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'm sure not every teacher makes a lot but it's better than office jobs that may start in the low $30k and crap benefits. I know people who make $40k as office admins and have to work almost 10 hours a day with no overtime and crap benefits.
But what you are complaining about... Pension and union dues, these are your benefits. Pension is like 401k you get that back when you retire and why are you complaining? Majority of private sector jobs today have no pension. Union dues are optional, you don't have to pay. The supreme court already strike down the law that requires unionize jobs to force other workers to pay union dues.
If you're making $40k and have more than 2 kids. The recent tax changes should give you a lot of money back and you're hardly paying any income taxes. Just your medicare, SS, and other dues.
People that make upwards of $70k has to pay a lot more taxes than you.
I didn't complain at all, I'm simply explaining that the take-home check is smaller than you think because literally 50% is taken out before you get it. We are talking about what teachers can afford, and my point is they don't have as much as you think to pay a mortgage. I went back to private sector because it wasn't enough to live on without a part-time job, and I started on something like Step 5. I don't have a pension or union either, so I'm really not sure what your point is. I know other professions make less, the topic I was replying to was about what teachers can afford, not other professions. I seem to have touched a nerve somehow,
Here is a current example of the problem. There is a 30 acre site in Park Ridge, NJ. It used to be a Sony corp site so it is zoned commercial. Park Ridge has a population of about 8900 in 3400 households over 2.6 sq miles of land (density of 3423/sq mile).
The builder wants to build 900+ units on the 30 acres. That is insane. The builder is using the hammer of building low income housing (10%) in an effort to profit from building too many units in an area that is not equipped to support 900 housing units. The area is right on the border of 2 other towns, including one town with a neighborhood of houses that looks to be zoned 3 or 4 units per acre. If this gets built, the value of their homes would immediately drop.
Trying to increase the housing units in Park Ridge by 900+ units (27%+ increase) on a 30 acre site with no regard to local zoning, roads, schools, water, sewage, mass transit, fire, police is an unconscionable use of the Fair Share directives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
I agree. The fact of the matter is that a good chunk of towns in North jersey are built out. Shoe horning in development just for the sake of it isn’t right. If there is a viable spot for condos/apts, then the affordable housing percentages should be followed. Forcing construction just to get additional affordable housing g in a built out town doesn’t make sense
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonCoNJ
Maybe I’ve been living in cities too long, but none of this sounds too bad to me. You’re talking about having a little over 11,000 people in 2.6 sq miles of land. My town has 70,000 people in 1.24 sq miles. I know that’s an extreme example but there are plenty of suburban towns in NJ with much higher population density than what you’re describing and they seem to function just fine.
You have been living in cities for too long. If I wanted to live in a city, I would live in a city and not in Cranford which also has a developer that proposed over 900 units on a lot currently zoned commercial, also on 30 acres. In addition to all other recent buildings and current ones going up. The affordable housing schemes are insane, unfair, and are causing and will continue to cause overdevelopment in areas that cannot handle the additional people and traffic and are already built up; it's now just overkill.
Our population increased by only about 50 from 2000 to 2010. 2010 to now we must have already increased our population by over 1000.
Here is a current example of the problem. There is a 30 acre site in Park Ridge, NJ. It used to be a Sony corp site so it is zoned commercial. Park Ridge has a population of about 8900 in 3400 households over 2.6 sq miles of land (density of 3423/sq mile).
The builder wants to build 900+ units on the 30 acres. That is insane. The builder is using the hammer of building low income housing (10%) in an effort to profit from building too many units in an area that is not equipped to support 900 housing units. The area is right on the border of 2 other towns, including one town with a neighborhood of houses that looks to be zoned 3 or 4 units per acre. If this gets built, the value of their homes would immediately drop.
Trying to increase the housing units in Park Ridge by 900+ units (27%+ increase) on a 30 acre site with no regard to local zoning, roads, schools, water, sewage, mass transit, fire, police is an unconscionable use of the Fair Share directives.
I'm not saying this is happening in Park Ridge. This is a general comment.
But, don't put all the blame on affordable housing mandates. I believe that a lot of these mayors and council people are getting big payoffs from these developers.
I believe that a lot of these mayors and council people are getting big payoffs from these developers.
+1
Additionally, let us not forget the old saying claiming that the surest way to accumulate illicit income is to become a member of a local Zoning Board or Planning Board. The tales of under-the-table money being passed to those people are legendary.
Last edited by Retriever; 04-19-2019 at 08:49 AM..
Maybe I’ve been living in cities too long, but none of this sounds too bad to me. You’re talking about having a little over 11,000 people in 2.6 sq miles of land. My town has 70,000 people in 1.24 sq miles. I know that’s an extreme example but there are plenty of suburban towns in NJ with much higher population density than what you’re describing and they seem to function just fine.
People bought homes in Park Ridge for many reasons including the density. If they wanted higher density, they would have bought in a town with higher density. Park Ridge is not set up to handle this type of increase in density. The towns surrounding Park Ridge have similar density to Park Ridge. This property abuts 2 other towns - Woodcliff Lake and Montvale. They will have to deal with this mess, too.
Another problem is that the property is not walking distance to mass transit. Parking is usually crowded at suburban train stops. In addition, the Pascack Valley rush hour trains are already crowded. When one town is forced to add so many units of housing, it effects other parts of the town and other towns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookspage
I'm not saying this is happening in Park Ridge. This is a general comment.
But, don't put all the blame on affordable housing mandates. I believe that a lot of these mayors and council people are getting big payoffs from these developers.
Park Ridge is raising property taxes to pay for lawyers to fight this 900 unit development.
^ Similarly, Cranford was in a years long court battle to fight one of the developments currently under construction. We lost. Our town government doesn’t want these buildings but we’re railroaded into them under the guise of some AH units. We don’t win in court. We have no choice.
Cranford is currently submitting various plans for residents to vote on to “reimagine” the school district. Basically restructure them. One plan includes one combined middle school for example. Schools are getting overcrowded and there are inequities, like the K-8 no longer having an art classroom because one of the grades needed the room for an extra classroom. The state will be mandating all day kindergarten soon and Cranford currently is one of the remaining districts without it. Once we’re required to have it, if one of these plans doesn’t go through, idk where we’re putting all these kids, between that and overdevelopment. There are serious implications caused by overdevelopment that we’re already seeing, and they aren’t done building yet.
Doesn’t 30 empty acres available by definition mean there is space to build? How does that equate to no more room? Just asking. Couldn’t the town have bought a piece of that land or any other available plots to satisfy its obligation. I’m not getting it - please explain. There’s cash for lawyers and fighting and it’s going to cost to upgrade services if builders remedy happens.
Doesn’t 30 empty acres available by definition mean there is space to build? How does that equate to no more room? Just asking. Couldn’t the town have bought a piece of that land or any other available plots to satisfy its obligation. I’m not getting it - please explain. There’s cash for lawyers and fighting and it’s going to cost to upgrade services if builders remedy happens.
In Cranford it isn’t empty. It’s currently zoned commercial and houses businesses/companies. The developer wants to turn it into housing.
We don’t have much empty land left. They usually knock down other buildings that had other purposes to build housing. In one example at the edge of downtown they knocked down 4 old houses to build apartments and retail.
I don’t really mind downtown developments as much but 3 current developments that I can think of that are either under construction, proposed, or brand new are not near downtown. One is on the border of Clark and the other very close to the Roselle border. The third not far from Kenilworth and backs up very close to the single family home residential neighborhood behind it.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 04-19-2019 at 01:30 PM..
In Cranford it isn’t empty. It’s currently zoned commercial and houses businesses/companies. The developer wants to turn it into housing.
We don’t have much empty land left. They usually knock down other buildings that had other purposes to build housing. In one example at the edge of downtown they knocked down 4 old houses to build apartments and retail.
I don’t really mind downtown developments as much but 3 current developments that I can think of that are either under construction, proposed, or brand new are not near downtown. One is on the border of Clark and the other very close to the Roselle border. The third not far from Kenilworth and backs up very close to the single family home residential neighborhood behind it.
Can the towns develop the zoned commercial property as affordable housing or is that an option only for developers? That's what I don't understand - why aren't the towns more proactive?
Can the towns develop the zoned commercial property as affordable housing or is that an option only for developers? That's what I don't understand - why aren't the towns more proactive?
Towns are not developers and the towns do not own the land. Towns can sometimes get funding to preserve unimproved open space like farmland. The land currently has an office building on it which increases the value of the site and it is more costly to remove the building/parking lots to create preserved open space. Small towns have enough problems running themselves. It would be a mistake for a small town to try and develop a property.
If the 30 acres were converted from commercial zone to a housing zone to match the area it would add roughly 120 units, not 900.
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.
