Reader says instead of trying to change the town to fit his fancy, Mr Simoncini should move somewhere else
Who the hell let this miserable carpet bagger into town?
First of all, I don’t recall any discussion of student population falling.
Second, there is no proposal for “luxury housing” — there is a proposal for increased density so that the developers can develop like Newark or Hackensack. As Blaise said, the devil is in the details, and the details shown so far as for illustrative purposes only. Once the increased density is approved then the developers can go in with plans for whatever they want approved. Of course, the site is presently zoned in a manner that would allow luxury condo’s or townhouses, but not at the profit this sycophant and his master are looking for.
Third, I have heard a couple of the developer’s friends and investors talk about how lovely it would be to have a place in town, but I have heard no groundswell of support for “change.”
Finally, getting back to my original point, who the hell let this jackass into town, and if he feels the way he does, why did he pick Ridgewood to live in? We do feel is a special place. He doesn’t need to agree, but instead of trying to change the town to fit his fancy, he should move his sorry ass somewhere else.
Really?! Yes, Really!! You don’t like the town, Mr. Lapdog, go move somewhere else where you and your master can develop to your heart’s content without having to worry about the democratic process slowing you down.
Reader disgusted Mr Simoncicini Plays the Race Card
I just re-read Mr. Simoncinci’s racial prejudice comment and am thoroughly disgusted.
Is he suggesting that only if we have high density housing will diverse people move into town?? Really?? Why? Is it because that is all they can afford? Because they won’t be comfortable living in houses? Or maybe “luxury” is the ultimate racist code word and he’s trying to say, don’t worry, only wealthy white folks will move into these apartments.
I am really not sure what this miscreant is trying to say, However, I have heard people say that we need density in housing to attract diversity in population and such talk exhibits a reverse prejudice that I really find disturbing. Believe it or not, folks of all colors, religions, sexual preferences, etc., like nice houses in nice neighborhoods. Our role as citizens is to be welcoming, and we have no place in Ridgewood for those who condemn others. But the sweeping generalization that diversity is only achieved through housing density is really, trully disgusting. And to make such an argument in support of pursuing a commercial goal is beyond the lowest level of depravity.
I realize he has to make a buck serving his master, but, at long last, after four years, has Mr. Simoncini no shame?
Submission of Documents by the Public – Master Plan Amendment Hearings on Multifamily Housing in CBD
SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS BY INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC – MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT HEARINGS ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
The Planning Board has scheduled January 29 and February 3 as hearing dates for interested members of the public to comment on the proposed master plan amendment. If any individuals intend to submit one or more documents for consideration by the Board, they are strongly encouraged to submit such documents as far in advance of these hearing dates as possible, so that the admissibility of the documents can be reviewed beforehand.
Any documents must be submitted to the Planning Board Secretary, Michael Cafarelli, either in person or by mail at Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, or by email at [email protected].
JANUARY 23, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2015, 12:30 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
‘There is room for beneficial change’
To the editor:
For four years now – two as a resident observer and two as a consultant to the Enclave development – I have been following the dialogue around developing luxury residential units in Ridgewood’s downtown. The process will conclude in the next month or so with a vote at the Planning Board on amending the master plan to allow greater density for residential on four underutilized sites including two former car dealerships.
It has been fascinating to see this process unfold in my town after providing services to developers in similar scenarios over the last 30 years. The most common opposition to these plans comes under the umbrella of “Ridgewood is Different.” Yes, we’ve somehow persuaded ourselves to say it with a capital “D” and that is why this process, which should have taken no more than six months and been an exercise in information and logic, instead has dragged in for six years and tangled us in an unnecessarily wrenching dialogue.
The testimony from the developer’s side has been about what you’d expect – perhaps more intense in response to the opposition, but professional and comprehensive. The testimony from the village planner has been conclusive as to the planning issues: there is not better solution for these sites than what has been proposed if benefits are measured against impacts and if professional planning standards are imposed. Truly a masterful job was performed that the village should take pride in.
Where this process has had its breakdowns is not in its structure, which is part of well-established law. The hallmark of this process has been disingenuousness and political messaging – neither of which is appropriate when such critical issues as the village’s strategy to protect the viability of its downtown and its affordable housing obligation are at stake.
Our school populations are falling and even the most dire predictions of added school children have been called a non-issue by the school superintendant. The traffic consultant assures us that impacts from the proposed developments are less than previous uses and less than other options. The planner has worked to prevent additional sites from being subject to unwanted development.
And yet my friends – on the podium and in the audience – who don’t want the development are accusing developers of lying and village professionals of malfeasance. And they also are intimidating my other friends, who would like to move a parent into a nice apartment downtown or move there themselves when their housing needs change – from expressing their opinions by intimating social consequences.
Really people? It’s time to accept that on the edges of our own “Ridgewood is Different” visions and biases – and despite some downright racial prejudices that we very unexpectedly saw emerge – there is room for beneficial, if imperfect, change. When the Planning Board asks for your public comment, try and not use the capital D to Denigrate or Destruct; it should mean Distinguished.
For those of you who still believe that luxury apartments in Ridgewood’s Central Business District would not attract families with school aged children, this word from Board of Education officials in Edgewater regarding the number of school aged children living in the fire scorched Avalon apartment complex.
From nj.com:
“Of those displaced, school officials said Friday approximately 165 students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 resided in the Avalon complex.”
Massive fire at Edgewater’s Avalon apartments; hundreds evacuated
JANUARY 21, 2015, 5:51 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2015, 2:08 AM
BY ABBOTT KOLOFF AND JIM NORMAN
STAFF WRITERS |
THE RECORD
Firefighters battled a five-alarm blaze at an Edgewater apartment complex Wednesday evening, but the advancing flames defied their efforts and destroyed the larger building of the four-story Avalon at Edgewater complex.
There were no deaths or serious injuries in the blaze at 102 Russell Ave., authorities said, but nearly 1,000 people were displaced from their homes.
Photos: Firefighters battle 5-alarm blaze in Edgewater
Police Chief William Skidmore said some people had fallen and suffered minor injuries during the evacuation, and a firefighter had cut a finger.
By 11 p.m., when Edgewater Mayor Michael McPartland announced that the fire was “more or less under control,” the main building in the two-structure complex was completely destroyed, with flames still licking at parts of the skeletal remains and the collapsed debris. When he was asked what he meant, he said the fire was “contained” and that it was no longer spreading.
January 15, 2015 Last updated: Thursday, January 15, 2015, 2:53 PM
By Laura Herzog
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
Two developers proposing high-density multifamily housing in Ridgewood were the final witnesses in a year-long master plan amendment hearing
At Tuesday’s Planning Board hearing, they discussed their personal Ridgewood connections, the scant number of schoolchildren living in their other existing properties, and what makes their proposals “luxury.”
Garden Homes Development’s principal Scott Loventhal said his 1,000- to 1,800-square-foot units, proposed for a South Broad Street complex that could feature high-end appliances, WiFi café common areas and a doorman, would go for $3 per square foot, plus utilities.
Proposing a more-than-100-unit development at the old Brogan site (The Dayton) that could incorporate affordable housing, Loventhal was the first speaker of the night.
He said more than a dozen homes are currently for rent in Ridgewood, most between $3,000-$4,000 a month.
“They can rent a single-family home if their goal is to place their children in the school system,” Loventhal noted, adding that his expensive, small apartments “are simply not a place where families are going to go.”
JANUARY 15, 2015 LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — One developer proclaimed his firm’s apartment building would have “no amenities” for children. Another said some people will pay more for high-end luxury housing in the village. And a third allowed his proposal to speak for itself.
The three developers, who want to bring high-density multifamily housing complexes to Ridgewood, were given the opportunity to testify this week before the Planning Board, which is considering a master plan amendment that would allow such buildings.
Only one developer declined to address the board, saying he didn’t want to be redundant.
Scott Loventhal, the director of development for Garden Commercial Properties in Short Hills, said the development proposals would “fill a void” in Ridgewood’s housing market and help “make the downtown even more vibrant.”
For nearly five years now, the Planning Board has been considering the amendment to allow such projects in three distinct zones in the village. Four developers initially requested the amendment change; since then, one of the projects has been withdrawn.
JANUARY 8, 2015, 9:16 AM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2015, 9:19 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD – The village could impose restrictions on buildings within one of its proposed redevelopment areas to prevent the construction of “ugly” housing complexes downtown, an official said.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau’s comments came at Tuesday night’s Planning Board meeting, under cross-examination by Ira Weiner, an attorney representing Citizens For a Better Ridgewood.
For more than two years, the Planning Board has heard testimony on the master plan change, which, if approved and then adopted by the Village Council, would permit high-density housing complexes.
Three developers are seeking the master plan amendment, and each plans to build multifamily, high-density housing downtown if it is adopted.
Citizens For a Better Ridgewood is a grass-roots organization that says it endorses comprehensive planning, but opposes the village ordinance that allowed the three developers to request the master plan change.
Brancheau on Tuesday night responded to Weiner’s question, saying “standards could be drafted” into the master plan amendment “to avoid” certain design elements in future construction.
January 5, 2015 Last updated: Monday, January 5, 2015, 9:45 AM
By Darius Amos
Staff Writer |
The Ridgewood News
In October 2011, developers publicly detailed an application to rezone a prominent Ridgewood property to allow for an extensive multifamily apartment complex. Originally presented as an individual proposal dubbed The Dayton, those plans today make up a portion of a larger request from multiple developers.
That request has been the source of controversy and debate throughout the past 12 months, pitting neighbor against neighbor, resident versus developer, and past against the future.
For those reasons, the ongoing public hearing on the master plan amendment to rezone parts of the Central Business District (CBD), thus permitting high-density multifamily housing, is The Ridgewood News’ 2014 story of the year.
Readers look to rename Village as council sells out to developers
Absolutely dead on regarding the Village ( https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-will-pay-the-price-if-zoning-changes-are-approved/ ) — our so-called planner sat on the witness stand dithering about how the “devil is in the details” but how conceptually this is great for some undefined state goals about putting housing on rail road tracks. Its appalling and pathetic that we have a council in place that will allow the Village’s demise.
Perhaps we should have contest for the new name of the Village once our master plan is ditched because council members don’t have the back bone to stand up to the developers, or they are being guided by their own self-interest to sell out the Village.
Ridgewood will pay the price if zoning changes are approved
January 2, 2015
Village stands to pay the price
To the Editor:
If the Ridgewood Planning Board grants the proposed zoning changes to allow for higher density buildings in the Central Business District, that would be a financial bonanza. But for whom?
If one answered the developers, he/she is correct. More allowed units per property increases scale and return on capital. With the approval, even before the developers dig an ounce of dirt, the land they own will be worth quite a bit more. The developers could even flip the plots for a profit.
In the world of commerce, one of few things could happen when there is financial windfall. The best case is the virtuous win-win. If what the developers build, on net, benefits the town in terms of life and finances, that would be win-win.
Another possibility, the darker alternative, is that the case becomes a zero-sum game. In such an instance, there will be a clear winner and the winnings are transferred from a losing counterparty.
By allowing for higher density buildings in downtown, Ridgewood risks increased traffic congestion and fewer available public parking per resident. Moreover, Ridgewood faces potential crowding at its schools, which impacts the quality of education and drains the town’s budget. As for benefits, there is none convincing as any increased tax revenues are unlikely to be enough to pay for additional infrastructure and resources necessary to accommodate the gap up in the number of residents.
If the Planning Board passes the zoning changes, there will be a clear winner: the developers. On the flip side, Ridgewood will be the loser as it will have to pay the price to enrich the few developers whose core objective is to exploit attractive rental cap rates at historically favorable funding. So why does the Planning Board think the proposed zoning change is a good idea? Why are select members of the board open to granting a financial bonanza to the developers at the town’s expense?
Reader says While we are at it Let’s bring civility back to the Planning board meetings
Let’s bring civility back to the Planning board meetings by replacing the current attorney and by enforcing rules of order that protect the rights of Villagers. Has anyone noticed that the planning board attorney sits in the middle of the table and effectively runs the meeting? I would like our fellow Villagers to be in control of and responsible for the meetings — for good or for bad — and not a lawyer who seems to make up the rules as she goes along.
I thought Charles Nalbatian controlled the meeting. I thought Gail Price was there to answer legal issues and questions that came up and to ensure that legal protocol was followed along with Nalbatian.
N.J. homebuilding on track for best year since 2006
DECEMBER 24, 2014 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2014, 1:21 AM
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Print
* Multifamily housing helps to put the state on pace for its best year since 2006
By KATHLEEN LYNN
Driven by multifamily projects, home building in New Jersey rose in November, putting the state’s new-home production on track for its strongest year since 2006.
Through November, builders have obtained permits for 25,451 housing units, about 15 percent ahead of the same period last year. The state has been climbing out of a deep housing crash that brought home construction to lows not seen since World War II — about 13,000 units a year.
Three in five new housing units this year have been in multifamily buildings, mostly rentals, a striking shift from earlier suburban development patterns in the state. The sector is so active that some analysts have asked whether there might be an oversupply of new rentals on the market soon.
Patrick O’Keefe, an economist with the accounting firm CohnReznick in Roseland and New York, said New Jersey multifamily permits have fallen off in recent months, compared with the summer months — possibly a result of builders worried about creating a glut. But, he said, the North Jersey market is likely to continue benefiting from a spillover of demand from New York City, where rents tend to be higher.
O’Keefe predicts building permits in the state to rise again in 2015, to about 30,000 units.
