Update on new housing/commercial space proposal for Manchester

GermanG

Piney
Apr 2, 2005
1,151
501
Little Egg Harbor

I could not agree more. I was skeptical of this program at its inception, as I am of most new ventures which any level of government attempts, but it has been tremendously successful. I find it hard to keep track of all the recent acquisitions and am impressed by the number of new brown Natural Land Trust signs I encounter as I travel the county. That doesn't mean the other losses are not significant however. It's not just a matter of acreage lost but the fragmentation of what's left that has serious consequences for many animal and plant species. The fight to protect what's left can't let up.
 

46er

Piney
Mar 24, 2004
8,837
2,144
Coastal NJ
I could not agree more. I was skeptical of this program at its inception, as I am of most new ventures which any level of government attempts, but it has been tremendously successful.

Bartlett is the driving force behind it. Hope he beats his latest issue.
 

46er

Piney
Mar 24, 2004
8,837
2,144
Coastal NJ
The fight to protect what's left can't let up.

I seriously doubt all that is left could or will be protected, and it shouldn't be. You sound like an environmentalist ;) As for this project, better in this location than somewhere that is virgin or has no sprawl. At least here it just fills in the hole and becomes just another piece of the existing sprawl, that would never become a public access site. The people in Manchester may suffer a bit, but they do now, look at the satellite shot of that area. With the Joint Base, the county landfill, the Ciba property, that property and all the retirement communities, there is no mistaking any part of it for wildness in any form.

163467959.jpg
 
Feb 1, 2016
273
133
54
Camden County, NJ
46er, At this 7300 acre site in 2004, Hovson, Inc (the landowner). , DEP, State Pinelands Commission and Manchester all agreed to a scaled-down development plan for 2,450 homes and 20,000 square feet of commercial development to be built on 900 acres. About 6,400 acres would be dedicated as open space. That plan is still approved. This new application of 6,543 homes, 1 million sq. ft industrial and 1 millions sq, ft commercial and reducing the open space component to 2,000 acres is a massive increase and will most certainly impact local taxes for infrastructure development and support (schools, police, fire, etc). Resultant impact on water table and threatened and endangered species in the open space area is concern as well. I have no financial or immediate personal gain either way, it is unlikely that I will be in that area anytime soon, but from a Pinelands National Preserve and South Jersey citizen perspective I hope that DEP rejects this larger development.
 

Piney4life

Explorer
Oct 8, 2015
381
128
52
Waterford
46er, At this 7300 acre site in 2004, Hovson, Inc (the landowner). , DEP, State Pinelands Commission and Manchester all agreed to a scaled-down development plan for 2,450 homes and 20,000 square feet of commercial development to be built on 900 acres. About 6,400 acres would be dedicated as open space. That plan is still approved. This new application of 6,543 homes, 1 million sq. ft industrial and 1 millions sq, ft commercial and reducing the open space component to 2,000 acres is a massive increase and will most certainly impact local taxes for infrastructure development and support (schools, police, fire, etc). Resultant impact on water table and threatened and endangered species in the open space area is concern as well. I have no financial or immediate personal gain either way, it is unlikely that I will be in that area anytime soon, but from a Pinelands National Preserve and South Jersey citizen perspective I hope that DEP rejects this larger development.
What is the total size of the property?
 

GermanG

Piney
Apr 2, 2005
1,151
501
Little Egg Harbor
I reject the idea that sites such as this have little value other than for the proposed use. While areas impacted this severely certainly don't bounce back as quickly as a burned or logged site might, it is no more impacted than much of the Northern Hemisphere was after several scourings by glacial activity. The same people who have fits at the sight of a recently clearcut forest don't bat an eye at a harvested cornfield. Humans have a funny way of looking at time from their own narrow perspective.

PineBarrensAdvocate touched on several negative impacts, not the least which is that on the aquifer. Do you know what the number one pastime of the residents of these developments is? Growing the perfect lawn. And it's no secret what that requires. A fragile aquifer separated from the surface by very porous soil is very much at risk from such activity.

I'll also suggest that potential lack of public access is a somewhat selfish reason to write off a site. And not wilderness? Perhaps, but that concept devalues many other open spaces all over the state. Try telling the residents of NYC that Central Park would be better off being developed because it is not wilderness.
 

46er

Piney
Mar 24, 2004
8,837
2,144
Coastal NJ
I reject the idea that sites such as this have little value other than for the proposed use. While areas impacted this severely certainly don't bounce back as quickly as a burned or logged site might...

Given that mining ceased in 1982 and Hovnanian bought the place in 1984 tells me that no one other than Hovnanian perceived any value to it. It has sat as a blight for over 30 years.

Some don't bounce back at all, just look up RT37 a few miles. Time will tell, I suspect they will go with the original plan should the DEP deny this one, and then the courts will become involved. Probably an intermittent newspaper story for the next 5-10 years. I don't see how anyone would want to live or have a business there, but apparently Hovnanian does.
 
Top