Subject: letter to Hauck in response to her own misinformation
Dear Councilwoman Hauck,
As you and I have yet to formally meet, I’d like to start by introducing myself. My name is Dave Slomin and I have lived at 36 Heights Road for since 2001. My wife grew up in this town, as did her mother (who still lives here). My two sons attend RW Public Schools (RHS and GW). While I have not been a formal appointee or elected official, I have been very involved in working with the Village – whether my input is welcome or not 😉 – on several recent matters, including as a key advocate for Citizens for a Better Ridgewood. My main volunteer work is with the BSA, where I was Pack Leader of Ridge School’s Pack 44 (the largest Pack in North Jersey) for many years and am now Pack 44’s Executive Committee Chair and an Assistant Scoutmaster with Troop 7. I mention these things, not to toot any horns, but so my opinions are not taken as those of an armchair complainer. As with so many other Residents, I am out there caring about my community, putting in my time for Ridgewood and – having attended almost every planning board meeting for the past 2-3 years – I am well educated in the Multi-Family debate, process and ordinances.
I am also President of Andover Properties, a real estate company that specializes in multi-family properties. We own and manage apartment complexes in 4 states, including New Jersey. I know the benefits and difficulties of the multifamily business and I know how investors and developers work, think and act. At many Planning Board (PB) meetings, I tried to pass along some of my experience and knowledge, given the gaps in data provided by developers. Unfortunately, it fell on too many ears that, if not deaf, were wrongly “prematurely decided.” Given the far too little amount of time the Council has relegated to multifamily discussion, I am hopeful that you will consider some key points, insights and corrections from an industry insider: and one who is a big fan of apartments… when properly planned and appropriately built. I am for multifamily development, but at lower densities and scale that in the ordinances.
I write to you, as I am aware of some responses you have provided to emails from members of the Ridgewood (RW) Community. As they were sent from your official RW email address, I am comfortable that you intended for your thoughts to be shared. They were. And unfortunately, your responses illustrate – to this real estate professional – that you and the council really do need more correct and unbiased information on the matter you are voting on. Beyond that, some of your answers leaned more towards the influences of the developers PR firms, than to multifamily realities. And unfortunately, some of your data and response were wrong. I am writing to help… because this is so important.
I am also writing because of a statement you wrote to a fellow resident saying: “If only people understood the other facts and not the points which have become cocktail party innuendo.” I hope to show, with knowledge of “the facts,” how such a statement is wrong and can appear to come from the developers’ PR Playbook. Please know that I do know the facts. As do so many residents. And I’d like to clarify some and provide others you may not know.
So, some responses:
THE MALTBIE/FRANKLIN APARTMENTS ARE 19.5 UNITS PER ACRE, NOT 33.6
In one email, you incorrectly proffered that the apartment complex across from Ridge School (on Franklin and Maltbie) is a great example “for a comparison” as it represents “33.6 units per acre.” I do agree with you that: (1) it is “attractive” and “quaint,” and (2) they “do not look like Fort Lee,” but a key reason for that is the fact that their density is only 19.5 UNIT PER ACRE. The complex has 13 units and sits on .664 acres. Some outdated records show the property to be .459 acres. That was the case until the owner added an adjacent lot to provide parking when some additional units were built. Nevertheless, the property is most definitely not 33.6 units/acre. It is almost half that. But it is an excellent example of a scale and density that would fit beautifully in RW’s CBD. It is also only 2 stories, plus the roof peak. Dramatically less than the 5 stories we may see downtown if you vote in favor of the current ordinances. Maybe that’s why you like how it looks and fits.
YOU SAY THE OAK STREET APARTMENTS HAVE MORE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS DENSE. THAT IS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.
In another email you note that the Oak Street Apartments, at 18 units/acres have “more school children in them than higher density apartments BECAUSE they are less dense.” While I can understand how one might make this faulty assumption, it’s not accurate or that simple. There are many other low to mid density complexes in town that have fewer children. And there are many higher density properties in other towns that have lots of children. That’s because there are so many factors that play into apartment demographics. Some key factors are the management company policies and the historic “community” of the complexes themselves. Firstly, management companies, while being required to adhere to law regarding renting vacant units often do have discretion as to how they wish to run their communities. Some managers/owners are happy to have more occupants (including children) in units, if they know they can fill vacancies with paying renters. Others would like to have fewer occupants, as fewer occupants results in less water consumption and often less wear and tear. Furthermore, over time certain properties, like certain towns, gain a reputation, or a community culture. For example, a senior will want to move to a complex known for having more seniors, while a family might skip that complex for one that has more kids… even if both are garden-style properties. So, in sum, your assumption is wrong. Lower densities do not automatically equal more kids. If a manager wants kids or higher numbers of occupants to fill units, and prices units appropriately, there will be more school children. The current ordinance cannot dictate this, so be careful. You just don’t know the answer to this question. And, right now, no one does.
YOU ALLEGE THAT FOLKS WHO WISH TO PUT HIGHER NUMBERS OF CHILDREN INTO UNITS ARE “SCAMMERS” AND/OR WOULD RENT HOUSES FIRST.
In another email you hold that “people who want to scam the schools would rent single or double family houses” before paying a premium for apartments. There are several issues here. Firstly, having high numbers of children in a unit is not a “scam.” It is actual a “right” maintained by law. Many NJ municipalities use occupancy guidelines stating that 150 square feet is required for the first occupant and only 75 additional s/f is needed for each additional occupant (not including kitchens and baths). In a 1,000 S/F apartment, you could potentially, and legally have 6-9 occupants. So again, folks who may wish to put more kids into a unit to benefit from our great schools (provided that the proper guardian is there) are not necessarily running a “scam.” They are really just doing the right thing within the law for their children. As these decisions on occupancy limits often come down to property management, RW needs to tread more carefully. The ordinance cannot define this. So limit the risk. If a property is not leasing fast enough to singles or couples, I guarantee that we will see more families with greater school impacts and costs. That’s just the way it works.
Regarding renters opting for house as a first choice, this again is something that you don’t and cannot know. But you NEED to be right on these things. Be advised that even though the developers are projecting rents in the $3,000-4,000 range, there is no way of guaranteeing that. Nor can you guarantee the “luxury” status in design, and especially management, that the Mayor especially has said he desires. If a property is underperforming – and with so many units coming onboard at once, that may happen – investors will need paying tenants, even if the rents have to come down. Some money is better than no money, when the mortgage bank comes calling.
THESE APARTMENTS WILL NOT EFFECT OUR SCHOOLS.
On this, no true and full study has been done. RW has not done a market study to more accurately determine who may move in. While discussed ad nauseam, data to date has too predominantly been provided by the developers. I am further concerned about the fact that (I believe) only one Council-member currently has children in the Schools. The other members either have no children currently in the system or chose to send their children to private schools. As such, we need all of you to know how current school-age parents are feeling. How have our schools changed since you may have experienced them? What are the current limitations and needs? YOU NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME SPEAKING WITH US. And, on this topic, a 3rd party study really still needs to be done. The very fact that the developers used, and some PB members embraced, the now outdated “Rutgers Study” to determine numbers of school-children was a big data fault. The Rutgers Study looked at no towns with schools anywhere near the quality of Ridgewood. One PB resident speaker pointed out the she chose Ridgewood specifically due to the quality of educational services for her Special Needs child. She said, she’d spoken to many “special needs parents” who are just as aggressive as her and feared that if options availed themselves via multi-family we might see more special needs children. This would, she said, possibly diminish the current programs helping her child. And at up to $100,000 per special needs child, could hit our schools and taxes hard.
So in sum, we have no real data on OUR OWN schools. Lots of speculation from both sides. And that’s dangerous. You should ask for better. Slow down and let’s get it right. That’s why we voted for you!
THE BUILDINGS WITH 80+ UNITS/ACRE YOU NOTE AS “LOVELY” & “ICONIC” DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING… OR ANY PARKING.
Too support a position for higher density, you noted several buildings as “iconic” and “lovely” with higher densities than 35. While you are correct in quoting their densities, you failed to note that none of them have enough parking, and the largest, 263 Franklin, has no parking! They couldn’t and shouldn’t be built today like that. And I guarantee, if the land required for parking was added, their densities would plummet. Please take that into account. As our Representatives, the data you proffer needs to be unbiased and as accurate as possible. Personally, I would argue that 263 Franklin isn’t so lovely or iconic. It’s an example of something that doesn’t fit within its surroundings. Its design and scale is seen more frequently in Hudson or Essex Counties than in northern Bergen… it’s just too “dense.”
RIDGEWOOD WILL BENEFIT FROM TAX INCOME DERIVED FROM MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
Working in the multifamily business for two decades, and having filed dozens of tax appeals, I can tell you that municipalities all agree on one thing: residential development, including apartments, are almost always a tax drain. Residential costs so much more in services… AND SCHOOLS than office or commercial. So PLEASE GO IN WITH YOUR EYES OPEN ON TAXES, there will be a deficit. I believe even Blais alluded to this in some PB testimony, but also noted that tax revenue and financials should not be used in the PB’s considerations. They need to be considered by you and the Council.
APARTMENT COMPLEX OWNERS FILE TAX APPEALS, AND OFTEN WIN OR SETTLE.
I say this, because, anyone who owns properties of these sizes will assuredly be professionals. And RE Professionals file tax appeals as part of the game. Real Estate is not designed to be altruistic. It’s designed to make the biggest profits. Our firm files appeals on most of our properties every year. If our financials are off, we expect to have our assessments lowered. They often are and then we pay less taxes. If the developers don’t get their $3-4K rents, you’ll see appeals very quickly. You’ll see them even if they do!
OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES ARE LESS OPTIMAL FOR RIDGEWOOD.
You state in one email, “the private owners… might build something worse than what is currently being proposed if we do not approve the amendments.” Given that we started talking about 50 units per acre (500-700 total potential units, per Blais) and buildings sized like the new developments in Fairlawn on Route 208, in our constrained downtown, I’m not sure what could’ve been worse! 35 is certainly better, but is still not appropriately sized. Those 208 properties are still not far off from the scale of what we will see. Please note that. To me, a Walgreens on either of the car dealer sites, would provide a great amount of ad hoc free parking, especially after hours. They wouldn’t be so quick to tow, as they’d lose customers if they did. Furthermore, by raising densities, we are also raising property values and making it more expensive to potentially provide much needed additional parking. I’ve told Paul that it would be much more affordable for RW to buy pieces of land, pave and create new parking lots, than to build and maintain a $15,000,000 garage. But if you raise multifamily densities so high, you will make potential land purchases for parking prohibitive.
“WHAT IF THE OWNERS TRY TO PUT UGLY, BUSY COMMERCIAL ENTITIES HERE?”
This is a comment you made to a resident. Please know that nowhere in the ordinances are aesthetics fully defined. RW can and will have some say, but there is no way to require that the apartments that get built will look anything like the pictures you’ve seen. As you know, the new buildings will be near, but not in, a “Historic District.” Apartments can be beautiful or ugly. Commercial buildings can be beautiful or ugly. It’s up to the property owner. Both apartments and commercial are good options, when appropriately sized. Take this down a notch. Make it really and truly fit. You said you like the Maltbie apartments. Let’s zone for something like that!
“WE NEED OUR BUSINESSES TO SURVIVE…” (E.G. APARTMENTS ARE THE ONLY OPTION).
This has come up again and again: the need to save our business. On this, you and the Council need much more real data. Adding a few hundred apartments will not “save Ridgewood.” There’s no guarantee they will shop in town. What is guaranteed is that the current applicants do not fully provide enough parking for their tenants, guests, contractors, etc. As such, business may very well be hurt if the 26,000 current residents find that traffic and parking worsen. I know many West-siders who use the CBD less during peak hours (e.g. for dinner during rush hour, or coffee and breakfast in the a.m.) due to the longer waits at the underpass. And my family is one of them!
Yogi Berra said of a restaurant, “Nobody goes there anymore, the line’s too long.” Ridgewood has a similar issue. It’s beautiful and special… and successful. But we need more parking and better, safer traffic and pedestrian flow to handle the lines. And, to boot, landlords (many who have a vested interested in keeping rents too high) may need to adjust rents overtime to keep businesses in business. What we don’t need is these somewhat artificially created longer lines right now. Especially until ALL the right work has been done to fully understand the impacts. And from statements I’ve heard members of the Council make, yourself included, I don’t think you have all the information you need.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
We haven’t even gotten to the subject of “financial impacts” which, while not a factor for the Planning Board, the Village Council MUST fully assess. That just hasn’t been done properly yet either. You need to. You don’t really know the answer. Too much “innuendo.”
I hope you will do the right thing and try to help convince some of the other Councilmembers to lower the density and scale, or Vote No as-is. At the very least, put off the vote and plan for the much needed independent studies. Real estate is a game. And RE professionals are generally much better at it than municipalities. It’s just the nature of the business. So please be careful with our Village.
Respectfully,
Dave Slomin
CC: Mayor P. Aronsohn, Councilmembers Pucciarelli, Knudson & Sedon, CBR, Residents of Ridgewood
