Resistance to change harming village
Friday, January 24, 2014
The Ridgewood News
Resistance to change harming village
Tracey Highfill
To the editor:
In my entire life I have never sided with developers, going so far as having a one-person painting exhibit deploring the loss of open space. However, the housing proposals on the table are different. They are not cutting down shady, wooded lots or digging up beautiful hay fields; the apartments replace uninspired, underutilized parcels of ugliness with much needed alternative living options.
When you live in town, you walk around. Increased foot traffic is good for business. Decreased car traffic is good for pedestrians.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/241770341_Letter__Resistance_to_change_harming_village.html#sthash.vlJ4NT9P.dpuf
Ridgewood residents are justified in doing what they can to limit development of residential units for more than 1-2 families, despite the misbehavior of New Jersey supreme court justices bent on undermining our tradition of home rule and eliminating the naturally-arising differences between and among our 500+ municipalities. New Jersey is different than other states in a good way and there is no good reason to try to force us into an unnatural homogeneity. That said, multi-unit development is not a bad thing when done in moderation. Do we really need to encourage four projects to move forward in parallel?
As a long time resident (45+ years here) I’d rather encourage the owners of storefronts to add a second or 3rd story with an apartment above. Many do have this already. The extra units would add ratables without the same impact as a large single building. I never liked the ‘Englewood or montclair’ style of a small city. I would however be in favor of one of these buildings if it was an adult 55+ type of development. I never lived in an apartment or condo, so I’d expect that if it was age limited, I wouldn’t have to hear loud neighbors at all hours of the nite.
#2: And where would the residents of these upstairs apartments park their cars – on Ridgewood Ave, Chestnut St or Broad St.? Do you think the owners of these storefronts want fewer parking spaces for thier customers? C’mon, get real – that’s a poor solution.
#2
If you’re 55 or older, would you really want to live above a storefront?
You would hear cars, people, smells of restaurants, etc. As one in that age bracket, I go to sleep early and rise early.
Another thing, with my knees would I want to walk up and down fights of stairs?
With the idea of living above that storefront, where am I going to park my car?
Make Brogan a parking lot with small storefronts facing Franklin. On Chestnut, a 55+ older development w/ 3 floors ( and elevator), and possibly a medical practice. The building across from that is gutted and looks like a medical
building is taking shape and directly down the block from there is another medical practice.
The writer glosses over the negative. Extra children are an expense and burden to our schools. The schools are at capacity, we can’t afford to build more classrooms.
The extra cars for these residents would need to park in downtown Ridgewood, not just for a two hours but all day.
The bustling downtown that you describe sounds like a city. If I wanted to live in a busy city I would move back to New York.
There is nothing stopping the “uninspired, underutilized parcels of ugliness” from being developed right now! The owners of these properties are able to develop these properties at a density level of 12 units per acre. What they are asking for is 40-50 units per acre, a density level that rivals only the “cities” of Bergen County.
This is not about maintaining the status quo vs revitalizing the downtown. This is a about responsible development vs over-development/greed. As residents we should DEMAND that our planning and zoning boards protect what is beautiful and desirable about Ridgewood. Not sell it to the highest bidder!
What an incredibly ignorant letter.
The notion that the 500-1,000 new residents would live in their little downtown ghetto and never venture out in a car is ridiculous. The notion that we need to cram more people into less breathing space is beyond stupid.
And the underlying notion that you need to change zoning laws to save the downtown is completely misplaced. A downtown exists to serve the surrounding community — not the other way around. Why are people espousing this idea that to “save” the downtown we need to put the rest of the town at risk?? Let market forces work and the downtown will stabilize. But, that’s not going to happen as long as people buy into the propaganda that we need to cram more people into town in order to help the downtown property owners. Let them lower their rents. Let them improve their properties. Let them change uses within the existing master plan to meet changing needs. Why should the rest of the town bailout the downtown property owners at our expense? Why should we fund or guarantee their profits??
Comment #6 is exactly correct — developers bought downtown properties hoping to make a profit. And now they are trying to convince the uninformed and the ignorant that somehow world peace will be achieved if only they are able to change existing laws and cram more people into the downtown.