Full Notification

This morning, various elected officials including Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Mayor-Elect Ravi Bhalla, and Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher, along with concerned Hoboken residents spoke at the NJ Transit board meeting regarding NJ Transit’s plans to acquire the Union Dry Dock property. The Union Dry Dock issue was not on today’s agenda but may be on the NJ Transit board’s agenda in January.
 
The following is Mayor Zimmer’s statement to the NJ Transit Board of Directors:
 
“Good morning board members,
 
My name is Dawn Zimmer. I am the Mayor of Hoboken here to discuss NJ Transit’s proposed plan to buy the Union Dry Dock property on Hoboken’s waterfront and lease it to NY Waterway. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I know that you have the tough job of trying to ensure that scarce public resources for NJ Transit are spent as effectively as possible in the best interests of the public. For this reason, I urge you to ask a lot of questions that need to be asked, evaluated, and answered with regard to NJ Transit’s proposed plans in Hoboken. I hope you will require that some important questions be fully answered before a decision is made by the board on the option to purchase the Union Dry Dock property for ferry and possibly bus maintenance.
 
I also want to make sure you are aware that the Union Dry Dock property, through our master planning process, has been envisioned since 2004 to become open space by the people of Hoboken. As Mayor, I supported this vision but recognized that for as long as Union Dry Dock was an iconic, operating ship repair business, it was not possible to acquire this for open space until Union Dry Dock decided to end their operations.
 
I also want you to know that in 2012, former NJ Transit Executive Director Weinstein made a public statement that NJ Transit was not interested in acquiring the Union Dry Dock property and wrote a letter to the City of Hoboken making that position clear.
 
Unfortunately, without any notice whatsoever to the City of Hoboken, it appears that NJ Transit has been involved in negotiating an option to purchase the property.
 
My first question: Has there been a thorough evaluation of other sites? NY Waterway says they have done an evaluation of other sites and feasibility studies. Have those studies been provided to the board so you can make an informed decision? Since we are talking about the use of public resources for a private entity, it is important that a thorough evaluation of other sites was conducted.
 
We have requested that analysis, but we have not received it from NY Waterway. I am concerned about whether or not this evaluation was conducted since I learned recently from a Port Authority official that a thorough analysis of their property in Bayonne was not completed even though Mayor Davis is interested in having a new ferry line and open to having a ferry maintenance facility. Bayonne could be an option. Was it thoroughly evaluated? If not, why not? Again, this leaves me wondering – is this decision being made to facilitate regional transportation or to boost the profits of NY Waterway?
 
There are so many unanswered questions. Since NJ Transit receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year in federal funding, we would also ask if this acquisition is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act? I understand there may be serious lead issues at the site. Will the new use require dredging? If so, how much will it cost to remove the contaminated soil? Have you been provided with an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment? How much funding does NY Waterway receive from NJ Transit? How much profit does NY Waterway make?
 
Most importantly, are there alternatives that make more sense for the region?
 
As I mentioned, we know that Bayonne is open to such a facility in their city. We also know that the Port Authority owns acres of waterfront property in Bayonne. This is important to know because the Port Authority’s mission is “To keep the region's commuters, travelers and global shippers moving.” Have there been conversations with the Port Authority about using their property, which would be directly in line with their own mission? Has there been any analysis about the economic development benefits of possibly expanding ferry service to Bayonne? I hope that the board will ensure that this decision is evaluated from what is best for NJ Transit and the region, rather than what is best for NY Waterway.
 
So far, the lack of transparency, lack of communications, and the incredible speed with which this is being rushed through makes me question if public resources and public dollars are being used wisely. This is a highly unusual transaction for NJ Transit since NY Waterway now already owns the property. Are there any other examples of NJ Transit entering into similar transactions? If not, what is the justification for entering into this highly unusual transaction now, in haste, with no communication whatsoever to the City of Hoboken?
 
Please also understand as you evaluate the Union Dry Dock decision that the City of Hoboken, under my Administration and the incoming Administration, is fully committed to acquiring this property for open space in our community now that it is no longer an operating boat repair business. I am confident that the answers to these questions will be answered either voluntarily by NY Waterway or through the extensive legal process that is about to begin and will be fully supported by the people of Hoboken.
 
Thank you again, and I hope that you will require a full vetting of this decision to ensure the most transportation benefits for the region.”