Support for downtown housing
September 12, 2014 Last updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 9:28 AM
Print
Support for housing proposal
Arthur Wrubel
To the Editor:
The higher density housing proposed for downtown Ridgewood is in accordance with its historical development. The downtown has changed, adapting to the needs of its growing population.
The area used to be a pedestrian-oriented destination which could supply its population with food and services. Shop owners once lived above their stores. The proximity to the surrounding residential area encouraged walking to shop and take the train to jobs.
The proposed changes to the master plan permit these ideas to flourish again. Further, there is a national trend to living in higher-density urban areas to satisfy people who want to be close to shops, work and services.
The Planning Board and others have studied the various impacts of the development, such as traffic generation, school children, water supply, fire and safety, etc. The studies indicate little or no impact. The traffic in particular is reduced compared to commercial development.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-support-for-downtown-housing-1.1086864#sthash.EGFdodJb.dpuf
Mr. Wrubel is right — the new housing will be a great accommodation for those looking to live in a more urban environment.
But he’s wrong in suggesting Ridgewood should be the site of that migration. The thing is, those of us not looking to living a denser environment are being asked to foot the bill for developers hoping to increase their profit. Those of us who have worked and paid taxes to maintain the standards of our Village are being told we need to open up the downtown for others to come in and enjoy the benefits of what has been built.
Mr. Wrubel’s basic premise is entirely backwards looking. Its been said many times on this blog before and it is worth repeating: A downtown exists to serve the town and not the other way around. If the functionality of Ridgewood’s downtown has reached a historic end, because its been replaced say, by Route 17 shopping, then the downtown parcel should revert to open space or single family homes in keeping with Ridgewood’s community purpose. The death of the downtown should not be allowed to kill off Ridgewood altogether, and that is what a lot of well meaning people seem to overlook.
Let’s look to the future and beyond the self interest of the developers and the yarns they have spun: Young families continue to want to live in a safe, suburban environment in the long desirable Village of Ridgewood — why are folks in such a rush to take away that opportunity? Why is our Planning Board and Council even considering allowing that to happen?
It is time to just say no.
What about the costs – infrastructure upgrades, traffic and burden on school system.
What is the upside of this? I am not going to downsize to a 2 bedroom condo in town. If I go condo/townhouse I want amenities and lower taxes.
Someone – please – direct me to the link where they estimate the cost of a 2 bedroom unit and the taxes that I would pay.
How can so eone support a project this big without knowing the costs?
I agree with no. 1. totally. No. 1 should make his/her message known to planning board at next meeting.
Yes, open space, or single fmaily housing. When I suggested open space on this blog a few weeks ago, someone ridiculed what I said.
May have been a developer. That is the problem with anonymous postings. Please no. 1 and like minded people, come to planning board meetings and speak up.
The development people do, big time.
#4 problem with anonymous postings, then where is your name?
Agree with all. The whole thing is giving me the willies. After 100+ years of being a certain way that is widely sought, why give it away because developers’ aggressive attorneys want us to? NO!!!!!!
Nobody is even mentioning the construction period, which was a huge argument against Valley’s proposed expansion. This would disrupt downtown for a very long time. And downtown is also a throughway to go east, west, north, and south. The final product would not have been “worth it,” either.
It would make the recent work under the tressel and the train ststion remake look like childs play.
All the people who avoid the downtown – lost business – all part of the cost.
Where’s your name jjj?
What’s your point?
I have no problem posting under anonymous but why not read comment by #4 they seem to have the complaint.
A pedestrian-oriented downtown of yesteryear made more sense when those folks did not have cars to add to congestion downtown. Everyone has a car now. I believe that school bus traffic to pickup children of these high density units will also need to be added to the mix. I firmly believe these units will be dominated by people looking for a temporary entre into the High School.