Mayor Gets an Earful About West Collingswood Affordable Housing Plan
Haddon Township Mayor Randy Teague heard complaints for more than two hours.
Photos
An overflow crowd of more than 150 squeezed into a small meeting room at the West Collingswood Extension Civic Association headquarters on Lynne Avenue Wednesday night to pepper Mayor Randy Teague with questions about a developing plan to build 52 units of affordable housing in the neighborhood.
Neighbors were upset.
"We're treated as a stepchild," one woman said in the meeting where few identified themselves and many spoke out of turn. "We don't feel loved by you people. We just want you to leave us alone!"
Teague tried to calm the crowd, which at times badgered and heckled him. He told them the process was just starting and they would have ample opportunity to make their protest known to other commissioners and the township planning board.
"We're crowded over here," the same woman continued. "I love my neighbors and want to protect them. Some of us may not like each other, but we'll come together for something like this and protect each other."
"This is going to be a big build up that will look like a ghetto project," a man yelled out.
"You're not close to Camden like we are," another woman said.
Teague, John Foley and Paul Dougherty, the township's three commissioners, approved a resolution this month to instruct the planning board consider designating the Black Horse Pike Auto Complex—a sprawling property that fronts the Black Horse Pike at Route 130—as a redevelopment zone. That designation would start a process to help determine a suitable use for the property, including incentives to developers, such as a PILOT(payment in lieu of taxes) agreement.
One such developer could be the Walters Group, that Teague said is exploring a purchase of the property, which is in foreclosure. The group is building an 82-unit, market-rate apartment building near Haddon Avenue in the Westmont section of the township. It's located on the old Russell Cast Stone site behind the Keg & Kitchen restaurant.
The Walters Group is being sued by a local housing advocacy group to include affordable units in the Westmont project. Teague has said the builders are interested in buying the auto complex site to build affordable-housing that it hopes will satisfy the Fair Share Housing Center, the local advocacy group. The mayor tried to distance himself from the project Wednesday during a 2 1/2-hour meeting where neighbors made it clear they opposed it.
"You're upset and angry and don't want affordable housing in this neighborhood," the mayor said near the end of the meeting. "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that."
Teague admitted after the meeting that he thought the affordable housing plan there was "pretty good." He said then and during the meeting that he thought a residential development, even an affordable-housing development, would be an improvement over what's on the property now. He also argued another commercial use for the the land could be more detrimental than housing.
"We're very protective of our neighborhood," said Francine Tryka, 48, an office manager and lifelong resident here who helped organize the meeting. "This is our little gem."
Teague assured residents they would have a chance to make their feelings known. He said plans for the site are in a very preliminary phase and nothing has been decided. Teague said the planning board will not likely consider the commissioners' recommendation to designate the area a redevelopment zone until its meeting on Feb. 28.
The Walters Group, the township and Fieldstone Associates, the developers of the a town center in the Westmont section of the township known as the DyDee project, are defendants in a law suit from the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center. Teague said he thinks the township has met its current affordable housing obligation. A Fair Share lawyer said this week the township was trying to meet its affordable-housing obligation with just senior housing, which is not allowed.
Fair Share sued the Walters Group to include affordable housing in the Russell Cast Stone project. Residents in West Collingswood believe the affordable housing requirement is being forced on them and not on Westmont.
Stay connected with your town's big news. Follow Haddonfield-Haddon Township Patch on Facebook.
Kelly H
9:06 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
I am extremely disappointed both in the reporting of this meeting and the mayor's comments after the meeting that he still felt it was a good idea despite claiming to listen to the resident's concerns for over 2 hours. I was at the meeting and live in the neighborhood and the mayor was in no way badgered or heckled. Yes, the residents are upset. Mostly, we are upset b/c this area of land (the blackhorse autoplex site) was proposed to the planning board as a redevelopment area without meeting any of the criteria (being in disrepair, dilapidated, uninhabitible, unsafe, etc) laid out in the township's own documents. Let's call a spade a spade. The township needs to get the development going at the Russell Cast Stone site, but the group that has the contract there won't be able to build if the lawsuit against them is successful. So the township sees an opportunity to ensure that they win the lawsuit (or get it dismissed) when they hear the plot of land the blackhorse autoplex is on is in forclosure. Being that it's currently zoned commercial, they offer it up as a "redevelopment opportunity" area despite it not meeting the previously stated criteria. Now the zoning can be changed and as far at they are concerned it's a win-win. At the expense of the people in the extension.
charles weiler
1:53 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
West Collingswood Affordable Housing meeting comment:
The concept of affordable housing was never intended to mean poor, minority, or 'other' peoples housing. The NJ Law (Mt. Laurel Decision) was intended to provide a full mix of housing types in a diverse neighborhood. It would be wrong to put all affordable housing into one neighborhood -- while another areas get so-called upscale housing. The mix of 20% "Affordable Units" - 60% market units -- and 20% upscale apartments would be more in keeping with the intent of the NJ Affordable Housing Act.
More interesting is what makes one qualify for the lower-rent of affordable housing -- new college graduates, single mothers, and seniors on a fixed income would benefit greatly from the subsidies and incentives offered to developers to create a more affordable housing mix.
Looking at the photograph -- there is clearly a lack of diversity in the West Collingswood 130 corridor and neighborhood today. More information, understanding, and a bit of tolerance would go a long way to lessening the tensions expressed. Also, a bit more forceful insistance by the Township on the mix of housing types offered in 82 total units would be very helpful. 16--20 affordable units will satisfy any NEW development Affordable Housing contribution.
Architect Charles Weiler
Haddon Heights, NJ
Nancy
1:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Clearly? We have plenty of diversity in our neighborhood. This is a 12 block neighborhood we can't handle any more density.
Jean
1:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
It is very easy for someone who doesn’t live in the community to make comments about how our township should look Mr. Weiler. If you lived in our community, you would see that we are a very diverse community already. Maybe the other families could not attend the meeting on that night. Do not judge us by a picture.
No matter what you think, this apartment complex is being forced on us.
As usual, there really isn’t anyone in our community to represent us. The mayor and the commissioners all live in the Westmont area or closer to Haddonfield.
It really upsets me when other people would like us to be tolerant and accepting of a project that they would never have to endure themselves. We have a lot of seniors that have been living in this town for many years. Now, they are finding out that an apartment complex may be built close to where they live. This apartment complex will most likely bring down the value of their homes. Plus, taxes will go up because we will have to educate the children that move into this building.
It is very easy to say the township should force us to accept this when you will not have to live in this town.
As for me, I would rather have an empty parking lot for a neighbor than low income housing.
Jean, West Collingswood Heights
Joe T
2:18 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Social engineering doesn't work. Liberal policies like making homes "affordable" brought us the housing collapse and ruined many many lives. There are plenty of affordable houses out there. no town should be required to do anything like this. This is just government placing more and more control over our lives. If someone cannot afford something, the rest of us have no obligation to pay for it.
Eileen Hastings
2:06 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Why not split the requirement between the two developments.
James R Schmidt
9:54 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Our Commissionaires were faced with the choice of KEEPING an 80 year successful piece of PRIME COMMERCIAL property which is rated maybe 4 times greater then that of residential taxed property, or opting to send it to the planning board with the FIRM MESSAGE of proposing it to be DESIGNATED for redevelopment for RESIDENTAL purposes.
First of all it's totally illogical to make a decision like that as the Township would loose revenue by doing that, and secondly there are at least 8 to 10 similar Successful Commercial ventures within a half a mile or better in 4 to 5 directions from the Black Horse Autoplex.
Therefore it's not a failed property that is the problem here, it's the failed dealership's that is the problem, and a very apparent cordial relationship between the Township & the Walters Group, along with the lack of effort by the Township to pursue another commercial venture for that sight.
BOTTOM LINE is the property in question, The Black Horse Autoplex simply does not rise to the stated criteria or protocols necessary to warrant, let alone consider redevelopment & again there is nothing wrong with this piece of Prime Commercial Property other the this one failed business.
So the choice you are making, you've been maneuvered into choosing to make, instead of should this property remain Commercial or should it be converted into residential.........Now do you see the difference..........Jim
Maryann Campling
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
It has been my experience that those who are the strongest proponents of Section H Housing are those whose neighborhoods will not be affected by it. Our homes (for most of us) are our biggest investment and it is a source of concern that their value may be negatively affected by, what some feel is, an unconstitutional mandate.