Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, Angelo's is all the way at the end of Larchmont near Hainesport Rd. The area I was talking about wasn't the full length of Larchmont, but the section between 38 and Union Mill Rd.
It doesn't look bad driving down Larchmont, but turn into Willow Turn and then into Delancey Place and you definitely get a different vibe...you know, the people sitting on cars drinking out of paper bags vibe. The area's along Carleton and Burnamwood are a little nicer, but still not exactly "nice". I live in a townhouse, so don't think I'm just snubbing townhome developments.
FWIW, doing a little internet sleuthing I discovered that Larchmont is in fact the location of the first affordable housing built under the Mount Laurel decisions. There is a book called "Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia" that goes into great detail about the history of what happened.
Larchmont was the second planned "PUD" community built in the state. The first was Ramblewood. The developers envisioned a complete life-cycle community that would house people from newly-weds to emtpy nesters. It was targeted as dense luxury housing surrounded by open space, e.g. a golf course ala Ramblewood.
They also considered adding subsidized low income housing. In order to accomplish the subsidy, they would build the homes in a denser configuration to maximize profits. When Mt. Laurel rejected the plan, the township was sued and the Mount Laurel decisions were made. It is more complex than that, but that's the short version. Of note is that the developer was also the lawyer that sued the township.
As Larchmont went up, they designated 20% of the development for low and moderate income housing, as well as some HUD housing. Today the HUD housing is located in sections of Willow Turn and Delancey Pl. The remainder of those sections are low income housing. The townhomes across Larchmont from those sections was designated as moderate income housing. The townhomes on the other side of Union Mill along Calderwood are also designated moderate income housing. The remainder of Larchmont are all medium to large single family homes and are not designated as anything.
So, yes, it would appear that there is some validity to the "ghetto" reputation. The area north of 38 up to Marne Highway, is a different section and while it contains a handful of low income units, they are not clustered the way they are in Larchmont. Same thing with the townhome development on the otherside of Hainesport Rd. at the end of Larchmont.
Thanks for the info NJGOAT. Did you get all of that info from the book or was it a specific website? If a website - would you mind sharing?
Thanks for the info NJGOAT. Did you get all of that info from the book or was it a specific website? If a website - would you mind sharing?
Thanks!
I spent some time googling for Larchmont, Mt. Laurel, low income housing, etc. and it ended up sending me to a Google Book link for the book I listed. The complete book isn't available online, but about 50% of it is. From there I searched the book for references to Larchmont and pieced the story together of how the development came about.
There is a lot more to the story and the book looks like a fascinating read. Some more of the backstory is that Mt. Laurel was a predominately poor black farming community until the developers started moving in. As the farmers and old Quaker families sold off their land, they found themselves and the original residents getting priced out of town. They fought long and hard to make the town provide low income housing or at the very least address inequalities that were happening in the town.
A couple lawyers showed up and represented a couple rental dispute cases pro bono. When those cases were succesful, they drew a lot of support from the poor community. One of those lawyers turned out to be the developer of Larchmont. It was his idea to include the low income housing in the Larchmont plan and he convinced his partners it could be done as they could subsidize the project by building the remaining lots in a higher density, hence making more money to offset the losses on the low income units. He felt that the low income housing added in Larchmont would "correct the social injustices/inequality that he felt existed in Mount Laurel at the time." He really wasn't too far off as then mayor Bill Haines had actually told some of the citizen advocates at a meeting in 1970 that if they "couldn't afford his Mount Laurel, they should move."
When the Larchmont plan was proposed the township axed it do to the inclusion of the low income housing. That resulted in a lawsuit that turned into the Mount Laurel decisions, which had national impact. The book essentially paints the lawyer and one of the community advocates of being unrecognized civil rights heroes.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I spent some time googling for Larchmont, Mt. Laurel, low income housing, etc. and it ended up sending me to a Google Book link for the book I listed. The complete book isn't available online, but about 50% of it is. From there I searched the book for references to Larchmont and pieced the story together of how the development came about.
There is a lot more to the story and the book looks like a fascinating read. Some more of the backstory is that Mt. Laurel was a predominately poor black farming community until the developers started moving in. As the farmers and old Quaker families sold off their land, they found themselves and the original residents getting priced out of town. They fought long and hard to make the town provide low income housing or at the very least address inequalities that were happening in the town.
A couple lawyers showed up and represented a couple rental dispute cases pro bono. When those cases were succesful, they drew a lot of support from the poor community. One of those lawyers turned out to be the developer of Larchmont. It was his idea to include the low income housing in the Larchmont plan and he convinced his partners it could be done as they could subsidize the project by building the remaining lots in a higher density, hence making more money to offset the losses on the low income units. He felt that the low income housing added in Larchmont would "correct the social injustices/inequality that he felt existed in Mount Laurel at the time." He really wasn't too far off as then mayor Bill Haines had actually told some of the citizen advocates at a meeting in 1970 that if they "couldn't afford his Mount Laurel, they should move."
When the Larchmont plan was proposed the township axed it do to the inclusion of the low income housing. That resulted in a lawsuit that turned into the Mount Laurel decisions, which had national impact. The book essentially paints the lawyer and one of the community advocates of being unrecognized civil rights heroes.
Let me set the tone of this. This happened when the local builders realized that Cherry Hill was about built out & they were looking for a chance to get another generation or two of building developments. Mt Laurel was handy. No one believed that there was anything altruistic on the part of that builder.
Let me set the tone of this. This happened when the local builders realized that Cherry Hill was about built out & they were looking for a chance to get another generation or two of building developments. Mt Laurel was handy. No one believed that there was anything altruistic on the part of that builder.
The book painted a different light. It seems that a citizen non-profit group was looking to build 36 garden apartments and had raised the money for it. The township council and zoning laws forbade this type of development. The meeting about it is where the mayor uttered his "if you can't afford to live in our town, then move".
The lawyer that had earlier represented some people in the non-profit group on cases against their landlords (one lady was living without a toilet and running water do to the landlords negligence) was only one of the partners/investors that was building Larchmont. He came up with the idea to include the low/moderate income housing. When the plan for Larchmont was rejected by the town do the low income housing, he sued.
So, no the builder in general was not altruistic at all and it was merely the actions of a single partner in the group who was an attorney that caused everything to happen. The other partners went along with it as the changes he proposed were revenue neutral at worst and more profitable at best do to the higher density of the housing.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The book painted a different light. It seems that a citizen non-profit group was looking to build 36 garden apartments and had raised the money for it. The township council and zoning laws forbade this type of development. The meeting about it is where the mayor uttered his "if you can't afford to live in our town, then move".
The lawyer that had earlier represented some people in the non-profit group on cases against their landlords (one lady was living without a toilet and running water do to the landlords negligence) was only one of the partners/investors that was building Larchmont. He came up with the idea to include the low/moderate income housing. When the plan for Larchmont was rejected by the town do the low income housing, he sued.
So, no the builder in general was not altruistic at all and it was merely the actions of a single partner in the group who was an attorney that caused everything to happen. The other partners went along with it as the changes he proposed were revenue neutral at worst and more profitable at best do to the higher density of the housing.
I just know what was being made public at the time, & it sounds like the book is spinning it. At the time I was aware that some poor people were getting priced out, but the way that it was presented there were blacks & whites.
I don't remember if it was the same builder, but the ink was barely dry on the Mt Laurel decision when a builder went after Cherry Hill. The Croft family had made arrangements to give their farm to the township, under market value, with the understanding that the house would stay, the land would not be developed, & part of the land would be incorpoated, as a park, that would butt up to county park land. The builder came in & demanded that the land be sold to them at the same special rate to be turned into high density low income housing. Cherry Hill proved that there were smaller, cheaper areas & that the roads in the effected areas would not take the traffic & the sewer system in that area would be overloaded. The Croft family tried to back out, & the builder just kept it up. My housing development ended up classied as low income which hurt property values for a very long time.
Last edited by southbound_295; 04-28-2011 at 11:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
