Issue 167: Pompidou, part two
Plus: JC Landmarks Conservancy fundraiser, Bergen Square Day, Macbeth in JC, Bergen Square Day, and shhhhh.. it's a surprise!
Good morning and here we go again! A bombshell op ed was dropped by the mayor late Friday afternoon and I will do my best to break that down for you. Plus, some nice events coming up, and I finally get that surprise belated birthday party I’ve been waiting for (maybe… oh wait… maybe it’s something else). Enjoy your weekend and as always, thank you for reading! — Amy
Pompidou, part two
It’s baaaa-aaaaaaack!!! It’s the Pompidou, version two!
Just in time for a good, old fashioned Friday night news dump, an op ed by the mayor appeared on Hudson County View. HCV doesn’t hold onto things of this nature, so I have to assume this was planned by the administration to be released when it was. Basically:
At the next City Council meeting, the Council will introduce an ordinance for our first tax abatement to be granted in seven years to allow the full construction of the Centre Pompidou cultural arts center in Jersey City without state support.
It’s worth reading the whole article but basically the plan is to give development giant KRE a tax abatement for an already approved building in exchange for a lump sum of money that will go towards the building of the JC Pompidou. Also, the entire project has now changed and it looks very different than it did just a month ago, but for now let’s focus on the funding:
What KRE will receive if approved:
– 30 year tax abatement on 808 Pavonia Ave.
– No changes in density or height of approvals.
– PILOT payment instead of conventional taxes.
Ok, so — a few things. For starters, this is potentially a better plan than what was originally proposed from a funding perspective. In the original proposal, state taxpayers would be footing the bill for a museum that almost exclusively catered to and helped the economy of Jersey City and that was always, as a result, going to be caught up in politics. Perks like this abound in state budgets, but at $24 million, this was an awfully big perk — if it were $1 million or $2 million, I’d get it, but $24 million? That’s a whole lot to ask residents outside of Jersey City to pay into it, given that very little statewide revenue would be felt.
Meanwhile, it’s a little strange that in the op ed the mayor doesn’t mention one very crucial piece of information: exactly how much money we are going to get from this PILOT, or what percentage of the overall budget for this project that we get from issuing this PILOT will constitute. For that, you’ll have to consult the 87-page ordinance that was dropped shortly after the op ed was, which will be before the city council on Monday for caucus. That’s a lot of details buried in a document that need to be turned around pretty quick.
But, there’s more to the story and so here’s the breakdown of everything from my POV. It’s long (I’m sorry), but I’ve tried to structure it the best I can.
Explaining how PILOTS work
This new plan basically means that the taxpayers of Jersey City foot the bill. By giving KRE a PILOT (“payment in lieu of taxes”), that means that tax dollars that would normally go into the overall city budget (and help pay for things like the schools, infrastructure, etc) would be diverted and put aside for this particular project. Whether or not that’s a good thing, I leave that up to you. But at least it’s much more fair, from a statewide perspective. Jersey City benefits from the Pompidou; seems fair we should pay for the Pompidou.
But PILOTS are controversial. They last a long time — in this case 30 years — and they trade a lump sum of money up front in exchange for revenue the city could count on year in and year out. There was a time when the city used to hand them out freely to encourage development, but it’s also one of the reasons why our budget is in such bad shape now and why homeowners are stuck with rising property taxes. None of this is to say that this particular project is bad or unworthy, but that context is important.
The city council will have to vote on whether or not to approve this PILOT. I would encourage them to at least start with the following questions:
If we go ahead with this plan, is the Pompidou completely and 100% paid for, or does other money need to be raised? Is there anything additional that has to come into the planning for this project that we need to be aware of in order to keep it functioning and running for at least the next decade? (Note that ticket sales almost never cover the budget of any museum, so that income should not in any way be assumed to cover the expenses of running this one. Also, the amount we will be getting from KRE is not noted in the op ed, so things are pretty unclear on that.)
How much could we project that KRE would pay if they paid regular taxes over the course of thirty years as opposed to the amount that they’d be paying into this lump sum? Obviously, they would be paying less (they wouldn’t want to pursue this plan if they were paying more), but how much less are we talking about? Let’s compare and be transparent about this.
What are the actual, projected economic benefits to the area if the Pompidou goes through, especially now that the project has changed? (Someone, somewhere, must have studied how this specific museum in this specific space is likely to affect the local economy (dear god please let this be true) and have numbers that we can look at to determine whether or not this is a smart use of our money. I’m aware that even those numbers are not set in stone and aren’t necessarily guaranteed and there’s probably some hyperbole that will be baked into those numbers, but at least they will give us something to work with.)
What does the JC budget look like for the next thirty years (since the abatement is for thirty years)? What other expenses are we anticipating coming down the pike? Looking at all available data, where do we think our schools, our roads, our available stock of affordable housing will be in that time? (This, too, will not be set in stone and might have some hyperbole attached, but we ought to be able to at least get some rough estimates to work with.)
From there, we will have some kind of data to help start effectively shaping this discussion. I want us to calm down with the frothy optimism that this project will come in and revolutionize Jersey City and put us on the cultural map and all that other stuff. This is a big financial commitment and the taxpayers deserve to see some data. What I’ve listed above is the bare minimum the city owes its residents when asking them to commit to this plan.
***
Politics and the alpha mayor
It’s impossible to consider this project without remembering that the mayor is running for governor, and that he is trying to save this project as part of that.
From the POV of Fulop’s race for governor, I am totally perplexed as to why he wants to keep this project alive. Yes, he is going out of his way to resist taking the L, so I guess he’s committed to not showing weakness. He tweeted Friday night that “our administration doesn’t accept failure ever,” which is quite a statement to make. I mean, if you’re all about alpha males, I guess you like this sort of thing, and maybe voters like voting for alpha men? Who knows. But imagine you’re a regular homeowner in Clifton. Millions and millions of your tax dollars almost went to this project. Now, it winds up that Jersey City had a backdoor plan to pay for it all along. How do you feel about that?
Fulop has positioned the Pompidou as his great trial where he is bucking the political elite in the state, or something (bucking the elite by funding a French art museum is very confusing but that seems to be where we are). He seems convinced that if he takes this on and wins, voters will reward him. Again, I don’t think this is true — back to square one, why would a voter in Clifton care that much about a museum in Jersey City? — but he seems dedicated to this vision. Meanwhile, back home, the plan for this space is one that Fulop is setting up for the city, with the assumption that he will be out of the door and in Trenton by the time it comes to pass — a move local residents are understandably wary about. People are nervous seeing this ambitious guy shove through this project and have understandable concerns, and will even more so now that it comes with a PILOT attached.
All of this is making the success or failure of this project even more complicated than it needs to be. I’m going to lay this out below in more detail below, but I genuinely believe that by making his presence in this project so front and center, he’s actually potentially derailing it. He’s making it about his own future and his fight against a perceived political establishment, rather than the merits of the project itself. And honestly, just stop it.
I do not care about Steve Fulop’s political future; I care about the future of Jersey City. I care about us doing the right thing for the people who will live here long after Fulop is gone. I believe this project can fit into a positive vision for Jersey City, but I also don’t want to cram something down the throats of residents that they don’t fully understand. Instead, I want to see some of the people who are working with the administration — either in Cultural Affairs or from the Pompidou itself — who can really explain this project to the public take center stage and answer questions people will undoubtably have. This new project is markedly different than what was originally proposed, so we’re going to have to start all over again in terms of explaining to the public what it is, exactly. Don’t worry, Steve — you will get credit for it if it goes through. But you’re not the best messenger right now because you’re insisting on shoving a project through by being as aggro as possible and making it all about your fight against Murphy.
Which leads me to…
Ok, what is this project again?
On the surface, the project sounds so simple: bring a branch of an already respected museum to Journal Square and let economic benefits abound. The problem is, the way this project has been unveiled to the public has been confusing from the very start, and has only gotten more confusing with this latest turn. As someone who has been in the art world my entire professional life, I can’t tell you how much it pains me to see that happen. This is potentially a very good thing to bring to the city. So why be so weird about it? Why, for instance, drop this op ed at 4:30pm on a Friday, a slot generally referred to as a “news dump,” when administrations usually wait to quietly announce their worst news of the week? Why then was the ordinance in question only unveiled after the op ed came out? It’s 87 pages long and the council has to review it for caucus on Monday with a potential vote on Wednesday, leaving very little time for them to read it, let alone get feedback from constituents and neighborhood organizations who I’m sure would also like to review it. This is an issue a lot of people care about and that has gotten really controversial. It’s already been delayed so many times. Why rush it like this?
But I want to return to the idea that the public has gotten some pretty conflicting information on what this project really is from the very beginning. There’s been a flood of speculation both through confusing press releases, letters to the editor (some clearly at the behest of the administration), tweets from the mayor, and so forth that have obscured what this project really is. As a result, we have people in Jersey City convinced that this is a museum that will highlight Jersey City artists, others who believe we’re going to have Old Masters installed in the space, others who think that the museum will work closely with the schools (and yet others convinced that won’t happen at all). Some people think it will be free for residents, others think there will be a $30 or more admission price, making it inaccessible to many. Will it create jobs or will the museum just import their own people? We need to clear things up and set expectations based in reality — and again, there should be no reason to hide.
Now that the project has changed dramatically, we should be using this as an opportunity to start all over again. Gone is the “Night of Ideas” (I guess?); in its place is… whatever this new plan is. And yet, we seem to be determined to keep things as confusing as ever.
You see this mirrored in the mayor’s op ed. At one point he writes:
Similar to the highly regarded MOMA across the river, […]
…and I nearly died. I laughed; I cringed; I crawled under my desk and cried. I wanted to pound my head against the wall for at least half an hour.
Let me explain why this statement caused me so much distress, as I think it will make it really clear about some of the confusion surrounding this project. It’s just nine words, but they reveal so, so much about why people don’t have a clear understanding of what this project is, and why the mayor may be the absolute worst ambassador to be making its case.
The Museum of Modern Art (aka the MOMA, which is across the Hudson River, in Manhattan) is an institution that got its start in 1929 and has established itself as one of the leading museums of Modern art in the world. I sincerely do not think that he is referring to this institution, but many people reading the sentence above will think he is. There is a river, there is a museum called MOMA. It’s got to be what he’s referring to, right? It’s a reasonable assumption.
Meanwhile, PS1 — in Long Island City, Queens (aka you have to cross a whole second river, aka an entirely different space from the one referenced above) — was a non-profit space started by a bunch of scrappy artists/art supporters in the early 1970s. For many years it ran as an independent space before being fully merged by MOMA in 2000 and slowly folded under their umbrella. Once a part of MOMA (it now goes by “PS1/MOMA”), it was transformed into a space where younger, less established artists could exhibit and still get a lot of attention for their work. If MOMA was hosting exhibitions of Picasso, PS1 had shows of — well, put it this way: I have shown at PS1/MOMA. Yes, me; yes, literally. It is a space dedicated to showing artists who are less established than the blockbusters showing at the main museum space. It gets a ton of attention and is a very important part of the economy of LIC. But is it the same as the main branch of MOMA? No, not at all — not even close. PS1/MOMA is probably the museum the mayor is referring to, given the size of the institution and its relationship to an established brand, but if your average reader is confused, I think it’s understandable.
I do not expect rank-and-file Jersey City residents to know the difference between the main MOMA and PS1/MOMA. But I would expect that the main representative pushing this project would, and that he would use that understanding to help the public to clearly envision what this new project will be, not to further confuse them. These are two very different spaces and they bring with them very different expectations. The idea that in a pitch to the people of Jersey City they would be conflated as if they are the same thing is absurd. Right at the time when we need more clarity on this project than ever before, we’re getting a hand-wave at maybe one institution, maybe another, who cares. He takes considerably more care in the op ed to explain his fight with Murphy than he does actually to describe a project that would completely remake an entire neighborhood.
I want to explain why the difference between these two spaces is so important and why this isn’t a minor point when pitching this project to us. Since I am asking for actual numbers that residents can see, let me point out some numbers that illustrate the difference between the two spaces. According to the internet (and I don’t trust these numbers completely, but they’re helpful just as a ballpark), the midtown MOMA got well over two million visitors in 2023, and PS1/MOMA got around 200,000. Compare midtown Manhattan commercial rents near MOMA to those of Long Island City, and you’ll quickly see what a difference numbers like that make. Now, listen — as someone who will have to share the PATH train with visitors to the JC Pompidou, I am much happier with that 200k number than I would be with the two million number. Two million visitors to Journal Square in a year would be an absolute disaster to the infrastructure of that neighborhood. I’m not quite sure how we’re handling two hundred thousand either, but that’s a much more comfortable number, and it really helps put into focus the potential for this project.
If Fulop actually wants to see this project succeed, he’ll chill out and let some experts in the field come forward and actually represent it. (There are plenty of people already working with the city and the Pompidou who could absolutely do this, but the public simply never hears from them. The only person we ever see talking about it is Fulop himself.) Stop making it about him vs. Murphy, which your average Jersey City resident could care less about, and make it more about how the economic pull of a space like this could potentially help lower property taxes long-term. From there, the residents could decide: is this worth the short term sacrifice of taking money out of the budget that they’d otherwise have to put towards schools and roads and so forth towards this project?
Maybe the answer would be yes. Maybe it would be no. But we would be dealing with reality if we had a clear presentation of this project, which we currently we do not. Regular residents are still being misled into what this project really is, and there’s no reason for that. It seems to be a good project. Why not be honest with people as to what it really is?
My take? I’ve said since the beginning that if it was paid for fully by private funds, I’d be all for it. By issuing a PILOT, we’re trying something different — it’s not paid for by private funds, but it’s not state tax dollars either. Jersey City desperately needs money to pay towards bread-and-butter things (again, like schools and roads) to avoid constantly raising property taxes. But if I were on the city council, I’d be open to vote for this — if it actually accounts for the full amount needed to get this project up and running and have it operate for several years1 and if the long term economic benefits were there. It’s not an ideal plan. But if the numbers can be put together, I would be open to it, with potential tweaks.
My hesitation comes from something very simple: KRE and the other developers in the area will be able to sell leases based on their proximity to the museum, meaning they directly benefit from this project and it is in their best interest to support it. If you go into the leasing departments of the big towers in JSQ, you’ll see they’re already hyping the coming museum and already reaping the benefits. So why does KRE need that big of a tax break to convince them to invest? They’re already going to make a ton of money off of this, why are we just handing them more? Maybe we could at least wring a bit more out of them. Maybe we can negotiate a percentage of affordable housing that could wind up in the mix. Maybe it could be fifteen years of an abatement rather than thirty. My overall point is, I’d look at this ordinance as a starting point, and start to push for more.
Again, I want to reiterate: this is a better plan than what we had before at least from a funding perspective, where we were completely dependent on state funds that could evaporate whenever the political winds shifted — like they did. But I have some real concerns how this is being driven by ego and a refusal to just take an L on a project that didn’t work out as opposed to looking at this in a clearheaded way and making decisions from that point. Let’s be really honest about what this project is and what the actual benefits will be to the area and the amount of money that is in on the table, and that will give us a far better idea of what kind of deal we’re really looking at here.
One last question: has the Pompidou in France signed off on this new plan? Again, it’s quite different than what was originally announced, and the French are extremely protective of their cultural assets and where they get loaned out. I know in general this might sound like a silly thing to ask because you’d just assume that of course they’re on board, but the original plan was to have the JC Pompidou’s opening coincide with construction happening at the main Pompidou and that is all well underway now. This new plan is going to push the start date off into the future even more and I’d feel more comfortable if we had confirmation that they’re still even interested in doing this with us. I’d rather take the chance of asking a really dumb question than have us spend the next few months of everyone in Jersey City screaming at each other over a museum that maybe, at this point, they don’t even want to do anymore.
Ok, I know — I have now written a book, but to sum it all up: I have some serious doubts about the credibility of a plan that was announced to the public as it was. If this was a great plan and the mayor had all the numbers to back it up and prove what a good deal it is, I doubt he would have dumped it on us at 4:30pm on a Friday. I still want to believe this project can work, but with every twist and turn, it’s just getting harder and more opaque.
[Postscript: Saturday evening, another article came out on Hudson County View that incorporated feedback from Councilman James Solomon — who has come out against the plan — and some more details from that ordinance. I can’t keep writing this thing, but let’s just say this proposal looks more and more convoluted the further you get into it, with the project resembling what was initially proposed less and less — it’s now no longer “just” the Pompidou — and meanwhile KRE seems to be getting more perks as you go. Suddenly we’re not just building a museum but a million other things as well (again, I encourage you to read that HCV article) including a sculpture garden, 365 parking spots (are those public? for attendees to the museum? for the residents of the building? who knows), multiple commercial spaces, all of which would be under the KRE umbrella, and this is getting really weird. If KRE is going to be the main landlord benefitting from the economic impact of this project and they’re now getting an abatement, how does that change the economic impact to the surrounding area? Initially I assumed there would be cafes and galleries and all sorts of things springing up in surrounding area, but if they’re all in the same facility, how does that change how this project affects the neighborhood? I don’t want to accuse the mayor of misrepresenting the project in his op ed, but there’s a whole lot of unanswered questions, that much is for sure.]
[Ok postscript to my postscript, the Jersey City Times has now entered the chat. And I quote:
The mayor did not explain how the construction would be paid for. Nor did the mayor address operating expenses — estimated at $23 million per year for the previous plan — and how they would be met. It was unclear whether the city would own the space or merely have a long term lease.
Jersey City spent approximately $12 million in architectural, engineering, legal and other other fees for the build-out of the now scuttled plan for the Pathside Building. It isn’t clear whether any of those expenditures are transferable to a new location. The city spent approximately $10 million acquiring the building, which the mayor says could now be re-purposed.
These are all really good points. Look, I’m leaving up my original writing so you can see how I was thinking through this, but obviously this is getting more and more complicated as we go and there’s so much to consider. I hope you can see that I was approaching this with a good faith effort to make this plan work as someone who would like to bring a museum to JSQ, and that I really tried to make all this make sense. I’m really trying here, and the city is making this very hard to support this plan. Well — until the next wrinkle, I guess I’ll leave this here.]
Potentially the worst-kept secret in Jersey City is now finally here.
Perhaps you got an email or text this week that read something along the lines of:
Hi, Amy! It’s James Solomon, and I’m excited to share that our team has major news we’re announcing at our upcoming event. I hope you’ll join us at Jersey City Theater Center (165 Newark Ave) on Thursday, September 19th to learn what’s next.
Doors will open at 6 pm, and we’ll be kicking things off at 6:30 pm. Can I count on you to be there?
Oh man, I hope he’s throwing me a belated surprise birthday party! Oh wait, maybe that’s not it…
After months of speculation (and several weeks where we all pretty much knew this is was coming), it appears as though Ward E Councilman James Solomon is jumping into the Jersey City mayor’s race. He’s expected to run with a full slate, although it’s not clear if those names will be announced during this event (there’s a few people that seem to be confirmed but I’m not sure if he has absolutely everyone lined up just yet).
This is good news for the people of Jersey City. Solomon is a strong candidate, a very smart guy, and I really think only good things can come by him joining the race, effectively really shaking things up between the frontrunners. We’ve had too many elections in our city where we didn’t have any decent choices, but the 2025 mayor’s race certainly isn’t going to continue in that tradition. Boy, howdy, will we have a lot of choices.
Anyway, I look forward to having him as part of this race and hearing more about his vision for the city. I think he’ll add a real contrast to the existing candidate pool, and a shot of adrenaline we might need in order to get all the way to November 2025.
Bergen Square Day
Next Saturday from noon til 6pm, there will be a celebration of Bergen Square Day, a free and family-friendly event that takes place on Bergen Ave, near Academy Street (that area of Bergen Ave will be shut to traffic, if previous celebrations of Bergen Square Day are any indication):
Bergen Square Day, a celebration of the rich, diverse culture and history of Jersey City, will be celebrated Saturday, September 14 th. from 12:00 noon until 6:00 p.m. in Bergen Square. The celebration, hosted by The Journal Square Community Association and the Museum of Jersey City History, together with the Journal Square Special Improvement District and Jersey City Office of Cultural Affairs, will take place at the intersection of Bergen Avenue and Academy Street.
This family-friendly festival will feature activities and performances for all ages, including live bands, a deejay, dancing, tours of local historic sites, local food and merchant vendors. Featured acts this year include jazz band The Spirit of Life Ensemble; music and dance performed by Spektrums Afrikans (African folk dance); and reggae band 5 Outta 12. Local Jersey City DJ Deejay Khadi will also be spinning Afro Beats and family-friendly party pop on the main stage throughout the day. The Museum of Jersey City History at the Apple Tree House (298 Academy) will be open throughout the day. History walking tours of Bergen Square will leave from the museum. The Speranza Theater company will perform there at 6 p.m.
I’m a little sad that they don’t seem to be continuing their tradition of having an apple-themed cooking contest? But alas. This is still a fun, free event that is worth checking out.
JC Landmarks Conservancy fundraiser/gala
JC Landmarks Conservancy — the organization that makes sure all of Jersey City doesn’t become Bayonne boxes and soulless pre-fab builds, as well as supporting well-loved events like the History Happened Here Children’s Tour — is having a party this coming week. From a friend:
JC Landmarks Conservancy’s 25th Year Annual Preservation Awards & Fundraiser will be happening at Barrow Mansion on Thursday, September 12 at 6:30 pm.
Live music by Winard Harper and Mary Aiken, delicious food by Wealth Kitchen and other local businesses, open bar, silent auction, creative festive attire, a night of celebration!
Light bites and drinks will be served. Buy tickets by going to Eventbrite here.
Upcoming production of Macbeth in Jersey City
Ok, this is giving you a bit of advanced notice, but I wanted to let you know about this production that is arriving just in time for spooky season (because I know spooky season can fill up pretty quickly). A production of Macbeth is coming to downtown JC, where it will be performed in a “an intimate and haunting candlelight environment”:
The Curtain’s production of Shakespeare’s classic tale of witchcraft, madness, and ruthless ambition will be set in an intimate and haunting candlelight environment. First premiering in 1606, Macbeth tells the harrowing and timeless story of one couple’s cold-blooded quest for power—and its devastating aftermath.
Directed and Adapted by Sean Hagerty, The Curtain’s Macbeth will begin performances on Thursday, October 10 at Nimbus Arts Center (329 Warren Street) in downtown Jersey City just steps from the PATH train. The official Opening is set for Sunday, October 13, with the strictly limited engagement set to run through Sunday, November 3, 2024.
This production will run Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights at 7:30pm, with additional Sunday matinees at 3:00pm. Tickets are $40 for Thursday and Sunday performances, and $50 for Friday and Saturday performances.
For more information or to purchase tickets, go to TheCurtain.org.
ICYMI
There’s been a whole situation going on between the mayor and JCPD and whether or not off-duty officers can use cannabis. You can read more about it here, but to me the most shocking part of this story is that apparently the city has decided to let the free market decide how many cannabis shops we’re going to allow, and so now the current number is up to forty-six places that have gotten licenses. I’m a regular consumer of cannabis, but hoo boy, that seems like an awful lot even to me for a city the size of JC. And by the sign of the (empty) parking lots in front of many of the existing places, I think we might have tapped out the market a bit while others are still being built. I don’t know… if I were a young entrepreneur, I might consider going into another industry at this point, but maybe that’s just me.
I love my readers very, very much, but school started this week and as a result I have only had enough time to very lightly skim the 87 page ordinance. It doesn’t look to me like there is nearly enough money in it to account for the entire amount needed, but I don’t trust my quick glance at the document fully. If I’m wrong and there’s the full amount, I say go for it. If not and we have to also pay yet more tax dollars for it, that’s a much bigger stretch for me.