New housing plans smart, responsible
Mark Bombace
Ridgewood is my past, present and future. Born and raised in the village, I went through its public schools, served as a firefighter and brought up my own family here.
I’ve seen Ridgewood improve and adapt with the times over the past 50 years, and the village has the opportunity to do so once again, by bringing much needed high-end multifamily residences to downtown.
While Ridgewood has just about everything, what it lacks is the right housing mix to remain a healthy and vibrant place to live and do business. Ridgewood currently has only two housing options – single family, and 50- to 100-year-old apartments.
What is needed is new modern apartment options – the type of options sought out by today’s millennials, young professionals and empty nesters. As an empty nester myself, I like the option of living in downtown, and new apartments with modern amenities like a doorman and elevator would make that more likely.
New multifamily residences will allow seniors to downsize and stay in town, close to the Central Business District (CBD). They will attract singles and couples with no or few, very young children, who seek access to an easy commute into the city.
What will be the unit co figurations and expected selling price. We can figure the tax revenue from that.
You can’t zone/master plan “luxury-only”. Even IF everything they say about this development is true, what about the next one? Master Plan changes affect everyone, not one developer at a time.
Another of the Mayor’s friends speaks up.
Translation –
I’ve been here all my life and enjoyed Ridgewood for what it is and always has been.
Now that I need to downsize, I want the town to change its character to meet my needs.
Got it.
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be 55 and older condos.
If the developments were sold as condos instead of being apartments, it would add to the tax base as the units appreciated in value and the owners would be stakeholders. If the developments were 55 and older it would also dramatically reduce the risk of the developments adding a significant number of children to the school system.
To clarify, 55 and older communities do not necessarily have nursing capabilities. This could just be normal condos but with an age restriction. Such development would cater to the baby boom bubble and would bring/keep people in town who will patronize local businesses. 200-300 additional 55+ citizens would be great for our local churches, senior programs, YMCA, pharmacies, restaurants, hair salons, etc. Those who are downsizing would retain their ties to our local institutions, providing leadership and support instead of leaving the area.
Before we get to the point where neither side can talk like we did on Valley, I hope that both sides can open a dialogue towards a compromise such as this. Every candidate agreed that controlled, sustainable development is the best alternative. I just hope that we can work towards it instead of concentrating on fear of slippery slopes, etc.
My issues are more in line with overwhelming the towns infrastructure , and keeping development tasteful and appropriate in scale to the rest of the Village and as for your Valley reference did it all to themselves plain and simple
HELLO!!!!!! Nobody wants to live downtown! There is frankly nothing to “walk to” and this town hates seniors. Most stores are closed at night and on Sundays and holidays. It’s not that kind of downtown. Building high-density buildings would only make it worse in countless ways. Please please please see reality!
James, I agree 100% that Valley did it to themselves. As I have said before, they lost me as a supporter when they lied at every turn. I just hope this time we can have more dialogue and less entrenched positions. I am hopeful (perhaps naively) that a better result will come from increased dialogue.
Dialogue will remain intact , as long as the developers and politicians , stay away from the “there will be less traffic” , nonsense and other ridiculous claims
Brian, there is a reason that the condo developers are NOT saying 55 and older. They know they won’t be as attractive to people of that age and won’t generate sufficient interest.
#10–There is no current condo proposal so I am not sure how you know the feelings of the developers on this question.
And this is exactly what I mean. The question should be put directly to the developers. We don’t need to speculate.
Let’s just ask. If we approved a 55 and older condo development by the end of the year, would you be ok with it? Same question to the folks opposed. Maybe neither side will accept it. But we don’t know until we ask.
Wasn’t this letter writer’s house for sale a few years ago? Was he planning to downsize in town or get out?
Everything this original poster pines for is in the current zoning code. The existing plan allows units to be built. But it doesn’t allow the developer to over build which means the developer loses out.
I wish these folks who walk around with pipe dreams would look at the facts, and not the propaganda spewed by the developer. I doubt the original poster grew up in town, i did and frankly the folks I grew up with were not that naive or stupid, and when they said naive things you knew they had a hidden agenda.
The proposed development on Maple Ave isn’t condos? My mistake. You ask for 55 and over condos, but as YOU said that is not what is being proposed by developers. I think you have the order wrong, the developers have to ask for what they want. In addition, the Master Plan is about what is appropriate for land use, changes won’t necessarily be limited to one development.
#13–I didn’t realize that. Is it true they could build say 2 story condos on those sites without a variance? That would totally change my position on the issue.
#14, I understand that developers have to propose. My point is that if we provide some guidance as to what would be acceptable, It allows for a conversation instead of a system where every time something is introduced it is then rejected.
My understanding is that there are some advantage for developers to start with apartments and the turn them over to condos after a specific number of years up to 10 but I am not sure.
#15 (Brian) – who is the WE providing guidance to developers? The Master Plan and zoning regulations are supposed to be the guidance.