The Sale of the Village Post Office and Adjacent lots: Your Views Should Be Heard


Over the past few years Maplewood has placed an emphasis on promoting multi-family housing:

-50 units at Station House, located at old police station site
-150 units (approx.) allowed on remainder of Dunnell Road--Nelson’s garage to Fire House
-126 units at Maplewood Crossing, on Burnett Terrace
-235 units at PSE&G site (Boyden and Springfield)--re-development plan to be approved this week
-Numerous new sites along Springfield Avenue

Now, as we consider the Village Post Office site, the odds-on favorite guess is that the project will be 25 rental/condo units and a much larger Kings. In addition, our master plan update done in 2011 notes that the air above the existing Kings is also well suited to residential or office development should the Kings re-locate.

Each of these sites is different, and housing is certainly a worthy use in many cases. Looking town-wide, however, it appears we are well on the way towards achieving new levels of multi-family housing with over 600 units zoned, planned, and/or built in the last few years.

So what is the rationale for using the Village Post Office site in a similar fashion? I’ve attended all of the public meetings over the past two years, and the closest I’ve come to hearing an explanation is that “it is the planner’s recommendation”. Perhaps this is the answer, as the notes from the public meetings that took place do not indicate community members were enthusiastic about either a larger Kings, high-density housing, or the Township’s plan to sell the land.

Yet, while the new zoning for the site allows for a wide variety of uses, the plans submitted by most respondents focused on the lucrative option of 25-30 units and the King’s supermarket only—precluding discussion of alternatives . And precluding discussion of alternatives, in a case such as this, is basically the same as squelching public input.

Alternatives are important, because they are the means for testing our sense of priorities. Earlier this year there were two opinion pieces in the Newsrecord encouraging an open discussion of goals for the Village and this site. Both can be read at the engage-maplewood.org website (scroll all the way to the bottom).

Today, with a rough understanding of the proposals that have been made, we can talk about outcomes as well as goals.

How do you feel about using these three lots for 25 residential units and a large supermarket?

Would you prefer to see something different?

Which goals would you evaluate a design on? Parking? Increased population? Cultural aspects? Diversity in retail businesses? Uses that will attract more visitors from the region in general? Tax revenue? Enrichment of Maplewood’s pedestrian and street life vibe? Aesthetic considerations? Others?

We’ve come a long way in this process, and now we can make a good guess at the likely result. Do you feel it is bad, just OK, or excellent? Why?

With a proposal at hand, your view should be heard!

I seem to recall a survey on this somewhere.

I'll take a wild guess as to why all the redevelopment proposals involve multi-family housing: the market. We can fantasize all we want about other uses for the site -- retail, office, cultural, whatever -- but if the market won't support it, then developers won't build it.

Denser, urban-style housing is where the market is right now. Families are getting smaller and more mobile. Sprawl is reaching its outer limits of practicality. Concern for carbon footprints is pointing toward more energy efficient housing. All of this means that the market for denser, multi-family is strong and will likely stay that way.

And where else should this housing be built other than an inner-ring suburb on a direct train line to one of the world's great cities? The US population is projected to grow 16.5% between now and 2030. Those people have to live somewhere. Where should they live if not Maplewood?

There he goes again.

God forbid we build nothing. That would only be what, revenue-neutral?

Red_Barchetta said:

There he goes again.

God forbid we build nothing. That would only be what, revenue-neutral?


Nothing would be an excellent use of the prime commercial lot in the township.

I agree. A gathering space for township events like parades or debates. Open air concerts on summer evenings. An elevated gazebo for local politicians to pontificate.

Nah, you're right. We should by all means spend money to attract the soon to be arriving 16.5% population growth. We owe it to them, right? Certainly we owe it to the developers.


I see 62+ year olds wanting to live in these multi-household units.

Red_Barchetta said:

I agree. A gathering space for township events like parades or debates. Open air concerts on summer evenings. An elevated gazebo for local politicians to pontificate.

Interesting concept. You just pull that one out of the air?

Red_Barchetta said:

I agree. A gathering space for township events like parades or debates. Open air concerts on summer evenings. An elevated gazebo for local politicians to pontificate.

Nah, you're right. We should by all means spend money to attract the soon to be arriving 16.5% population growth. We owe it to them, right? Certainly we owe it to the developers.



We have all that just a few feet away. It's called Memorial Park


A 16.5% population growth is good for newark where there is room for better housing development. But maplewood is already built up to the max. An increase in population will just make our housing more valuable.

Why are we rushing to sell the PO land? Why not just pay to have it razed. Leave a portion of the land open for gathering and sitting - a bigger Ricalton, and then just keep the parking. Why do we have to cater to kings? It has done fine for all these years in its space with a very steady population.


Okay, I have to admit, I don't really mind. Yes, build something. I'm just totally afraid of whatever the result is, it ends up being a terrrible piece of architecture made with sh*tty cheap materials. For example, that parking deck in Millburn is the most awful POS I have ever seen. And our appartments on Dunnell, don't look finished and the faux balconies look like they are made with pvc piping. Ick.

I want brick. mortar. Wood. Is that too much to ask?

No. Brick would be lovely.

Oh, and none of that imprinting on fake mortar trying to look like limestone or something. double ick!

Funny, that. I spent about an hour poring over original (300+ year-old) limestone flooring in a misguided attempt at considering it for a renovation (let's just say the cost was a wee bit prohibitive). The faux aged limestone was pretty damn close, though, and way less. The fake crap you're talking about makes me ill.

I am of two minds on this myself, but agree that if they're going to build multi-unit housing, there is no reason for it to be as ugly as what was built on Dunnell. To my recollection, there were half-decent architectural renderings of what it would look like upon completion, and the end result looks nothing of the sort. The relative scale of the whole project combined with the facade materials add up to a whole that's even worse than the sum of the parts.

As for a bigger Kings, I have come to loathe that Kings and no longer shop there except in rare cases, so the thought of giving them even more of our village real estate does not exactly fill me with giddy anticipation. But I can't say that I have any great suggestions for what else would be viable aside from additional open space, so I would be interested in hearing other well-considered options.

Dateline: Middleville, Essex County, New Jersey, December 17, 1831.

The residents of Middleville voted today to dedicate large swaths of the village as permanent farmland.The preserved area stretched from the Union Township border in the east to the East Branch of the Rahway River. Residents expressed concern that, as an increasingly popular stop on the Newark-Morristown stagecoach line, the lovely farmland was being rapidly overrun by unwelcome commercial, industrial and residential uses. Middle Village Father Harvey John stated "We want to preserve our idyllic farmland just as it is." John went on to promise that he would be working with neighboring Jefferson Village to insure that the pristine eastern slope of South Mountain was not blighted with dense single-family homes. Said John, "We want to preserve our multi-acre farms for generations and generations to come."

Love it! funny..."Father Harvey John" could be our own John Harvey!

What, no one is reading the other thread so you just start a new one?

I like the proposal, I think it is good for the village in a number of ways. I hope a greater supply of apartments can start driving the prices down a bit so more empty-nesters can have the option to stay in town, for example. Also, more people living in the downtown tends to increase demand for local-use businesses, like coffee shops, that provide community meeting places and foster a sense of place much more than a gazebo, which is a symbolic representation of some mythical time-gone-by that never existed, and would have featured horse-***** filled streets, poor hygiene, and universal racism if it had.

I for one support the realistic efforts of our hard-working representatives to foster real growth that fits our town while still moving it forward.

If you are serious about having your views heard, perhaps you should show up at the Township Committee meetings and share them. Not a single person came out tonight.

deborahg said:

If you are serious about having your views heard, perhaps you should show up at the Township Committee meetings and share them. Not a single person came out tonight.


The snow was very deep.

Gazebos and universal racism, perfect together. Awesome.

My post was tongue-in-cheek. I see no reason to give away prime real estate to a developer to line his pocket. And for those of you who have not been following this issue for the years it has been discussed, this is not driven by King's desire to relocate. We practically twisted their arm to justify this plan as no other big box expressed interest.

Glad it was tongue-in-cheek. For a second there I thought you might have been serious about the gazebo, and I started to shudder violently at the thought.

Red_Barchetta said:

I see no reason to give away prime real estate to a developer to line his pocket.


How are we giving it away?

ctrzaska said:

Glad it was tongue-in-cheek. For a second there I thought you might have been serious about the gazebo, and I started to shudder violently at the thought.

I laugh every time I drive by that cheap gazebo in the open space near the Hilton library.

I am calling for a Dickens Village Sit in:
Bonfire, Kumbaya, Marshmallows the works.
Who's in?

Occupy Dickens Village

Deborahg - clearly you subscribe to Jerry, Vic, and their TC colleagues belief that the only way to influence or express your concern as a Maplewood resident is to attend the Township Committee meetings. At a basic level this is not true, as the meetings are also on local cable as a source for getting information.

I, and many others in town, do not subscribe to the belief that these meetings are the only, nor the best, medium to influence or gather information. Unfortunately, the TC looks at an empty room and assumes all in Town must agree with them. Not true.

Many people believe the info shared at the TC Meetings is sterilized through private meetings (like the one on 12/10) - if not why would the vast majority of votes on any issue in town be a 5-0 vote? There is also an observation that it very rare are suggestions made at these meetings are ever implemented into action.

Later - John

Max, I also hope these decisions drive taxes down, but I am not confident. We will know for sure soon but , in my opinion, the net tax impact of the development of the PO will result in a very small benefit to the average Maplewood taxpayer.

And remember, we still don't know the true cost of the Woman's Club investment decision where we lost a payment in lieu of taxes, plus spent significant taxpayer dollars in purchasing, and now improving the property.

One other financial impact of the PO and other developments with multi-unit apartments that the TC has not addressed publicly and is possibly not being included in the financial analysis for their decision. It is the increase in the number of school-age children as a result of multi-unit apartments. I am not against adding students to the school district per se, but I do believe these additional "costs" should be discussed openly, and be considered in assessing and making alternative development decisions.

As recently as October, Vic shared with the College Hill Neighborhood Association that the PSE&G property development "would consist of one and two bedroom apartments which would not attract families with school-age children." Clearly a hard-to-believe statement.

So, I reviewed the "analysis" Vic shared and the statement is clearly not accurate. (If you message me I would be glad to send the "analysis that was shared with me.)

Shouldn't the cost of the increase in the # of school-age students as a result of choosing a density of apartments be considered (and discussed publicly) when making these decisions, and also when assessing the effectiveness of the TC's decisions?

Without it, how do we know the true benefit of consequences of these decisions???? No way to make good decisions on our behalf, in my opinion. Later - John

I have yet to hear a serious, thought through and economically viable alternative idea.

Please just dont allow another PILOT at this location. Our school budget can't handle it.

In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.