Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just studied the proposed site a bit. It's more closer to Clark's shopping areas than Cranford. It's also closer to Clark High School. While Cranford elementary schools are near the area I think they should build an additional school to service this outlier part of Cranford. If I were to live there I'll be going to Clark more since the Shoprite and Target are close by including the Whole Foods at Clark Commons. The other thing that bothers me is that Walnut is a single lane road and adding 900+ units will need to double up the roads or there will be nothing but traffic jam. There's not even an adjacent road to use. One road to serve 900+ apt units, nice.
I just studied the proposed site a bit. It's more closer to Clark's shopping areas than Cranford. It's also closer to Clark High School. While Cranford elementary schools are near the area I think they should build an additional school to service this outlier part of Cranford. If I were to live there I'll be going to Clark more since the Shoprite and Target are close by including the Whole Foods at Clark Commons. The other thing that bothers me is that Walnut is a single lane road and adding 900+ units will need to double up the roads or there will be nothing but traffic jam. There's not even an adjacent road to use. One road to serve 900+ apt units, nice.
No, the 955 units should not be built because enough is enough and schools aren't the only problem. General traffic and increased congestion is another. You nailed it with the Walnut Ave issue, it's a terrible idea and the developers are only thinking about how much money they can make (and how much they can save when Cranford will give them tax breaks). Hence - Heartless Mountain.
People are saying that Hartz is probably proposing an insane number so we can "negotiate" it down to a number they planned for all along and we will think we "won." But there is no winning for us. I say enough is enough period, no more at all, but I know that with the AH rulings going entirely against the towns and their best interests, and the homeowners/taxpayers' concerns, this is not reality, unfortunately.
For a while back in the summer, the Say No to 750 Walnut signs were being stolen all over town. Strange, huh...
People who oppose the project should raise money and buy the 750 Walnut property - then preserve it as an empty office building and parking lot. Perhaps Cranford can buy it and fund the purchase with a special tax assessment on Cranford real estate owners.
Seriously, converting obsolete office and industrial buildings in northern New Jersey to residential uses has become a trend. Hartz Mountain is one of the best at it. I wouldn't bet against them, especially with state law on their side. Hartz is smarter than the people opposing the 750 Walnut project, based on the comments from the opponents.
And why are people against new residents? Both Clark and Cranford have populations today that are thousands below the 1970s peak. Plus, 750 Walnut renters will benefit local businesses and add to the base of future homebuyers in Clark and Cranford.
It's unfortunate that a builders remedy will supply the needed low income coah housing requirements. Why didn't your elected officials work towards finding another solution like group homes or senior housing? That's the real question.
The problem in general with NJ is that it's easy to get permits to throw these huge Apt complexes but the roads never get widen and resources aren't increased. So many towns are forced to do more with less. I don't even know if the increase taxes helped at all since Trenton just extract the taxes and give it to poor areas like Newark and nothing good comes out of tax increases when there's a spending problem overall.
What should the developer/owner of the property be able to build
Well, in commercial areas you should build commercial real estate. In residential areas you should build residential real estate. In mixed you should do both.
This is zoned commercial, not mixed, not industrial, not residential. Therefore, commercial.
It's unfortunate that a builders remedy will supply the needed low income coah housing requirements. Why didn't your elected officials work towards finding another solution like group homes or senior housing? That's the real question.
They have been. There has been a series of apartments all going up downtown near the train station. But the ratio is still off because of all the SFH that are on the majority of the buildable land.
Well, in commercial areas you should build commercial real estate. In residential areas you should build residential real estate. In mixed you should do both.
This is zoned commercial, not mixed, not industrial, not residential. Therefore, commercial.
Can they lobby for zoning changes or is the master plan stuck forever once it is drawn up
They can lobby for zoning changes but the zoning changes have been rejected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
