“It’s humongous! It’s the biggest piece of open space in the North Hudson outside of Braddock Park,” said Mayor Richard Turner last week about Hackensack Reservoir No. 2, a 14-acre parcel that he wants the town to buy for a park.
The land is in the southwestern part of town near Union City, bounded by Palisade and Gregory avenues and Highpoint Avenue and 20th Street.
“Everyone wants to preserve it.” – Mayor Richard Turner
____________
During the meeting, United Water also proposed the construction of an underground water storage facility.
As Mayor Turner grew concerned that the property would be used for commercial or residential purposes, local officials started investigating ways to secure funding to buy it.
During last year’s meeting, local residents showed their interest in preserving the reservoir and came up with the idea of calling The Trust for Public Land, a national preservation organization.
Time is of the essence
Last week Mayor Turner said the Trust for Public Land has a contract with United Water to hold the sale of the reservoir until the end of this year.
“Without a contract, United Water was going to put it on the market,” he said. “The Trust did all the due diligence, they did the appraisals.”
The unofficial asking price is $11.5 million.
“Everyone wants to preserve it, the state of New Jersey, the county executive, the governor, the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), everyone is working very diligently with us to try to preserve it,” said Mayor Turner. “We have to come up with money to purchase it.”
He said the DEP has given the township a $2 million grant, and another $9 million low interest loan is coming from the DEP infrastructure trust program.
“And then each year the DEP is going to allow us to apply for funding to pay off the loan, as funding permits,” said Mayor Turner. “In the meantime, we are going to do a contract with Union City.”
The neighboring city is sharing half the cost for the debt service and the maintenance with Weehawken, the mayor said.
“We are halfway [through] the funding process,” Mayor Turner said. “Now we are going through engineering reviews to make sure it is structurally sound. They [United Water] have to do some work before they turn it over to us.”
The township hopes to have all the financial agreements locked in by the end of October. Next month another public hearing will be held to discuss any further developments.
“It is very restricted,” said Mayor Turner about the use of the reservoir. “The main thing is to preserve it as [it] is with maybe some walkway. We told the public United Water would want to do a below the surface water tank below the berm. On top of it there will be a park maybe some fishing, but [it will be] closed at night.”
He doesn’t want to see the reservoir become the site of a major store, an outlet, or a high-rise building.
The Reservoir is a rare gem. We need refuges like The Reservoir.:)
It's disappointing to see the mayor use contemptuous terms and sneer at the idea that this land could be used for commercial or residential purposes. Where do public servants, whose paychecks are courtesy of others who earn the money through productive activity, get the audacity to pretend that a development involuntarily purchased with taxpayers' money is more "noble" than one paid for by voluntary investors? Is the mayor's redistribution of money earned by others a higher, more dignified activity, because it's noncommercial?
As far as the mayor's contempt for commercial purposes, we all need to purchase things, and we all frequent stores and offices. When did it become acceptable for public officials to deride and demean stores and businesses, big and small, that not only serve their communities' residents, but provide much-needed jobs? In a different America, mayors used to pride themselves on their business development, not their business derision.
We all need to live within our budgets and it's time that the town started exercising fiscal discipline, instead of acting like a teenager with daddy's credit card. In a perfect world, we'd have more parks than homes, but at present we need homes and stores, as well as parks, and the town has more park space per capita than anybody could rationally complain about.
Suggesting that the town needs yet more parks, at a cost of $11.5 million to the taxpayers, is simply political pandering, counting on the fact that most residents are not aware of how much park space we currently have and how much it will cost them in additional taxes.