Centre Pompidou wouldn’t be a museum if established in Jersey City, but rather what administration is calling a cultural and educational institution.“Displaying the art is a small piece,” said Mayor Steve Fulop on Saturday afternoon. He clarified many of his points about the proposed project to a group of critics and supporters during a heated town hall as he tried to set the record straight.But the lengthy meeting at Hudson County Community College Student Center also included many loud calls for the mayor to be fact checked while talking about his latest proposal.The mayor’s administration is pitching the first tax abatement on a Jersey City property in seven years in hopes of securing 100,000 square feet in a future Journal Square tower for the home of Pompidou.Samuel Pott, founder of Nimbus Dance Works, was one of the loudest critics. Pott questioned the long-term  “sustainability” of Pompidou and the comparisons by the mayor to Newark’s New Jersey Performing Arts Center, what Pott said, comes with major financial backing from foundations and the New Jersey State Council on the Arts.That’s what makes NJPAC a successful model. Pott also said the Pompidou proposal is unlike the economic model supporting Prudential Center, also in Newark, because of that being a for-profit operation. “There is a clear difference between a for-profit model and a nonprofit cultural space,” he said. “Nonprofit cultural spaces, however much we love them and think they’re important, lose money. They lose a ton of money. And the only reason they stay afloat is because wealthy individuals, private foundation and government props them up.”In response, Fulop emphasized how the Newark projects “felt the same exact pushback” years ago when they first were proposed while touting his Pompidou plan as “super conservative.But he also targeted Pott for other points he allegedly made privately to the mayor about fears Pompidou would “cannibalize” Nimbus and other local “opportunities.”“The question is whether an arts community is sustainable with just going to the same network of people, or do we all benefit by growing the pie ultimately, and this is what it does,” said Fulop. The exchange was an example of the tone for the meeting of more than four hours. The mayor’s remarks sometimes led to pugnacious attendees expressing anger, pushing back or speaking over one another.“If you and people want this, taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay it, but also why are they getting 30-year abatements?” said Deborah McWilliams, one of the residents in attendance, “which means I’ll be 97 before anybody in that building starts paying property taxes.”The mayor, along with a city lawyer, finance consultant, architect and Pompidou representative, took the time to hear from everyone in the room with relevant thoughts and questions about the French-inspired satellite location for Pompidou at 808 Pavonia Ave..Mayor Fulop made his presentation to approximately 200 attendeesThe town hall attracted several dozen people to the Hudson County Community College Student Center.Journal Square Community Association President Tom Zuppa moderated. Photo Melissa UltoJersey City Arts Council Board Member Alvin Petit. Photo: Melissa UltoSam Pott, Founder of Nimbus Dance. Photo: Melissa UltoA representative of Centre Pompidou. Photo: Melissa UltoActivist Chris Gadsden. Photo: Melissa UltoSam Pott. Photo: Melissa UltoThey even listened to those with grievances about other city problems.The town hall was hosted by the Journal Square Community Association and came at the request of Councilmen Rich Boggiano and Frank Gilmore, who were present along with Councilwomen Amy DeGise and Mira Prinz-Arey and several dozen residents.The event led one art advocate and opponent of the project, Melissa Ulto, to park a small box truck out in front of the college center with rotating digital billboard about the “Jersey City Yes, Pompidou No” campaign.The real estate opportunity spurring the abatement came as matter of “luck,” according to Fulop, or preparedness if you ask his attorney, and now is before the City Council as an ordinance on its second and final reading Wednesday at its 6 p.m. meeting inside City Hall.The 30-year property tax abatement on the two-tower development would mean approximately 47% of the “conventional” revenue – or what’s about $3.9 million of $8.2 million annually – would be collected, according to financial consultant Mike Hanley.That’s a “discount” of a little more than $4 million annually, resulting in a reduction of approximately $150 million in revenue over 30 years. Formally known as a payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, the arrangement was used extensively Downtown to encourage development until the practice was largely curtailed by the Fulop administration.  Fulop argued that Pompidou — the visits, jobs and cultural impact — are of great value to the city – exceeding the cost. He said he wouldn’t be backing the proposal if it wasn’t.Administration argues such a space could not be obtained without the abatement.  “The asset that we are acquiring, we could never get for less dollars than this and we don’t have to build it, it’s being built for us,” said Hanley.“The asset itself, even if it doesn’t become the Pompidou, is still incredibly valuable,” he added.The developer, KRE, is ready for construction and has its financing in place.In turn, the company cannot apparently wait longer, even as calls were made to delay a decision until more information is available and people can digest the latest proposal.“The developer is on a time constraint that they outlined to us,” said Fulop. Conversations had transpired on whether “it’s reasonable thing or not.” But “the window” of time will close if the council does not act soon, he said. The mayor poured cold water on any aspect of the controversial proposal turning into a referendum. Many residents felt the city’s top official was making the pitch at the last minute and without much transparency.“We didn’t even know about this until we read about it on social media or in the newspaper,” said McWilliams about the “resentment.”As part of the proposal, the city also will pay for the build-out of the Pompidou space for an amount not yet estimated. It is expecting too that $3.25 million of the projected $22.3 million in annual operating costs would come from city coffers, at least the first year.That city revenue would be in the form of additional library funding and what’s known as the landlord operating contribution.Most of the Pompidou operating cost, however, will be covered up front by state Economic Development Authority grants, said Fulop. And gradually, more would come through donations to a future nonprofit with its own board, taking direct decisions out of the hands of the city, said the mayor.Other aspects of the proposal brought other queries.Meredith Burns, executive artistic director of Art House, brought up her “biggest concern” about the competition for “small cultural centers” like Nimbus and her organization.“I just worry in a landscape and in a region where arts funding is so limited,” she said. “How do we survive when the Pompidou is coming in and is going to be funded at such a high rate? And how do the rest of us keep going? It feels like you’re going to suck up all of the oxygen, all of the resources and I don’t know where there is space for us.”Fulop responded by pointing out the “finite” number of corporate and development and how he feels Pompidou is committed to networking in the community and “growing the pot.”Another topic of conversation was about how the future building’s zoning predated Fulop’s administration, and now how the mixed use project, with the exception of the 100,000 space in question, doesn’t come with other guarantees some are seeking.“What about the entire project? Why isn’t it pro-union?” asked Chris Gadsden, one of the attendees about construction.Another gripe was that of the more than 1000 apartments, none would be designated affordable.In terms of specific elements, the Pompidou visitors would be welcomed with a gateway of outdoor sculptures and an amphitheater next to a revitalized Loew’s Theatre, along with an “art walk” and grand staircase, spanning from the PATH station to Mana Contemporary.The indoor layout includes classrooms, galleries, a café and programming space.  A licensing contract, formalizing the partnership with Pompidou, would be ironed out later along with other details. “There will be a lot of work to be done between here and there to open up the Pompidou. We have to figure out all these things and we will have to do it in the confines of the law,” said Joseph Baumann, an attorney working with the city.The mayor’s original plan for Pompidou called for renovating the city’s Pathside building next to the PATH station at Journal Square after purchasing it and identifying Pompidou as a world-class partner to “help tell the city’s story.”That plan was abandoned earlier this year after the state pulled funding, citing a $19 million yearly operating deficit.The “overwhelming majority” of the millions already spent on architects, engineers and consultants will apparently not go to waste, Fulop said. The completed work is “transferable.” Those expenditures included the acquisition cost of the Pathside building.   Amidst the controversial proposal, several supporters came out to speak positively about what Pompidou could mean to Jersey City.  “I feel like a lot of the big picture is being missed here,” said Alvin Pettit, a local artist and member of the Jersey City Arts Council, which receives its funding from the city.“And what’s also not being talked I feel is the residual impact economically that a major art institution anchor has on a city.”The post Fulop Presents New Pompidou Proposal to a Skeptical Audience appeared first on Jersey City Times.