PDA

View Full Version : Condo Towers in the Meadowlands



pianoman11686
May 26th, 2006, 09:38 AM
Condo Towers in the Meadowlands

By ANTOINETTE MARTIN

EAST RUTHERFORD

May 21, 2006

JAMES PULEO, the construction manager for a 614-unit two-tower residential project that is just getting under way here in the peaceful Meadowlands, says he saw a couple of crabs skitter away into the marsh the other day.

He has also seen about "a zillion" birds. This is rather unsurprisingly, as the site lies adjacent to a huge bird sanctuary in the marshland flanked by the Hackensack River, east of the Lincoln Tunnel.

"This is a highly sensitive area," said Mr. Puleo, a vice president of Millennium Homes, the project developer, "and we are proceeding very, very carefully with grading the land and preparing for sewer work being careful not to pile any dirt in the wrong place."

The Millennium project is the first big residential development to get under way in the Meadowlands since the Meadowlands Commission adopted a new master plan for conservation and "smart growth" two years ago.

Various state and federal authorities had to sign off on the plan, including the United States Army Corps of Engineers; the Meadowlands Commission provided final approval earlier this spring.

Millennium will construct the two towers, which are 20 stories high, at its 32-acre site on the Service Road off Route 3. The site is 7.5 miles from the mouth of the tunnel in Weehawken and directly across Route 3 from Giants Stadium and what will be the enormous Xanadu development.

The developer, which is based in Livingston, expects to start driving piles for its complex, to be called Equinox 360, sometime this fall. The company has begun advertising units at prices ranging from $300,000 to the mid-$700,000's, and is compiling a waiting list of interested home buyers.

"Equinox 360 will offer an unmatched opportunity to the professional seeking to purchase a quality home near work and a wonderland," said Lisa Macchi, an executive vice president with Millennium, who is in charge of sales.

The commute to downtown Manhattan from the complex will be shorter than from many uptown neighborhoods, Ms. Macchi noted.

In addition, the views of Lower Manhattan from the apartments will be spectacular, she said especially since a five-story parking garage will form the base of the building, and the first residential floor will be 58 feet up.

A "choice few" condos will have views of Giants Stadium and Meadowlands estuaries rather than the city, Ms. Macchi added.

The units, ranging in size from 721 to 1,664 square feet, with one, two or three bedrooms, are to feature walls of windows, top-of-the-line appliances and two garage parking spaces per apartment.

The Equinox will have 24-hour concierge service, a "full service" cafe and small takeout grocery, plus a pool, a clubroom, and media, fitness and business centers, Ms. Macchi said. Since Millennium is "on the frontier" in this area of the Meadowlands, however, there is currently no shopping in the immediate vicinity, she conceded.

The Xanadu retail/entertainment/office complex, where work has already begun across Route 3, would provide a spectacular array of shopping possibilities for Equinox residents. The future of Xanadu is somewhat cloudy, however, as the finances of the Mills Corporation, a co-developer with Mack-Cali Realty, have been reported to be shaky and the possibility of a takeover has arisen.

Ms. Macchi nonetheless describes Equinox 360 as providing a unique opportunity for home buyers to move early into a neighborhood that she says is certain to become desirable.

"The location is unparalleled for its convenience to New York City and access to amazing eco-activities," she said. "Given the price of gasoline, the short commute is increasingly attractive. Also, people will be able to walk out their doors and enjoy acres of biking, hiking and walking trails, canoeing and kayaking, bird-watching and the golf courses that will be a short distance away."

Another part of the Meadowlands Commission's master plan involves the transformation of more than 700 acres of former landfills and dump sites in the Meadowlands into golf courses and a resort. Cherokee Investment Partners and Encap, which have created a string of golf courses on polluted "brownfield" properties in Florida, are at work now on capping four Meadowlands landfill sites with clean soil.

To promote "eco-tourism," the Meadowlands Commission has been clearing new canoe and kayak routes, and adding to its fleet of pontoon boats offering tours of the estuaries. The state chapter of the Audubon Society is also working on creating a birding trail guide for the region.

"Five years from now, people who did not buy into the exciting things that are happening in the Meadowlands are going to be saying 'woulda, coulda, shoulda,' " Ms. Macchi said.

In January, the Meadowlands Commission gave itself a grade of A during a self review of goals set for environmental preservation and development of the Meadowlands region, which encompasses parts of 14 municipalities.

The chairwoman, Susan Bass Levin, said the one area where the commission had fallen short was in providing state-required affordable housing.

Its builders describe the Millennium development as luxury. East Rutherford officials are working with the Meadowlands Commission to come up with a plan to create affordable housing that is, housing affordable by those earning less than the median or average income for the region but Equinox 360 will not include such units.

Last January, the commission began soliciting proposals to redevelop a total of 210 acres in East Rutherford for retail, commercial and entertainment use.

The strip of land north of Giants Stadium along Patterson Plank Road, in particular, is plagued by "substandard buildings, flooding problems, obstacles against pedestrians and poor traffic circulation," the commission said, citing an acute need for revitalization.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
May 26th, 2006, 10:43 AM
Condos in Mosquito-land.

These guys are SO greedy.

ablarc
May 26th, 2006, 02:38 PM
Condos in Mosquito-land.
What?

There isn't enough oil floating on the water's surface to take care of the little rascals?

Too much cleanup?

.

Ninjahedge
May 26th, 2006, 02:50 PM
What?

There isn't enough oil floating on the water's surface to take care of the little rascals?

Too much cleanup?

.


Nah, if there was we would be drilling there already!

The only thing you have to worry about the Meadowlands (odd they call it Meadow when it is a swamp) is where all that water is coming from. The more buildings they build, the less of a watershed area you have and the more possibility of human contamination (to put it nicely).

They are just building condos there in anticipation of teh MegaMall and the new Stadium.

I can't see anyone wanting to live there now.

TimmyG
May 26th, 2006, 09:28 PM
The Xanadu retail/entertainment/office complex, where work has already begun across Route 3, would provide a spectacular array of shopping possibilities for Equinox residents.
It might be easier to just move into a Walmart parking lot.

JCMAN320
May 26th, 2006, 11:49 PM
The Meadowlands have cleaned up so much in recent years it redicioulous. Don't follow the old damm stereotypes about the Meadowlands and New Jersey. I don't like these towers, because it's in the Meadows and that area should be perserved for wetlands like MANY other parts in the Meadowlands that have recovered and have been turned into nature reserves.

W2Q4U
June 12th, 2006, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE][/"This is a highly sensitive area," said Mr. Puleo, a vice president of Millennium Homes, the project developer, "and we are proceeding very, very carefully with grading the land and preparing for sewer work being careful not to pile any dirt in the wrong place."
QUOTE]

The whole thing is in the wrong place!!!!!!! If you cared that much about the "sensitive area" you would just take this stinking project elsewhere. The people running this are greedy and don't give a "rat's ass" (and there will be plenty of them too) about the environment. Just as things start cleaning up, someone has to come along and screw it up.
It is being built because of a polical loophole involving "affordable housing" and the housing will not even be in the towers. What a bunch of bull sh*t

ablarc
June 12th, 2006, 01:18 PM
The Meadowlands have cleaned up so much in recent years it redicioulous.
Hence the mosquitoes.

W2Q4U
June 12th, 2006, 01:39 PM
For those of you who don't know what's going on behind the scenes, I will briefly explain the situation. I’m sure others will add more. No shortage of pissed off people here. As a Carlstadt resident who will also speak on behalf of the residents of East Rutherford, we are appalled by these projects. We have enough going on with Zanadu and a thousand other projects going on around town, that as a town, we can't keep up with. One of these projects has been jammed down our throats as a result of a ruling by a Judge Harris. Judge Harris has authorized a builder to build these towers as part of a builder remedy that would force Carlstadt and East Rutherford to comply with its COAH obligations for affordable housing. Since the land is controlled by the Meadowlands commission and not us directly, we really didn't get a say in any of this. All of our zoning power has been stripped from us. We are now being forced to service an area of town which was zoned as recreational and was not intended for human inhabitation (for many good reasons). The residential areas of our towns are about 3 miles from this site. We will be forced to service this area that was purposely zoned out because of its remote and environmentally sensitive location. We will be forced to bus kids to school, supply more police, EMT, and fire services to an area that is only one way in, one way out. This is only the beginning. In that respect, it is a dangerous area to live in - not to mention the 2 huge liquid natural gas storage tanks that are within spitting distance of this site. God forbid if they ever blow. We do not have the infrastructure in place to make this safe and livable. His ruling has placed a huge burden on the many in order to satisfy a few. What was this guy thinking?
This area was to be made into open space for all walks of life to enjoy. Now it will be another concrete fortress with little regard for anything except dollars.

lofter1
June 12th, 2006, 01:54 PM
... This project has been jammed down our throats as a result of a ruling by a Judge Harris ... His ruling has placed a huge burden on the many in order to satisfy a few. What was this guy thinking?

... little regard for anything except dollars.


Investigative reporters should get on this ... in such a seemingly mis-guided ruling it would be wise to Follow the Money Trail (and somebody might want to look in this guys' freezer).

W2Q4U
June 12th, 2006, 02:20 PM
I actually may be wrong on this one. I may be referring to the wrong site. (they are building so much down there).
I'm referring to the builder TOMU inc. The site that this article is speaking of maybe down the road a bit.
In any event, it doesn't matter to me. I'm against all building down there. For one, they are creating a traffic nightmare were there is already excessive traffic due to the race track, stadium, arena and soon to be "zanadu".
I would hate to ever be sick and need help on that side of town.

W2Q4U
June 12th, 2006, 02:25 PM
Investigative reporters should get on this ... in such a seemingly mis-guided ruling it would be wise to Follow the Money Trail (and somebody might want to look in this guys' freezer).


Haha..You are so right man

Ninjahedge
June 12th, 2006, 02:56 PM
The Meadowlands have cleaned up so much in recent years it redicioulous. Don't follow the old damm stereotypes about the Meadowlands and New Jersey. I don't like these towers, because it's in the Meadows and that area should be perserved for wetlands like MANY other parts in the Meadowlands that have recovered and have been turned into nature reserves.

JC, I have driven past there on many a day, and indeed it has cleaned up.

But there are areas that you can see from Routes 17 and 3 that still have pieces of old radio towers half submerged and other "natural" edifices dotting the landscape.

It is not as bad as it was, but it is a watershed, which means lots of organics. The smell there in the summer sometimes is rather "marshy" to put it nicely. It is more natural than what you smell on the turnpike going through refinery-country, but it is still not pleasant.

I am in objection to them building anything in there, but I also cannot see how they will be able to (successfully) market living in that area to anyone!

traneny
June 12th, 2006, 04:05 PM
I actually may be wrong on this one. I may be referring to the wrong site. (they are building so much down there).
I'm referring to the builder TOMU inc. The site that this article is speaking of maybe down the road a bit.
In any event, it doesn't matter to me. I'm against all building down there. For one, they are creating a traffic nightmare were there is already excessive traffic due to the race track, stadium, arena and soon to be "zanadu".
I would hate to ever be sick and need help on that side of town.
W2 its just sickening how politics can just dictate what can go where.And who can build what.Where are the Sarlos and Corzines and the rest of those people down in trenton to put a stop to Judge Harris.:mad: :mad:

ASchwarz
June 12th, 2006, 04:32 PM
W2 its just sickening how politics can just dictate what can go where.And who can build what.Where are the Sarlos and Corzines and the rest of those people down in trenton to put a stop to Judge Harris.:mad: :mad:

Yeah, who needs affordable housing and sustainable planning anyway? I say we ban all development and kick out all the "undesirables" so we can live in peace in our suburban bubbles.

It's people like you who make me regret the American insistence on localized government. We need to lessen the influence of localities because we need MORE, not fewer, such projects.

It is fantastic that apartment buidlings are again being built in NJ (along public transit routes, no less - this project will be walking distance to NJ Transit rail). Unfortunately, NIMBYs only want sprawl and auto-oriented crap to be built.

traneny
June 12th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Yeah, who needs affordable housing and sustainable planning anyway? I say we ban all development and kick out all the "undesirables" so we can live in peace in our suburban bubbles.

It's people like you who make me regret the American insistence on localized government. We need to lessen the influence of localities because we need MORE, not fewer, such projects.

It is fantastic that apartment buidlings are again being built in NJ (along public transit routes, no less - this project will be walking distance to NJ Transit rail). Unfortunately, NIMBYs only want sprawl and auto-oriented crap to be built.

So you approve them coming to your town and dictating to you what shall or shall not be built just to satisfy some one to make alot of money who could care less about your town .I thought we still had a say.Are they really looking out for the low income people.Being stuck out in the middle of nowhere .I don't think so.

ASchwarz
June 12th, 2006, 04:52 PM
So you approve them coming to your town and dictating to you what shall or shall not be built just to satisfy some one to make alot of money who could care less about your town .I thought we still had a say.Are they really looking out for the low income people.Being stuck out in the middle of nowhere .I don't think so.

The Meadowlands is the furthest thing in the world from the "Middle of Nowhere". There are a billion road and rail routes in and out of this region and even more rail is forthcoming. This site is just a few miles west of Midtown Manhattan. Unless you are talking about Midtown itself, there are few places in the entire country that are more central and appropriate for high density than the Meadowlands.

Courts have every right to enforce the law. Cities that violate the intent of the Mount Laurel case will obviously invite the discretion of the court.

What I don't understand is why would people choose to live in such a centralized, urban area and then complain about development? This isn't the Poconos. These towns are just minutes from (arguably) the center of the world. If I wanted a quiet, suburban existence I wouldn't live five miles from Midtown Manhattan.

traneny
June 13th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Yeah, who needs affordable housing and sustainable planning anyway? I say we ban all development and kick out all the "undesirables" so we can live in peace in our suburban bubbles.

It's people like you who make me regret the American insistence on localized government. We need to lessen the influence of localities because we need MORE, not fewer, such projects.

It is fantastic that apartment buidlings are again being built in NJ (along public transit routes, no less - this project will be walking distance to NJ Transit rail). Unfortunately, NIMBYs only want sprawl and auto-oriented crap to be built.

The problem with this whole thing is the added cost for services for busing of kids to school because they are past the 2 mile limit.Its even worse if they have more than one kid going to school.Property taxes are high enough.And yea they have transportation what about the local drug store ,grocery store and such.If you are going to have low income housing it should be closer to the main population not out in the Meadows.What the Tomu people care about is money not the people.

pianoman11686
June 13th, 2006, 12:12 PM
This project is being developed by Millenium Homes, not Tomu. Just wanted to clarify that.

NYatKNIGHT
June 13th, 2006, 02:16 PM
Do Carlstadt and E. Rutherford residents have a preferrable location for their required affordable housing?

Ninjahedge
June 13th, 2006, 02:30 PM
The Meadowlands is the furthest thing in the world from the "Middle of Nowhere". There are a billion road and rail routes in and out of this region and even more rail is forthcoming. This site is just a few miles west of Midtown Manhattan. Unless you are talking about Midtown itself, there are few places in the entire country that are more central and appropriate for high density than the Meadowlands.

Unless you do not own a car, in which case the lack of public transportation (in easily accessible areas) is prevalent.

The Meadowlands should not be developed just because there is land available, they were meant to be the watershed of that entire area, building like this is unnecessary and not exactly the best place for it.


Courts have every right to enforce the law. Cities that violate the intent of the Mount Laurel case will obviously invite the discretion of the court.

Please explain...


What I don't understand is why would people choose to live in such a centralized, urban area and then complain about development? This isn't the Poconos. These towns are just minutes from (arguably) the center of the world. If I wanted a quiet, suburban existence I wouldn't live five miles from Midtown Manhattan.

Um, what are you going on about?

Some of these families have been living there for longer than you can easily document. They did not "chose" to come there and live there, they do. And changing it to a place like the Poconos is unreasonable. You would have to uproot everything to do something like that and it is unfair to force people to do that in the name of development that will burden their community with no real benefit.

These towns are DEFINITELY arguably within minutes of NYC. Have you tried getting in along these routes in the morning? If you try at 3am on a Sunday you will be fine, but any other time is a different story. Don't start bringing in the proximity to the city as a carte blanche for any high density development being planned in the area.

Now, an example I can bring to how ANY development that is not approved by a community can hurt it would be what they did in Oakland. They took a large parcel of land from the Boy Scout reserve in the mountains (They built them a lodge for meetings and this is somehow enough). They then said they were only building X units per acre, and ignored the fact that 3/4 of what they bought was undevelopable due to slope of mountainside.

The problem they have now is that they took a town of 20K and added 10K more to it. The tax base did go up, but taxes take a while to build new schools, include additional DPW services, build volunteer fire departments.

And these were not low income housing units either.

So saying that people are being NIMBYs in the suburbs is being a little city-blinded. Not all are NIMBYs. Some just do not want a bunch of crap built in their township that would not benefit them or their town.

Although that might be used inappropriately in some cases, how is this? Are you blindly associating the "low income" for the rancor that is being evidenced?

traneny
June 13th, 2006, 02:57 PM
Do Carlstadt and E. Rutherford residents have a preferrable location for their required affordable housing?

Yes they do .

traneny
June 13th, 2006, 02:58 PM
This project is being developed by Millenium Homes, not Tomu. Just wanted to clarify that. No you are right and I do understand thanks.

NYatKNIGHT
June 13th, 2006, 03:04 PM
So why haven't they done it yet? Most towns in NJ have already had to comply. It would be helpful to link what this alternate location is and the town's plans for these sites.

Assuming there really are other viable locations, I'd have to agree with the townspeople here (and Ninjahedge) that what's left of the marshes ought not be developed, especially for the sole purpose of profiting some developer.

traneny
June 13th, 2006, 03:55 PM
So why haven't they done it yet? Most towns in NJ have already had to comply. It would be helpful to link what this alternate location is and the town's plans for these sites.

Assuming there really are other viable locations, I'd have to agree with the townspeople here (and Ninjahedge) that what's left of the marshes ought not be developed, especially for the sole purpose of profiting some developer.

Do you remember the mills project they were going to build in carlstadt.Thats when mills was going to take care of there low income quota.Then the mills project was gone do to they wanted to preserve it.Thats when Tomu came along and filed a law suit to build housing in the meadows along with low income.Thats when judge Harris got involved and told Carlstadt and East Rutherford to come up with a plan.Which they did but it wasn't good enough for him.So now all our Zoning rights have been taken away with no say.He felt that where we had chosen wasn't good enough.Politics.Heres whats amasing they can preserve the property that mills wanted to build on but we can build all these other projects in the meadowlands with no problem.I guess its a matter of who has the most money .

z22
June 13th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Courts have every right to enforce the law. Cities that violate the intent of the Mount Laurel case will obviously invite the discretion of the court.

What I don't understand is why would people choose to live in such a centralized, urban area and then complain about development? This isn't the Poconos. These towns are just minutes from (arguably) the center of the world. If I wanted a quiet, suburban existence I wouldn't live five miles from Midtown Manhattan.

Imagine having a judge thinking that central park is the right place for building affordable housing. Still you won’t complain about that because you are living in such a centralized urban area, oh sorry, center of the world???

ablarc
June 14th, 2006, 07:37 AM
Meadowlands is not Central Park. Therefore, false analogy.

traneny
June 14th, 2006, 08:17 AM
Meadowlands is not Central Park. Therefore, false analogy.

Not even close you are right.

Ninjahedge
June 14th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Meadowlands is not Central Park. Therefore, false analogy.

Better analogy woudl be comparing it to a "resource" in NYC.

Say they wanted to get rid of Lincoln Center to build condos. They woudl still include certain amenities, maybe even a performing arts studio, but LC itself would be no more.

The only thing that that analogy is meant to convey is that the meadowlands is a natural resource. It is something that is needed for the ecology of the state, not for the cultural or economic wellbeing. Losing it would effect things that are not easily replaced and doing so in the name of one law/code/provision that was meant to help people is getting damn close to hypocracy.

It is using the law as a tool rather than a helpfull regulatory device, giving his developer the "right" to put somethnig on land that would otherwise be protected from development. It is like killing baby seals to get fur for what you say is to provide blankets for children with AIDS. :p

ASchwarz
June 14th, 2006, 12:49 PM
The Meadowlands are being preserved exactly BECAUSE OF projects like these. The vast majority of the Meadowlands is now protected. Certain development nodes are allowed because they are not environmentally sensitive and are close to road and rail. The development nodes actually pay for the preservation of the protected areas.

W2Q4U
June 14th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Yeah, who needs affordable housing and sustainable planning anyway? I say we ban all development and kick out all the "undesirables" so we can live in peace in our suburban bubbles.

It's people like you who make me regret the American insistence on localized government. We need to lessen the influence of localities because we need MORE, not fewer, such projects.

It is fantastic that apartment buidlings are again being built in NJ (along public transit routes, no less - this project will be walking distance to NJ Transit rail). Unfortunately, NIMBYs only want sprawl and auto-oriented crap to be built.
Buld that crap in your yard. You are right.. who needs it? I was raised in an America where you had to work for something instead of having it handed to you. Maybe your the Robinhood type but maybe you just have something to gain in all this. It's projects like this that are turning America into a two class society and it all comes from middle class wages. Why should we all float someone elses boat who can't really afford to live here? If you don't believe in American capitalism, move to Sweden or something. It's true that it's in walking distance of the transit rail but try walking on that marsh now before they fill it in. Do you think that anyone buying down there is interested in this "ecoturism" crap they are ramming down everyones throat? I've seen every typical response but yours is the most. Forget about the many and worry about the few. If you can't afford to live in this area, move to a more affordable place and work your way up like most of us do instead of looking for a hand out. Affordable should be what you can afford and not what we can afford. If you really feel that way about affordable housing, I'm having a little trouble paying my mortgage this month. Do you think you can send me a few bucks ? or maybe I can just move into your house?? Keep leting this kind of crap go on and in a few years maybe a guy like judge Harris will make it all possible.

W2Q4U
June 14th, 2006, 09:12 PM
I hate when someone says that projects like this pay for preservation.
Just leave it the hell alone. That would work better and cost a lot less too. A dump with a wrapper on it is still a dump the same as a turd in a bag is still a turd.
Just let me clarify something. We know we need to comply with COAH. We just don't want it there. This is aside from my feelings about so called "affordable housing". I understand that it is a fact of life for every hard working American (unfortunatly).
There's nothing I hate more than having another person tell me that I owe them something when I get nothing in return.

W2Q4U
June 14th, 2006, 09:25 PM
The Meadowlands is the furthest thing in the world from the "Middle of Nowhere". There are a billion road and rail routes in and out of this region and even more rail is forthcoming. This site is just a few miles west of Midtown Manhattan. Unless you are talking about Midtown itself, there are few places in the entire country that are more central and appropriate for high density than the Meadowlands.

Courts have every right to enforce the law. Cities that violate the intent of the Mount Laurel case will obviously invite the discretion of the court.

What I don't understand is why would people choose to live in such a centralized, urban area and then complain about development? This isn't the Poconos. These towns are just minutes from (arguably) the center of the world. If I wanted a quiet, suburban existence I wouldn't live five miles from Midtown Manhattan.
Carlstadt is not exactly NYC. We haven't had a car jacking here since...let me see... never! If you want to live in a concrete jungle, stay in Manhattan. No one here wants it.

lofter1
June 15th, 2006, 12:20 AM
There's nothing I hate more than having another person tell me that I owe them something when I get nothing in return.

Does this refer to the placement of the Judge's housing proposal?

Or to the concept of providing affordable housing in general?

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 09:07 AM
Um, W2, although I sympathise with your basic intent, the idea that people should not be entitled to something that others have had to work for, your way of expressing it is only going to polarize the arguement.

Not only that, you are borderline insulting talking about NYC dwellers lik ethey were from another planet.

"Well if you like that concrete jungle of yours..." Whoa baby! You just opened the door to the whole NJ "What exit do you live by" and"Toxic Garden State" BS that I know you love as much as NYers love people NOT from NY talking about NYC as if it was something from a 1970's gangsta-flik.





Points trying to be expressed here are, my guess, no "something for nothing" programs at all, if they can be helped and "Leave the marshes alone for god's sake!".

All the rest is just hatred. Relax and you will live longer man!!! ;)

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 09:10 AM
Does this refer to the placement of the Judge's housing proposal?

Or to the concept of providing affordable housing in general?

Honestly, it really has more to due with the judges proposal. It's not really a proposal. It's a mandate. But the concept in general is flawed. I do understand that in some cases, there is a need for such housing opportunities. There are sick and disabled people who have no choice. The rest should work thier way up to housing that they can afford like everyone else. My feelings about affordable housing stem mostly from this judges decision. Our town has had several of it's own proposals on the table way before Judge Harris stepped in. We have several sites and areas that would better suit the needs of the town and the recipients of the housing. The only entities that stand to gain from the judges decision are the Judge and his ego(and possibly his packed freezer) and the builder (TOMU).
All of the building that is going on down there is being built under the cloak of being environmentally aware. After buidings cover everything down there, which is bound to happen at this point, there will be a bunch of people standing around looking at a blade of grass saying "what's the big deal?". The buider at that point is long gone with the booty, and we are stuck servicing an area in which we chose to zone as open space. This open space would have been available to rich and poor from everywhere although you would never see a rich person spending any time there anyway. Until recently, the Hackensack River has not had a shadow cast upon it any higher than the grass that lines it's banks. These 20 story towers are rediculously out of element. It's the begining of a typical state politics screw up. You can be assured that eventually, a scandle will erupt from this whole thing.
If the state is so concerned about affordable housing, why don't they offer up some of thier land? We have millions of acres of pinelands that never see a soul.
There are so many reasons not to let this TOMU project fly and only a few to justify it. As for the Equinox 360 project, are they providing affordable housing?

the kid from bergen
June 15th, 2006, 09:33 AM
Better analogy woudl be comparing it to a "resource" in NYC.

Say they wanted to get rid of Lincoln Center to build condos. They woudl still include certain amenities, maybe even a performing arts studio, but LC itself would be no more.



There was affordable housing where LC is now, West Side Story was filmed there. What would be wrong with reversing it?
As for destroying a natural resourse for more housing in an already over crowded area is just Gov. gone haywire. Thank God that they protected the Pine Barrens in South Jersey.

the kid from bergen
June 15th, 2006, 09:37 AM
The Meadowlands are being preserved exactly BECAUSE OF projects like these. The vast majority of the Meadowlands is now protected. Certain development nodes are allowed because they are not environmentally sensitive and are close to road and rail. The development nodes actually pay for the preservation of the protected areas.

Where are the meadowlands being protected? Lyndhurst where they are building a golf course, North Arlington where there is a mountain made of garbage?

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 09:54 AM
Um, W2, although I sympathise with your basic intent, the idea that people should not be entitled to something that others have had to work for, your way of expressing it is only going to polarize the arguement.

Not only that, you are borderline insulting talking about NYC dwellers lik ethey were from another planet.

"Well if you like that concrete jungle of yours..." Whoa baby! You just opened the door to the whole NJ "What exit do you live by" and"Toxic Garden State" BS that I know you love as much as NYers love people NOT from NY talking about NYC as if it was something from a 1970's gangsta-flik.





Points trying to be expressed here are, my guess, no "something for nothing" programs at all, if they can be helped and "Leave the marshes alone for god's sake!".

All the rest is just hatred. Relax and you will live longer man!!! ;)

Dr Ninjahedge,:) I like NYC. I like city dwellers. However, I do not like the way they choose to live and they excessive amounts of money they pay to do so.
This is not hatred. If you like that kind of living, just build your buildings higher and stop expanding onto every available area and calling it "being good to humanity".
Forget about the housing issue for a minute. Even if I don't like the concept, it is the law. I can live with that.
Forget about the environmental issue for a minute.
To me, this is no different than trying to build a Stadium in an old railroad yard on the westside. Remember that? Does anyone who lives in NYC really need a stadium there? I understand that NYC is pressed for space and it still got shot down for now. We are not pressed for space and have alternative sites. Why should we be forced to put something where a builder feels it's right? That's the issue as I see it.

pianoman11686
June 15th, 2006, 09:58 AM
It's completely different from that. The stadium got shot down because of political wrangling, not a judge's decision. Silver didn't want the far West Side developing into a business district that would compete with Lower Manhattan, and Bruno didn't want Cablevision (who employs his son) to face competition for holding events from the new NYSCC. The few residents in the area that protested the planned stadium had no chance of stopping it.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 10:48 AM
We are mixing too many entirely different issues for debate in here.

Bergen Kid, YES it would be wrong to tear down LC. The analogy I made does not relate to your reverse comparison of what LC was before it was LC.

We should not restore some things to what they were simply on the doubtful merit of what was there before it. Sometimes a development is actually an improvement.

What the basic argument comes down to here is whether or not these buildings should be built where they say they are going to and whether using the requirement for affordable housing is a fair use to get otherwise protected land to be developed.

I think the developers pretty much pinned this whole thing into a tight corner and then used the law to smack it through a wall that was built there to prevent exactly that kind of development. There is no reason to have the housing built there other than it is probably much cheaper for the developers and/or they really are not allowed to build ANYTHING there.

If they did not use the affordable housing clause, what else would they be allowed to build? How would they be able to make money on the restricted land that have a financial interest in?

So this should not be an argument about whether or not affordable housing should be built, that is the political argument. What should be argued is if this is a fair use of the laws as was originally intended and whether or not the protected wetlands should fall prey to the urban sprawl syndrome and start sprouting cheaply constructed ugly boxes akin to the ones built in the city for the very same reason.

Or do you guys think that they would build an ecologically harmonically designed set of buildings that would blend and enhance the surrounding area? ;)

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 11:03 AM
It's completely different from that. The stadium got shot down because of political wrangling, not a judge's decision. Silver didn't want the far West Side developing into a business district that would compete with Lower Manhattan, and Bruno didn't want Cablevision (who employs his son) to face competition for holding events from the new NYSCC. The few residents in the area that protested the planned stadium had no chance of stopping it.

piano, I understand it's different. Forgive me for not knowing all the details. I think it would have really sucked to have a stadium there regardless of the details. I think the people of NY would have suffered big time if that went through.
It is the same in that: Carlstadt doesn't want the banks of the Hackensack river developing into a residential district. The who's and why's are irrelevant. It should be easy. It was not zoned to keep affordable housing out. It was zoned to keep all building out. It was zoned for outdoor activity. Our area has little open space. That area would have been "our Central Park" and would have been enjoyed by all walks of life. Believe me, we have nothing against building. We have all kinds of buildings; numerous hotels, numerous industrial buildings, multi family homes, sec 8 housing just to name a few. It is all in the right place. That's way we have (had) planning and zoning boards. Maybe we should just hire the builders and contractors to do our planning and zoning.;)
That would be a disaster and that's pretty much what's happening in the disguise of Mount Laurel BS. If building out there where the right thing to do, it would have been done a long time ago.
Notice how I use the term "out there". To the town services (police,emt,sewer,electricity, roads,fire DP, etc) it is litterally "out there". This term has no meaning to a guy who's coming and going from mannahatan.

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 11:20 AM
ninjahedge, you're right. Too many issues at once.
To be honest, the whole Mt Laurel thing can be dropped from the discussion. We didn't want any buildings there -affordable or not. The builder brought that into the mix
So far you are nailing it down;)

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 11:37 AM
Where are the meadowlands being protected? Lyndhurst where they are building a golf course, North Arlington where there is a mountain made of garbage?
It's joke isn't it?
Protection by way of building more.
Sounds like going forward in reverse

ASchwarz
June 15th, 2006, 12:41 PM
It's joke isn't it?
Protection by way of building more.
Sounds like going forward in reverse

You could not be more wrongheaded about open space and environmentalism.

You can only protect open space by building as efficiently as possible. That's why most suburbs in Northern New Jersey are environmental nightmares while places like Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn are largely sustainable environments.

If you want open space you have to be willing to allow multifamily housing. Typical American suburbia is the problem, not the solution. If you want to save the Meadowlands, you have to allow higher densities at the fringes. Otherwise, the Meadowlands will be lost to sprawl and (even worse) the fringes of the metropolitan area will expand outward.

ASchwarz
June 15th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Where are the meadowlands being protected? Lyndhurst where they are building a golf course, North Arlington where there is a mountain made of garbage?

The Lyndhurst and the North Arlington sites are sites which allow development because they are (or will be) along rail routes and are not deemed to be environmentally sensitive. The sites are polluted and the developers are paying for the cleanup.

In addition the developers are required to restore destroyed wetlands and protect existing wetlands outside the project boundaries.

the kid from bergen
June 15th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Going foward in reverse is correct. That is why I used LC. LC is used by the rich, rebuild projects like on West End Ave. and you could house thousands of poor and underprivledged, Many more people than go to Lc in a year.
Once the Meadowlands are built up and developed it will never be reversed. They are going to destroy part of the only open space in the area. Why must we always build more, there are plenty of vacant housing units in the area.

ASchwarz
June 15th, 2006, 01:02 PM
Going foward in reverse is correct. That is why I used LC. LC is used by the rich, rebuild projects like on West End Ave. and you could house thousands of poor and underprivledged, Many more people than go to Lc in a year.
Once the Meadowlands are built up and developed it will never be reversed. They are going to destroy part of the only open space in the area. Why must we always build more, there are plenty of vacant housing units in the area.

Where are all these "plenty of vacant housing units" in the Meadowlands area? North Jersey is a very tight housing market with little available land. Prices and demand are extremely high, so much that people are now commuting from Pennsylvania to Manhattan and North Jersey.

It would be alot smarter (in both environmental and planning terms) to house people in close-in locations, rather than allowing sprawl 80 miles from the region's core.

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 01:45 PM
You could not be more wrongheaded about open space and environmentalism.

You can only protect open space by building as efficiently as possible. That's why most suburbs in Northern New Jersey are environmental nightmares while places like Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn are largely sustainable environments.

If you want open space you have to be willing to allow multifamily housing. Typical American suburbia is the problem, not the solution. If you want to save the Meadowlands, you have to allow higher densities at the fringes. Otherwise, the Meadowlands will be lost to sprawl and (even worse) the fringes of the metropolitan area will expand outward.

ASchwarz, In some respects I agree with you but allow me point out where I think your wrong.

You said:You can only protect open space by building as efficiently as possible.
I say: Constucting 2- 20 story buildings right on top of what your protecting is absolutly inefficient.

You said:That's why most suburbs in Northern New Jersey are environmental nightmares while places like Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn are largely sustainable environments.
I say: We are an environmental nightmare because it's towns like ours that have been taking everyones garbage for years. ( I know this is not your fault). Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn? Only sustainable for humans, rats and roaches. It's a monoculture. The law is adapt or die. If it isn't in a zoo, prey or preying on pigeons and rats, it does exsist anymore. People still trap muskrats down there (meadows).
I can't see how city slickers can even begin to speak about the environment. To them, clean environment really means "as long as we don't have to deal with it".

You said:If you want to save the Meadowlands, you have to allow higher densities at the fringes.
I say: The Meadowlands are the fringes and that's exactly were they are building and that is exactly the problem from the environmentalist point of view.

You said:Otherwise, the Meadowlands will be lost to sprawl and (even worse) the fringes of the metropolitan area will expand outward
I say: forget about "Otherwise". That's exactly what this is already

Show me one open space that was ever protected by your model. Where is this place? This is not just open space we are talking about here, it's a last frontier. There is plenty of open space to build on elsewhere in this huge country and plenty left in this state. There are so many areas that can be revitalised without ruining whats left of a natural resource. The problem is that the builder didn't own land in one of those places so he wants to make his own.
I really don't see an end in sight. Little by little, loophole by loophole, this land will be gone forever. I don't think suberbia is the problem, just the recipent of the problem. I think the problem is that there are a lot of greedy people and no one willing to put thier foot down instead of thier hand out.

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 01:54 PM
The Lyndhurst and the North Arlington sites are sites which allow development because they are (or will be) along rail routes and are not deemed to be environmentally sensitive. The sites are polluted and the developers are paying for the cleanup.

In addition the developers are required to restore destroyed wetlands and protect existing wetlands outside the project boundaries.
capping or cleaning? It would take 100 years to undo what was done. The developers are just "sweeping the dirt under the carpet". It's the only feasable way to make a buck

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 01:58 PM
I'm done posting here.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 02:07 PM
You could not be more wrongheaded about open space and environmentalism.

You can only protect open space by building as efficiently as possible. That's why most suburbs in Northern New Jersey are environmental nightmares while places like Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn are largely sustainable environments.

If you want open space you have to be willing to allow multifamily housing. Typical American suburbia is the problem, not the solution. If you want to save the Meadowlands, you have to allow higher densities at the fringes. Otherwise, the Meadowlands will be lost to sprawl and (even worse) the fringes of the metropolitan area will expand outward.


But whan does that entail allowing building of large building IN the place you are trying to preserve?

You are not meeting his arguement head on AS.....

The other thing is, the more resistance to development a municipality or area has, the further out it spreads.

If NYC did not preserve places like the Village, HUGE buildings could have been built all along the "spine" of Manhattan. But since there is a restriction to that, and a controling desire for space in and around the city, the development has been pushed out to areas that offer the least resistance.

SO the arguement about efficient space may help when it comes to certain arguements, but not this one.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 02:13 PM
Where are all these "plenty of vacant housing units" in the Meadowlands area? North Jersey is a very tight housing market with little available land. Prices and demand are extremely high, so much that people are now commuting from Pennsylvania to Manhattan and North Jersey.

Um, there are plenty of areas that are stil abandoned shipping districts in places like Seacaucus, East Rutherford, Hackensack, Paterson, Jersey City and a bunch of others

Why do people need to live in the meadowlands?

The more pressure there is to move further out, the more desire there will be for jobs and development further out. People will not NEED to commute to NYC if there were other jobs available out by the Poconos.


It would be alot smarter (in both environmental and planning terms) to house people in close-in locations, rather than allowing sprawl 80 miles from the region's core.

Unless you promote the growth of another core. We have had people at work quit heir NYC job because of the long commute. It was a shame, but having space to live on was more important to them and their family.

So they got a lesser paying job closer to home. The more people that do this, the more you will see companies de-centralize and not depend on NYC proper for all the jobs.

SO I do not think it is wrong for these suburban neighborhoods saying "no development" if it only stands to change their neighborhood/area.

The same right the Village has to say "no highrises here" should also unquestioningly be given to the suburbs.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 02:19 PM
capping or cleaning? It would take 100 years to undo what was done. The developers are just "sweeping the dirt under the carpet". It's the only feasable way to make a buck


Look at Hoboken.

The sites there were registered at many times the allowable levels for agents such as Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and other pollutants.

How was this "solved"? Supposedly by removing XX of contaminated soil and replacing it.

My cynical side thinks that they just put it on trucks, drove it around NJ to air it out a bit, and brought it back a week later... ;)

But W2, covering this stuff is better than doing nothing. More should be asked for, but if too much is asked, then nothing is done, so.... All depends on what you are looking for.

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 03:30 PM
I supose it's the lesser of the two evils. Talking about this only brings up yet another topic.

W2Q4U
June 15th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Unless you promote the growth of another core. We have had people at work quit heir NYC job because of the long commute. It was a shame, but having space to live on was more important to them and their family.

So they got a lesser paying job closer to home. The more people that do this, the more you will see companies de-centralize and not depend on NYC proper for all the jobs.

SO I do not think it is wrong for these suburban neighborhoods saying "no development" if it only stands to change their neighborhood/area.

The same right the Village has to say "no highrises here" should also unquestioningly be given to the suburbs

Soooo on the money. Thank you for thinking rationally

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 03:48 PM
I thought you were done posting here! ;)

the kid from bergen
June 15th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Where are all these "plenty of vacant housing units" in the Meadowlands area? North Jersey is a very tight housing market with little available land. Prices and demand are extremely high, so much that people are now commuting from Pennsylvania to Manhattan and North Jersey.

It would be alot smarter (in both environmental and planning terms) to house people in close-in locations, rather than allowing sprawl 80 miles from the region's core.

Are you saying there are no apartments available? I can find you one in 3 hours. They are around for people who will look.
People are moving to Penn to get away from the high population and you want to pack more in here.
It is never smart to develope the last open space in an area.

OmegaNYC
June 16th, 2006, 11:38 PM
I always thought the Meadowlands, was protected area, and no one can build there. Well, that's what I thought.

traneny
June 17th, 2006, 08:52 AM
I always thought the Meadowlands, was protected area, and no one can build there. Well, that's what I thought.

Its amazing what the liberal politians get away with here in N.J.

lofter1
June 17th, 2006, 10:38 AM
...liberal politians get away with here in N.J.

Seems to be a unilateral problem -- pols of all stripes in NJ and elsewhere are ripe for the picking.

Makes you wonder if there isn't an ambition gene that's connected to the corruptible gene.

W2Q4U
June 19th, 2006, 04:15 PM
I always thought the Meadowlands, was protected area, and no one can build there. Well, that's what I thought.
It was up to the discretion of the Meadowlands Commision. The would trade pieces here and there. It was a case of I'll give you xx acres over here if you let me build on x acres over there. It usually works out for the better.
Some parcels where already developed as and then re zoned for recreation. I believe these pieces of land can be developed. If not, the owners can just just turn around and sue the townships claiming that we ruined thier investments when the zoning change was made blah blah blah.
Also, some people confuse meadows with meadowlands. There are still meadows that are no considered part of the "Meadowlands". People always confuse wet lands, meadows, meadowlands, meadow land, swamps, bogs, quagmires, buffer zones -blah blah blah. It's all a big convoluded mess. The FED should just come in and take over. They should make it "wild forever". We need all the exsisting marsh we can hold onto and then some. The flooding problems have only increased rapidly as more and more of the absorbant plant material gets bulldozed over. You can never put that tooth past back in the tube.
Besides, anything run by the state is always a mess. They change thier minds like the wind. They always go with the cash. They do whatever they want too.

OmegaNYC
June 19th, 2006, 06:19 PM
It was up to the discretion of the Meadowlands Commision. The would trade pieces here and there. It was a case of I'll give you xx acres over here if you let me build on x acres over there. It usually works out for the better.
Some parcels where already developed as and then re zoned for recreation. I believe these pieces of land can be developed. If not, the owners can just just turn around and sue the townships claiming that we ruined thier investments when the zoning change was made blah blah blah.
Also, some people confuse meadows with meadowlands. There are still meadows that are no considered part of the "Meadowlands". People always confuse wet lands, meadows, meadowlands, meadow land, swamps, bogs, quagmires, buffer zones -blah blah blah. It's all a big convoluded mess. The FED should just come in and take over. They should make it "wild forever". We need all the exsisting marsh we can hold onto and then some. The flooding problems have only increased rapidly as more and more of the absorbant plant material gets bulldozed over. You can never put that tooth past back in the tube.
Besides, anything run by the state is always a mess. They change thier minds like the wind. They always go with the cash. They do whatever they want too.


Ahhh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

cannes3
August 14th, 2006, 08:54 AM
It's people like you who make me regret the American insistence on localized government. We need to lessen the influence of localities because we need MORE, not fewer, such projects.


Spoken like a true advocate of big government breathing down the necks of the little local guys.