 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
Website by: |
Joe Riggs, group president of K. Hovnanian, disingenuously is arguing in newspapers that New Jersey, which is more densely populated than India, must let developers make more money by building even more densely populated residential and commercial projects. We can fight our current low-density sprawl, he illogically argues, by encouraging higher-density sprawl. He ominously claims an “acute” shortage of homes is forcing New Jerseyans to move out of state, which he predicts could also lead to an exodus of businesses. Dire predictions, indeed, but quite illogical. First, people are leaving the state because of high property taxes caused by the very over-development Mr. Riggs espouses. Second, he ignores the underlying concept of real estate markets -- buyers who are staying will replace sellers who are leaving. Third, he undermines his bogus argument by claiming New Jersey’s population will increase by one million in the next decade. How he deduces a worker shortage with a rising population he doesn’t explain. Other “black-is-white” contradictions abound. He puffs his high-density schemes as “traditional neighborhoods,” which they’re not; claims they are not “brick urban–style high-rises,” which they are; and mentions “homes” when he means “units.” Ignoring the definition of density, he puffs that more is less: “Today’s density is all about airy, bright, walkable communities…” Hardly. In an awkward sentence, he puffs, “Properly planned with eight to 15 homes per acre, density mixes this variety to create beautiful, diverse neighborhoods, with homes that most of us can afford, while preserving land for parks, walkways and school yards.” At 15 units per acre, he’s reduced to describing concrete sidewalks as open spaces. And where is he putting his parks and playgrounds, on the roofs? Mr. Riggs’ hype is nothing new. Remember when cluster housing, the cheap-to-build condos, or the misnamed “garden” apartments were all supposed to include open spaces? Developers enthusiastically embraced the high-density concept, but reneged on preserving open space. Instead, they built dreary buildings abutting tree-less parking lots. At least the graceful urban brownstones Mr. Riggs scorns had backyards. To know what Mr. Riggs really is talking about, check the “Great-Wall-of-China” condos Hovnanian is building in Long Branch at an “affordable” $700,000 plus per unit. And, yes, they have open spaces. That’s where you park your car. Linking his over-development scheme to the misnamed and misleading concept du jour of “smart growth,” Mr. Riggs deliberately sidesteps the real costs of over-development: lost open spaces; polluted lakes and streams; endangered wildlife; polluted and over-extended water supplies; traffic jams despite more traffic lights and highways; air pollution; health problems; and higher property taxes to pay for additional police, firefighters, rescuers, teachers, and more schoolrooms. Mr. Riggs’ high-profit, over-development schemes will only benefit his fellow developers. Taxpayers will suffer by higher taxes, lost open space, more traffic, and other onerous social costs. Developers – who never live in their own crowded projects – are trying to mislead us into thinking density is good for us. To paraphrase an old sound bite, “Just say ‘no’ to density.” Mrs. Judith Stanley Coleman
 |
|
| ||||||
