Montclair, NJ – A group called Montclair Residents For Responsible Development, that includes former 4th Ward Councilor Dr. Renee Baskerville, Linda Cranston, Robin Curry, Rachael Quinn Egan, David Herron, Sharon Martin-Smith, Adriana O’Toole, and Aminah Toler, have started a petition calling for the Montclair Township council to scale back the proposed development at Lackawanna Plaza.
The petition, with more than 470 signatures Friday afternoon, calls the development massive and cites “potential traffic nightmares” at the site and the unknown impact on the Township’s schools and infrastructure.
The current redevelopment plan features five buildings. Four of these buildings are six stories and one is five stories.
Brian Hough, who signed the petition, writes “I want this to proceed but on a smaller scale. Keep apartments under 200, and cap the number of stories for the buildings at 4 stories.”
Stuart Weissman writes: “Montclair’s 4th ward needs a supermarket. Not a metropolis.”
Lackawanna Deja Vu
It’s not the first time residents have mobilized to protest plans for Lackawanna Plaza. Cranston, one of the petition’s authors, raised concerns about the previous plan in 2017 and was also part of A Better Lackawanna a group that filed a complaint against the Montclair Planning Board and the Township of Montclair regarding the approval of the prior Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment application. That plan featured buildings that were four stories in height.
In a 2017 letter to the editor, Cranston writes of the plan pictured above, “the proposal by Pinnacle/Hampshire would vastly overdevelop the site with bulky buildings adding 349 apartments in an already congested neighborhood, degrade the eastern gateway to Montclair, dwarf and disregard elements of the venerated historic train station, and shut the door to creative possibilities for a valuable amenity in the Fourth Ward and for the town as a whole.”
Cranston, in 2017, was concerned that the site had “excessive mass and bulk. The buildings proposed for the west parcel (train terminal) are monolithic and completely out of scale with the existing historic structures. Deeper setbacks are needed and bulk should be drastically reduced.”
She also called for green space, plazas and outdoor dining as well as more respect for the historic elements of the train station.
In 2019, a group of concerned residents, including then-4th Ward Councilor Dr. Renee Baskerville, toured the redevelopment area.
The current Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment plan is being reviewed by the Montclair Planning Board. At its December 12 meeting, members of the Planning Board expressed their concerns about proposed building heights and mass. At its December 19 meeting, the Planning Board was shown different views of the plan and how the five buildings would look in the relation to the surrounding area.
The Planning Board meets again to discuss the Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment plan on Monday, January 9.
James Cotter, who lives in the immediate vicinity of the development, says he is agnostic on the current plan because it is in flux.
“The project has many virtues: the arrival of a viable supermarket, green space, community space, and historic preservation, to name a few. The size and density of the site gives many in our neighborhood pause, especially considering how the buildings will impose upon the residential character of the surrounding streets. And of course, traffic, circulation and pedestrian safety are primary concerns. We will certainly call for traffic mitigation on our blocks to protect our safety and quality of life,” says Cotter.
“I’ve been encouraged by the Council’s support of our call for an independent traffic study and members of the Planning Board are asking probing and critical questions. I have hope that the developer is willing to compromise on issues that are of concern to the community,” he adds.
More NIMBY nonsense from self-styled “liberals” and “progressives.” The bigger plan looks great. Montclair needs more housing badly.
cjo: Where is it written we need more housing? Agreed, NIMBY is Nonsense. But do people leaving the city not have choices except Montclair? Bloomfield’s a fine town, and lots of new apartments can attract more people there. When those who wish to move up have the wherewithal, can’t they then set their sights on 07042?
Candidly, I expect your answer to provide more fireworks than substance, but it’s a legit question. And I am not some kneejerk liberal on this subject. I’d really like to know.
It is not often a change.org petition provides a list of Montclair’s 500 Leading Heads In the Sand.
montclairskier,
Help me out here. I need your expertise.
Looking at the LP Redvelopment Plan Draft’s Regulating Plan on pg 19, two things now jump out at me.
1) The Grove St activation, using this Form Based Code approach, is almost as bad as the Pinnacle plan. If you consider the topography, the array of architectural screening, it is pretty much a dead zone for more than ½ the block.
2) The Main Plaza doesn’t work on any level for me. It is a pretty big misuse of our money for an open space element.
However, if you swap the placement of Building C and the Main Plaza, it seems to make a lot more sense. Station Plaza & Main Plaza become one. The setback from Grove is tremendous and the trade advances both key site elements. I could go on, but I’m interested in your opinion.
And they could still run a driveway in from Bloomfield Ave, past the supermarket and exit out the other side through the loading area.
What I am most impressed with is the lack of a a unifying strategy for this development. We have a whole bunch of tactically-minded, small-minded community folk wanting this development to be everything. And this is why this plan is not going to work. It is not because of the height, or the traffic that it is not working. Nor the public safety, or the housing are to blame for its not working.
It is not working because us, the community, everyone here, used the redevelopment tool like a 17-year old getting behind the wheel after a couple of beers . We were reckless. Especially the long timers who have the perspective. We didn’t want to do the level of work the generation before us put in. Or someone else was supposedly doing it.
I am also impressed by the lack of accountability, by anyone, for the disconnect here. It is someone else’s fault, but not mine. As a matter of fact, I see the same boldfaced names playing both sides of the issue. I see new names that just don’t have the time beyond clicking on a petition, much less sharing a an insight or two, not having a viewpoint on what change looks like.
This is the new Montclair. Welcome.
Could it be, Frank, that Covid has changed people’s expectations of the public square? In the past two years, up to and including today, I have seen less and less of neighbors who once were sociable. Maybe Lackawanna is at an endgame and exhaustion has set in. Maybe some people don’t care what the “Eastern entrance” to Montclair looks like anymore. More than ten years ago Rahm Emanual said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Since then, it’s been crisis after crisis after crisis. Maybe Lackawanna is just not enough of a crisis to care that much. Maybe that explains the new Montclair.
I agree with everything you said and the implications of what you highlighted.
COVID’s impact will take years to catalog and understand. Can’t say in this case, but maybe. Certainly could be.
Downtown Montclair has always been treated as a catch-all, including the kitchen sink place/only people that worked there, lived there/ob-la-di ob-la-da part of our town. If you lived on the fringes of downtown, it offered great value. Now that we are doing the live/work/play thing, the level of NIMBYism has grown in lockstep with the level of redevelopment.
The Cloverhill neighborhood people are just working it for a some perks. The long-timers who have been here since the Midtown Direct connection know full well what the neighborhood future was. But, their casual dishonesty aside, they should negotiate for the best possible deal.
The issue with the Open Space in the plan is not COVID or indifference. It is simply, at best, form follows function design by the creatives who were either constrained or unable to inspire. That is a cardinal sin for creatives. Further, they set a very pedestrian Pedestrian Aesthetic. And lastly, I’m also lack interest in making excuses for sub-optimal design.
Yeah, build whatever Form Based Code thingy at Lackawanna. It will certainly are meeting the legal requirement to be unique. That they nailed.
Again, I like the parts. The supermarket use. The historicism. The Open Space. I like using height to achieve the mix of land uses & public policy objectives. I like that The 21st Century Pedestrian has supplanted the 20th Century Train Passenger in determining the amenities.
As you might surmise from my comments, the New Montclair is not all that different from the Old Montclair. But, saying it does irritate the former New Yorkers.
And the Montclair Residents For Responsible Development are highly disappointing to me.
What they didn’t explain when composing this political stunt is maybe some have a real interest in running for office next year. Anyway, what you need to know in one, simple sentence:
They are trying to use the Redevelopment Law tool to downzone 2 parcels in the C-1 Zone.
The purpose is not to prevail, because they can’t. As a matter of fact, if they got their way which I would love to see, Montclair would be acting illegally. Hey, what’s a little more litigation, right? To be clear, they don’t scare me. The people signing the petition scare me. Like in a Jan 6th way.
Montclair is an extremely desirable place to live. And yet housing growth commensurate with this demand (or even remotely commensurate) is illegal. Heck, we have NJ Transit stations surrounded by single-family zoning. Why the state puts up with that insanity boggles my mind. As a result, Montclair has prices that continue to go up and will continue to go up in the future.
The declining economic and demographic diversity of the town is a direct result of its refusal to allow the housing supply to expand to meet demand at a reasonable price.
A bunch of little tyrants who bought a house in town think that gives them the right to stop anyone else from moving to Montclair (at least, not unless it’s under their very strict terms – can’t have kids going to school here now! those little moochers!).
This whole mindset is terribly wrong and does damage to our regional and national economy. There are hundreds of rich towns just like Montclair doing the same thing: excluding people who look and live differently, either implicitly or explicitly. Montclarions who oppose new housing here, being left-of-center, don’t like to say what they *really* mean when they stop new development. I’d almost prefer if they came out and just said exactly what it is they oppose.
Montclair NIMBYs have been holding up a supermarket in the town’s only working class black neighborhood for going on a decade now. I think it’s time we start judging these people’s actions rather than their words.
@cjo2015 Affordable housing is in older stock, we have to preserve our way to affordability, not just build our way there.
The social engineering crowd will never be happy or satisfied. Why bother trying? The narrative that Montclair is rich so they should pay for everyone is an interesting one. There is a limit and in time the “rich” will move to greener pastures leaving blight behind. Even NYC is feeling the pinch because things have gone overboard.
I say build something special without a mandatory run of the mill supermarket. I have a feeling we are going to end up with shoddy construction and something that looks out of Dr Suess. Does it matter? Unfortunately, the answer is no. People cried about the Marlboro Inn, the Hahnes building, the bowling alley, Charlie Brown’s and on and on. The fact is 90% of the people living here now don’t know those places ever existed and don’t care. Whatever goes up at Lackawanna will be accepted and tolerated by existing citizens and probably loved by the new wave of homeowners. I doubt anyone will put up a For Sale sign because of the Plaza. Taxes are another story.
cjo2015: “A bunch of little tyrants who bought a house in town think that gives them the right to stop anyone else from moving to Montclair…”
You are ascribing motivations to many Montclair residents who would never recognize it in themselves. It’s a pretty dark characterization, and I don’t think your accusation is on the mark here. Are they selfish and protective, and hoping for a return on their investment? Absolutely. Do they think renters and subsidized rentals are a different type of resident? Sure, but it’s not a bald-faced disdain. Will they go to bat for re-zoned, multi-unit development around train stations? Probably not if they are single-family owners currently living near train stations.
I do, however, agree with another of your observations: “NIMBYs have been holding up a supermarket in the town’s only working class black neighborhood for going on a decade now.”
Most white Montclair residents (that would likely be your NIMBY profile, I gather) would not see themselves as holding up anything at all. It is simply the complexity of the process they will tell you. Democracy is difficult. Development is always problematic.
These types, to whom you ascribe nefarious motives, don’t know what it means not to have convenient access to a supermarket. They don’t have to take local public buses. Or call Montclair Cab Co. They haven’t called a cab since they downloaded the Uber app. They remember the days when they took buses and subways before moving here, and how charming “urban” life was, but now they’re in the suburbs. A “diverse” suburb. Asked to describe the town they live in to, say, someone from Oregon, they’d proudly say we’re an urban suburb, with arts and restaurants and above all a diverse population, liberal, integrated. Above all integrated. But the closest most of the people you’re describing as getting anywhere near the fourth ward is the farmer’s market. It’s a fact of life, and most residents are uneasy acknowledging it. Montclair is about as geographically divided by race as Philadelphia. Those people you describe as having held up a supermarket for a decade in a working class black neighborhood most likely don’t even think in those terms. A decade is a long time to go without access to a good store. Very few people in the first, second or third wards have faced that dilemma. But image counts, and many of us white Montclair liberals think we’re doing a fine job. As long as the cover story looks good, you can doodle out whatever cartoons you want inside.
But be careful, cjo2015. If you do what you’re clearly suggesting and talk about the actual racial aspect of it (“I think it’s time we start judging these people’s actions rather than their words…”) it could get ugly.
Flipside: The Marlboro Inn! Oh the petitions we signed! Now it’s ten houses compressed into a small block. A Zip-file of suburbia!
“I do, however, agree with another of your observations: “NIMBYs have been holding up a supermarket in the town’s only working class black neighborhood for going on a decade now.”
Hysterical. Let’s just make stuff up. Maybe you could introduce arithmetic?
Frank: Huh? It’s an opinion, based on observation. It is not just made up. Maybe it’s not in one of your code books or buried deep in subsection (c),clause 19(d,k,l) page 43.a.2. But the actual fact is that SOMETHING HAS BEEN HOLDING UP A SUPERMARKET! Call it what you will. NIMBY seems a pretty fair accusation as far as I can see. What Do You Think It Is? Even a combo platter works.
Yes, first up, Pathmark closed in late fall of 2015. Pathmark’s bankruptcy, no operators interested. Then the developer, Pinnacle/Hampshire their first, early 2017 plan: a 65,000 SF, or an acre and a half mega supermarket with asphalt sea of of parking and 300, yes 300, housing units. The neighborhood community insisted on the 65K size even though no operator in their right mind would seriously commit to such folly. Then the Council & Planning Board started kicking sand at each other. And then it just went in the crapper where both bodies took turns undermining progress.
My favorite part was when literally everyone decided they were retail experts. That someone who owned a store on the Avenue was a retail expert. We literally has thousands of retail experts. And wee still have them to this day. Yes, we are so prepared for this supermarket driven project we have literally thousands of retail experts.
So, it is not NIMBY paralysis, it RETAIL EXPERT paralysis. The logjam was broken by letting the developer’s retail expert prevail. He seems the most objective. And this time, guess what? We are going to let BDP’s retail expertise prevail. Yup, I can assure you it is not race driven. We are just a stupid-driven community that can’t make up its minds.
Yup. It’s never racism in Montclair. We’re the kind of white people who’d never let that happen. So where’s the supermarket? Apathy? Greed? Traffic? Retail Logistics? I don’t see 510 Valley Road laying vacant for nearly ten years.
Look at the floor of 510 Valley. Pathmark in the 2000’s was like this. Everyone is treading water until its turn for redevelopment comes around. The Bellevue Theater debacle has set 510 back more than a few years.
The problem is the Montclair Residents For Responsible Development can’t do math. Don’t ask me why. Because if they could, they would have a clue what the underlying zoning allows as of right. They would have a clue what amount of buildable feet (still have no idea who coined this term) the underlying zoning allows. They would understand that you can’t assign a parking requirement on an accessory parking use. They would understand the likely traffic levels the underlying zoning already anticipates. And, they would actually walk the area and understand what is there, for how long, and what was before it, and for how long. And then they would certainly say let’s bring back low-rise urban renewal. If they did the numbers, they would be embarrassed by their petition.
And for the record, I used D’port. Can’t recall if Davenport Taxi before that. Maybe Brown & White as 2nd choice.
Could someone explain to me why a supermarket is so necessary? Pathmark closed in 2015, has there been mass starvation in the area since then? Why not let the market decide what is appropriate for the area. What happens if a huge supermarket is built and it is underused? Here is a hint, the supermarket owner will close the store and leave a huge empty space…oops. How come another big supermarket didn’t rush in and fill the void when Pathmark left? My bet is they wouldn’t make money there, damn capitalists! Supermarkets need tons of parking and constant short term activity. So peaceful! Just turn the the thing into strip mall or just leave it like it is and see if anyone will fill the space. Calling all retail experts.
Frank G:
Not sure I have expertise in anything, but can give my opinion. I actually remember writing out a long comment about the Main Plaza, but I can’t find it now. I either thought better of throwing in my 2 cents or accidentally closed out without posting.
I agree with you that the Main Plaza does not as designed in the proposed plan. In urban planning they would call it a “missing tooth” http://jur.byu.edu/?p=18950. While the renderings make it look like a highly activated space (food trucks, skating, etc), it’s essentially a glorified parking lot/drop off. To put this onto Bloomfield Ave is a very bad idea. We have a tragic missing tooth right up the block from this parcel. The Montclair Mews has a surface parking lot right on Bloomfield Ave with a fence running along the sidewalk. It ruins that whole block. Even the retail across Bloomfield Ave suffers because of it. “Main Plaza” in the redevelopment plan is less egregious but will have similar effect. We should want an uninterrupted streetscape on this corridor.
Station Plaza on Grove Street bothers me less, it’s a car centric street. There is no retail fabric to interrupt. I think your idea of swapping Bldg C and Main Plaza would be a better alternative. Buildings A, B, and C should try to create an engaging street scape along Lackawanna Plaza, Bloomfield Ave, and Glenridge Ave. That pushes the greenspace to Grove Street as you suggested. In an ideal world, the 1 Greenwood Bldg is part of this whole development as their mini deck on Glen Ridge Ave is a terrible use of space, but I don’t think that’s happening.
Overall I think main goals for the next iteration (if that even happens) would be to push building mass (with setbacks) out to Bloomfield Ave, Lackawanna, Glen Ridge Ave, and the Mews. Have minimally interrupted retail frontage on Glen Ridge Ave and Bloomfield Ave and push the public open space towards the center and Grove Street. You could almost mimic the perimeter blocks of Northern Europe but with mixed use buildings. Traffic calming along Grove should be a focus.
The height and density really don’t bother me. You can’t have open space, and a grocery store, and affordable housing without giving up height and density. Developers lose money on every single affordable unit they build. It’s why we have had exactly one building in Montclair built with the required 20% affordable. It’s not greed, it’s math. The parcels are one block from a train station with 7 days/week direct service to Penn Station. I think transit oriented development is a good thing. A lot of urban planners would agree.
Frank, Since you are up on everything I have question. The storefronts on the north side of Bloomfield Ave. west of Midland have been empty for years. The old sushi joint for over a decade and the Office for at least 5. How can the landlords afford to let them turn into empty eyesores? Do they get some kind of tax break for not renting?
Thank you montclairskier. You have a highly informed opinion that I value. Yes, you did previously post the “missing tooth” analogy and I agree. I think from a design POV, not being a designer but drinking with them, it is important to pick out the one defining need and nail it.
To me, it is not Bloomfield Ave. Bloomfield Avenue will be what it has been, is now, and will be going forward. Glenridge is a means to an ends type of street. Lackawanna Plz is a S. Park-type thingy.
That block of Grove, to me, should be the standard carrier. It should define the new character of Lackawanna. It has the volume, the visibility and carries no baggage. We’ll see.
However, the Planning Board really needs to pick up its game. They have been lallygagging. To be fair, the law asks them to focus on the site. However, they really need to come to terms with their vision for across Bloomfield Ave and down, at the corner of Elm and that dormant redevelopment area. This is the weakness of Redevelopment Law – every case must be treated as unique and minimal attention is paid to surrounding parcels. They kinda of explored it with 6-10 Elm St. They need to apply themselves.
You know the crack about spelling cat and spotting the person the c & the a?
You’re not stupid, but I will still spot you the B & the D.
That is a soon, if to indications, to be a Rehabilitation Plan (tax abatement) versus a Redevelopment Plan (PILOT).
flipside,
RE: Montclair’s Affordable Housing (AH) program
I admit I missed the rule change that gives AH preference to Montclair residents. My math of the policy’s impact on economic diversity makes me disagree with this rule. I don’t understand how a Montclair-preferenced AH public policy supports our population growth objectives.
If we create AH for current residents, the unaffordable housing unit vacated will be filled ideally by a household who can afford the market rent. It seems that as our population grows, we will have a policy that promotes market rate housing share.
What am I missing?
Until someone can explain how our policy aligns with our goals, I no longer support our Affordable Housing policy’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance.
Frank, You are not missing anything. Social Engineering always has more than its share of unintended consequences. You know I am a free market guy. The Free Market System isn’t perfect but it has way less flaws than any other system. Prime example is the USA. Though we have a crony capitalism problem rooted in our government (term limits, anyone) we are still the best game in town. One look at our border tells the story.
Everything is pretty rosy in Montclair at the moment but if we tip the scale with too many freebies and too much restriction the people shouldering the bulk of the burden will slowly or quickly leave town. Remember the late 60’s? Heck, remember after the PO shooting in the 90’s? The majority of Montclair’s citizens does not have the love and roots in the town that you do. If Montclair is not the flavor of the month it gets dropped like a hot potato. Of course due to its proximity to NYC it always bounced back but with office occupancy in the city less than 50% that advantage is slipping away….to Nashville, Tampa, and other points untaxed. Money has always had the ability to move but now with technology businesses do too.
Flipside asked two good questions: why is a supermarket absolutely necessary, and why are a bunch of properties alongside Bloomfield Avenue still vacant? Frank chose to answer a question about affordable housing. They’re good questions, Frank. Maybe skip the supermarket morass, which seems to be getting nowhere.
But indeed, what tax incentives or relief do these property owners receive for leaving much of Bloomfield Avenue looking so horribly blighted? I know, I know, it’s the free market and it will find its own balance if the magic hand of capitalism is allowed to do its thing. But do Montclair zoning laws or the local tax structure interfere enough to keep things looking as bad as they do?
I’m not doing the philosophical crap today after watching the PB mtg last night.
What I’m saying is Our Walk – the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance (a.k.a. the 20% Affordable Housing requirement) – is structurally incompatible with Our Talk.
Right or wrong, IZ was enacted so that NEW development would represent our economic housing diversity goals. It was never intended or designed to address the existing housing stock. Somewhere, at sometime, someone blew this up and started using the Montclair Preference to provide these new units to existing low/moderate income households. So, we are not adding AH units as we add market unit. We are taking our existing low/mod income households and just changing their address. Which is fine if we had agreed to spend our development & tax dollars this way.
But, more importantly to many in our progressive community, it does not advance diversity and I would argue it gently tilts up the gentrification pace. It’s a math thing. I know. Most here won’t get it.
Frank is talking in riddles again. I’ll be more blunt. Placek (owner of the subject property of this article) owns the empty buildings on Bloomfield Ave between Midland and Valley. In the future there may be redevelopment plan for that block which will involve a “horse trade” for the police station. In exchange, someone would have to pony up the money for a new municipal building which would include a police station. Existing municipal building gets knocked down and that lot gets merged with Township owned former PNC branch next door. Township should have bought Red Cross, but they didn’t. They might still, they’ll just pay a lot more for it now that there are approvals in place.
There is no tax advantage to not leasing storefronts (It’s a write off Jerry!). There is an advantage in not having long term leases in place when you want to do a big redevelopment plan.
Thank you, montclairskier. Looks like when Lackawanna gets done (whatever, however, whenever) that will be the next big battle. Who will lead that charge? You? Frank? How about an intervention? An angel investor. Someone local, big money, but not old local money. Someone with fresh eyes and cash. Can we whisper “Colbért Civic Centre” without embarrassing ourselves?
I’m not a fan of this new municipal complex plan as as you describe it which also tracks with my understanding. I don’t support purchasing more private land for municipal purposes. I would link any plan with a review of our Maple Plaza development.
Et tu, Seymour?
At 1:58 into last night’s Planning Board meeting discussion of the Lackawanna Plaza plan where the oops in the Seymour Arts District’s Wellmont Arts Plaza plan was raised. It seems the plan for the programming of the public plaza with arts-oriented activities has blown up.
A key principle and lynchpin feature described in the Arts District Redevelopment Plan:
“Accommodate a great public space as the central design feature of the area. This will be achieved by vacating the portion of Seymour Street in front of the Wellmont Theater to create an active and inviting public plaza. This space should provide a dramatic pedestrian entrance from Bloomfield Avenue and its design shall integrate the arts-centric identity of the area through the creative use of landscape/hardscape elements and innovative programming.”
We now have no programming and little cooperation to rectify the loss. Basically we turned a street into a pedestrian alley. The devil is always in the details.
montclairskier, Do those empty building get assessed to current market value or were the market was 10 years ago when they originally went vacant? I am a bit surprised that there isn’t an ordinance to keep the store front maintained. Maybe letting them deteriorate keeps the valuations lower. In any event, the block is an eyesore but no one seems to care…hmmm…wonder why?
“Someone local, big money, but not old local money.” I think Mr. Placek would tell you he fits your criteria.
Flipside, those buildings have changed hands fairly recently. Normally assessment value would be based on sales price.
Is there any discussion on whether the rental units will still be eligible for gas stoves? I know NYC is moving away from them. Is NJ next? I don’t think I’d ever be interested in a high-end rental using an electric stove. Yuk. Frank, I would think even if you don’t have an opinion now, one will come to you.
From reading many above…it all must be true. The almost 900 residents signing this petition are all just NIMBY protectionists. Maybe even all of them stop growth cold preservationists. Even the 5, forth ward community activist African Americans listed as petition authors, must have been brainwashed by the usual suspect, three, white land use/preservationist type advocates there — also petition authors. Wow!
It’s not a community meeting of the “we can do better” minds. It’s a cabal of collaborators clearly…who just don’t see the benefits from blindly giving away the township character store, like many of you here want. What’s wrong with them?
Certainly, everyone connected and who signed the petition are all way too worried about any economic analysis from the added 375 housing unit impacts, or any wider effects to the township as a regional tourist draw from so dramatically changing the existing historic downtown setting. They’re also apparently far too concerned about the unknown school system impacts, or possible school budget-revenue tax effects, or even potential infrastructure capital increase $ concerns, not studied or substantiated whatsoever, as part of this massive Redevelopment proposal. Why should they be?
I agree. It’s ridiculous, these resident petition signers seen in opposition. They should all just do what the Council and the developer who created this plan want here — without question. Then, of course, listen to ‘Father Knows Best’ about everything Frank Rubacky — who 100% has the take on absolutely everything that should be done today in Montclair — in exact detail. And we all know that he’s right!
Martin,
You buried the lead.
A couple of hundred of words before you got to make your point!
Tell me again about your “The trees, The limbs and The leaves” writing composition rule.
PS.. Et tu, Seymour. Again a seeming Council, or Township Administrative failure unkwown still. There’s a new company owner it seems. Well, where is the assumption of plaza programming obligation from what was supposed to be contractually mandated by the last group? Someone bought it. So, just don’t understand why they don’t own it. Unless, the Construction contract/redevelopment agreement drafted in the past was not sufficient to enforce a change of ownership assignment of past Redevelopment Plan guarantees.
Martin,
More seriously, you shouldn’t be mad at me. I’m following the same page in your playbook that you used for the previously approved Lackawanna Plaza plan.
I am putting forward my well-informed opinion which will assuredly not prevail and then I will abstain to the plan the majority of the Council approves. As you know, an abstaining vote means exactly that and the Council decision represents the wants of the majority of the entire town….not just a 1,000 or so petitioners, of which many don’t pay taxes here.
It is another one of Montclair’s win-win outcomes.
PS: Seymour ownership – I hope the ownership changed before the Rent Control ordinance went into effect. Otherwise, it might trigger rent control of the 2 South Willow housing.
And since we are effectively messaging the Council here, I would like to caution our Council about the Edgemont Park bridge design. Corten steel rust runoff will stain the pretty concrete bridge deck if not designed properly. And there is that blindspot we have with meeting ADA requirements. And, let’s not forget we are using Federal dollars which means following Federal construction & review requirements to build in our historically sensitive park. With these one-off projects, the devil is always in the details.
Et tu, Seymour
The plan we approved only said the developer SHALL have a programming PLAN. It didn’t say they had to execute it. Keep this in mind while you are reviewing the LP Plan language.
Frank — from all of my quotes, TAP first out of the gate op ed leading the charge and open support for the petition while constantly critiquing the Plan and Council process that created it t — anyone reading who couldn’t tell, or didn’t know I was writing a parody — has not been paying attention.
Thank you for digging up the Seymour agreement. I smelled that it was likely a failure of contractual obligation and poor lawyering. That’s what happens when you don’t share your drafts with anyone before execution to review and make sure all points are covered.
Another Council failure at the time to oversee and review the agreements undertaken.
All good here. Go get ’em.
[You should know I was one of the 900 that signed the petition. I also ‘hearted’ every comment. Kinda like a gold star for all that just showed up..and a peace gesture to the cabal.]
An example of what I love about this town:
1) The Planning Board next month will likely allow a 500 SF office sign to be placed at the top of the 92′ tall building in the Seymour Arts District.
Yes, heights we are fighting against down the street.
And the 1,000 petitioners ask where the cars park for this 92′ tall, office use building? They ask because they had their heads in the sand when Seymour was approved.
Why, they park the 5 stories of parking topped by 2 stories of office use. Very similar to a feature at LP they object to, strenuously. And the 1,000 petitioners said ‘Oh. But, we like Seymour’. They like it so much they will support placing a unattractive, 500 SF sign, 7 stories up in the air. And the 1,000 say what? Nothing.
2) But, Seymour gets better. The Town has allowed a new, 7′ tall, in ground parking sign to tell parkers they can ignore the MASSIVE 🙂 ‘permit only parking’ sign just behind it. But, they placed this sign in front to the stop line. You know, that line you are suppose to stop by at a stop sign? Because there is usually a x-walk in front of it. And the x-walk is fed by pedestrians coming from sidewalks. We put pedestrians on sidewalks so they are not struck by the polite drivers on S. Fullerton. Which now we, the drivers entering onto S. Fullerton, can’t see. Because of the sign. That tells us 140 spaces are available. What say the 1,000?