PJ BLOGGER

Distribution of Affordable Housing Units within Village of Ridgewood

In Uncategorized on January 8, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Data obtained from documents submitted to COAH, and posted on official Village of Ridgewood website.

7-11 Ridge Road – 129 units

46-50 Leonard Place – 4 units

308-316 South Broad Street – 4 units

296 Prospect Street – 5 units

234 South Broad Street – 2 units (proposed change to 10 units, pending approval of new construction)

130 Prospect Street – 14 units

100-200 South Broad Street – 20 units proposed, pending agreement with developer and approval of new construction

Total units (following approval of 2 proposed plans) = 186

As noted above, with the exception of units located at 7-11 Ridge Road, all other affordable housing units are concentrated within one neighborhood of the Village.

Free Tax Returns.com Inc.

Advertisements
  1. Maybe the Village intends to bus them around to the various schools

  2. Said before, but requires saying again – a segregated housing plan.

  3. Yes, but isnt the point moot because on ridge road there are more than in the rest of the village neighborhoods combined??? Talk about skewing data to fit ones needs….

  4. Is the Ridge Road property the Senior Citizens housing?

  5. This poster is the undisputed king/queen of “spin”. Let’s get the facts straight…

    First, according to the post, there are only 158 current units and the pending projects would add 18…for a total of 176, not 186.

    Second, over 81% of the current units (Ridge Road) are on the west side of town, no where near the “neighborhood” in question.

    Third, 296 Prospect (over 3%) is on the East side of Maple Ave…no where near the “neighborhood” in question.

    Fourth, Leonard Place and 308 S. Broad Street are in roughly the same neighborhood (8 units or 5%). But this is NOT the same neighborhood as 100-200 S. Broad Street or 130 Prospect, which are 3-4 blocks away.

    Interestingly, what does already exist in the immediate vicinity of Leonard Place are the Broadwood Codominiums, the Woodside Gardens Condominiums, the Victoria gardens Condominiums and the West Bergen Mental Health Group Home. Sounds like multi-unit housing well integrated into this “culturally diverse and historic neighborhood” with no problems.

    So, being generous, one might say that 15% of the total COAH units are located in the same vicinity, although not the same neighborhood. Over 81% are located on the west side of town and the balance are located on the east side of Maple Ave. The proposed plans would mean that 73% are located on the west side of town, 29% would be located in a 4-5 block area in the same vicinity and the balance would be on the east side of Maple Ave.

    One thing that needs to be kept in mind…the reason that most of our sports fields are in flood plains is because no one wanted to build homes there and it was the only open land left. A similar reality exist with the railroad tracks. Most people don’t want to buy homes near the railroad tracks or highways. So, the properties in that vicinity tend to be (although not always) businesses and rental, lower income or multi-unit housing.

  6. It seems that the same nerghborhood is being looked at. Time to look at Habernickle.

  7. “Most people don’t want to buy homes near the railroad tracks or highways.”

    The Baker Group wants to build housing near Route 17, but for some reason the Village is not supporting this endeavor. Why?

  8. “This poster is the undisputed king/queen of “spin”.”

    It’s okay for Village Hall to provide spin, but when it’s done in reverse, boy does the man get upset!

  9. Very schewed view to say that with the exception of 7-11 Ridge (69% of affordable houseing units), all units are in the same location.

    With such little empty space left to build on, what is the original poster suggesting? Can’t wait for the poster to propose the town use eminent domain to take a block of million dollar houses and turn them into affordable housing. GET REAL. Affordable housing is built where the immediate area supports the look and feel of Condo/Apartment units. As mentioned above, the “neighborhood” that is seeing affordable housing already has many condo/apartment units there.

    Would love for the original poster to state where they would like new affordable housing units to be located.

  10. “Fourth, Leonard Place and 308 S. Broad Street are in roughly the same neighborhood (8 units or 5%). But this is NOT the same neighborhood as 100-200 S. Broad Street or 130 Prospect, which are 3-4 blocks away.”

    Give it a rest bozo. It’s the sam friggin’ neighborhood.

  11. Um, as the owner of 296 Prospect St., imagine my surprise to read that there are 5 units of affordable housing in my home!

    Before we owned it our home was a halfway house, but not for years.

    Just wanted to point out, this data may not be completely up to date!

  12. OK, never mind, I checked the village COAH document and it says that 296 Prospect St (my house) has been replaced by a private residence and is no longer counted as affordable housing! (But then why did the original poster include it in the list? Oh well.)

  13. “Would love for the original poster to state where they would like new affordable housing units to be located.”

    1) Schedler Property
    2) Paramus Road near Linwood Avenue
    3) North Maple Avenue when Village Ford closes
    4) North Walnut Street near Franklin Avenue (move parking to Ken Smith when he closes shop)

  14. Add South Van Dien and Spring Avenue to the list of possible locations for multi family housing.

  15. FACT: Our elected Village officials, led by Mayor Pfund (Hillcrest Road) and Councilwoman Zusy (West Ridgewood Avenue), are endorsing a housing plan that will result in all existing and new affordable housing, except the current Senior Citizens’ Residence, being located within this small geographic area:

    Boundary North – Hudson Street
    Boundary East – Prospect Street
    Boundary South – Glen Rock Border
    Boundary West – Conrail Railroad

    Why is our neighborhood being requested to support the Village’s entire affordable housing quota?

    Our property values will decline if this plan is approved.

    This rush, rush proposal is simply outrageous, egregious, preposterous, and clearly a violation of our neighborhood’s constitutional right to governmental representation.

    We’re hiring an attorney!

    Note to Ms. Zusy: Just because no one showed up at the Planning Board meeting doesn’t mean you’re in the clear. We are quietly organizing and working under cover to thwart your stupid segregated housing plan. So don’t get too comfortable in that catbird’s seat of yours.

  16. 12:34 is right. Pfund is about as self serving as they come. Can’t till his term is up.

  17. Add Habernickel to the list!

    We could get all of the housing obligation there and still have room for some market rate housing.

    As it is the place is a mess.

  18. Habernickel would be ideal for a mix of housing. Great setting with pond and all. We should have never bought it in the first place. Let’s sell it to raise some revenues and have it create future receivables too.

  19. Hey 9:36,

    I was just driving down S. Broad Street and clocked the distance from 100 to 316. It is almost 1/4 of a mile. I’d say that is a bit of a stretch to call that distance part of “the same neighborhood”. I know my neighborhood isn’t a 1/4 mile long. How about yours?

    I was also surprised by the fact that there are more commercial properties than residential properties on the west side of the street. It’s almost tough to describe that side of S. Broad Street a part of any “neighborhood”, at least in the traditional sense of the word that comes to most people’s minds.

    Yours truly,

    Bozo

  20. How many of these units are in the Orchard district? (A more pressing question than “neighborhood.”)

  21. Are the two addresses on Prospect the share house and the group home?

  22. The group home at 296 prospect doesn’t exist anymore. The house is now a private residence. Don’t know about the other prospect address.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: