Congratulations to South Orange, the Neighbors and Developers of the 4th & Valley Project

There were over 600 applications for the 22 affordable units.

But that is EXACTLY to deal with "affordable". Make rent only for the actual space itself. At least they did not go so far as developers in NYC and make the affordable units enter through a "poor person" entrance.

https://www.facebook.com/harryhate/videos/10154832879367235/

bets - I'm not quite sure how that picture is relevant. If you want to show a picture of people having to stand on a NJ Transit train during commuting hours, that would be relevant and is certainly a problem- the biggest problem. That is the major concern of everyone, including Sheena Collum. No one is going to argue with you about that.

Because it shows what's happening to our infrastructure? How many more power outages do you experience than you did 10-15 years ago?

To that end, what's the stance on increasing our safety personnel? Those numbers have steadily decreased as the number of residential units grows ever larger.

It's not sustainable.

cramer said:

bets - I'm not quite sure how that picture is relevant.

bets - You live in Maplewood. The people living near the Fourth/Valley proposed project have no problems with it. You seem to try to find every possible reason that you can think of to not build the proposed project. If the residents near Fourth/Valley don't have any problems with it (they're actually very happy with it and think that it will be a big improvement to the neighborhood,) I'm happy for them and think that it will be a good addition to the town. I'm glad that we have a new source of revenue that will help taxpayers in a town that has one of the highest property taxes in the state.

I commute every day. Always get a seat and I going during peak hours. When going to Penn, as long as your avoid the first few cars you will get a seat. And coming home from Penn, you need to get to the station about 10 minutes before when they are first posting the track and you will have no problem getting a seat. For those that show up in the last minute, there is often no seats on the peak hour trains. And yes, all bets are off when there is an equipment issue (which seems to happen once a week). The bigger issue is the lack of a third tunnel and more platforms (thanks Christie!).

It is like the imaginary parking problem -- those who refuse to walk a block or two have trouble finding a space. For the rest, it is no big deal.

Why avoid my questions? I have two siblings who live in South Orange, one very near the proposed project (within a block) . Neither is happy about the over development occurring there.

I'm free to comment on any topic on MOL, whether I live in Maplewood (the M) or not, and South Orange is my hometown.

ETA: just how close do YOU live to these high-density projects?

bets - I don't live near the high-density projects and would not have supported the project if the neighbors, or at least many of them, from my understanding, had not supported the project. I'm sensitive to the feelings of residents near a proposed project, or at least try to be, and don't think that it is proper to get involved if neighbors object to a proposed project. In that case, I stay out.

eta - I live near the quarry and remember when neighbors were trying to get the density of the units reduced. Those residents were called "Quarry Folk" by people in town who didn't live near the quarry.

See the NIMBY thread. The fact is that development is needed and the best place for development is near transportation resources (the need to upgrade those resources is a separate issue).

But go back a few years and all the threads about the center of South Orange were about mobs and decay. All the successful development has but a stop to all that talk (which was not really accurate back then either).

If the downtowns of towns in our area become so crowded that no one goes there anymore I am all for it.

cramer said:

bets - I don't live near the high-density projects and would not have supported the project if the neighbors, or at least most of them, had not supported the project. I'm sensitive to the feelings of residents near a proposed project, or at least try to be, and don't think that it is proper to get involved if neighbors object to a proposed project. In that case, I stay out.

eta - I live near the quarry and remember when neighbors were trying to get the density of the units reduced. Those residents were called "Quarry Folk" by people in town who didn't live near the quarry.

I remember the “Quarry Folks” and I also remember residents being up in arms when the issue of building affordable housing was in some deal the village made beforehand. I know because they came to my house for me to sign a petition of saving the Quarry. Also, they were afraid of their homes being devalued. Now, I don’t live near the location of the quarry but listened to their concerns on how their neighborhood would change. Funny, they ended up building million dollar homes from the previous deal.

I get what bets is saying because I’m not far from all of these “new” developments and was kept informed on the latest (4th and Valley) through our neighborhood website “Nextdoor.” Kudos to the group for reducing the previous monstrosity the developer had originally. When I moved here, I like the quaint of the feeling of the town and the less density of population. Personally, I could do away with the autoshops and was hoping for more pedestrian shops, smaller townhouses or condos to replace the eyesores. Mainstreet South Orange was a very active group who changed the face of our train station by bringing in shops, improving on the aesthetics of our village. as a whole.

Any deal similar to what 4th and Valley as far as reducing property/school taxes, I’m for however, this all should’ve been better planned. Thanks goodness the residences of the area stood up to see change, otherwise these developers would have their way. I know friends who live near 3rd & Valley refer to it as the “monstrosity.” All others who I see don’t have a complaint, don’t seem to live near the area. If this was built in Newstead, the Montrose area and so on, you would be hearing the complaints.

I commute five days a week and have seen how crowded the platforms have become. This is a serious problem now and going forth that will only worsen. Not only do you have South Orange residents using our train station, you also have West Orange, Livingston and surrounding towns.

Living here over 22 years, I seen the changes. Most have been great with the exception of the over building. Also, I would not “question” a previous residence of their comments on this thread. They lived here and may still have family, friends and neighbors in the area. They have every RIGHT to comment.

enuf said, carry on…

btw, I visited 3rd & Valley. That place is expensive when you factor in all the expensives. Oy!

Collum will regret those words some day. Just wait.

cramer said:

author said:

Well it is yet to be seen how much these many apartment building will change the nature of Maplewood South Orange.

However an educational expert recently testified that the many, many apartment units in both towns will eventually

bring 300 new students into the district. That may require one, possibly two new schools

"Collum also noted that, going by numbers from other similar projects
in town, the development should only generate three school-age children
and they most likely would be coming from shared households in town
where parents had divorced."

Author - You never give up. You're not a SO resident and I'm glad that we're getting a project in town that will help with the tax burden, and one in which the neighbors have had a lot of input which was taken into account by the developer.

ska - I've read the NIMBY thread. In the case of Fourth/Valley, it's not even a NIMBY situation. It's the opposite. (and I know that isn't what you're responding to.) The report of the Development Committee meeting, which is the subject of the OP, indicates that there are a lot of neighbors who strongly support the project. I'll quote again the reaction of a resident:

"Public forums for development projects don’t often go like this.
“This is the ideal of what a public process should be like,” said
Academy Heights neighbor Andrew Kitt at a public forum discussing
changes to a proposed 106-unit development on the Southwest corner of
4th and Valley in South Orange on Wednesday night. “I could not be more
satisfied with the outcome.”

eta - The neighbors did object to the original proposal (which was informal and hadn't gone any further than the Development Committee) that provided for over 200 units. That was what the Village Green article was all about - that neighbors could discuss it with the developer and the town, and the town is sensitive to the objections of the neighbors.

Another situation where the town was sensitive to the feeling of neighbors was when the town listened to the neighbors who complained that the proposed development on Irvington Ave. was way to large and the developer refused to budge. The town didn't proceed.

I think part of the hesitation for developments like this is the Town's history of giving away PILOTs to many developments when they were not necessary. Collum has indicated that 4th & Valley won't get tax abatements if they are not warranted. I hope she sticks to that pledge. The developer will certainly ask for it.

FilmCarp said:

If we are truly liberal and green in this town we have to do our share to limit pollution where we can. That means dense development along mass transit routes. Yes, we have to fix the trains as well, but this nimbyism about development reflects poorly on us.

Cramer: Thanks for the response above.

That's fair, but I moved from Maplewood to the 3rd & Valley area and have the opposite opinion of the new building. I actually can see the building from one of my windows. For me, it adds to the view. There are some nice houses in our area, great people, and beautiful trees and the gaslights, but my first impression was that it's kind of a depressing area from an aesthetic viewpoint. Living near the Pro Pets building and the Valley National Bank with its blue aluminum roof isn't exactly inspiring. 3rd & Valley counters that a bit and brings some "life" to the area.

Yes, it's a pricey building and many current residents would not be able to afford to live there - but the same could be said for many if not most houses in SoMa. Frankly, sometimes I think that's where some of the opposition lies - "I can't afford to live there, so heck with it."

phenixrising said:

I know friends who live near 3rd & Valley refer to it as the “monstrosity.”

apple44 said:

That's fair, but I moved from Maplewood to the 3rd & Valley area and have the opposite opinion of the new building. I actually can see the building from one of my windows. For me, it adds to the view. There are some nice houses in our area, great people, and beautiful trees and the gaslights, but my first impression was that it's kind of a depressing area from an aesthetic viewpoint. Living near the Pro Pets building and the Valley National Bank with its blue aluminum roof isn't exactly inspiring. 3rd & Valley counters that a bit and brings some "life" to the area.

Yes, it's a pricey building and many current residents would not be able to afford to live there - but the same could be said for many if not most houses in SoMa. Frankly, sometimes I think that's where some of the opposition lies - "I can't afford to live there, so heck with it."

phenixrising said:

I know friends who live near 3rd & Valley refer to it as the “monstrosity.”

I am ambivalent about the building. I agree that something needed to go there. It was depressed. But I think the building is too large and too close to the street. But I think they did a nice job on it even so. (But have you seen the pool? LOL! It's a postage stamp.)

Yep, I've heard people say, "it should have one less floor." But I think that would make it look odd. I don't know what pulling it back from the street would really achieve. What would be there instead - concrete? Grass which someone has to cut and "blow"?

People aren't going to agree. But I wanted to counter the argument that everyone in the area dislikes it.

I got to have a little different perspective on some of this new development, as we recently relocated my mother-in-law to South Orange (free babysitting) after selling her house in Eastern Long Island. It's very easy to look at the new properties and their rental rates and come away with sticker shock, but if you expanded your search to older properties and nearby towns you'd find that sticker shock everywhere - at least for properties that you'd find pleasing and near transit.

For anyone wondering, we settled on Gaslight Commons, and she's been living there a few months now and loves it. Third and Valley was nice, but it is obviously geared toward a younger demographic. I don't see many kids there when we visit, most units are 1 bedrooms, so there are a limited amount of units large enough for families with children.

As far as the other issues people talk about, I drive my son to daycare most mornings while it would be awesome for there to be less cars it's not really that bad. And I take the train to work every day and I always get a seat. Even when I take earlier trains I always easily get a seat. I rarely leave South Orange with someone sitting next to me, and it's not unheard of for me to arrive at Penn with no one next to me. I only have had to stand when there's something wrong with a train and we end up taking on other passengers - and even then I usually still get a seat. So I think this problem of train overcrowding is something people are imagining rather than real. This is opposed to the problems with our aging trains and infrastructure, which is very very real and I can see issues with that almost every day.

I think most of the development is easier on the eye than what had been there previously. My biggest interest is improved retail, so mixed development in the town center seems good to me.

@phenixrising - The first that I heard about what was going on in the Quarry was from reading a letter to editor in the News-Record, written a resident whose house directly overlooked the quarry. This was in 1997. The resident said that one day he looked out and saw surveyors placing flags in the woods in the Quarry. He went down and asked the surveyors what they were doing and found out that they were staking out the site for an 800 unit high-density project. Upon subsequent inquiry, it was learned that the 800 unit high-density project was the result of a "builders remedy" suit brought a builder in 1987, because South Orange had not filed its COAH plan (it didn't have any.)

The letter to the editor did result in many residents going to a BOT meeting at Village Hall and expressing their concerns. This did result eventually in the builder agreeing to not build the 800 unit project, and building townhouses instead (I don't recall how many.)

The builders remedy lawsuit was settled for about 200 units, not 800. I was one of the ones that helped with the original fight. And the final result was about 60 townhomes. All in all it worked out ok. More revenue for the town, some open space and much nicer than what was originally proposed.

cramer said:

@phenixrising - The first that I heard about what was going on in the Quarry was from reading a letter to editor in the News-Record, written a resident whose house directly overlooked the quarry. This was in 1997. The resident said that one day he looked out and saw surveyors placing flags in the woods in the Quarry. He went down and asked the surveyors what they were doing and found out that they were staking out the site for an 800 unit high-density project. Upon subsequent inquiry, it was learned that the 800 unit high-density project was the result of a "builders remedy" suit brought a builder in 1987, because South Orange had not filed its COAH plan (it didn't have any.)

The letter to the editor did result in many residents going to a BOT meeting at Village Hall and expressing their concerns. This did result eventually in the builder agreeing to not build the 800 unit project, and building townhouses instead (I don't recall how many.)

Thanks cramer.

I first heard of the project when someone came to my door to sign a petition against the project. I thought it odd to build that huge unit project on the quarry which eventually uprooted the wildlife living there. Folks were upset thinking their properties would devalue when they mentioned "affordable income units" that was to be put aside.

It was a bit of a hoopla!

qrysdonnell said:



As far as the other issues people talk about, I drive my son to daycare most mornings while it would be awesome for there to be less cars it's not really that bad. And I take the train to work every day and I always get a seat. Even when I take earlier trains I always easily get a seat. I rarely leave South Orange with someone sitting next to me, and it's not unheard of for me to arrive at Penn with no one next to me. I only have had to stand when there's something wrong with a train and we end up taking on other passengers - and even then I usually still get a seat. So I think this problem of train overcrowding is something people are imagining rather than real.

That is not always true. I don't know what time you leave or come home. When I take a later train after 5, it's packed. So it's NOT my imagination.

apple44 said:

Yep, I've heard people say, "it should have one less floor." But I think that would make it look odd. I don't know what pulling it back from the street would really achieve. What would be there instead - concrete? Grass which someone has to cut and "blow"?

People aren't going to agree. But I wanted to counter the argument that everyone in the area dislikes it.

One less floor and set back further from the street would have been ok with me.

mikescott - Thanks for the correction. I was thinking about the number of units that the builder was originally asking for (800 as I recall) and there was a settlement of 200. (I think that I got it right this time.)

qrysdonnell said:
For anyone wondering, we settled on Gaslight Commons, and she's been living there a few months now and loves it. Third and Valley was nice, but it is obviously geared toward a younger demographic. I don't see many kids there when we visit, most units are 1 bedrooms, so there are a limited amount of units large enough for families with children.

I haven't visited Third and Valley, but speaking as someone who might conceivably move from a house to an apartment, the floorplans don't appeal to me, especially the kitchens. There's a wall of appliances on one side, and then an "island" (really just a big table with open shelves) on the other side, and it's right next to the living area. I guess this is supposed to be modern design that appeals to millenials who don't cook, but to me it's just a way to save a buck by building fewer walls and providing fewer cabinets. The Avenue and Gaslight Commons have much more substantial kitchens with better separation from the living area.

For me a normal day is me taking the 8:05 (from SO) in and the 6:18 back. A few times a month I switch with my wife and take and earlier train (6:52 or 7:32) in and the 5:19 back. For the most part it's a comfortable commute. It's not on time and Penn Station is a hell hole. Trains are never crowded out for me. It's rare for me to have someone sitting next to me leaving SO. Coming in is a less zen experience (and the 6:18 is usually a crappy old train) but I rarely have three people in the row that I'm sitting in. People tend to stand in those situations, but they're doing it voluntarily.

I always sit on the 8th Ave side of things (back out, front in) and I think things are worse on the 7th Ave end of things, but just because people want to sit on one end of the train doesn't mean the whole train is over crowded. People care so much about where they sit because Penn Station is a nightmare.

Prior to moving here I was on the A train for 45 minutes twice a day, and that was a whole different situation comfort-wise. I was actually pleasantly surprised with the comfort of the commute because prior to moving all I'd hear was complaints.

phenixrising said:


That is not always true. I don't know what time you leave or come home. When I take a later train after 5, it's packed. So it's NOT my imagination.