From the Jersey Journal:
Redevelopers to be forced to hire Jersey City residents
By KEN THORBOURNE
Developers who agree to rebuild blighted areas in Jersey City have to give more than lip service to hiring local residents: they must contract with the Jersey City Public Housing Authority to ensure residents are put to work, one city official said.
“Your ‘best effort’ is now going to be working with the (Jersey City) Housing Authority, which has an outstanding track record at putting people to work,” said Robert Antonicello, executive director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency.
“If the local residents can’t benefit by this building boom, we have really done something wrong,” he added.
The details are still being hashed out, but within a month, a deal will be in place whereby developers who agree to build in redevelopment areas would have to hire the Jersey City Housing Authority as hiring consultants, Antonicello said.
another bad idea. Limiting your work pool.
This is either a recipe for resurgence, or a recipe for disaster. I hate to say it, but I would put my money on disaster.
Anytime Antonicello says something think the opposite. He is as crooked as they come. I am all for a good faith effort but I have firsthand knowledge of this failing in Newark on certain projects.
The issues are as follows, in Public Housing in JC it breaks down like this 15% are willing to work, 25% are too old or are disabled unable to work most jobs(probably working as much as they can already), 20% are too lazy, and 40% are criminals/drug addicts.
Given the horrible state of affairs in the Public Housing projects in Jersey City. Why would we make this bad organization responsible for anything. Hiring from the projects should be an option and should garner favor with the politicians but manditory is ridiculous.
First off all of these JC politicos need to be fired, accountability needs to be restored, development needs to be honest and clean, and the projects need to be abolished. In there place build market rate with 30% affordable either rentals or ownership. Those with a legitimate problem with working i.e disability or elderly will pay what they can and be provided with good housing, those working but are unable to afford market rate will get an affordable unit or home. Short term affordable rentals will be provided to those without jobs job training and placement should be provided. Anyone convicted of a violent crime should be kicked out, banned for no less than 7 years, drug addicts should be outted, people perfectly capable of work loafing off the tax payer need to be removed. sell the development rights with 30% affordable requirement, put the burden on developers not the tax payers.
I am liberal, mind you, I support the idea of assisting those who need help and those who are too old or are handicapped. But why if you are able should you not contribute to society. Additionally the drug addicts and criminals do a diservice to anyone living in the immediate area, I can only immagine how hard it would be to raise a child in that environment and how frightening it must be for these elderly people and honest people to live amongst the violence, crime, and drugs that surround them in these projects.
JC-er
Agree with you about Antonicello, I believe he is as crooked as a dogs hind lega nd has the job only because he is a crony of the mayor. Getting rid of the projects is a good idea – but where do the 40% crims and addicts go? To the same place? Jail? For the status of being an addict? It will not solve the addiction problem. Nor will busting the drug sellers solve the drug dealer problem. Put one or even a dozen in jail and there are plenty to take their place. The stuff keeps flooding in and there is so much weakness and grief in people, they keep getting hooked. Deeper and more radical policy is required here and on a state-wide and national level. Legalisation and medicalisation is probably the only real solution. Nevertheless, the get rid of the projects idea is a good one, burden on the developers is right, responsibility on the tenant/owner is also right.
Pingback: Anonymous