Justin Auciello: The New Wave Planner

New Jersey State Atlas: Making the Inaccessible Accessible

We are well aware that the internet streamlines our lives on a daily basis. Whether it’s looking for a movie on Moviefone, scouring for hard to find items on Craigslist, sharing pictures with family and friends on Flickr, or checking out restaurant recommendations on Yelp, our lives are more informed, accessible, and most of all, organized.

Most of us, however, are not seeking publicly “available” data, and that’s good, considering that the generally status quo public sector lags far behind the innovative private sector.

The reason is simple.

Government will always exist, whether or not it is online, thanks to the taxpayers, while private enterprise needs constant injections of capital to survive. Especially in perilous economic times, innovation is key, and those who refuse to adapt, create, and implement are surely at an enormous disadvantage and subject to failure.

Since a government entity can generally ride the coffer train, there is no true incentive to challenge the status quo and innovate, and I think that is exceedingly clear as you travel around the internet and compare public and private sector websites.

At a time when technology is not only accessible, cheap (if not free), and most importantly, ubiquitous and commonly understood by the masses, our government should be open, readily share information to keep us informed, and embrace interactivity.

In an April post on The New Wave Planner about the online efforts of LaSalle, IL, I wrote:

Sadly, government has not embraced this emerging technology on a widespread basis, resulting in a deepening disconnect between the entity and its constituents, and frustrating interested parties whom have become accustomed to information on demand in their lives.

Up until May 2009, the “deepening disconnect” had not plagued LaSalle, thanks to the efforts of past City Engineer Pam Broviak (Ms. Broviak was not reappointed in the wake of a new political administration that did not share her vision; as such, the city’s social media outreach efforts have been greatly diminished), nor has it impacted San Francisco, an extremely wired government, which now allows its residents to report maintenance concerns via Twitter. They’re both symbols of the Government 2.0 (aka “Gov 2.0”) movement.

Gov 2.0, as I wrote in the LaSalle post, is “an evolving model to improve transparency, communication, and efficient and practical delivery methods between government and citizens.”

The movement is strong and building, but it’s still in its infancy, and government receptiveness is still relatively scarce.

In New Jersey, Gov 2.0 has gotten some traction in recent years. Many planning professionals are familiar with Monmouth County’s Tax Records search (which covers all 21 New Jersey counties), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s iMap, and the various maps and data available from the Office of Smart Growth.

All three resources are critical to maximizing work efficiency and are thus invaluable to planners. Just a few years ago, planners had to spend valuable time in municipal buildings just to acquire simple information. Now, a lot of standard information is publicly accessible via the internet.

But beyond social media outreach and publishing general information and data, what becomes of the data (some common, some esoteric) that is rarely found on government websites, or is available in a raw or an unsearchable format?

This remains a problem, but in New Jersey, John Reiser is in the process of unlocking the government data vault and sharing the bounty with us in a multimedia, mashup format.

To a planner, this is pure gold.

Mr. Reiser operates New Jersey State Atlas, which is, according to the site, “an interactive website featuring multiple web maps” with a simple, straightforward mission:

Within New Jersey, there’s a massive amount of data that is inaccessible to many people. One of the goals of this website is to make that data accessible.

Mr. Reiser, a GIS specialist and instructor at Rowan University, has identified a problem (inaccessible data), devised a solution (mapping and other data outputs), and implemented the solution (created a publicly accessible website).

I recently discussed NJ State Atlas with Mr. Reiser, who as a mapper, a seasoned navigator of the statewide data sea, and a web publisher is excited about the future of easily accessible data delivery to the masses.

TNWP: Please give us an overview of NJ State Atlas.

JR: NJ State Atlas is web-based interactive atlas of New Jersey. The focus of the atlas is to make geographic data throughout the state accessible.

TNWP: Why did you create NJ State Atlas?

JR: Several of the maps on the site were developed out of my own frustrations with publicly available GIS data. At all levels, government has been a source and repository of massive amounts of information. Freedom-of-information acts have helped make that information easier to access, and the internet has reduced the cost of distribution; however, just making data available is not enough.

Data must also be accessible to members of the public. GIS specialists have no qualms about downloading a shapefile and taking a look; however, a local resident wanting to know more about his or her town may not be able to make sense out of a shapefile. The State Plan maps and the Journey to Work diagrams are a direct result of my desire to make difficult data understandable.

TNWP: What are the most popular features on NJ State Atlas?

JR: The one map that usually receives the most traffic is the DOT webcam mashup. Real-time incident data and live highway cameras are overlaid on top of Google’s traffic data. The page is highly ranked for searches dealing with New Jersey traffic, but I’ve found that people tend to stay on the page and use the map.  The State Plan maps and the USGS Topographic maps are usually second and third.

TNWP: Although your site is easily accessible for anyone, it is quite useful for planning professionals. Have planners been receptive to NJ State Atlas?

JR: Planners have been using the site. The journey to work map doesn’t seem to get many hits from search engines; much of it is direct referrals - people bookmarking the site and returning for information.

When I was still in NJ State Government, I would often hear that people were using the NJ State Atlas map over the official locator. The HMFA locator still uses ArcIMS and is intolerably slow. I hope planners will continue to use the site, and if there’s anything I can add to it that would help them do their work more efficiently, I’d love to know.

TNWP: What are some of the challenges you have faced in the creation of the site, and what type of challenges do you anticipate in the future?

JR: Well, the first challenge is that it’s done entirely in my spare time. I’d love to do more with the site, but usually I’m bound by time constraints. The other major challenge is that its run entirely on shared-hosting. Most other web mapping applications are hosted on dedicated servers. Most software out there expects the user has access to the entire server.

I’d love to do much more with the site, but it’s an uphill battle just getting the software to run without root access. It’s really run on a shoestring budget.

TNWP: Speaking of the future, if you don’t mind sharing, what are your future plans for NJ State Atlas?

TNWP: Do you think govt will begin to embrace the type of technology you have used to create NJ State Atlas, or should we just except more private developers (like yourself) to innovate and create products that are useful to the public?

JR: The federal government is moving in that direction. There are a few interactive maps on whitehouse.gov and recovery.gov using both open source and ESRI web mapping technology to highlight some issue of national importance.

Speaking specifically to New Jersey, I hope that those that support government adoption of new ideas and technology push for that adoption - internally and externally.

State government is in sad shape. There is no ability to retain staff, and any concepts outside of the norm are not likely to be considered until after the election. In the absence of State Government being able to provide such services, I hope that other private developers throughout the State will continue to produce high-quality, interactive data applications that are free to use by the public.

TNWP: You have recently relocated from the New Brunswick area to South Jersey. I’m wondering, though, why you didn’t choose a location with top lottery winners, which your “Geography of Luck” feature provides.

JR: Well, you know, it is just random chance. I was greatly surprised that the instant win lottery winners tend to cluster around the urban areas. Is it that you’re more likely to stop in a convenience store and play a scratch off in an urban area, or is there some unintentional bias?

Pitman has historically won more than Glassboro. I guess I’ll have to buy tickets over there. They’re luckier.

TNWP: Where do you work, and how do you spend your free time?

JR: I am currently the GIS Support Specialist for the Geography Department at Rowan University. I was previously a Planning/GIS Specialist at the Office of Smart Growth. I spend my free time riding my bike, playing games, and thinking about maps.

TNWP: You’re obviously well versed in all facets of GIS. Do you provide freelance consulting services?

JR: I do provide consulting services. If you’d like me to develop an interactive web map for you, feel free to contact me. (You can use john@njgeo.org or (856) 347-0047)

Thanks for your time, John.

Mr. Reiser is a prime example of someone who sees the value in making the inaccessible accessible. He is democratizing data.

Luckily, transparency in government has become a rallying cry, and a variety of data can be easily procured through government information requests and produced into a user friendly platform.

However, while we applaud Mr. Reiser’s efforts, our government bodies should be creating similar applications.

Is this likely? Probably not in the immediate future, but as Gov 2.0 evangelists continue to hammer their mission nails into our government agencies, accessibility improvements may arise.

Nevertheless, it appears that private industry will continue to trump governmental effort, and even though we may feel that public sector should deliver useful online products, as long as the innovations are being released, the source should not matter.

If the public sector refuses to innovate, we should rest assured that individuals like Mr. Reiser will continue to fill the void.

Related posts on The New Wave Planner:

Maintenance Concern in San Francisco? Tweet @SF311

Government 2.0: It’s Time

The New Wave of Interactions

A win for urban planning: Supermarkets potentially on their way to New Jersey cities

Walk through the streets of Newark, Jersey City, Camden, Paterson, Atlantic City, or even a smaller city like New Brunswick, and look for a supermarket. Surely, you will find an abundance of markets, but how about the modern, well-stocked supermarkets—where you can get nutritious food at fair prices—that are ubiquitous in the suburbs?

Rare. Your search will likely be a failure.

The reasons? Plenty.

Businesses rely on revenue generation, and the spenders are likely to be found in the suburbs, where shoppers can park, grab a cart, and stock that cart with an abundance of fresh foods. From the pure economic standpoint, those with cars are likely to spend more money than their walking/biking counterparts, since there is more cargo space in which to transport the goods.

The suburbs are also ground zero for supermarkets because in New Jersey, that is where the money resides. It would be a poor business decision to open and upkeep a supermarket in an area where incomes are low.

Other concerns, whether mere perception or not, include higher insurance premiums and a likelihood of criminal activity.

We cannot blame supermarket companies for their lack of presence in urban areas. After all, it’s a business, and scare resources must be allotted where the spenders live.

However, we can blame all levels of government for not scheming up some inducements to lure supermarket chains into our cities.

Want to change existing land uses in our cities?

Provide the incentive.

Outlay grants and tax abatements; work with, rather than fight, developers with solid proposals; and fast track applications that will benefit our urban areas.

The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) is long-standing policy, with the goal of pulling development potential out of the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas and pushing it into the urban areas, where there is existing infrastructure and redevelopment is necessary. And, just recently, I wrote that the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009, which is an omnibus bill aimed at generating development activity in urban areas, is completely consistent with long-term smart growth and economic development goals.

How do supermarkets fit in with the SDRP and the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009? Just like why it is rare to find a supermarket in an urban area, there are plenty of reasons why they are needed in our cities.

The most important reason is access to healthy food options. With obesity and its concomitant health issues, it is imperative that city dwellers have the option of purchasing nutritious foods. I wrote about this need in a May 27 post, in which I cited a University of Alberta study that found that there is a direct linkage between land use and health problems.

The linkage is clear, according to Kim Raine, the lead author of the study:

When we reviewed the evidence we found, for example, that lower-income neighbourhoods were more likely to have greater access to sources of high-calorie foods, such as fast-food outlets, and lower access to supermarkets or other stores stocking healthy foods,” explained Raine. The report also found that a lower socio-economic status - which involves education level, income and employment - was often associated with increased obesity among both adults and children. “Lower personal income affects the affordability of food,” Raine said, “and that has been shown to have the most consistent influence on what people eat.

Therefore, logic dictates, the poorer you are in a city, the more likely that you will consume unhealthy foods and not have access to stores with nutritious food options.

What can be done from the land use perspective?

Recently, the New York City Department of City Planning, noting the dearth of healthy food options in economically depressed sections of the Five Boroughs, outlined a zoning strategy that removes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) controls on ground floor tenant space rented out to grocery stores.

In the same May 27 post, I wrote that the strategy “is an enormous financial benefit to landlords and developers,” as well as a “public health benefit,” since “granting zoning breaks to attract grocery stores is a huge (and obvious) step in combating against the daily junk food assault.” Moreover, there’s an economic development incentive, because grocery stores would not only benefit the existing residents, but they would also serve as a catalyst for a migration to the neighborhood and potentially new development.

Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, a nascent public-private partnership initiative is seeking to lure supermarket companies into urban areas, though low-interest loans funded by a seven million dollar contribution from the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), four million dollars from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA), and a seven million dollar investment from TRF, an investment group, according to a July 22, 2009 article in the Press of Atlantic City.

In Atlantic City, city officials are mulling over “tax abatements as a financial incentive for A&P,” and the CRDA “may offer A&P a mortgage abatement of up to $100,000,” said the article.

Some more noteworthy points from the article:

Supermarkets generate jobs, serve as a catalyst for economic development and provide access to food at affordable prices, said Odis Jones, director of urban development for the Economic Development Authority.

Donald Hinkle-Brown, president of lending and community investment at TRF, said New Jersey will be the second state behind Pennsylvania to have such a supermarket program. TRF has leveraged $30 million in state funding from Pennsylvania for $116 million of total investment for 70 grocery stores in the Keystone State.

As someone who is concerned about access to healthy food options (especially in urban areas, since they are surefire economic development generators), beyond the May 27 post, I’ve written about the need to save funding for the “Jersey Fresh” program, as well as the spike in urban farming.

I’m a firm believer that by locating ample grocery stores in our urban areas through government inducements, residents will be healthier and our cities will be more vibrant and suitable for residential development—both goals of the SDRP.

Although more information is needed to assess the NJ public-private partnership initiative and its potential impact on our cities, on its face, it’s innovative, sensible, and much-needed, especially since it meshes well with the SDRP and the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009.

A vote for The New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 is a vote for smart growth and economic development

New Jersey is not coping with the current global recession too well, and according to a July 9, 2009 article in the Newark Star-Ledger, it is among the states with the most critical budget shortfalls:

The state had to dig itself out of a projected shortfall of nearly 30 percent, or $8.8 billion, before passing the 2010 budget last month. That was the seventh-biggest gap in the nation, after California, Arizona, Nevada, Illinois, New York and Alaska, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

It’s easy to blame the politicians, but in this current economic environment, that argument does not carry much weight, considering the budgetary conditions across the county.

Certainly, both Democrats and Republicans carry a share of the blame, but it’s well beyond statewide politics.

If blame is to be pinned on politicians, it should fall on those who supported bank deregulation practices, as ultimately the near collapse of the banking system is what almost brought our county to the brink of an economic apocalypse.

Beyond the appropriations issues, there is a garden variety of other economic concerns in New Jersey, most of which are tied to disappearing jobs, with a current unemployment rate of 8.8% (compared to 9.4% nationally). Due to the widening recession, businesses will continue to economize, meaning that weekly jobless claims should continue to rise at record rates.

Moreover, due to fears of looming pay cuts or job cuts, people are now beginning to save money, something many have not done since the boom times—flush with easy money—began.

Lastly, with the commercial real estate industry on the verge of collapse nationwide due to, according to Jon Greenlee of the Federal Reserve, an accumulation of $3.5 trillion worth of debt, the fears are real in New Jersey, with “for rent” signs popping up within sprawling office parks located just off many of the interstates. Take a ride through any office park in suburban Central and Northern New Jersey to see for yourself.

What does all of this mean?

People cannot spend money in our communities if the income faucet is not flowing. Without sales, this puts our retailers in jeopardy, which begins another domino effect of job losses and suffering.

An easy solution?

None exist.

A workable solution?

Yes.

The New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009, aka A-4048/S-2299, passed both the Assembly and Senate on June 25, 2009 and is now awaiting action from Governor Jon Corzine.

An omnibus bill, it is an important piece of legislation that, according to the preamble, concerns:

[E]conomic development, job creation, economic growth, affordable housing, urban transit hub tax credits, expanding capacity and facilities at our institutions of higher education, bonding in certain planning areas, and exempting certain taxes and energy charges of certain manufacturing facilities; authorizing certain taxes and fees to fund redevelopment; amending and supplementing various section of the statutory law; and making an appropriation [$15 million to the “New Jersey Affordable Housing Trust Fund.]

The New Wave Planner wholeheartedly supports this legislation.

Recognizing the severity of the current economic crisis and its trickle down effect, businesses need a significant stimulation—not just window dressing—in order to both retain and hire new employees.

We need economic development to spur job retention and creation, and with a deepening crisis that is expected to continue and a state unemployment insurance fund that is running on fumes, the legislature acted quickly and appropriately in passing this bill.

Let’s dig into the state stimulus package, specifically how it seeks to spur economic development, while also artfully promoting smart growth practices.

The over-arching intent is to spark developer activity in urban areas, or those areas in the Metropolitan (PA-1) and Suburban (PA-2) Planning Areas, as identified within the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), though a cocktail of tax credits, an expansion of the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit, and a temporary relief from non-residential affordable housing fees.

Clearly, this stimulus has deep roots in smart growth policy, as dictated by the SDRP, the visionary document that is intended to shape the future development of the state by identifying where development should and should not occur.

Designated by “Planning Areas,” with 1 being the area in which the most development should occur and 5, of course, where the least should occur, the paramount goal is to balance development with the protection of open space and rural areas.

Therefore, the document encourages development in areas with existing infrastructure (urban and some suburban areas), so as to lessen the overall cost to municipalities, where access to public transportation is available and people have access to goods and services within walking distance of their homes—therefore, not having to rely on personal automobiles, thus reducing traffic and air pollution.

The problem, however, is actually stoking the development in portions of our urban communities (such as Newark, Paterson, Camden, and Trenton, to name a few), and without an inducement, especially in this economic climate with bank funding scarce, positive change is unlikely.

Luckily, this legislation contains the requisite inducement.

The most generous and innovative aspects of the stimulus legislation is the creation of the Economic Redevelopment and Growth Grant (ERGG) program for areas within the PA-1 and PA-2, with the purpose of, according to the bill, “encouraging redevelopment projects in [a municipality] through the provision of incentive grants to reimburse developers for all or a portion of the project financing gap for such programs.”

Coupled with the expansion of the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit program, which encourages economic development in nine urban communities within 1/2 mile of the train station, including Camden, East Orange, Elizabeth, Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, New Brunswick, Paterson, and Trenton, through tax credits up to, in some instances, 100% of capital improvements within a eight year period (subject to minimum employment thresholds), the state stimulus package is mindful of where the jobs are needed and should be located.

How will these grants be funded? Directly from the taxes generated from the new developments that will follow as a result of the stimulus. Inducement for redevelopment projects in the state’s urban areas, especially in this economic climate, must be derived from an innovative program, and ERGG helps to fulfill this mission.

Ironically, the properties that developers avoided during the boom times of the past decade or so may be the same ones that help turnaround the current statewide economic ills.

It’s clear: with rising costs of materials, the burgeoning green movement, and statewide and federal policy anti-sprawl policy, the new waves of development will take the shape of redevelopment in our urban areas, where the infrastructure exists and where people can live, work, and play without a heavy reliance on the automobile.

Provide the incentives now in the lean times to develop, and once the economy rebounds, the foundation will have already been established, thus lessening the cost and hurdle of future development projects. This is smart growth in action.

Critics have emerged, with contention ranging from environmental to funding to affordable housing concerns. With most of the attention geared toward development in urban areas, the environmental issues are minimal, as the SDRP dictates that most of the future development should occur within PA-1 and PA-2.

Affordable housing, always a hot button issue in New Jersey, will be protected, as the legislation appropriates $15 million into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in order to recoup a portion of payments that will be lost to the temporary relief from non-residential affordable housing fee provision of the bill. Nevertheless, the office and commercial construction will invariably stoke residential construction, which will require 20% affordable housing set-asides or a payment into the municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund per each new development.

While funding is an immediate concern, since grant money is to be paid through individual ERGG programs within municipalities, in the long-term, once the taxes are generated from new development, money will flow back into municipal coffers.

Naysayers have suggested that the ERGG will siphon money away from municipal services; however, by granting money to development projects within urban areas, consistent with the intention of the SDRP, this will stimulate growth throughout New Jersey’s municipalities, from the high-rise office building to the mom-and-pop shops dotting the business districts, thereby helping to pull the state out of the current economic mess

The New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will help us get through these tough times, ultimately stimulating job creation, new construction in our urban areas that are well served by infrastructure and transit, and fulfilling smart growth goals.

—-

Related Posts:

Once again, the baby boomers are changing housing

So what is age-targted housing?

SO WHAT IS AGE-TARGETED HOUSING?

In my March 20, 2009 piece, I opined as to why, due to the economic downturn, a  shift in housing preferences, and various other reasons, municipalities should lift age restrictions on previously approved developments in an effort to stimulate development and improve communities.

If the bill in support of lifting the age restrictions meanders its way through the New Jersey Legislature successfully and is signed into law by Governor Corzine, then this will become reality.

The New Wave Planner supports this measure wholeheartedly.

But, wait a second.

Shouldn’t all of the 565 municipalities within the Great State of New Jersey be fearful of such a bill that could result in more children within the 616 school districts (yes, this is not a typo; New Jersey has 565 municipalities and 616 school districts), increased demands on municipal services, and therefore spikes to already burdensome property tax bills—all in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

This just doesn’t sound right.

Some politicians are against lifting these restrictions, and I cannot blame them for one reason: for better or worse, it’s what they have to do.

I understand the political intricacies in New Jersey—which is a “home rule” state, meaning that a lot of power is vested in local government—and like anything else, it boils down to being “all part of the game.” In order to save face with their constituencies, Mayors have to sometimes vocalize their disagreements relating to certain initiatives, especially on such an issue that is so volatile in New Jersey.

The public perception is that “property taxes” and “school age children” are both dirty words, and as such, understanding local politics, speaking out against this is just a method through which one can ultimately win the game.

However, as I will now argue, not supporting a lift on restrictions could actually be detrimental to communities, given that, even though there are public perceptions to the contrary, “age-targeted” communities do not place excessive demands on municipal services and school systems.

So, what is an age-targeted community?

Understandably, there is much confusion with respect to the difference between age-restricted—developments that are restricted to those 55+ and have specific amenities catering to that cohort—and age-targeted communities.

In an October 2, 2008 Asbury Park Press article, “Age restriction becoming a drag,” Linda Bernaski, president of the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey, noted that wholly age-restricted communities have been well known among municipal elected officials as being the most attractive residential land use, mainly due to a lack of children burdening school districts, which is one of the reasons for New Jersey’s high property taxes.

While certainly a valid concern, a designation change to age-targeted does not open the proverbial flood gates of families with school-age children rushing into these types of developments. In the current marketplace, the emphasis is not primarily on age, but rather on the quality of the living experience.

Age-targeted communities are designed and positioned to attract mature households, but they are not marketed as 55+ communities. Tracy Cross, a housing consultant and president of Tracy Cross & Associates, Inc., noted, in a September 18, 2005 Chicago Tribune article, “Do you want age-restricted or age-targeted?,”  that “almost any condo is, by nature, age-targeted,” since the “newer condo buildings have the features that an older person would be looking for, such as an elevator and outdoor maintenance.” Other characteristic amenities include, but are not limited to, indoor or structured parking, master bedroom suites located on the same floor as the living room, dining room and kitchen to minimize the requirement of stair usage, modest bedroom capacities consisting primarily of one and two-bedroom floor plans; en-suite bathrooms that are captive to the bedroom areas to which they are attached, and the lack of exterior recreational facilities designed for the use by children.

Even though age-targeted communities do not prohibit those age 55 or under, the use of affirmative marketing techniques, such as using buzzwords like “care-free living” and “maintenance-free living,” appears to attract a market share that does not include couples with school-age children.

A potential explanation for the predominant market share of couples without children is the psychological impact of the types of words associated with aging. Bill Feinberg, whose Philadelphia-based consulting firm Feinberg & Associates works with several builders, stated that half of the people whom his firm interviewed in four focus groups in 2004 said they were not interested in any community labeled “age-restricted,” as discussed in a January 2004 article in Builder. Age-targeted communities also attract younger couples without children for similar reasons.

Doris Pearlman, a real estate and design industry veteran, in January 30, 1998 article in RealtyTimes, “Emerging Buyer Profiles: Who Will Dominate Tomorrow’s Market?,” opined that the demographics of housing changed during the late 1990s, when “buyer profiles started combining and recombining.” Up until the late 1990s, according to Pearlman, the industry had been generally traditional, consisting mostly of “first-time buyers, move-up buyers, third-time buyers, or middle-age high-achievers.” The late 1990s and early 2000s, which coincided with the oldest baby boomers becoming empty nesters, saw a shift in the dynamic, with “full-circle buyers” (older couples that are not ready to purchase a unit in a retirement community) vying for homes not just with first-time buyers (reflecting the commonly known desire to downsize homes to minimize unneeded space and costs associated with larger homes), but with “free-spirit buyers,” “who may be divorcees with children, same-sex couples, unmarried but related roommates, or the so-called “dinks” (double income, no kids).

Although this example of shifting housing tastes is broad and not necessarily applicable to any specific housing type, it demonstrates the dynamic nature of demographic changes over the past decade, and the blending of cohorts that are seeking similar housing experiences.

While there are no widely available demographic multipliers for the relatively new age-targeted market, the fact that apartment/condominium living imparts a slight impact on a school district, compared to that of single-family homes, is a substantive argument in favor of a change to age-targeted housing.

The Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University publishes demographic multipliers that are widely considered the de facto source for housing demographic profiling information in New Jersey. According to page 6 of the November 2006 release,  Who Lives in New Jersey Housing, “in general, detached housing currently produces the highest number of residents and pupils compared to attached homes. Detached homes with more (4-5) bedrooms have the relatively largest household size and pupil generation.” However, it continues, “common types and configurations of attached housing, such as 2-to-3 bedroom townhouses and 1-to-2 bedroom multifamily units, have a relatively low demographic impact.” Parenthetically, it should be noted that the study notes that “demographic multipliers need to be continuously updated, refined and tested” (page 7) and “for best results, the state-level data presented here should be supplemented by local analysis” (page 8).

Nevertheless, the amenities prototypical of age-targeted communities simply do not attract households with school-age children.

Based on all of the quantitative and qualitative evidence presented herein, age-targeted communities do not present the commonly perceived deleterious impacts on communities. Especially in NJ, a state that has been losing residents for years and is now being hit with residential and non-residential development projects alike that are not moving through the market, it is imperative to work with the development community to devise an equitable and feasible solution for all parties, and the current bill in the New Jersey Legislature would do just that.

Once again, the baby boomers are changing housing

The post World War II American story is well known. With the GIs returning home en mass immediately following the end of World War II and fueled by a sense of optimism for a bright future, marriage rates increased steadily, city population declined, and the baby boom generation exploded onto the scene.

As a result, quality housing for the influx of new families became the salient issue, as demand exceeded supply tremendously. Iconic developers, such as Levitt & Sons, Inc., seized the opportunity to fulfill a market void by constructing mass-produced suburbs, produced under the tenets of speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Other developers quickly followed and continued to meet the demand, thus creating the archetypal suburbs, which still live on in the 21^st century.

The story of the baby boomer generation is similarly well known. With their sheer numbers, their middle class suburban upbringing, the innumerable social movements that characterized that 1960s and 1970s, and their education and affluence, the baby boomers changed everything in their path. Just like their parents—and even more so—the housing market adapted to their desires, beginning with the garden apartment movement in the 1970s when most were just starting out, peaking in the 1990s with the McMansion craze at the peak of their earning power, and now, for some, transitioning to a desire to down-scale and live in communities that were built specifically for them. In a 1990 New York Times article, James W. Hughes, then chairman of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, noted that, by the year 2000, “the broad maturing middle-age population is going to do to the upper end of the housing market what they did to the school systems in the 1960s – push it to the limits.” His 1990 analysis was certainly prophetic, with a housing bubble forming in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and an accelerating age-restricted marketplace.

However, with the recent over-arching economic troubles, the housing industry has been hit hard, with developers seeking creative measures to retain as much solvency as possible in their ventures, especially in the age-restricted housing market. Since 2005, when the deterioration of the housing market began, it has been widely reported that sales have declined, inventory has risen, and as a result, home prices have declined. Once again, baby boomers and those slightly older are entrenched in this latest housing phenomenon, as some older people have begun to leave New Jersey for cheaper and warmer locales at a steadily increasing rate, while others have had an increasing preference to age in-place. With the influx of housing inventory, some baby boomers have also been unable to sell their present homes, forcing them to re-think housing changes.

As such, with baby boomers again reshaping the housing market and the affinity towards age-restricted communities beginning to wane in this economic downturn, developers are beginning to wonder how to tackle this issue, with some seeking to remove the age-restriction on their communities and replace with either an open market or an age-targeted designation.

According to Jeffery Otteau, a leading market analyst and proprietor of Otteau Valuation Group, Inc., in New Jersey, there are numerous projects for which age-restrictions have been lifted or lowered, including those in Maplewood, Fort Lee, Hackettstown, Mountain Lakes, Bound Brook, Princeton Township, Morris Township, Pine Hill Township, and Riverdale Borough. With the impacts of the recession hitting New Jersey relatively hard, municipalities cannot afford to let some newly built communities to amble on with low occupancies.

With economic feasibility becoming an issue for age-restricted housing, due to a lack of interest in bank financing due to higher construction costs, discounted market pricing, and an oversupply of projects, age-targeted housing is becoming an attractive option.

New Jersey lawmakers are now starting to realize that vacant, unfinished, or minimally populated developments present a complex trifecta—physical, psychological, and political—of problems. The experts agree that there is an abundant supply of age-restricted housing, and in my opinion, to just let projects remain in a static state is an untenable position.

So, what’s the solution? Lift the age-restriction on housing reserved for those 55 and older, lawmakers say, and in doing so, require that the developer set-aside 20% for affordable housing. All in all, if executed property, it’s a perfect carrot-and-stick approach. Not only would this serve as an inducement for bank lending and smelling salts for dormant developers, but it would also create more construction jobs and, perhaps most importantly, inspire some confidence in the people. Never discount the psychological impact of seeing active construction sites in a down economy.

Naturally, the opponents have emerged, and the paramount point of contention is that lifting the age-restrictions would result in an influx of school-age children into local school systems, thus potentially spiking already onerous property taxes. Certainly a way to strike fear into the millions of NJ residents paying exorbitant property taxes, but it’s a misinformed statement.

As I will demonstrate in an upcoming post, couples with school-age children are not generally drawn to developments originally designed for the 55+ cohort, as the living arrangments and amenities are simply not tailored to a family lifestyle.

Welcome, age-targeted housing.