Practitioners with Masters degrees and Ph.d's find the journey from problem to solution vexing. What are we to expect from the layman with other responsibilities and for whom the impacts are real and daunting (Americans primary vehicle for savings is their home and then they have to LIVE in the community in question)?

The ability to intelligently engage the community is key to successfully implementing smart growth management strategies. To short shrift the process in favor of "getting it over quickly" is a penny-wise, pound-foolish option that will cost more in the long run and probably leave a community with something less than what they deserve.

Engage wisely and intelligently with the community and everyone wins.

Have I discovered an under-served niche in the planning and development market-place?

Their logic about the "best" way to zone Bordentown was unacceptable and rejected by the residents. Absolutly no one disagrees that the current zoning document from 1983 needed revision. We disagree with the philosophy, and applications of that philosophy, that the framers of the land use document tried to impose on citizens without due notice.

If this wasn't so, then why were so many provisions stricken by the city council? Why was the document sent back to the planning board for revisions? Certainly, not because it was wonderful. To continue to justify that seriously flawed ordinance on the basis of comments like, " The new Ordinance takes on the extremely complex task of preserving and maintaining parts of a truly great place while controlling redevelopment in a way that makes sense now and in the future," shows, again, how the supporters of the document refuse to recognize that they lost. The people of Bordentown spoke loudly that we have a different vision for the future of our wonderful town.

Those type of comments mean nothing now. The document as it stood was rejected. Deal with that fact. It is time to move on and forward with the objective of improving the zoning codes so that they reflect the needs of the whole community, not only a few "believers" who drank the Kool Aid.

Join with us in working collaboratively to achieve the goal of rewriting the new land use ordinance so that it will bring Bordentown's zoning laws into the 21st century in a manner that has true public imput and approval.

For example, as John states in his comment above, the current zoning code allows for residential development in the Marina District. This is true. What John doesn't state is that the new code would have allowed for the building of hotels, shops and stores for retail business, seafood markets, snack bars, offices for brokers and surveyors, educational faciliteis, art galleries, etc., etc., etc. For reasons that the drafters of the new ordinance can't seem to comprehend (and/or accept), most of the peple who found out about this plan reacted with near-universal outrage. The proposed plan would despoil a largely undeveloped, ecologically sensitive section of the town. Moreover, we are talkling about a postage-size section of real estate that floods regularly because it is literally on the banks of the Delaware. So maybe the old code needed to be revised, but to call for hotels instead of residences did not strike most of us as being an improvement. Far from it. Unfortunately, to date we have heard nothing from the Planning Board as to why the building of a "Marriott Floodplain" is an appropriaste use of the land. Accordingly, the conculsion of almost all of the people in town was that some of the sections of the proposed code needed to be reviewed and reexamined to make sure thaet they were truly in the best interset of Bordentown.

The task before the Planning Board and the residents of Bordentown is to take the rejected ordinance, retain what is good, and amend or delete that which is not. This time, however, the City Commissioners have appointed a committee of citizens to work with the Planning Board to make sure that any document produced by the Planning Board will be one that is consistent with what most residents want for their town. If nothing else, at least the residents will be kept informed as to what is going on at the Planning Board level, a far cry from what happened in the process of drafting the rejected ordinance. After all, the town belowngs to all of us, not just to a tiny goup of ideologues who want to impose their vision on the rest of us. Had the Planning Board truly sought out meaningful public input from the beginning instead of drafting this document and trying to pass it "under the radar", the current level of controversy and acrimony would never have developed.

Tom
(not related in any way, shape or form to "Tom's Wife" in Comment #18)

Bordentown is NOT some corn field where one zone fits all. AND, it's never going to be New York City. It is a vibrant diverse place where the new Ordinance acknowledges that the small existing Marina and the existing railroad tracks are NOT suitable for residential development. (as currently zoned)

The existing ordinance is not working. Short, overly broad provisions may make light reading but they make it hard to enforce. The part-time zoning and building official needs a new set of clear, detailed, enforceable provisions.

Things change. Property owners sell out for their own reasons. Some absentee landlords will continue failing to maintain their properties. Freezing the existing Ordinance where it is now will not provide the protections that either side wants.

The new Ordinance takes on the extremely complex task of preserving and maintaining parts of a truly great place while controlling redevelopment in a way that makes sense now and in the future. Although Bordentown is small, it is a great example of the careful preservation and redevelopment planning that many existing towns are going to need as we experience the impact of gas prices above $3.50 a gallon.

Will Bordentown continue to use a 1983 Ordinance pushing to reshape the town in suburbia's image or use a new Ordinance that protects existing character and controls development? That'll be determined by what happens next.

The majority of the residents of Bordentown live here because it has already achieved many of the objectives of the "Smart Growth" and "Transit Village" backers. To think that we are, somehow, short sighted because we do not want to increase our population density by allowing "accessory apartments" added to most homes and seeing downtown buildings add additional stories and apartmments just to increase our population density shows how little the framers of the document really know about Bordentown City.

Our percentage of rentals in town is 47%. Affordable housing goals are met in Bordentown City till 1014! Anyone can afford to rent or buy houses here. I know because I have done both. We actudally have small houses under $150,00 and mansions over $700,000. The parking lot for the Light Rail is full daily.

Someone commented that the residents don't patronize local businesses. I beg to differ. I have been walking to my doctor, dentist, liquor/drug store, restaurants, pubs, galleries (yes, I do buy art) and stores for 28 years.

Bordentown City doesn't need to become something it already is- a densly packed, small town with a diverse population that walks, takes busses and trains and uses their cars. We do need, however, to protect what we have from "idealists" and "planners" who think we are opportunities to show how their ideas for our future should be advanced.

I am so proud of the citizens of Bordentown City. They came out in record numbers to oppose the vision of the planners of the new land use document. They saw, as the planners did not, that our town needs protecting. We do not need to be guided into the 21st Century. We have been preparing for it for 326 years.

We already are what so many towns want to be. We are a visual delight, an architect's dream, and a walker's paradise. We are friendly, homey and embrace our differences. We take mass transit and value the environment. We look after each other and wave to friends on the street. We are affordable for everyone.

Take the time to come to Bordentown City. Read the land use document. Discuss the issues with the residents. The Planning Board and Comissioners' Meetings will be the time for everyone to express their opinions. Let's have open discussion of ideas and create a Bordentown that protects and cherishes what makes us different from everyone else this time around.

You claim that rejecting the ordinance will encourage suburban sprawl, but the reality is that there is absolutely nowhere to "sprawl" to in this town, since it is already almost entirely built out. If you want to attack sprawl, perhaps you should go visit some of the surrounding municipalities which have the land to build on. That is where the real battleground should be.

If you bothered to come to Bordentown you would find not a "quaint village", but a living, breathing, dynamic town that has survived for 325 yers and is filled with people who truly love what it has evolved into. It offers the most diverse housing stock of any small town of which I am aware, ranging from affordable one bedroom apartments to large 18th and 19th century single family homes. Try going to one of those towns that were cited in the comments -- like Pennington, Crosswicks or Yardley --- and try to find a house there for under $300 or $400K. Good luck. (By the way, you should perhaps be aware that the populations density in
Bordentown is many times greater than in any of those towns. And if you want to see suburban sprawl, try getting out of Yardly at rush hour). In contrast, in Bordentown you can buy a house starting in the $150 -200K range. And as far as appreciation goes, thank you, but we have done very well in the last ten years, with most houses easily doubling --if not tripling -- in value.

Finally, all the literature pertaining to transit villages and smart growth stresses one major point: that if you are going to try to implement such a program of development, make sure that the public is kept informed and has meaningul input into the process. In contrast, the zoning ordinance was passed in a process that would have made the Bush administration truly envious --- some have called it the most secretive process since Dick Cheney's "Energy Commission". Whether by accident or design, the public was kept out of the process and lulled into a state of complacency. How would any of you like to live in a town where such major changes were being proposed, only to have the consultant on the ordinance indicate at a public hearing that the new ordinance made "no changes" to the residential zones --- and then proceed to ignore completely anything that would be even remotely controversial. The other sad reality is that at least four of the nine planning board members who voted to adopt the ordinance have admitted that they NEVER EVEN READ IT before voting to adopt it. The residents in this town deserve better treatment than that.

Someday we may find out what was behind this proposal. The mayor was cited in a newpaper article as saying that the current zoning ordinance was too "restrictive", and that the new one would make it easier for developers to make a profit. Wonderful. So I guess that we should adopt a 343 page zoning ordiance to make it easier for developers to come into town and make more money. That is, If they aren't here already, waiting.

So you can continue with your snarky comments about those reactionary torch-wielding villagers who caused the ordinance to be defeated. But please, don't flatter yourselves in thinking that by reading a few cursory articles in the local press (filled with inaccuracies) that you have come to an understanding of what is happening here.

I leave you with this - while you may continue to view the residents of this town as being hopelessly uneducated and backwards in the apreciation of new zoning concepts --- when was the last time that you found a place where the people love their town so much that dozens of them spent weeks reading, studying and discussing something as complex and technical as a 343 page zoning ordinance. And they did this on their own, without any guidance or help from the Planning Board. The critisms were not knee-jerk, uninformed reactions based on misinfomation. It just might have been Bordentown's finest moment, and made me proud to be a resident here.

Tom

If one really wanted to push new development the closer to the station the better but for the most part the town is fully built out. The only available land is the park & ride lot and even that is pretty small when compared to some others along the light rail route.

Not everyone in NJ can take Mass Transit. That is the reality. To think that people will take a ride with 3 or 4 transfers and increase there commute time by an hour is absurd. Build the transit systems before you expect to shape the communities around them.

It takes 20 minute to walk from one side of town to the other so any arguments about increasing vehicle traffic is absurd. The folks that live in town don't use the existing business, doctors, pharmacies, auto repair, etc. So building new ones will bring in MVT. We need to work on getting towns folk to use the businesses we have now. Then if demand increases naturally supply will follow.

BTW, the NY Times did a story on how towns and developers are using Bordentown as an example for new town center construction and development. So it seems at least to the article we have something right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/realestate/24livi.html?fta=y

They've had a multi-family boom up there after years of NIMBYISM. They also have a state law forcing affordable housing on municipalities but picking up some of the school costs.

And, their housing bust is happening faster than our housing busts -- affordability will soon be a competitive advantage for them vs. us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/realestate/11wczo.html

Because these towns grew up around the station, all the nice old historic buildings are near it. All the later crap people would be willing to see replaced with higher density is some distance away.

Any development sites near the station? Well, there is the station parking lot, where the people who live in the 1950 to 1980 developments park to ride the train.

It's a problem.

Portland, OR- 4,199.17 people per square mile
St. Paul, MN- 5,438/sq mi
Columbus, OH- 3,383.6/sq mi
Omaha, NE- 3,370.7/sq mi

Compared to:

New York, NY- 27,083/sq mi
Los Angeles, CA- 8,205/sq mi
Chicago, IL- 12,470/sq mi
Boston, MA-12,327/sq mi
Philadelphia, PA- 10,882.8/sq mi

Compared to:

Schaumburg, IL- 3,967.1/sq mi
Levittown, NY- 7,717.5/sq mi (first suburb in America)
Walnut Creek, CA- 3,305.7/sq mi

There are strong legal arguments to be made against zoning and in a falling real estate market, you might see some resistance to a homeowner being prevented from converting their home into a restaurant, hotel, pub, or other commercial use.

http://fortworthology.com/2008/04/21/urban-fort-worth-new-york-is-not-the-model/