Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

yuckyd t1_j61yx5c wrote

Any time a piece of land is saved from development in jersey we all get an hour of traffic free commute a year.

109

jlichyen t1_j62gwj5 wrote

If you need to build more homes, build them on the parking lots near the NJT stations.

71

rockmasterflex t1_j6497w5 wrote

Right. You can solve affordable housing even in the suburbs by building complexes near public transport.

A big complex in the middle of nowhere with 20 mins of road to get to transport is a failure in premise before it’s even built.

As other commenters have mentioned, other good places to build: existing abandoned lots/malls. Malls were targeted to areas with decent transportation access anyway, and they’ll never come back… soooo start going up!

15

Schnevets t1_j65ad71 wrote

High density housing near public transit can also help local retail. Even if those residents own a car, they are so slightly inconvenienced by taking it out of a parking garage that they might step outside and use nearby retail like a drug store, deli, or superette to take care of one-off errands.

4

rockmasterflex t1_j65aps9 wrote

Hell yeah! Tired of suburbs where the train station is not even factored into their local hot spots

3

PolentaApology t1_j68gjgr wrote

That's one of the official proposals from NJT.

here's a proposal for mixed-use development on a metropark parking lot: https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/metropark-to-become-more-than-a-train-station-under-plan-to-build-offices-apartments.html

on the other hand, here's NJT blocking a housing development at the morristown train station: https://morristowngreen.com/2022/02/22/morristown-parking-authority-sues-nj-transit-over-apartment-money-grab/

2

metaTaco t1_j62u2c4 wrote

New Jersey really needs to develop it's necrotic urban centers.

29

Shishkebarbarian t1_j62iek9 wrote

County buys land to avoid extra housing to meet demand and keep home prices high. every coin has two sides. i'm all for preserving woods and home prices though, lol

9

manningthehelm t1_j635ppd wrote

This was my initial thought too, but in reality there are plenty of closed malls with empty parking lots that could be developed first.

33

Shishkebarbarian t1_j63ml8w wrote

In that case why would a developer clear a forest (way, way, way more expensive) vs a dead mall. But i suppose they're thinking ahead. Or maybe they really are doing it for nature preservation, in your cynical and jaded to believe its that way though. Loval Govts don't do this, budgets are too limited.

−1

tipperzack6 t1_j63q6mc wrote

The forest is actually cheaper to clear out because there's less harmful chemicals in the wood. Cement and macadam, has to be tested for pollution and grind down.

2

Shishkebarbarian t1_j63ysge wrote

No way dude. Prepping a new area for development is much more expensive than building in existing developed land. Speaking from experience. There is way more that needs doing

−1

Psirocking t1_j6511kw wrote

Why do you think they build warehouses in the woods instead of on the side of Rt 18 where’s there’s abandoned strip malls

1

Shishkebarbarian t1_j65o2h2 wrote

I've worked on those projects too. The most frequent reason is zoning. It's hard to rezone commercial into industrial and governments avoid it like the plague as it lowers property values. Other common reasons why is because the expected truck volume estimated for the distribution warehouse is unacceptable for major thoroughfares used for commuting. There's a lot of reasons actually, even security believe it or not. But like i said, it cost more to develop new land vs rehabilitating existing.

0

specialgravity t1_j63bmf8 wrote

It works both ways. The more developments -> the more families that more in -> higher BOE costs -> higher taxes.

0

Redplushie t1_j62yiqq wrote

Thank god. Ocean Township already lost the land by Joe Palaia to some bumfuck whatever they're building

3

trixiewutang t1_j63gan7 wrote

That traffic on 35 is going to be absolutely insane. Wawa, chik fil a, a hotel and “luxury apartments” all in one subdivision outside of the most cop-dense intersection for the whole town.

7

njstein t1_j63t8tj wrote

"Cop dense" yet there's constantly people making lefts onto 35N from deal rd east. Shit turns into a parking lot just even without the tourists each summer.

2

trixiewutang t1_j63va3b wrote

That speaks to poor road design for how heavy traffic really is. Writing tickets isn’t a solution.

2

Natejersey t1_j63bq5w wrote

Was supposed to be a stop n shop I think. Town residents voted against it to save the open space. the township decided it was ok to build there anyway, no stop n shop but a bunch of other crappy establishments.

3

BF_2 t1_j63gh3a wrote

I've resolved never to shop at any of those stores. I won't support the beneficiaries of such development. I don't believe this will make any difference, mind you, it's just an ethics thing.

1

smokepants t1_j63cskk wrote

ITT people who believe in trickle down housing will finally work.

edit: this was directed at the YIMBY cultists in the thread

2

SyndicalistCPA t1_j63sznd wrote

These are 59 single-family homes. An utter waste to destroy the environment to build another fucking suburb.

4

njstein t1_j63tgl7 wrote

57 units on 32 acres isn't the most efficient use of space if your goal is to house those who otherwise struggle to find home ownership.

3

No_Variation_6639 t1_j63mx16 wrote

Is that when you believe that more housing means lower prices?

0

smokepants t1_j63sy1o wrote

yes but specifically "build anything anywhere YIMBYs", https://www.housingisahumanright.org/trickle-down-housing-is-a-failure-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

1

No_Variation_6639 t1_j65e65w wrote

It's a very reddit opinion to just regurgitate that more housing is better and then walk away.

Right now is the most important time to save open space as once it's gone, it's gone forever.

2

tex8222 t1_j65t0i9 wrote

Yeah, this was 4-5 bedroom single fam housing. Not at all designed to address the affordabilty issue.

2

Unfair_Driver884 t1_j66ybfy wrote

Good. There are plenty of empty department stores/strip malls and abandoned parking lots. Start tearing those down and build housing there. No need to develop more wilderness.

2

Jimmy_kong253 t1_j64hchr wrote

Excellent I wish this happened more often

1

mykepagan t1_j64bhqc wrote

Preserving green space in our crowded state: Yay!

Exacerbating the housing shortage and driving up home costs through scarcity: boo.

0

DarwinZDF42 t1_j6359kb wrote

WhY dO hOuSeS iN nJ cOsT sO mUcH?

This is why. Let people more and they won’t.

−11

specialgravity t1_j63bxvg wrote

More developments -> more families -> more kids -> higher school costs -> higher taxes. Pick your poison.

1

tipperzack6 t1_j63ql14 wrote

More developments please. life's about people and children are a big point to that

0

[deleted] t1_j621g6k wrote

[deleted]

−18

beachmedic23 t1_j627g9s wrote

Theres plenty of property in our cities we can build on before we need to cut down more woods and encroach on the pine Barrens

20

DarwinZDF42 t1_j635fnx wrote

So you’re all for it when some town proposes a 5-over-1 in their downtown? Even if it’s mostly 1-2 story buildings currently?

−1

tehbored t1_j626pdn wrote

These were single family homes. Only a few dozen units, would have had negligible impact. What we need is more medium and high density construction.

19

GoodLt t1_j6265b9 wrote

Um, no. The cost of housing is high for many reasons, among them the desirability of living in NJ (yes, that's a thing). Housing supply isn't the issue - the supply of affordable housing is the issue. Ruining an open space and building yet another glob job of high-priced housing isn't going to do a damned thing for the prices of housing in the state.

13

tehbored t1_j626u46 wrote

Housing supply is absolutely the issue. NJ, like many states, has a massive undersupply. But more single family homes will not help significantly. What we need is more medium and high density construction. Even if the new units are all market rate, prices will still decline, but it needs to be a lot of units.

4

DarwinZDF42 t1_j635ocw wrote

Okay so like what about, for example, Red Bank then? Everyone here is cool with Red Bank putting up a bunch of mid-rises in their downtown, right? Nobody’s opposing that? Bc the consistent position here would be loading up every Main Street and downtown with mid-rise mixed use. But all I see is blanket opposition to everything.

2

DarwinZDF42 t1_j635i45 wrote

The cost of housing in NJ is high because there’s a shortage and we don’t build nearly enough of it.

−1

eeelisabeth t1_j63af34 wrote

Every few miles I see new houses and apartments being built. None of which I, or other working class people, can afford. It’s always poorly made, shoddy “luxury” townhomes that are wildly unaffordable to average people and just create more traffic and crowding. No more development, I say.

3

Natejersey t1_j63c2yw wrote

Don’t forget all of the gated 55+ communities.

4

njstein t1_j63tq6i wrote

Those are so towns can skirt around low income housing requirements from the statea, as 55+ communities meet the mark as well. We're getting sold out for the boomers to live kush.

4

DarwinZDF42 t1_j635cy2 wrote

You’re completely correct.

You can prevent home construction, or it can be affordable to live here. Can’t do both.

0