If it was up to you where should they go? So

amother

Apricot

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:52 am

This is not only a frum issue. I live in a suburban area near a university. Lately a few housing complexes for students have opened. There are no sidewalks here because people drive. But the students walk to campus and back and it’s gotten so dangerous. There isn’t proper lighting at night and everyone who drives is so scared to hit someone. The students are also louder than a residential neighborhood wants. A developer is trying to get approval for more student housing and the locals are fighting against them getting zoning. I see tons of lawn signs about Vote No and Facebook posts about going to town meetings to protest. If the town wants the development at the very least they should make the developer help pay for safety things like putting in sidewalks, maybe traffic lights on some places where there are only stop signs. Limit the growth so the infrastructure has time to keep up.

GetReal

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:53 am

southernbubby wrote:

Under the table deals. The question is being asked how a condo complex was built that collapsed on it's sleeping inhabitants less than 40 years later. It looks like something fishy was going on.

Instead of being annoyed at individual families looking for somewhere to live maybe we should be annoyed at local government allowing this to happen.

Mommyg8

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:54 am

GetReal wrote:

Instead of being annoyed at individual families looking for somewhere to live maybe we should be annoyed at local government allowing this to happen.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue (and I really hope I'm anonymous here). At the end of the day though, this is not about who's fault this is, it's about the reality.

GetReal

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:59 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

This is pretty much the crux of the issue (and I really hope I'm anonymous here). At the end of the day though, this is not about who's fault this is, it's about the reality.

.

But people who live in those areas can vote for more responsible representatives.

amother

Salmon

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:59 am

PinkFridge wrote:

But you have this. You have people moving to Manchester (Lakewood) and new suburbs of Monsey.

And those people will still shop at Monsey and Lakewood stores and use their schools. Manchester and Monsey suburbs don’t have their own infrastructure.

southernbubby

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 5:59 am

amother [ Apricot ] wrote:

💯%
NIMBY can apply to many types of situations. A whole community of people who don't send to local schools, vote as a block, snarl traffic and in general lives like a sovereign country is not attractive to outsiders.

southernbubby

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 6:05 am

GetReal wrote:

Instead of being annoyed at individual families looking for somewhere to live maybe we should be annoyed at local government allowing this to happen.

Probably those people who make money off of these developments are the ones giving money to the yeshivas and other causes.

ecs

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 6:42 am

I have no connection to lakewood or monsey but this whole situation makes zero sense. How are developers not made to pay for more school buildings at the very least? For every house built they should pay x amount towards construction of a new school building to accommodate the family occupying the house. In Kj For instance there is a huge new development coming up which was mostly sold to Brooklyn families. Before breaking ground, the developer donated 2 million dollars towards construction of new school buildings. Otherwise, Knowing they have no schools for their children, no one would have bought the apartments. If that doesn't happen, I think a flat rate fee should be collected from every new family in town towards infrastructure before their kids are accepted to mosdos.

amother

Pearl

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:24 am

ecs wrote:

The schools all have building funds that everyone needs to pay into, regardless of whether you were born in Lakewood or not. Insisting that the builders also help pay for new buildings is a great idea. I don’t see how you can put that burden on individual families. But the builders can certainly afford it and they are the ones bringing all these new families to town.

amother

Mulberry

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:31 am

amother [ Pearl ] wrote:

To get a new school off the ground or expand a school takes a tremendous amount of money. Building funds aren’t starting a new school.
Many high schools have 40-50 girls in a clas!! It’s cheaper to make classrooms bigger then build new buildings and get staff for a small new school.
I asked my dd elemtary school why they don’t have a high school. They told me with the cost of land, buildings, starting a staff the first year would cost 2 million before tuition. He said if someone would donate they could do it but they are already strapped doing fundraising for elementary school.

Do you think we need more schools or should our schools grow to 40 kids per classroom and 20 classes per school. I can’t imagine parents want that. Parents in schools that grew to 10 classes in 12 years aren’t thrilled. A school has to extremely well run to be on top of every student at that size.

Who is funding new schools to get started?

amother

Salmon

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:33 am

amother [ Goldenrod ] wrote:

Because there are no available areas. I looked into multiple states. Certain jobs have to stick to big cities. And you can't just move out to a random place that has no mikvah, shul or school. Even to get 10 people together to move somewhere new is a huge deal. Jews need to go where they can be frum. We are finally building up our nation it's just so sad to see people angry about it. People will move to areas near developed areas and they will slowly add their own infrastructure like schools and mikvaos. But in the meantime they don't need to move to rural kansas until it happens.

Cleveland is a big city. So is Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Baltimore. And so on. New York is not our country’s only metro area.

southernbubby

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:33 am

ecs wrote:

If a random person sells his house to a developer who turns the property into condos, that developer doesn't owe anything to the community.
I am posting from a bungalow colony. To purchase a bungalow, the buyer has to agree to pay fees for the upkeep of a shul, camp, and other communal structures and activities. There is no way, however, to require that of somebody who is merely flipping random property. What if a non Jew buys it and turns it into condos to sell to Jews? For him it's a business deal, not an obligation so we can't tell the Jew that he must provide a yeshiva for the people that he sells a condo to.

amother

Blush

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:48 am

amother [ Pearl ] wrote:

How could you legally enforce something like that, though?
This is not something the government cares about, unless you are talking public schools. (And why should they?)

ecs

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:50 am

southernbubby wrote:

Then the people buying the condos can't expect private schools to take them. Money simply doesn't grow on trees.

amother

Aster

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 7:51 am

Yes talk to your elected and non elected officials.
This is not a "jewish" issue.
Rather one of infrastructure.
In many places legal zoning requires development must go hand in hand with infrastructure expansion commensurate such as roads.
Were non jews moving in while it would not impact jewish schools traffic and the like would be impacted just the same.
Hence municipalities' responsibility.

ecs

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 8:05 am

But the school issue is uniquely jewish. I think it makes a lot of sense for either the developer or the family moving in to be responsible to contribute more financially to the building of new schools than the people living in the town for years.

amother

Jetblack

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 8:37 am

I used to think that there was no brains behind the out of control Lakewood building then I read Suburban nation and saw that every thing the book said not to do Lakewood had to do it.

There are some towns that require builders to pay for the infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks, ect. Lakewood said a few years ago that they are going to require builders to do this. What an uproar there was, all these fee’s will make houses more unaffordable, some builders said they are going to take the town to court because it is illegal, I don’t know what happened after that.

In Lakewood if you build a certain amount of houses you need to put in a community center and playground. To get around this requirement some builders just get there developments approved piecemeal. Other times developments can get changes as they are build.

Look at Oak and Vine according to the town the owners and the town came to a meeting were they came to make it good for both parties. Apparently the person coming for the town was absent, a lot of the stuff that was not pro town was approved(like why is there no left and right turn on Broadway) other stuff was changed after the houses were started to be build. Maybe that is why people are fed up.

southernbubby

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 10:32 am

[quote="amother [ Linen ]"] LOL

[/quote

If they were merely ripping off the community, how far would they get? It's probably worth it for those in the know to stay quiet. Is someone who's property value might go down as a result of overbuilding going to keep his mouth shut if there is nothing in it for him? What if overbuilding causes the quality of the yeshiva that he pays blood money to goes down? Unless there is some compensation for what he loses, can we count on the homeowner to keep his mouth shut? Are there people who feel like their own quality of life is enhanced by crowds, garbage and traffic if the upside is having more frum neighbors? Maybe some people love living on top of each other and enjoy the morning honking fest when the school busses can't pass the garbage truck and the construction vehicles. Maybe that beats living in an out of town community where there are a few frum people on every street.
There has to be something that makes it worth it and nobody can tell someone not to move in.

naturalmom5

Mon, Aug 02 2021, 11:12 am

ecs wrote:

And Israel and Gaza should just become best friends because , they will both benefit financially and in many ways
What are they thinking... Can't Believe It