I'm completely in favor of plans to re-energize downtown Summit, but, a main concern of mine to the plan as described would be inclusion in the plan for any developers/builders to pay into the educational system of the city. For, even though there seems a sense that Summit's schools are need of some attention, these sorts of starter apartments would undoubtedly be attractive to younger families and the "good" school system would be used as a marketing tool.

I totally agree with Eileen. I actually lived in Journal Square (one of the transit village mentioned above) for 5 years, where I could have bought a place at fraction of my current house price just 3 minute walking to the path station, but I choose to buy a house in summit and move family here because it is DIFFERENT on the good side---we have a quiet, easy-going downtown, everybody pays a decent share to maintain our quality school system. It's amazing to hear that argument "There really is no downside (for Summit),” from the planning board, of course there is: the depressed property value affected by the newly developed starter units lured with state aid and the crowded school system will be our downside!

I disagree with the over-blown concerns of both Eileen and Josh. In fact, the baseless claim of lost property value due to reinvestment initiatives is potentially more damaging to property value. Summit is a mature community with stable residential neighborhoods. The built fabric of the city includes multi-unit residential properties with densities from 8 to 52 units per acre. Except for a few properties nearing the end of their economic life, most fit quite nicely in with their neighbors. Summit has very few infill opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment. The community is better served by a sensible discussion of progressive development possibilities.

Mr Steelman, based on the info I recall from other comments, you are a resident of Chatham and works in the builder business, isn't it make sense for you to sell and test your same opinions for building Chatham transit village first?

Dear Mr. Steelmam,
I hardly think my comment was "overblown," and I hardly think a consideration - which seems sorely lacking in the plan - for the practicalities of a drain on the community's resources (schools, police, fire, parking) of more densely populating the city center - are out of line for a tax-payer and voter of the town in question - to want information on. As I said, I'm in favor of reenergizing the downtown, but I'm in favor of a very well-vetted plan that's open for discussion.

Mr Steelman,
With all due respect, the only thing I'm "inhaling" is your pompous and cavalier attitude. I agree any plan for anything should be well thought out and that is why I am asking these questions. Perhaps you could try answering them as a proponent of the project rather than brushing off the seeker of information.

Let's see if I have this correct? Someone disagrees with your viewpoint they are "pompous & cavalier" whereas you are the ultimate seeker of information. Presumably only when it supports your opinions.

"Ressummit" I'd actually reply if you were brave enough to use your name.

Enough with the name thing. If you object to the policy of anonymous postings then restrict your postings to The Alternative Press or The Independent Press. Once again I do not see you complaining about anonymous postings when they support your viewpoint. Let's be consistent.

"Ressummit" I reiterate that I'd actually reply if you were brave enough to use your name and add something substantive to the conversation.

I raise your reiterate and reject your assertion as unsubstantive!

Eileen, If you knew me you’d have harsher adjectives. If it’s all the same to you, I’d prefer the classier French expression for pompous, a Moutardier du Pape.

I agree with Eileen here. Let's remember, not everything that goes on in Summit is well known by all residents until its a done deal. I've never heard a word about this Transit Village and also have many questions. I think its perfectly valid for a resident to raise questions, especially as it relates to any potential drain on community resources. A quick read of the Patch over the past 6 months is all about such issues.. not enough police, issues related to the schools. If the estimated tax revenue would go towards building up these resources, then great.. but we need more details.

Also, what happens to the green and Mabie park? Are they affected? Perhaps I would have attended meetings if I even knew about the concept.

Eileen - w/ regard to anonymous posting. I give you all the credit in the world, but I have to agree w/ many who post anonymously for concern about retribution towards their children when they discuss issues associated w/ the schools. I think its a valid concern.

Thank you, Lisa;  I don't even mean for agreeing with me or using a name I'm assuming is yours!
With my original post I was merely making an observation and seeking information which is lacking in this article and not available on the city's website.  I've written in to them to seek that information and if it's provided I will happily post here.  It seems a troubling pattern, tho, in local politics, this repeated lack of transparency.  And unfortunately I am unable to attend every meeting so as to keep apprised of council's going's on so must get me news from sources such as this here Patch or the local papers.
As far as the use of Internet aliases, I can't understand feeling like we live in America and yet people are afraid to speak their minds with full identification.  Perhaps because I've never really worked at being "likable" and tend to be a "squeaky wheel" in any case, I'd never dream of jumping on someone on the internet (or even behind their backs) when I feel comfortable honestly confronting a problem.  I'm saddened fellow citizens seem to disagree.  Our freedom to engage in public discourse is something many have died for, continue to risk their lives for and it dishonors them to hide behind electronic masks. If there have been cases of retribution at school that's a travesty and makes me wonder why Summit's wasting time trying to teach our children not to be bullies when it's their parents and the staff we should be re-educating.

summit43, here's evidence that would lead someone to question whether or not a plan has been well thought out. Who decided that it would be a good idea to put the left turn lanes at the intersection of Summit & Springfield Ave. w/o a left turn arrow signal to go w/ it? In fact it was done just weeks after the town installed new street lights that didn't include the left turn signal.. That is not a well thought out plan..

My fiance and I moved here from Jersey City because the extra cost of living and longer commute meant more space and a nicer, safer town. It's the pace of life I wanted: plenty of transit options, basic amenities in downtown, and short drive from everything else. Even our apartment building is very small, private, and well-manicured. I do think, though, that there seems to be a missing sense of community unless you have children in the schools. Not to say that we'd like a bar scene or anything like New Brunswick or Morristown have, but it really does feel like there aren't that many 25-35 childless families here. We often end up going to Westfield or even Cranford just to feel a little more in our element. Its got us wondering why we don't just move there and have the best of both worlds (answer: the trains).

That being said, let's be honest. The town is stable and offers a lot, and yet there are huge stretches near the train station that would be very attractive places to live if there were better housing options or even a place to buy vegetables after 4pm. It's nice to see Summit Place open up, and I can't blame a developer for finding the area attractive. Ultimately, though, I would hate for Summit to lose its suburban character. Those condos in Morristown are just about the ugliest things I've ever seen and don't fit the character of the town AT ALL, and as I recall plenty of storefront right there by the train station is still not leased.

These comments are a top 10 list of why citizenship should have a more rigorous literacy requirement. Commercial and residential owners pay property taxes according to value; ergo, they support our schools. Bigger is better for this purpose. The article is a bit misleading (you expect the NY Times?), but Transit Village designation won't permit or require any particular project, as zoning requirements and limits still apply. Sorry, no skyscrapers on the Village Green. Public meetings have their agendas published in advance. You all seem to be at least computer literate enough to find those on the city website. If you choose to remain uninformed, you've ratified the decisions of your elected and appointed representatives who actually got off their duffs to learn what they could and make their best judgment. I think these meetings are even televised, so even the most slothful among us has little excuse to remain misinformed. But hey, why not demonstrate your lack of effort by waiting to whine about it and make accusations about the lack of "transparency" after the fact. Most of us can tell the difference between questions to get informed and baseless criticism. As a postscrip, people with political agendas are far more untrustworthy than anonymous posters. At least the timid majority tends to say what they really think.

I heard back from City Hall today and wanted to share the response as I said I would. I'm fairly appeased by the response.

"The Transit Village designation does not impart any changes to City zoning for the downtown, and does not incorporate any additional housing above what the current zoning would allow.

There may be very slight changes to some design standards, but nothing that would affect the number of students attending Summit schools.

Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions.

Regards
Gary Lewis
Construction Official"

Thanks for sharing that Eileen.

My pleasure.