An Engaged Community
In the past few years, several ordinances have been considered by the Township Council that will pave the way for the construction of multi-story buildings comprising dozens of housing units. Most, if not all, of these ordinances were part of an effort to fulfill the township’s affordable housing obligations (read our FAQ article in this edition of the Tribune for more information about this issue). Some of these ordinances were met with more pushback than others. Many of them were approved, while the few that were not approved typically had more public objections, in the form of a handful of upset residents or a lawyer hired on their behalf in an attempt to halt or alter the proposed plan.
But never before have we seen the kind of organized opposition to a project that is currently occurring with the former Bottle King site on South Livingston Avenue near Mt. Pleasant Avenue. An ordinance was on the Township Council agenda earlier this summer that, if passed, would clear the way for developers to construct a 276-unit rental property on the site. Of those 276 units, 15 percent would be for low and moderate income tenants, the state minimum requirement on rental properties.
Nearby residents were less than pleased about this, to put it mildly. Town officials, the Council, and likely the developers, as well, almost certainly anticipated what has now become requisite pushback to these types of developments prior to their approval. But what has occurred has been significantly more than the typical resistance.
Staying up-to-date and actively engaging with the business of the town is no easy task. Here at the Tribune, it is our job to do so, but for most residents, it requires spending precious free time scanning through drab documents, attending meetings, and organizing with their neighbors. It is not easy, and it is not fun.
For that reason, we tip our caps to the residents of Arden Road, Sherbrooke Parkway,Audubon Road, and the surrounding area for forming a collective and putting in the work to affect change in town. Weeks into their battle, they remain motivated and educated, coming to the most recent Council meeting with a detailed and well thought out list of requests for the project. Rather than simply demand it not happen – a request that is unlikely to be fulfilled – they asked for things such as improved traffic patterns and limiting the building’s height.
In the coming weeks, these residents will get to directly question the developers of the proposed site. A date is yet to be determined for the meeting, but residents will, hopefully, receive responses to the queries they have asked at Council meetings (the Council has said that the developers will receive a list of questions from residents prior to the meeting, so they can come prepared to answer them). It will be interesting to hear what the developers have to say, as well as their reaction to residents’ proposed negotiation items.
It remains likely that something will be built at the former Bottle King site, but thanks to the residents who live near it, that something will very likely be smaller in scope and scale than it otherwise would have been. And that is because of the power our residents hold as a united front. It has been, frankly, impressive to witness.
In the meantime, we will echo a point that we have previously stated in this space, which is one that several residents also made during last week’s Council meeting. The regulations that lead to this and other proposed housing complexes in town need to be changed at the state level, and we hope that our elected officials are joining in the conversations to make that happen.
Some residents, during the most recent meeting, asked the Council how they could help make substantial modifications to the state requirements. Sadly, they did not receive a response. So, if residents do not have the direction on how to affect change to the housing requirements put on Livingston, they must rely on the people that were voted into office to do so on their behalf. Council members and town officials have said some version of “our hands are tied” in regard to many of the housing projects they have had to approve in recent years.
If that is the case, then they should be doing what they can to “untie” them, by pushing to alter the requirements thrust upon them by the state. We hope that is happening. Perhaps, at an upcoming meeting, they can update residents on what conversations they have had in this regard. And, hopefully, as some of our Council members seek higher positions in the state government, they will continue to represent Livingston’s interest in this respect.
