As already approved the LG building is the best case scenario for all parties concerned and for the future of the Palisades
I just came across a video on MY9NJ.com titled…
Reporter Sibile Marcellus and Bill Spadea and their counterparts on a Chasing New Jersey segment brilliantly laid out the the arguments against those groups who are trying their best to circumvent New Jersey’s land use laws to prevent LG from building their US corporate headquarters as it was approved after numerous public meetings and then the approvals being upheld in a recent New jersey court ruling.
As Ms Sibili and her colleagues put it…”LG has the right to build what was approved”.
BTW…I love seeing the format being used on the Chasing New jersey segments. They cover a story from all angles and present it in a way that’s easy for viewers to digest. The story resonates. They assembled a great team at MY9NJ.com.
- This project clearly sits outside the boundary of the Palisades Park, therefore nothing within the boundary of the protected area will be destroyed. In fact LG is going out of their way to take on the monumental task of planting 700+ new trees on the property, which is probably 690 more trees than were originally on this site when it was developed for a Citi Group back office but has been vacant for half a decade. I do not know of any other developer or corporation that has gone so far above what would have been required by the town for a site plan approval…and that is evident by looking at the newest Unilever buildings and the CNBC site…in which the land was raped by past zoning requirements
Mayor Parisi is correct to point out that if a developer were to have purchased this land, which would happen if LG throws in the towel and leaves Englewood Cliffs and New Jersey altogether, the developer could apply to build and rather easily get approvals for 1,500+ affordable homes on the site. Does anyone care to talk about how 1,500 units could fit on less than 18 acres (not all 27 acres can be used).
- Many highrises
- Many VERY TALL highrises that would dwarf what was approved on the LG site…like the 400′ highrise now being built in Fort Lee that has a scant 450 units. A second 400′ tower will be started shortly on that site bringing the total number of units to only 900.
- It would take 3+-400′ tall buildings on the LG site to meet the affordable housing requirements that Englewood Cliffs has skirted for so long
- If you could cut the buildings in half then the developer would need 8-20 story 200′ high buildings to meet a state required number of affordable housing units
- The property would lose all of its green space
And how would that look from across the Hudson River?
This wouldn’t be the first time in history where the well intended actually create a worse scenario than had they not pushed for something unreasonable.
As I’ve stated in the past, the best course of action would be for the opponents to create a zone in perpetuity to the north of Englewood Cliffs (Tenafly, Alpine and into New York State) where there has been no past development…and make sure that these areas will never be developed…even outside of the Palisades Park boundaries.
This is the correct battle.
This is doable and it’s practical.
However if they stay the course and fight LG, this will surely hit the courts again, and LG will win again because they are within their rights to develop what was approved. The laws are clear on this.
And when the opponents lose this fight they will only have themselves to blame for getting nothing…and turning this into a nightmare situation for them going forward.
Do they want to take that risk and gain nothing…I would hope not.
The smart money says work to preserve undeveloped land to the north of Englewood Cliffs. That’s the battle they should fight…and one they can win.