Has there been a more glaring example that this town council is out of touch with doing what the people of the townspeople want. Hard to believe that they can be this arrogant.
My take is that most of the town council recognizes that they have little time left to make any decisions at all, they may as well push for impractical ideas, they won't have to live with the ramifications of them.

Wow! This really doesn't make sense, no matter the angle or agenda.

Teachers, firefighters, etc., have plenty of opportunity to live in town and many do! Is there a reason why 2 homes on Wildwood need to be set aside for them, and is there some guarantee that only Montclair public servants get those homes? Truly incredible to me.

A job well done! I applaud this council for making this choice. I firmly believe it is the right choice and it will give more families who want to live in this town a chance. Bravo Ms. Baskerville and others who voted "YES!".

When the builders calculate their "opportunity" here we will see how foolish our council really is. A million dollar give away to produce 2-3 houses that could be claimed by eligibles from anywhere in the state, when the million dollars could provide affordable housing in town for 10-15 eligibles is a fundamental abrogation of the council's responsibility. How lazy of them to fail their duty.

I am shocked by overwhelmingly negative NIMBY attitudes of many of the posters here. Clearly, what you are really afraid of is that the "eligibles" will be "undesirables" who will lower your property value. Most of the homeowners of this town have no idea how privileged their lives really are. People who make less than lawyers, doctors, and those in finance would like to have a real home for their families in a community with great schools -- like Montclair. And guess what? Apartments don't cut it. Have you ever tried to live in an apartment with kids? It's no picnic -- especially here where most people live in grand homes. Please stay open-minded and let people in before you slam the door on all the wonderful things you enjoy with your families in Montclair.

Most don't live anywhere near there, including myself. Most of us are tired of the town council making poor decisions that cost the town significant amounts of money with some exaggerated benefit.

May can't come soon enough.

And just wait till people get their tax bills probably this summer, AFTER the election. People think their taxes are going down -- WRONG. The only people who will likely see big decreases ironically, are the people in the McMansions whose homes have dropped tremendously in value. This council is running this town into the ground with its decisions -- Fried and his crew HAVE to go.

MK, you are out of line assuming NIMBYism is at work. I would say practical and prudent is being ignored.
If the sale of town property can produce enough money ($1 to 1.5 million) to create 10-15 affordable housing units, that is much better than 2 or 3 units for "families of 3 or more" making up to $105,000 per year in household income, don't you think? This land may not even be buildable for a number of reasons. A builder will determine that if interested. We will see how many builders want to deal with our foolish council's decisions. Haynes, Marlboro and others took years to resolve. I look forward to pulling weeds across the street in the town lot for many years to come. It is my own over grown green space.

The current council has made it clear by their actions that they have no interest in my vote. The elections cannot come quickly enough.

AMEN crafty -- let's pray a majority of informed people in Montclair feel the same way. They are outrageous

Move! I did and am so much happier for it.

Easier said than done - kids love the school, we love the house, neighborhood everything. And where are we going?? Not like Glen Ridge has such better tax situation. Stay and fight - and VOTE! Montclair is worth it.

This is not an issue of people not supporting affordable housing. It's an issue of other opportunities that could bring in more significant numbers of affordable housing not being considered.

As a start there's the Hollow Day Care property, which HomeCorp was refused access to. The only problem? It's in the second ward.

And I have to wonder about this "workforce" housing business. I've spoken to police and fire personnel who have said they' don't WANT to live in the town where they work! And remember: it's ONE workforce house, and ONE affordable house.

Furthermore, in contradiction to what was said by a member of the Council last night, i.e. REQUIRING police and fire personnel to live in Montclair, well that is against State law.

chris,

The tax situation is much better in Glen Ridge. First, it's a bit cheaper, which is incredible considering the lack of commercial revenue. Second, you get a lot more service for your tax dollar. It probably helps that Glen Ridge has almost no debt when compared with our neighbor to the west. You should see how much greener the grass really is on this side. And you need not abandon your Montclair friends. We live on one of the most diverse streets in Montclair (only five homes are in Glen Ridge) and our neighbors in both towns are simply great. What I don't find the local government in Glen Ridge doing is to make such short-sighted, fiscally imprudent decisions in the name of progressiveness. And by the way, our trash is privatized.

What about the loss of use of this property? It is extensively used by the Dpw, I guess they can dump their wood chips in Renee baskervilles yard......

"Clearly, what you are really afraid of is that the "eligibles" will be "undesirables" who will lower your property value"

Clearly it is easier to attack people that disagree than actually debate the facts. One of the facts is that many of us opposing this sale have been suggesting alternatives that (1) are more cost effective, (2) avoid eliminating open space, and (3) don't add housing stock to a market already saturated while still in the same neighborhood.

This eviscerates the "NIMBY" accusation.

...Andrew

"What I don't find the local government in Glen Ridge doing is to make such short-sighted, fiscally imprudent decisions in the name of progressiveness."

Perhaps we should outsource our governing body to Glen Ridge?

More seriously, I am curious how GR avoids the same council comedy that we see in Montclair? Are GR voters simply smarter than we are? Or is there something else at play?

...Andrew

One difference in the 2 town's leader selection process is, GR has committee that vets candidates making sure they are qualified and have no warts that would embarrass or ill-serve the town and its citizens. Our method is to begin with an agenda driven few slates, almost a political party process. Experienced and intelligent decision makers are not required here. Just be on time and want to serve, along with be selected by a slate leader, it appears.

"intelligent decision makers are not required here"

Apparently not in Montclair either, but somehow this hasn't hurt GR. I don't quite understand.

...Andrew

Good information Ben. Your analysis shows the driving weakness to Montclair's election and ultimately governing process. CCM & other organizations in town could help a great deal by putting a group together in Montclair like GR's CCC. Does Montclair even have a Republican Club? Are Glen Ridge's elections partisan or non-partisan?

Adam,
Both towns' governance seems to be non-partisan. But Montclair is 85% (voting) Democrat and GR majority GOP. I believe they are careful to not let party agendas play any part in decisions. Having lived in GR 1974-1985, the CCC candidate vetting process made sure the elected officials were qualified and not wild-cats looking to change the nature of the town. Status quo is the driving force in GR, compared to the opposite in Montclair. Town size, budgets, demographics are obvious major differences.