with. Is that correct?
Well, that
Are there any others that must be met before you can designate an area as an area that should receive Fox-Lance treatment.?
in addition to the ‘blighting’ of an area is the adoption of an urban renewal plan in accordance, as the statute says, in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 17 (b) of Chapter 306 of the Laws of ’49. That citation is the :Redevelopment Agencies Law of 1949.
Well, in other words, what you are telling us is that an additional statutory requirement’ be/ore an area may receive tax abatement is that there be a plan for the development 0/ that area that qualified?
An additional qualification for the use of the Urban Renewal Corporations Act, because there are other acts under the statute, under our New Jersey statutes, which provide for tax abatement. Bo under this statute there is a requirement that there is blight, and in our judgment there is a requirement in addition to that that the conditions as recited in 40:550-17(b), which is the Redevelopment Agencies Law, must be present since 40 :55C-46 of the Fox-Lance Law requires it. I don’t mean to get that technical.
Let me ask. in your opinion do you feel that the statute requires that there be a redevelopment plan for an area before Fox-Lance may be applied to the
Do you know whether there was a redevelopment plan for the area known as port Jersey before FoxLance was applied to it?
When was that submitted to the City of Jersey City?
MR.
SAPIENZA: :Mr. Chairman, for the record, the city entered into a financial agreement with the Harbor Renewal Corporation on December 7, 1970, granting-that corporation Fox-Lance treatment.
Now, 1I1r. Gershen, let me ask you’ this: In your opinion havinp worked with Fox-Lance in other municipalities, is it possible to prant Fox-Lance treatment to an area 1uhich is under construction where construction has been commenced and a phase of it completed?
Mr. Arthur Abrams testified:
of July 11, 1968,
Who, Mr. Abrams, is Frank Murray? He was then, and I don’t know whether he still is, he was then president of the Jersey City local of the ILA.
The Longshoremen’s local? That’s right.
For what purpose did you issue this check to Mr. Murray?
At whose direction did you issue that check to him? Mr. Sensibar.
Did you ever see a voucher submitted by Mr. Murray to explain what expenses he had incurred? No, there was no voucher submitted.
No voucher was submitted. Did You ever ask Mr. Murray what he did? No.
Did you ever ask Mr. Sensibar what he did for you, for the money?
I ask ,him. Mr. Murray had been extremely helpful to us in terms of introducing us to potential shipping people. He had done a great deal of leg work on our behalf trying to interest people, not for unselfish reasons but for the fact that he wanted shipping companies to come to Jersey City.
Well, have You obtained any clients at all as a result at introductions you received through Frank Murray? No. Not through any brokers, either, so we had a lot
So he really didn’t do that much for you!?
Well, did he mail you a bill?
Well, how did you arrive at the thirty-eight hundred-sixty-dollar figure?
He said, “Give me $3,860″?
Well, did he offer to do anything for Port Jersey with regard to potential labor problems in exchange for that?
In other words, he had to pay expenses to allocating some of these gangs to Port Jersey?
You are still active in the Port Jersey operation, aren’t you, sir?
And this check is dated July 11, 1968.
They are, in fact, Teamsters working in the 1varehouses, aren’t they?
You don’t know?
2. The statutes should be changed
3. The Fax-Lance tax abatement statute and its effects in the past 10 years should be thoroughly studied and analyzed with the aim of making that statute a more effective tool for stopping urban decline.
4. The statute on brokerage fees paid far sales of public lands should be amended to bar more effectively any payment of those fees to purchasers of the land.
5. The state should have up-to-date and more effective criminal statutes on bribery and corruption.
to assist private developers in improving and realizing the full potential of those lands.
revised unit of state government to plan and coordinate the development of val1wble lands throughout the state and to assist private developers in realizing the full potential of those lands.
Municipalities still would be empowered to make their own blight declarations. But, the investigation and findings by any proposed state office would, in effect, do much of the homework for the municipalities in determining the propriety and usefulness of blighted areas.
“What is envisioned by the Commission is a degree of statewide coordination of urban blight land redevelopment, with municipalities working in harmony rather than competition with the state which should have, at least, the power to review local decisions on development plans and on blighting.
C. Any proposed new state unit should be under statutory direction to be of all possible assistance to developers.
• Maintain an adequate and expert staff that will discuss freely and fully with a developer all problems and procedures involved in developing a certain area.
• ‘Find and execute, in cooperation with the developer, all possible ways of cutting red tape and delays in acquiring and getting clear title to lands. The proposed new office could be helpful in straightening out riparian land problems.
• In keeping a constant inventory of lands, the office should compile full data on municipal tax rates and any other fiscal factors affecting those lands as a way of aiding the developer in estimating the true costs that will be encountered in a project.
• Any proposed new office should make and maintain channels of communication with all federal, state, county and municipal agencies that could be involved in development and redevelopment projects so that a developer can be directed to specific agencies and people within those agencies.
• The office should keep a thorough and up-to-date file on all developers who might be interested in various types and aspects of development and redevelopment projects so that combinations or marriages of various developer interests and capabilities can be accomplished.
The Commission found that the Port Jersey Corporation was primarily interested in filling in a waterfront area and constructing a containership terminal. The corporation would have liked to enter the project jointly with another developer expert in industrial park projects. Port Jersey, however, didn’t find a partner and had to undertake on its own both the containership terminal and the adjacent industrial park project.
To determine which lands or areas should be declared blighted under the Blighted Areas Act to pave the way for redevelopment projects. . It is suggested the office could take the following steps as a minimum:
Logic and proper planning procedures would dictate that a municipal redevelopment plan should be carefully thought out and formulated before decisions are made on blighting areas. In the Port Jersey project, Jersey City never did formulate and adopt a redevelopment plan for its waterfront property until after the sale of its property, the declaration that a portion of it was blighted, and some tax relief was granted. Although the city planning board recommended blighting the entire waterfront area, the city council voted to blight only the Port Jersey area and the adjacent Caven Point area. That procedure was, to say the least, chaotic and, to say the most, possibly improper.
We urge the statutes he amended so that the Blighted Areas Act requires adoption of a municipal redevelopment plan contemporaneously with a declaration of blight and as a precedent to use of municipal power in dealing with a blighted area.
The redevelopment plan should, by statutory direction, be formed by the municipal planning· board. In cases where a municipality does not have that type of board, the plan could be formed by any new proposed State government unit.
10 years should be thoroughly studied and analyzed with the aim of making that statute a more effective tool for stopping urban decline.
During that time, the developer pays taxes on land but not on improvements on the land. In lieu of no tax on improvements, the developer pays
The Commission suggests any study of the Fox-Lance statute should delve into the questions ·of whether to continue to leave room to negotiate the abatement rate up to certain levels or whether a shift to more fixed, non-negotiable rate might be in order.
One principal problem raised by granting Fox-Lance abatement on too grand a scale is that the municipality involved in an effort to attract new industry indirectly places a higher tax burden ‘On other properties, and the higher taxes, in turn, tend to drive Existing industrial ratables and homeowners from the city.
The decision to grant tax abatement and realize less than full revenue on a project is rightfully placed with the mayor and governing body of a municipality because they are responsible for imposing taxes and balancing the municipal budget.
However, the Omission suggests as worthy ‘Of close study a suggestion that the Fox-Lance statute should be altered to permit any proposed new state government unit to grant property tax abatement to private developers but with a companion requirement that the state reimburse a municipality for the full difference between what a municipality would have gotten by fully taxing a project and what it actually got under state grant of tax abatement.
The Commission notes the possibility that the Fox-Lance law is unnecessarily confining and inflexible in not permitting tax abatement to be app1ied retroactively to existing improved properties. A city might want to keep valuable industry within its borders by giving some sort of tax break. However, under the present statute, tax abatement can be applied only to new construction projects.
the~ contract, whichever comes first.
Obviously, if purchasers wind up getting all or part of the brokerage fees paid by a municipality, they are in effect getting a refund that lowers the amount they had to pay to acquire public lands.
The last paragraph of the statute
In all sales made pursuant to paragraphs (a) (c) or
(d) of this section the governing body of any municipality
• The term purchaser should be defined as including any person, corporation or other business entity which owns or controls directly
• Before any commission may be paid, the proposed payment must be included in the conditions of sale publicly advertised, and the recipient must file an affidavit ‘with the governing body stating that he is not a purchaser within the terms of the statutes.
01′ indirectly more than 10 per cent of the purchasing entity.
With new and modern statutes, the Commission believes the pace and success of law enforcement in the bribery and corruption field will increase markedly.
Certainly, no stone, statutory or otherwise, Should be left unturned
in trying to prevent re-occurrences Of the shocking nature revealed at the Commission’s hearings on the Port Jersey development. The Port Jersey Corploration was pressured into making an imprlOper$20,OOO cash payment to a Jersey City Official as the price of having the city cooperation so vital to the success of the project .
The Commission concluded from its investigation and hearings on the Port Jersey project that strong consideration should be given to the state’s playing a larger and more influential role in the development of lands so valuable to the economic well-being of New Jersey as a whole.
However, the Commission believes that prior
The Commission notes that after its public hearings last October and before issuance of this annual report, Governor Cahill in his 1972 Annual Message to the Legislature called for a far-reaching program of state, county and municipal} cooperation to revitalize the Lower Hudson Waterfront.
The governor’s recommendations included creation of a special interdepartmental committee to prepare a plan for development of the waterfront and to recommend needed revisions of municipal land use regulations, plus legislation to create a multi-purpose agency to encourage private investment in the area.
The Commission believes the record of its hearings on the Port Jersey project, as detailed in sworn testimony in previous pages of this report, offers a concrete and specific instance of the need for the greater coordination and planning that the Commission now joins the Governor in advocating. Obviously the Port Jersey plan represents a development project with a function and impact that go far beyond the municipal boundaries in which the project lies.
The hearings on the Port Jersey project also demonstrated how private developers can be faced with a bewildering, frustrating and all too costly process of having to deal with an array of federal, state and local agencies from the time of looking for available land to completion of a project. The Port Jersey corporation had to negotiate with no less than 37 federal, state and local agencies. The matter of getting a riparian grant from the state took three years. Those facts certainly indicate the usefulness of some type of single governmental unit of statewide stature and expertise to provide information and otherwise help to smooth the path for developers of similarly important land through the complex web of making a development dream become a reality.
The Commission urges that once appropriate study has determined the best exact nature of any new or revised unit of state government, that unit be given responsibilities and powers in the following areas:
A. To survey and keep an up-to-date statewide inventory of all lands available and suitable for various kinds ·of development and redevelopment projects.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A.
A. (By Mr. Gershen) In my judgment, no.
is one of the statutory provisions? A. (By Mr. Gershen)
A.
a down payment on what Mr. Flaherty expected to take from you; would that be correct? ” … A.
A.
A.
Frank Hague – Mayor of Jersey City
Great Jersey City Stories! – On Sale at Amazon!
Hudson County Facts Print Edition on Sale at Amazon
Search Engine Marketing – Advertise and Boost Your Rating!
The REAL New Jersey Mafia!
