Well, I wake up this morning to that they are trashing Steve Wymbs . Then I read in the AC Press that the Riverfront Condos are lifting the age restriction. Man, that news is at least 3 weeks old. the Zoning Board voted to allow the developer to lift this restriction on the 1st Thursday of this month. Why report it late?? The article is very well-written I must say. Well, its 5:34am and I must be on my way to the welfare wakka to issue the February carfare. I will uplug the phone and start on my 126 clients (that number is a guess) and give out $78 so they are not stuck at their houses.Here is what I will be doing in 10 minutes.
13 comments:
The condos on the Riverfront are going to fit right in with the current neighborhood, now that they have opened them up to everyone. I wonder why this change was approved when the selling point to the city was that it would not be a drain on the taxpayers (no school children)? I guess we are in better financial shape then when they originally restricted it to an active adult community. It's amazing how the city continues to accommodate developers, regardless of the impact on the taxpayers.
What's your opinion on lifting the age restriction Mark? Do you think it's a good idea? Do you know if they're going to do anything with the existing homes on Columbia Avenue? I certainly wouldn't want to see them in my backyard if I were a condo owner. They're a delapadated mess!
Mark replying to miraclegal. GeeWhizz, I've only lived here a little over 5 years and I'm completely clueless. But I have a good friend who is getting ready to put their house on the market and may be moving into one of these condos. Sassafras street isn't what it use to be.
anonymous, give it a rest already! I was asking Mark a legitimate question.
Replying to miraclegal - Please explain your question (Do you know if they're going to do anything with the existing homes on Columbia Ave.?) As a resident of Columbia Avenue what do you think should be done and who are you referring to when you state "they're going to do anything?" I and my neighbors don't have $1,000 of dollars to upgrade our homes to look like the condos.
Anonymous, not to be rude but, my question was directed towards Mark. I have no idea who you are. If you would like to reveal who you are to me, then pehaps we could have an intellegent conversation on this issue. If not, then please don't bother me.
miraclegal - not to be rude, but my questions were directed to you. Obviously, you feel that you are better than those of us that live in the immediate area of the new condos. Keep in mind, we live/d here first. If people interested in buying a home/condo/etc. do not like the surroundings, then don't buy. Why should I have to spend money to make your future neighborhood look the way you want it to look. Perhaps money is not an issue to you, but this is a depressed county and we're doing the best we can do. Thank you for not being rude by ignoring my questions.
ok anonymous just to pacify you...what in the world makes you think it's MY future neighborhood? I'm wanting to get OUT of Millville not buy another property.
I don't believe people WILL buy because the houses on Colombia Ave. are in such bad shape. When I said,"I wonder what THEY'RE going to do about it, I meant the commission not the homeowners. I am wondering if they're contemplating emminant domain? Is Comumbia avenue in the RAD district? If you live in the RAD there is $ the RAD will give you to fix up your homes. I wasn't being rude, just didn't understand why you were asking me a question on someone else's blog. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my blog & ask away.
OK..now that THAT'S out of the way, back to my origional question. What do YOU think Mark?
I think it was a good decision. I am pretty sure the project would died on the vine due to the economic crisis. The houses have only 2 bedrooms so there will not be a gaggle of children running around.
As for the homes on Columbia Ave, I do not think its going to make much of a difference
I think any NEW housing for families is a bad idea - it is purely a ratables chase that ends up draining city coffers, increasing taxes and putting a strain on services.
Age restricted housing makes sense in that it attracts those with an expendable income, and will not put more stress on our overcrowded schools which will be hitting your wallets real soon as Abbott has been overturned and the dollars will have to be raised via property taxes.
Smart development includes anything that creates employment, increases tax ratables in the long run, and does not put an undue increased stress on city services and schools.
But - don't blame the city commission for this move - it was the Zoning Board that approved the move.
Columbia Ave in included in plans - just go to city hall and request to view the master plan - with the factories being considered for all sorts of innovative ideas, the old rescue squad also being considered.
Once an area begins seeing the rejuvenation, the immediate surrounding areas follow suit. Take a look at the side streets off of High, slowly they are beginning to shape up.
It does not happen over night. But as property values increase, it soon becomes more profitable for "investors" to sell their rentals to homeowners that will rehab. I believe that moist of Columbia Ave - that is where I grew up - is zoned bus-residential. You can live in the house and use the first floor as studio, business, storefront - much as Mark and Carolyn did with their house on Pine last year.
This is not pie in the sky - it is a proven city plan that has been successfully implemented across the country. Ultimately it increases property values, it increases ratables, the initial investment pays off as long as the plan is not derailed.
This is not pie in the sky - it is a proven city plan that has been successfully implemented across the country. Ultimately it increases property values, it increases ratables, the initial investment pays off as long as the plan is not derailed.
And taxes still go up. So where is the benefit? Not one municipality playing the "ratable chase" has ever realized a decrease in taxes. And as far as property values (assessments) increasing, that results in increased taxes which results in people being unable to keep their homes. So again I say, where is the benefit?
As for blaming the zoning board as opposed to the commissioner's, that's misleading. The zoning board is comprised of individuals appointed by the commission. And the commission shares with the board the direction the city wants to take. Bottom line, once again the city accommodates the developer at the expense of the taxpayers.
As a member of the Zoning Board, I can say this was a very hard call. Despite significant marketing efforts, not one condo had been sold to the target over-55 group, according to the developer. I was a bit surprised, as I had heard there were people on the waiting list a few years ago, but maybe the asking price (originally around $325K) turned people off. Not surprising in this market. The price was lowered, but still no sales. It was our understanding that if we did not approve the requested change, the project would not be developed. We did very much rely on the city planner's report, which recommended approval of the change, but the Zoning Board took the time to examine the issue carefully. The developers insisted, and I concur, that this type of housing will not have significant appeal to people with children, who can get a house with a yard for the same price. They said they had potential buyers who were single or couples -- maybe empty-nesters who don't want to bother with a lawn anymore, but who didn't make the age cutoff. I asked what data they had from similar developments regarding the influx of many children, and, again, the developer's marketing expert insisted that marketing appeals would not be pitched to that group, and that an influx of children was not likely. Essentially, the layout of the units and the location are not great for kids. There will be no on-site amenities for children. Of course, we could be surprised, but, having lived in a similar complex, I really think the most you will see is maybe a few babies. I have a problem with blindly following the "no kids" mantra in making these decisions. If people want to live in Millville, they will bring their kids here and buy single family homes, creating a demand for new construction or, better yet, rehabilitation of older homes. And old folks aren't so great either. They don't buy anything -- they already have pretty well everything they need. That's why they are ignored by advertisers, except for ads for drugs and Metamucil. Young families and young adults are consumers. They are the ones who are likely to do the shopping on High Street. Also, having this project fold would be a setback for the city's hoped-for riverfront renaissance. You can imagine what the cynics would say if the first large project on the riverfront went belly up. We were also told that the city has projected other housing on the riverfront that will be open to all ages. If things start to boom again, the next riverfront housing development can be age-restricted. But let's at least keep this one alive.
Post a Comment