Development of Townhouses on Orange Lawn Tennis Club

Two points worth mentioning:

* Are the children school age? I live close to that complex and have never seen school-age kids enter or exit.

* The marginal cost of providing education to 1 more student is not $20,000. You know better than that.

I don't understand why every parcel like this needs to be a cookie cutter townhome complex. Building 27 townhomes is a huge money maker for the developer and Orange Lawn and nothing else. David, you really think they care about broad societal urban planning? It comes down to greed and dollars.

The neighboring houses are all single family and pay some of the highest taxes in town. Build 8 single family houses on the lot for $1 million a piece = $30,000 tax revenue/house/year. This would help Orange Lawn by selling some of their land and not change the character of the neighborhood.. Even if the whole club fails....why do we need to resign ourselves to 81 townhomes built there. It could all be single family.

According to their drawings the townhomes are directly uphill from the homes on N. Ridgewood and will easily tower over the trees. They will probably be visible from the top of Floods hill in the winter with leaves off the trees.

shakingmyhead said:

Two points worth mentioning:

* Are the children school age? I live close to that complex and have never seen school-age kids enter or exit.

* The marginal cost of providing education to 1 more student is not $20,000. You know better than that.

I have been told they are school age, I have also been told that the cost per student in our district is $20,000. That is why there is such a savings when out of district students are caught.

Scott: We do not save $20,000 every time an out-of-district student is caught. It's not as though we can lay off a teacher, reduce the electric bill, or cut benefits.

Nor do we incur $20,000 of costs for each kid in a family of four.

You know how this works and your posts are not reflective of it.

davidfrazer said:

I ask posters who are opposed to this exactly where new housing should be built, if not in here. The population of NJ is projected to increase by as much as 1,000,000 over the next decade. Those people have to live somewhere. So, even if this project doesn't get built, it doesn't mean the housing doesn't get built; it just gets built somewhere else. Where should that be if not an inner ring suburb with access to public transportation and a walkable commercial center? Do we need more sprawl on the I-78 and I-80 corridors? Do we need more cars on those roads? Do we need bigger carbon footprints?

I sound like a broken record on these threads, but I think folks should appreciate that refusing to build denser housing -- which is where the market is -- has consequences beyond the immediate neighborhood.

+1

I agree with the progressive argument in favor of townhouses (ie, they are environmentally sound and new residents have to live somewhere), but there is a conservative argument too.

This is Orange Lawn's property. The neighbors don't own it. Barring completely incompatible uses (eg, a cement factory, an amusement park), Orange Lawn should be able to use its property as it wishes. If the neighbors enjoy having a view of a field at that location, they can create a special fund for Orange Lawn so that Orange Lawn can stay in existence without developing the land.

Condos in my writing = apartment developments, not townhomes. I understand townhomes can be individually owned or in condominium organizations

If one student gets caught and thrown out of the district, you don't save $20,000. It doesn't work that way. You still have the same number of classes, teachers, employees, buildings, etc.

What you do get are reduced number of kids per classroom and increased teacher productivity.

Every house that surrounds the proposed townhomes will petition for a reduction in their property taxes if they are built. I know I would.

eelvb said:

I don't understand why every parcel like this needs to be a cookie cutter townhome complex. Building 27 townhomes is a huge money maker for the developer and Orange Lawn and nothing else. David, you really think they care about broad societal urban planning? It comes down to greed and dollars.

The neighboring houses are all single family and pay some of the highest taxes in town. Build 8 single family houses on the lot for $1 million a piece = $30,000 tax revenue/house/year. This would help Orange Lawn by selling some of their land and not change the character of the neighborhood.. Even if the whole club fails....why do we need to resign ourselves to 81 townhomes built there. It could all be single family.

According to their drawings the townhomes are directly uphill from the homes on N. Ridgewood and will easily tower over the trees. They will probably be visible from the top of Floods hill in the winter with leaves off the trees.

The tax benefits of this project are potentially very high.

Let's look at the Mews.

The Mews have 72 units and, I believe, 2-4 students at any one time. Glancing at Trulia, taxes per unit were were $10,500 in 2013.

Total estimated taxes from the Mews for 2013: $756,000.

About 58% of that goes to the public schools: $438,480.

We should insist on high construction standards and yeah, I'll admit, upper-end condos, but I don't know why the proposed condos wouldn't be big net contributors to the town.

JBennett - This situation is very analogous to the development of the Quarry in the early 2000s. We the neighbors were initially faced with the potential of 198 apartments and through our persistence and organization, we were able to have it reduced to the 62 townhouses and 7 houses that exist today. While I would have preferred open space, the end result is OK and has not negatively impacted the neighborhood.

Of course, conversely, our taxes CERTAINLY have not gone down and the BOT at the time did everything to dissuade us from fighting it by threatening that it could be worse (900 units). It was also private property that the owner COULD develop, but in the end, the neighbors absolutely have a right to know what is going on and to be involved in the process.

JBennett said:

davidfrazer said:

I ask posters who are opposed to this exactly where new housing should be built, if not in here. The population of NJ is projected to increase by as much as 1,000,000 over the next decade. Those people have to live somewhere. So, even if this project doesn't get built, it doesn't mean the housing doesn't get built; it just gets built somewhere else. Where should that be if not an inner ring suburb with access to public transportation and a walkable commercial center? Do we need more sprawl on the I-78 and I-80 corridors? Do we need more cars on those roads? Do we need bigger carbon footprints?

I sound like a broken record on these threads, but I think folks should appreciate that refusing to build denser housing -- which is where the market is -- has consequences beyond the immediate neighborhood.

+1

I agree with the progressive argument in favor of townhouses (ie, they are environmentally sound and new residents have to live somewhere), but there is a conservative argument too.

This is Orange Lawn's property. The neighbors don't own it. Barring completely incompatible uses (eg, a cement factory, an amusement park), Orange Lawn should be able to use its property as it wishes. If the neighbors enjoy having a view of a field at that location, they can create a special fund for Orange Lawn so that Orange Lawn can stay in existence without developing the land.

oh - you must be new here. Example: Marylawn.

bettyd said:

This is an area filled with large, single family homes. It is not appropriate for town homes.

Oh please...we have townhomes on Wyoming surrounded by single family homes, and townhomes on South Orange Avenue, surrounded by single family homes, and the town has survived quite well. Heck, we've even survived the redevelopment of the Quarry.

I get that people in million dollar homes don't want anything built across the back fence, and would prefer a few trophy homes if construction must happen, but that is very different from saying that denser housing is "not appropriate".

As JBennett pointed out, one of the advantages of existing townhouses/condos/upscale apartments is that they tend to attract very few families with children, and thus may be far better for our local finances than a smaller number of million dollar homes sold to families. Complexes like The Newstead (and Gaslight) are home to many seniors, both downsizing locals and people who've moved here later in life. I'm eager to have a decent selection of options myself someday, when we want to downsize and quit dealing with old-home and yard maintenance.

So the neighbors should exercise every right to get in there and try to negotiate down the project, to insist on proper drainage, etc. But don't expect me to back the idea that denser housing isn't "appropriate" due to the high values of the nearby homes. You'll have to do better than that.

I'm also not convinced that the Village should buy it for park land. At that location between the Reservation and Meadowlands, we don't need more open space, unless, perhaps, it were developed for very-high utilization athletic fields. I don't think that it would be an appropriate use of tax dollars.

yahooyahoo said:

Every house that surrounds the proposed townhomes will petition for a reduction in their property taxes if they are built. I know I would.

But would they succeed? I'm not so convinced.

scottgreenstone said:

shakingmyhead said:

yahooyahoo said:

Unless S.O. gives away another PILOT to the developer.

I think it has been established that municipal governments do better under the pilot agreements and school taxes are pushed to Maplewood. At least that is my memory of prior threads.

That is just what they want us to believe. For example I have heard of multiple 4 child families in Piloted developments. At $20,000 per kid of school costs, that is costing the district $80,000 per family, with ZERO put in to the School Funds.

Please brush up on your cost accounting, especially the chapter on variable and step variable costs.

susan1014 said:

bettyd said:

This is an area filled with large, single family homes. It is not appropriate for town homes.

Oh please...we have townhomes on Wyoming surrounded by single family homes, and townhomes on South Orange Avenue, surrounded by single family homes, and the town has survived quite well. Heck, we've even survived the redevelopment of the Quarry.

I get that people in million dollar homes don't want anything built across the back fence, and would prefer a few trophy homes if construction must happen, but that is very different from saying that denser housing is "not appropriate".

As JBennett pointed out, one of the advantages of existing townhouses/condos/upscale apartments is that they tend to attract very few families with children, and thus may be far better for our local finances than a smaller number of million dollar homes sold to families. Complexes like The Newstead (and Gaslight) are home to many seniors, both downsizing locals and people who've moved here later in life. I'm eager to have a decent selection of options myself someday, when we want to downsize and quit dealing with old-home and yard maintenance.

So the neighbors should exercise every right to get in there and try to negotiate down the project, to insist on proper drainage, etc. But don't expect me to back the idea that denser housing isn't "appropriate" due to the high values of the nearby homes. You'll have to do better than that.

I'm also not convinced that the Village should buy it for park land. At that location between the Reservation and Meadowlands, we don't need more open space, unless, perhaps, it were developed for very-high utilization athletic fields. I don't think that it would be an appropriate use of tax dollars.

Yes, we have townhomes and apartment buildings going up anywhere and everywhere. The town has not survived quite well. It is starting to look like Hoboken West.

"We don't need more open space." What?! That is exactly what this town needs. The last thing we need are more townhomes and apartment buildings - anywhere.

I think we're pretty lucky with the amount of open space available. As much as I love open space, I surely do not think the town needs to purchase this property to create more.

South Orange has a bit of an urban feel (in places) and I think that's an attraction for many. Think Montclair rather than Hoboken.

I am glad you are all experts on what members of our BOE and District have told me about costs.

Carry on with all of your arm chair quarterbacking and being experts on what others are told.

Susan1014 -Based on your logic I should knock down my house, put 4 townhomes on my property, sell off 3 of them so I can have money to join the local country club to play tennis and then live out my retirement it the 4th townhome. It does not matter that it will look out of place to my neighbors and that their property values will decrease. Hopefully kids won't move in and eat up our school budget. Its my property zoned for residential, so why can't I do this. The reason I can't do this is because it is out of character with the neighborhood. Same reason I can't build an extra floor on top of my house. Same reason that I can't split my house into 5 apartments and rent them out.

I do not border the Orange lawn property, but the people that live on N. Ridgewood will see their home values drop considerably if this project goes forward as planned.

Why do we have historic preservation districts? To preserve the character of an area. This is no different.

scottgreenstone said:

I am glad you are all experts on what members of our BOE and District have told me about costs.

Carry on with all of your arm chair quarterbacking and being experts on what others are told.

The issue is not the average cost per student, which I assume you have correct.

The issue is whether the addition of an additional student adds $20,000 to the school budget. It does not, and you know better than that. Or you should. Or should now.

scottgreenstone said:

I am glad you are all experts on what members of our BOE and District have told me about costs.

Carry on with all of your arm chair quarterbacking and being experts on what others are told.

It has been said her a thousand times. The average cost per student (total cost / number of students) may be X but the cost of each additional student is going to be much less than X. But still the fallacy gets repeated.

It is maddening because it is so innumerate.

Looks like the area is zoned for multi-family housing.

http://southorange.org/development/SmartGrowthPlan6-12/ZoningandRedevelopmentDistricts.pdf

You an say all you want has been said HERE, but I am just repeating what I was told by those that actually work in the district opposed to those that live in cyberspace.

Which makes me wonder about the qualifications of the BOE.

scottgreenstone said:

You an say all you want has been said HERE, but I am just repeating what I was told by those that actually work in the district opposed to those that live in cyberspace.

@JBennett is on the BOE. Perhaps he can provide some info.

scottgreenstone said:

You an say all you want has been said HERE, but I am just repeating what I was told by those that actually work in the district opposed to those that live in cyberspace.

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually involved with financial issues at the school would say that each additional student is going to cost what the average is. So you must have misunderstood. Just realize that it makes no mathematical sense.

It is one of the few things DF and I agree on and I am sure he will back me up on this math.

THank you for continuing this inane beat down. Again I am just repeating what I WAS TOLD.

Well you need to realize that if you were told that it is wrong and you need to stop basing what you say on something that is patently wrong.

Can we get back to the subject at hand? Namely that a club is being shady with its finances in the hopes of selling off a chunk of its land in a sensitive area in ways that might affect the character of its environs.

So long as no one suggests that each new student in the development will cost 20K.

What taxes does the club now pay to the town?