I would like to thank the Radburn Board of Trustees for all of their hard work over the years to bring us to this point. This contract represents a significant improvement to the original contract. I'm looking forward to the day when we can welcome new neighbors to Radburn and into Fair Lawn.

Now, more hard work is on the horizon as the concept for construction and its finer points can be discussed in detail. It's my hope that all parties involved will express their opinions and their concerns with courtesy and respect for their neighbors. The time for rancorous debate is over. I look forward to watching the old wounds heal as we finally step into what will be a bright new future for our community.

This development will result in 300 more cars in the Radburn area of Fair Lawn, more frequent flooding, overcrowding in schools, stretched municipal services, and the increased budgets (taxes) to deal with it -- problems that all of Fair Lawn will have to deal with. Numerous studies show that high-density developments of this type cost more in schools and services than they generate in taxes. There's even a name for it: "The Ratables Chase." This is a deal that was forced through to make a few people a lot of money, and has been driven thus far by spin, manipulation and the greedy maneuvers of high-priced lawyers. It is a slap in the face to the people of Fair Lawn.

Thanks trustees. It's been clear from your statements that most of you don't even fully understand the issues and options. One of you even said that you were afraid that the Trust for Public land, which was interested in purchasing Daly at market value, would possibly build on the property, when a few minutes of homework would have revealed to you that TPL's charter requires at it purchase land for preservation only. Your actions will cast a dark shadow over Fair Lawn for generations.

Personally, I'd like to thank the trustees for creating a disaster not only for Radburn but for all of Fair Lawn. The original plan I saw 6 years ago had 175 units. This plan has 165-minimum. How is this better? The contract for four years also means Radburn cannot negotiate with another party, such as a developer for a less dense project or the Trust for Public Land as a park. Who would go into any kind of business deal with these stipulations? The board voted last night without even knowing who would own the sidewalks and such and who would be liable for injury. This self-perpetuating clique of people should be more than ashamed of themselves.

These distrustees, as I prefer to call them, have sold my property values and quality of life down the river. Isn't that a breach of their fiduciary duty? If anyone truly wanted the community to heal, they would put this project up for a vote, both within Radburn and the town of Fair Lawn. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I don't for see Radburnites holding hands and singing Kumbayah anytime soon. RIP Stein and Wright.

I agree David. The trustees, many of whom are not the folks who were appointed when the original contract was signed have put forth a beautiful 4th neighborhood and I am glad to see we are moving forward. Kudos to the trustees who have endured relentless hostilities to preserve over 50% of the property as open space.

wow, that's racism at it's best.

for those folks who may not know this, there is a dedicated Facebook page for Keeping Daly Field Green. Please come visit it.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=88255348777

In response to Mr. Weiss' comment about legal fees. It was Landmark Developers who sued the taxpayers of Fair Lawn with a builder's remedy lawsuit. Judge Harris' ruling mandated a COAH master, also paid for by the taxpayers which resulted in zoning all over town to comply with COAH unmet needs, based on data that the Appellate Court has now ruled as unreasonable.

I believe in affordable housing but not the builder's remedy where developers get to quintuple the number of units to satisfy the unreasonble required COAH units. Recent legislation has eliminated builders' remedy lawsuits. If this legislation had been passed years ag, Landmark would not have been able to sue Fair Lawn, and Fair Lawn taxpayers would have been included in the dialogue.

THE issue had come up at the last meeting about CONFICT of INTEREST. LOU WEISS got VERY angry and declared “I AM NOT A CONTRATOR”. Is that BEACAUSE if he were a contractor he would be in conflict of interest? His company is called "WFM PROJECT AND CONSTUCTION”. From my understanding they are not contractors but "Represent Builders" ? Would this not be the same conflict if not a bigger one? Please explain?

ALSO Two of the members of the BOT also have a business in town that is dependent on foot traffic. Why are these people allowed to be involved in a process that will bring approx 300 more potential local customers? Yeah, Yeah, I know, I heard them “our lawyer said there is nothing wrong”
But there are LEGAL conflict of interests and there are ETHICAL conflicts of interests.
And some one need not be benefiting directly to be in an ethical conflict (like taking money from LANDMARK, which I don’t believe any one has done), but there are conflicts here which are ETHICAL in nature and if we want to be a better community, we should discuss them without insult to anyone. Having a conflict of interest does not mean you are corrupt, or a bad person, and you could have landed in this position by pure coincidence. Insult should not be used as a reason for not discussing the issue. EVERONE business owner deals with issues involving conflicts all the time and we should allow the discussion without prejudice.

I never said ANYONE on the board was directly getting any financial gain from the project, because that would be corrupt. I never accused anyone of corruption. That would be completely unfair. And if you look at my questions you would realize that they are completely fair.
I merely stated that conflicts should be discussed, as they are discussed in all business decisions without insult or the threat of legal action, if I can’t discuss it with someone at the meetings, where is it appropriate?

I have my opinion and I never stated it as fact. It’s just a conversation. It’s seems in Radburn some conversations are truly off limits.

Lou Weiss
4:09pm on Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Kathy it if it is up to you Radburn would stop to exist. Your continous belittleing the hard working and volunteer Bd. of Trustees and oh by the way your Radburn neighbors will most likley never stop so keep making yourself look like the fool you are! By the way that comes from me the long time resident of Radburn and not in any official capacity. I am tired of you costing the Residents of Radburn and the rest of the Town by your lawsuits plus eveything else you think YOU should have!

Mr. Weiss,
Years ago, I put my name in to run on the BOT and was told that they didn't need me, they had so many other folks to do it. I ran against you and a couple others as a write-in candidate. I won the vote by a landslide: 199 to 132. The BOT through out the write-in votes in full American style and placed you on the board rather than me. Now here we are years later with you in the driver's seat of a train wreck calling me names. I will not stop my fight for full open nomination and elections for Radburn, so get used to it. What walks like a duck, and talks like a duck is.....quack!

@Carrie. Your Lou Weiss's daughter aren't you? Just want to say that I really enjoyed living in Radburn for the first year or so that I lived here. I was active in the Citizen's Association throwing parties for the community etc. Then the bomb was dropped on us. I was going to have 175 new neighbors and a cul-de-sac in behind my house on Archery Plaza. So I decided to fight for my rights. What's wrong with that? After all it was Ms. Orlando who told us if we wanted open and fair nominations and elections we'd have to sue anyway. But how soon those in favor of the oligarchy forget. Since you think I should move out because I don't want 165-200 new neighbors, I saw to you why did you move into the suburbs to begin with? Wouldn't you be happier in a denser town with lower property values and higher taxes and barely any green space?

pt. 1 @Carrie. You say Radburn is wonderful. I agree. I disagree that by adding 200 more families on 7 or 8 acres of land is good for Radburn; especially if most of them move in turn out to be rentals. Have you seen Ridgewood's empty store fronts- a lot more than Fair Lawn, right? Do you think that's because they don't have enough high-density housing or is it just a lousy economy? The people who want to change Radburn are the ones giving it away to a developer without any empathy to those of us living in here already. How long before they start building before you move up to the north side? I too am sick to death that Daly field is underutilized. So many kids should be playing lacrosse, soccer and baseball there. The LAX teams have to play on mud fields because they are so overused. Quite an embarresment for a nice town like Fair Lawn. Once this development goes in, there goes any chance of bettering our property values and quality of life. Not sure which year you moved back but family day has been pretty darn successful the past six years. Those are the years that it was run by a President of the RCA who believes in open nominations and elections and full financial transparency and no high density housing on Daly field.

part2. Can I remind you that whenever there is a democratic vote in Radburn (RCA) the people who are on my side, win. I believe the development will be a huge financial liability to Fair Lawn and especially Radburn. Folks who bought into Radburn for it's open space and quality of life should be allowed to opt out if this disaster moves forward. It's not the National Historic Landmark we bought into!

There is a way to disagree and seek answers without resorting to personal attacks and name-calling. I would suggest that since a public forum makes it all too easy to devolve into these two practices that if there is a legitimate question about a person's involvement (possible, actual or implied), then address them directly. Likewise, if there is a disagreement with a member's comments that seem to be a personal attack, to address them privately as well. At the risk of sounding like a wagging finger, as members of the community in discussion and representatives thereof, a bit of diplomacy and respect is required and recommended regardless of personal feelings. Yes, it does sound a bit "kumbayah-ish", but makes for a better way of communicating.

Respectfully.

@Tiffony-Until there are open nominations and elections in Radburn, good old fashioned communicating is pointless with the trustees. I can talk my head off with pretty pleases and kiss all kinds of tushies but it wouldn't made a darn bit of difference. If putting the pressure on few folks who make the decisions for thousands of Fair Lawn residents with solid arguments and facts on a public forum will work than that's what I have to do. I do agree though that personal insults and name-calling should be left on the tot lot. To call someones actions what you interpret them to be is another thing entirely. I still say this proposed development stinks like old fish.

Thanks Tiffony,

No rational person should have an interest in ad hominem attacks and arguments. Residents should not resort to name calling, or threats. People disagree, such is life.

No matter what your opinion on our system of governance or the litigants, we can all agree that we should strive to make our sytem as fair, and as transparent as possible for the residents. We can all agree that at minimal that system should allow all residents into the discourse regardless of their opinions or what subject matter they wish to bring to the table. Rational arguments should be be met with rational arguments. There should be no public condemnation or flogging based on someones "ideas". No one should be threated or intimidated for speaking their minds.

There are many who believe the discourse had been too vitriolic for too long. But lets see where we DO agree. We all have families we all want Radburn to succeed, we all want business to thrive, we all want to live in a place free from pollutants, noise, and congestion. We just have different points of view how that should be handled.

In any case we should all strive to debate in a healthy way without one side quashing debate and we should let logic rule and not emotions.

Well said Craig.

There are so many unknowns about this development and people have a right to be frightened about their home values. No one will tell us how much the 2000 to 2400 square foot townhouses are going to cost or even when they will be built. This economy is going to take a long time to recover. Our home prices are dependent on the new townhouses and how they are priced. I spoke to a realtor who lives in Radburn who opposes the development. She said as long as there is ongoing development, people will be less inclined to buy because the outcome of the development is unknown. I'm just trying to stress that there are real legitimate concerns. These brand new townhouses are going to be bigger than most Radburn homes.

The developer made a comment that people will be attracted to single family homes with yards for swing sets. Many Radburn homes like mine have small yards and I don't even think we can have swing sets in Radburn. You don't need them because there are playgrounds which all the new residents will be able to use.

Radburn was advertised by it's developer, City Realty, as being "Safe for Children" because the Radburn "idea" separated pedestrian and motor traffic. Lot sizes were smaller than was becoming common at that time because the additional space was allocated to the common parks, accessible by footpaths from all points within the development. Unfortunately, after City Realty declared bankruptcy in the 1930's, the majority of the land proposed for Radburn was sold to other developers and some "infill" units (such as the western side of Plaza Rd.) were built without the strict separation that is part and parcel of the historic plan. Today, facilities such as the tot lots are a major draw for new homeowners in Radburn, making a trade-off for a smaller lot.

City Housing, sorry, where is the edit button?

I thought the architectural restrictions said "no swing sets. my house came with one but we tore it down a couple years ago. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought years ago there was a pedestrian bridge that crossed FL Ave. so that the kids didn't have to deal with the traffic. I cannot see how adding 500+ new bedrooms full of people with 300+ new cars and NO NEW TOT LOT OR POOL to my side of Plaza Rd. is going to make it safer for folks to cross the street to go to R park, though. The past two evening rush hours I've been in traffic last night from the east, tonight from the southwest. I say enough already to developing THE DENSEST STATE IN THE COUNTRY!!!

Re: Swings.

Nothing in the Guidelines of Architectural Control about swing sets. I'd attach the link, but I have a balky connection. Complete set of Guidelines can be found at www.radburn.org under Residents' Area. Deed of Restriction is there, too.

The only major thing I recall in the guidelines was in regards to in-ground pools/pools in general.

I was informed that there would be a playground integrated into the current plans for the development (which would be welcomed).

I too think a playground for about 200 families is not only a nice thing, but almost would seem mandatory. Can they build a pool there, if they are putting the development on a slab because of the pollution? Not sure about that one. But all this chatting between us doesn't really matter, it's all the hands of Landmark and Fair Lawn now.

My thoughts: reduce the number of homes planned to incorporate a pool and a playground. The developers said that the homes will have the "look and feel" of other homes in Radburn. How can that be accomplished if they can't dig for basements, etc? It certainly won't feel like any of the other parks or neighborhoods of Radburn in its current iteration.

So ultimately:
1. reduce the number of homes planned (say 100 vs. 165)
2. Incorporate a pool and playground
3.Move beyond "look and feel" to "being" like the other Radburn neighborhoods
5. Improve Archery Plaza (Is the 50% "green" inclusive of Archery? If so, it shouldn't be)

While Kathy's right in saying it's in the hands of Landmark and Fairlawn. what we want does matter. Otherwise, what would be the point of showing up at Council meetings and pushing for "Imminent Domain"? What would be the point of speaking out at all?

An aside:
The downside to Imminent Domain can be seen in Brookyn, NY's Atlantic Train Yard. The planned basketball stadium and the current shopping center. You can google it to find out the details but a lot of surrounding homeowners were pushed out to make way for that development by utilizing Imminent Domain.

Pool & playground? I think this is a possibility. Keep in mind that the original design/concept (which is why a finalized plan isn't presented as part of contract signing) is to keep Daly as green as possible. This is what residents have said they wanted and in keeping with the great classic "You can't always get what you want", keeping Daly 50% green AND a pool isn't possible.

I know from some discussions with residents that a pool is #1 on the wishlist. Can it even be built on the site? I don't have the answers to that, but it is worth investigating and having the discussion with the Board.

As to moving from 'look and feel' to 'being', specifically basements, 'lower levels' are out of favor in almost all new development. Years ago, basements were the great family den area, but that trend has reversed to where den/family rooms are above ground and are more open and airy. About the only use for the old-fashioned wood paneled basement is for a 'man cave' and even that, I know in most Radburn households the cave is incorporated into the general living area.

Julia, I find it hard to believe that Landmark will pay $3.75mil for a piece of property where the maximum of amount of homes it can build on it is 45. Particularly since Hayward by your estimation is slated to contain 118-120.

I do know that improving Archery Plaza is a part of the deal and I welcome that aspect of it. My property abuts Hayward so the view of Archery will be a bit compromised.

I don't know if "lower levels are out of favor". From my perspective, a basement sells a property, particularly if it's finished. It is where most families still incorporate a playroom/family room/laundry area. The "man cave" perhaps comes later. I wouldn't rush to say that basements are passe. Regardless, I would still make a case for the proposed homes to mirror those in Radburn in terms of height with or without a basement.

This is all "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin." There aren't going to be less than 165 units (in fact, there could be up to 200, which has been sanctioned by the court); there isn't going to be any pool; you have no control over what is going in there at this point. Landmark is going to have its way with the property, and your (or my) preferences matter not a wit to them. It's out of our control at this point, unless Fair Lawn continues to fight the court decision or takes the property with eminent domain, which could result in at least two-thirds of it being preserved as a park. ..and the statement about 165 being the "magic" break-even number is utter bs. Landmark will break even at far, far fewer units, and could have made a tidy profit even with four single-family lots per acre. This is all about unbridled greed and *maximizing* profit. The residents of Radburn and FL are the biggest losers on his one.

Hirschklau Lane is only 10 units.

If the oligarchy would just do the moral and ethical thing; and let it's neighbors nominate all dues payers over 18 and vote on the Daly Field contract, there wouldn't have been a need for litigation within Radburn to begin with. Mr. Ferro gets to laugh all the way to the bank any which way this turns out. Fair Lawn gets screwed along with the Radburn homeowners whose civil rights are squashed.

"In regard to an appeal, that would cost Fair Lawn far less than the cost of added services and school assets (the overall decline in quality of life and property values ) resulting from the development. It's going to be a disaster for FL."

All due respect, Fair Lawn has little chance of winning on any appeal and it is utterly irresponsible to advocate such a position - period. Why should Fair Lawn take on a legal burden on a project that as a whole is better than the "Landmark at Hayward, plus FairLawn/Bergen County Housing Authority" idea? Why does Fair Lawn want to be in the land use business when a more competent entity, who has a contiguous plan, can do the job better? And why again the Radburn v. Fair Lawn stuff? Curious that election of 2007 where while I heard (again) about a "mandate" from the voters in Radburn that the overwhelming majority of Fair Lawn voters squashed (now's the time to use that word) the concept of a "Central Park" because - well, it would mostly benefit those snobs in Radburn.

While we're at it, some truth in reporting would be a welcome breath of fresh air. You yammered back about:

Michael Roney "I've actually heard rumors that the fix is in for FL to settle with Landmark. So, if that happens, we'll know that it basically was decided weeks ago. Also, keep in mind that FL could have saved Daly by exercising eminent domain, which it has chosen not to do. Fair Lawn has millions in Green Acres and open space tax money available, and Green Acres is now asking for its money back if FL doesn't use it, so don't let anyone on the council tell you that FL "can't afford it."

Care to share with the average voter what part of your statement is correct and which is - um - based on rumor?

It is well known throughout the state in these budget-strapped times that Green Acres grants are "use it or lose it" affairs, and recipients have to show results. Now that FL has made a deal to buy and preserve the Naugle property, as long as that goes through the borough should remain in good standing, with plenty of money to buy Daly at market value. Regarding the ED statement, I meant "chosen not to do *yet*. Obviously, I still hope they will. The rest of the statement stands as written.

...and btw... "yammering"? That sounds like a personal swipe to me. I thought we were going to try to stay respectful and civilized here.

Yammering- its the practice of making Yams for Thanksgiving.

@Stuart-lol. @Julia-we will just have to continue to agree to disagree in perpetuity.

While it is true the court could not find anything illegal with Radburns democracy. It's hard to argue that Radburn democracy actually works for the citizens in a fair and unbiased way. You can clearly see those biases when you look at the composition of the board and see the equivalent of eight Hannity's and one Combs. It is evident that more than 14 people feel disenfranchised with the current system and have come to believe that democracy, transparency, and open debate have no place the table.

There are those that say Radburn government works, while it does FUNCTION, WORKING would mean it works for everyone and not just for people who seem to share the same point of view.

Um, The Radburn Association is not a governement.

I just got the orange flyer. I love the color of royal house of Orange!
(I have never hidden my liking of the Daly Field project).
The flyer's arguments are without merit, and should be reversed!
Building homes does not increase property taxes. Borough facilities are underused, so new income will make things cheaper, not more expensive.
The small single outlet from the new park should guide its cars gently into existing traffic, maybe with a traffic light, and conversion to one-way of some streets ending onto Plaza Road.
All homes in the neighborhood will increase in value as it improves from what is now a set of vacant lots prone to flooding.
Building will not increase any contamination, but will lead to proper remediation of the existing flow of contaminants that are already intruding there. This will be required of the developer under state and borough supervision.
The developer is to improve the storm water flowoff according to the contract.
Thus there are only pluses in this plan for Radburn as well as Fair Lawn.

The unnamed drafters of the flyer claim that there is money to buy the property from Radburn, but this leaves the Hayward property in the hands of the developer, and Archery Plaza a swamp. Moreover, why should Fair Lawn use tax monies to pay off Landmark and Radburn without getting anything in return except more housing and cars on Hayward, without the architectural control by Radburn that is in the current Radburn-Landmark contract for all 3 properties??

I love how no one takes credit for the orange flyers. Wussies.

es: Landmark bought the Hayward property, which is NOT under Radburn control. The contract between Landmark and Radburn for Daly Field stipulates that the Daly Field and Hayward properties come together under Radburn architectural control. If Landmark cannot buy Daly Field for some reason, Landmark still owns Hayward, but now NOT under Radburn architectural control, and can build whatever they like and Fair Lawn zoning will allow. That's not acceptable.

Mr. or Ms. Broekman, if you would do a little research you would learn that almost all of the information you have posted is wrong, including your statement about Hayward. That property is under Radburn architectural restrictions, no matter who owns it. Where are you getting your information? From the Radburn trustees? Go ahead and do some independent research.

Sorry, Chasel, all my information says that the Hayward property was never under Radburn restrictions, until the Landmark-Radburn contract. It is Daly Field and Archery Plaza that are under Radburn control, as far as the deed restrictions to Archery allow anything (they don't allow building on it, that's for sure).
I am male, and you are?