Author Topic: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)  (Read 13867 times)

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« on: February 26, 2006, 10:18:00 AM »
I think it is a great idea to publish real estate appplications and variances.  However, since it is suggested that no comments should be made under that subject, the information provided should not include the opinion of the writer as to whether or not he feels this is a good or bad idea.  It should be impartial.



ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2006, 07:40:39 PM »
I started that string and posted most of the material. I stated in one of the first few sentences: "My intent is to promote upscale development appropriate to the zoning and planning of the city."  This means that the string will be slightly biased in this regard.

I read through my postings, and perhaps I have strayed off that mission, such as my comment regarding the 3-family house proposed in the 1-family zone on Fairmount Avenue. I will be posting more info on that thread, and will consider your advice.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2006, 08:18:23 PM by Editor »

Offline average Joe

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2006, 10:05:41 PM »
since when are opinions not welcomed? i think eric has earned the right to state his,whether i agree with it or not

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2006, 09:08:46 AM »
To Average Joe:  I started to comment to your response but decided it was not worth it.  Thank you Eric for your consideration.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2006, 11:53:41 AM »

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2006, 09:03:50 AM »
Eric, have you heard anything about a multi-family development on Third Street between Clay and James Streets?  I know that there was recently a 2-family home built however, I am speaking of an apartment or condo development.

ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2006, 11:16:31 PM »
There's currently an application before the zoning board for townhouses (true townhouses) to replace the former Alan Party Rental (Second Street between James & Berry). 

There's been talk of other townhouse developments further south on Second Street towards the vicinity of Carver Park, nothing submitted yet to my knowledge. The "Cooper" property across from Carver Park was at one point for sale for multi-unit, not sure what's the current status.

Wouldn't it be great to get rid of the hideous auto junkyard !!!!

Haven't heard anything specifically about the east side of Third Street, but there is a section that is built to very low density. I wouldn't be surprised to see a condo proposal there. 

In order to preserve the identity of the area, I think the townhouses replacing industrial use on Second Street should remain isolated from the condos on the west side of Third Street. This means the east side of Third Street should remain one and two family houses. There's no blight on Third Street, and no justification for greater density

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2006, 05:55:02 PM »
Was the application for the Alan Party Rental property approved?

ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2006, 08:28:48 PM »
It was approved over very strong and racially-charged opposition from the neighborhood.  Several residents talked about the desire to preserve the "culture of the area", while one opponent rattled off a list of prominent African-Americans who grew up on Berry Street.  The applicant testified that they could build 18 units (nine 2-family units), but would rather build 17 townhouses. The townhouse project would include a massive underground flood-retention system and large common-area greenery that would otherwise be broken up by fences.  All the driveways will be on James and Berry, and the entire frontage on Second Street will be lavishly landscaped with a 25-foot setback.  If houses were built, it is likely that most of the driveways would have faced Second Street, which is more heavily trafficked.

I was the last to speak and the only person speaking in favor of the project.  I was angered by the comments made by the neighbors. I made a speech promoting the value of diversity and integration, and stated that the neighborhood is becoming more integrated, and that trend will continue whether or not townhouses or 2-family units are built. I was heckled and boo'd throughout my speech, especially by Geneva Youngblood who basically lost control and the board had to tell her and her supporters to calm down and let me speak. I stand by my principles. I should have said that if integration is right for the city's single-family zone, then it is also right for the city's ethnic neighborhoods. There shall be no double-standard. But I got sidetracked by comments from the audience.

What's a mystery to me is why the neighbors think 2-family houses are more likely than townhouses to be purchased by African-Americans.  I think that over 50% of the houses that have sold in the neighborhood within the past 5 years have sold to Latino's, plus a few bought by Asians.  Houses in the area have also sold to black immigrants from the Jamaica, other Carribean islands, and Africa. The 2-family houses at First and Clay went mostly to Ecuadorians, at least 4 of the 6 units. 

Diversity is the future, like it or not.  The neighbors are living in the past with the ideas of preserving the racial purity of the neighborhood.

Two board members voted no. 

With the demolition of the abandoned industrial land use, the property will go from its current condition of 80% lot coverage and 100% impervious coverage to about 35% impervious coverage, and 65% is lawns and landscaping.  I can't wait till they break ground.

By the way, a few weeks earlier, Geneva Youngblood actively supported the application for condos (not townhouses, but actual condos built on stilts over a parking lot) between Berdan and James Streets.  I was against that one, as was most of the neighbors. It involved condos built on flag lots (lots with narrow street frontage, and wide in the back, like a flag on a flagpole.  We don't even allow houses on flag lots in Hackensack, no less multi-unit buildings.  It was a horrible site plan with zero chance of ever getting approved. That application, Sunnyside Terrace, was denied firmly and unanimously. Geneva testified during the Sunnyside Terrace application that she is a realtor and she helped to put together the proposal. I think she hoped to market the units, or otherwise stood to gain financially in some capacity.  She was on the wrong side of both applications.

Anthony

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate News Thread
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2006, 05:10:10 PM »
[Editor's Note: Anthony is responding to Eric's post here, not above]

Eric, I love your logic.  I have a couple of questions for you though: 

What evidence do you have that the “families on the mid to high level of the socioeconomic ladder” that purchase these properties are going to send their children to Hackensack schools BEFORE they improve? 

You say, “The bottom line is that good housing stock and good neighborhood conditions in the long run means good schools.”  How long is the long run?  10 years?  20 years?  How long can we wait?

One boarding house burns down and people are going to flock to the neighborhood?  Would you buy a house on that part of Passaic Street and let your 12 year old daughter ride her bike in front of your house?  Would you let her walk to the Middle School alone?

You say, “Literally overnight, property values have soared in that neighborhood.”  What evidence do you base this statement on?

Eric, what’s your obsession with bringing in kids from the “mid to high level of the socioeconomic ladder” to improve test scores?  What’s wrong with Hackensack kids bringing up the test scores on their own?  Why don’t you have the confidence that this can be done?  Every April, I watch Dr. Montesano justify the school budget on the local cable channel.  He makes me think scores will improve because the budget passes.  Isn’t he right?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2006, 09:27:04 AM by Editor »

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2006, 07:23:18 AM »
I am writing my response to Anthony's comments on this thread because comments were not to be made on the original real estate post.  [Editor's Note: Anthony's post is now above this one. It was split from "Hackensack Real Estate Threads"]. 

I tend to agree with Anthony.  It appears that your desire is to bring up tests scores by bringing in higher socioeconomic families.  How about bringing up tests scores by actually bringing up tests scores?  This could result in, and not be the result of bringing in higher socioeconomic families. 

The scores are moving in the right direction.  Let's keep pushing those buttons.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2006, 09:21:32 AM by Editor »

ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2006, 09:23:08 AM »
In response to "Anthony" and "Itme", keep a sharp eye tuned for when The Record publishes the test scores of all the towns in northeastern NJ.  It's impossible to look at those #'s and NOT see a direct relationship between socioeconomic factors and test scores.  The poorer districts always do worse, the middle districts perform in the middle, and the richer districts perform highest.  That is a direct reflection of the housing stock of those towns.

Hackensack in the past has allowed in, even encouraged, less than excellent housing stock.  The surge of garden apartment construction in the 50's and 60's comes immediately to mind.  And of course, Section 8 rentals, both in the city's two housing projects for families and scattered units in 2 and 3 family houses. 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like "Anthony" and "Itsme" who don't see the causal relationship between housing stock and test scores. I'm sure a majority of people would agree with their sentiments. THAT'S WHY Hackensack is in the condition that it is in. 

I see the relationship, and that's why I go religiously to the Zoning Board and Planning Board meetings.  Haven't been to a Board of Education meeting in over 10 years, there's no point to going.  Any real effort to improve the schools is going to be a result in changes in the housing stock.  Our property maintenance sweep, our crackdown on illegal units in houses, our new upscale developments, will all have 10 times more impact on test scores than anything the Board of Education does.  There is no question Hackensack is moving in the right direction, and people like Joe Mellone and the City Council are responsible.

ericmartindale

  • Guest
Re: Hackensack Real Estate News Thread
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2006, 09:24:31 AM »
Your negatism continues to be unappreciated.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2006, 09:32:14 AM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2006, 09:37:25 AM »
Gentlemen: managing these two real estate topics is becoming an editorial nightmare.  It's confusing, to say the least. 

Eric: unless I keep moving responses to "Real Estate Threads" to "Real Estate Threads (comments)" the former will become very convoluted, as you feared.  Therefore, if someone responds with "opinion" (as you yourself often include) don't respond right away and give me a chance to move the original response to this topic ("comments").  Maybe we should just merge both topics?

Also, you are now all talking about education. If you keep going in this direction, I'll move it to Education/Charter Schools/Testing, another topic. 

Offline itsme

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: -20
    • View Profile
Re: Hackensack Real Estate Threads (comments)
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2006, 07:56:20 AM »
I say let us merge since we have to jump backwards and forwards to "quote" what we were talking about in the first place.  I know Eric's concerns are genuine.  I may not agree with all of them but the two sites are ridiculous.

 

anything