Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ericmartindale

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
I hope the site stays up.  In the past when I contributed more, my contributions were mostly unwelcomed and unappreciated.  That's why I rarely contribute any more.

Hackensack Discussion / 2020 Census
« on: August 14, 2021, 12:15:14 PM »
The 2020 census was finally released.  Hackensack was at 46,030.  I think over 1000 new units have been built and occupied since then, so I wonder the population is in the range of 47,500 - 48,000 now

LOL, in 1947, lots of people were switching from coal to underground oil tanks.  And if it might leak someday, they didn't care, it was underground.

Hackensack Discussion / Re: "THE SACK"
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:15:39 PM »
Johney, it's a combination of factors. The steady decline in the retail stores as the big ones left one by one, esp. Arnold Constable. Also the decline in the number of well-paid employees working in the downtown. Not only The Record, but also the major banking headquarters at 211 Main Street, and even the County moved its administrative building a block south to Hudson Street. Homeless facilities multiplied after 1985, harming the character and reputation of the areas. All the new residential buildings are designed to spark a turnaround, and yes, they will shop and dine downtown, but the REAL CUSTOMERS are those who work downtown. Once the Downtown becomes trendy, better stores will come in, and then the employers will want to be where the action is. More employers will come to The Sack.

tried to get a picture of that with my cell phone.  Got nothing close to the quality you captured

There are too many postings of things completely unrelated to Hackensack, and it's caused this site to wane in popularity.  Good music, but not relevant to Hackensack at all.

Information Resources / Re: 1938 Red-Lining Map - Zoomable
« on: August 18, 2020, 03:05:55 AM »
Notice also that Borg's Woods and what would become the Byrne/Brook Street subdivision were left un-rated and uncolored on the map. What did that mean in terms of a builder wanting financing? I bet it wasn't easy to get financing in an un-rated area. The Byrne/Brook subdivision wasn't built until about 1950. Borg's Woods was purchased by John Borg in 1939 at a sheriff's auction, which was 3 years after he bought the mansion at Summit & Fairmount, and only one year after the red-lining map came out.  Most of northern Bergen County was also un-rated, and development was lack-luster until after World War II.  Perhaps the red-lining map had a lot of impact for about 7 years, and some impact for another 5 years. And by the 1950's, it didn't have much meaning in terms of builders getting financing.

Information Resources / Re: 1938 Red-Lining Map - Zoomable
« on: August 18, 2020, 03:00:14 AM »
The yellow areas explain a lack of multi-unit development during that era. Yellow areas were considered by the banks to be "imminent to decline." If you look at what areas of Hackensack are red and yellow, it's a map of where multi-unit development WAS NOT built from 1938 through the 1940's, and perhaps a few years more. So for instance, you have multi-unit buildings from those years built in the southern part of Fairmount where the banks said OK to financing by builders (Hamilton & Franklin, on Clinton west of Clarendon, and the NE corner Clinton & Grand), but all multi-unit development stopped in the vicinity of Anderson Park (that was designated as a yellow area), and nothing multi-unit was built in the yellow areas further north in Fairmount. I wonder that the banks thought the northern parts of Fairmount were imminent to decline because houses being built were small and lots of working class Irish were moving in (say around Main & Catalpa), but Passaic Street, Hamilton Place, and Clinton Place (& vicinity) had much larger houses, and they were relatively new, and more white collar than blue collar, and at the time there were many more families of White Protestant background that the banks favored. The red-lining map provides a lot of evidence in terms of development patterns in Hackensack.

Information Resources / Re: 1938 Red-Lining Map - Zoomable
« on: August 16, 2020, 02:47:17 AM »
Used by banks to discriminate against whole neighborhoods when it comes to lending.  Interesting that they appear to discriminate equally against Black and Italian neighborhoods, see the First Ward of Hackensack as well as Lodi.

Note also the line around Passaic Street in central Hackensack, and that must have been the boundary of the Black neighborhood in 1938. The map showed both sides of Passaic Street as being good (those blocks of Passaic Street had an even better rating than the northern parts of the Fairmount Section of Hackensack), but both sides of Stanley Place were red-lined. The red-lining zig-zagged on Park Street, also interesting.

From a historical perspective, the map says a lot, and perhaps explains housing and development patterns in different neighborhoods. If buyers and developers are not able to secure affordable financing, this reflects on how much new construction or rehab occurs.  In this way, the banks decide which areas prosper, and which areas suffer.

Hackensack Discussion / Re: Property Taxes
« on: June 17, 2020, 06:25:13 AM »
Yes Victor, that's how gentrification works.  Bring in one large development, and suddenly everything nearby is worth much more, for two main reasons.  (1) because a new and higher use has been established for the neighborhood, and theoretically other properties can be redeveloped (2) These are higher-income residents, and their spending power means that higher-end restaurants and retail can flourish in the vicinity. That also increases the business climate and attract more business. Even office use will be attracted.

One would have to look at the census reports from 2010 to establish the identity of the neighborhood, which I have not done.  But it's common knowledge that the downtown neighborhood is sparse, just a few people scattered about, living above storefronts, and just a few nearby homes and buildings. The population is low. They basically working class, and very heavily Latino and Black. The new neighborhood is middle to middle-upper income, and there will be significant numbers of Whites and Asians moving in. It'll be a very different neighborhood.  I'm sure they will be heavily supportive of "progressive" politics, whatever their background is. People wanting to live in a diverse downtown neighborhood are usually of that mindset. Who knows, they might even vote for Victor Sasson. God help us.

Hackensack Discussion / Re: Maywood no longer sending to HHS
« on: April 08, 2020, 04:09:04 AM »
The decision needs to be appealed because a REGIONALIZED school district means that taxpayers in the sending districts will have to share in the cost to expand any and all schools in Hackensack. This is far more advantageous to Hackensack than the reduction of student enrollment at the high school if Maywood leaves.  The decision was made on March 3rd, and I believe there are 45 days to appeal before it's final. To follow are excerpts from my March 8th letter to the Hackensack Board of Education.

"The Hackensack Board of Education is overlooking an enormous financial incentive to keep hold of Maywood as a sending district.

As you are aware, New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney has prioritized merging school districts and sending districts into regional K-12 Districts.  The Maywood, Rochelle Park, and South Hackensack Boards of Education are specifically targeted for elimination.  If this happens, there will be ONE school district and ONE elected Board of Education covering Hackensack and it’s sending districts.

Economically, this would be very advantageous to Hackensack taxpayers because the cost of expanding any school in Hackensack would be spread out among the property owners in the city AND it’s sending districts.  Therefore the portion paid by City of Hackensack property owners will be dramatically less. This is true not just for expanding the high school, but for expanding any of the city schools. While it is theoretically true that school expansions in the sending districts would be largely paid for by Hackensack taxpayers under Sweeney’s merger plan, the reality is those schools are not in need of expansion, and there is scarcely any residential growth in those towns. 

It is extraordinarily short-sighted to let Maywood go, when there is so much pending school expansion in Hackensack that will need to be paid for.  Hackensack taxpayers cannot afford to let them go.

I ask the Hackensack Board of Education and the Mayor & Council of Hackensack to promptly seek an opinion on this from the city’s Tax Assessor. He could give a percent of future school expansion costs that would be absorbed by the other communities, based on property tax ratables in all of the communities. Unsure to include Teterboro?

When new facts are brought to light, public policy has to change in response.  In light of this economic perspective, the Hackensack Board of Education would be prudent to re-evaluate its position on Maywood leaving. It is not too late to appeal the decision by Lamont Repollet, State Commissioner of Education."

Hackensack Discussion / Re: Masked citizens - the Coronavirus
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:56:18 PM »
Giant Farm is price gouging on eggs and butter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13