On March 19, the Hoboken City Council voted 5-3 in favor of developing a 25-story housing unit at the site of Garage B on Hudson Street. The development is said to have affordable and workforce housing units, and those who support it say it will address Hoboken’s cost-of-living concerns. However, some residents spoke very strongly against the project during the public hearings, as many worry that the development will worsen the problem it was meant to solve.
Dini Ajmani, former deputy assistant to the U.S. Treasury and Hoboken mayoral candidate, wrote a letter to the council addressing the concerns of the development and how it is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that has a much easier solution. In her letter, Ajmani stated that the council “demonstrated little understanding of the cost of the project, and the tax implications for our residents,” during their hearing and lectured them needlessly instead of listening to their concerns. “Building affordable housing is not the same as keeping housing affordable […] this misguided decision will ultimately make housing less affordable in a time where families are still feeling the pinch of inflation.”
Tax breaks for housing developments often take the form of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements, where developers make negotiated payments to the City instead of paying traditional property taxes. While PILOT agreements incentivise affordable housing development—like the West Side Redevelopment Project—they come at a cost. These tax subsidies drain public resources: Hoboken’s schools lose roughly $25 million annually in potential revenue, forcing higher taxes on residents to compensate. Ajmani wrote, “A tax break for one is a tax increase for everyone else. The Garage B plan will unquestionably drive up our property taxes. Our already strained infrastructure will buckle under pressure, and we’ll be left to foot the bill for repairs.”
Ajmani proposed that the most effective way to make housing affordable is by lowering taxes for current Hoboken residents. This would lower rents and make the city more accessible to new residents. When the council heard the opposition from the residents, the council accused them of lacking values and compassion. The council’s response to the residents was seen as misguided. Through the actions taken by the council, they have showcased not only a disconnect with the citizens they aim to help, but an unwillingness to take their concerns seriously. Ajmani wrote, “We don’t need sermons. We deserve action and leadership that understands how every decision affects our community now and the future.”
As her letter argues, Hoboken seeks solutions, not sanctimony. Citizens’ voices and their criticisms of their leaders remain central in asserting accountability. Dismissing valid concerns as resistance to progress takes citizens’ voices out of policy making. The council’s actions during the hearing show residents a lack of care for how policies affect their lives. With the housing development moving forward, time will tell whether or not this was a worthwhile investment by the city.
