Haddonfield Today 017_2018Apr20

38 | haddonfield.today
The Last Word
#017 • APRIL 20 TO MAY 4, 2018
If I’m the developer’s
target, his aim is way off
By David Hunter
The Bancroft Redevelopment Plan that the commissioners adopted in April 2016
listed fourteen objectives, including this one: “ensure that the market rate, agetargeted
housing is attractive to ‘empty-nesters’...”
To this empty-nester, likely to downsize in five to ten years, that read just right.
I was further heartened by what followed: The housing development at Bancroft
would be based on “certain design and pricing principles [including] modest unit
size, limited number of bedrooms, single level living or limited living areas on multiple
floors, accessibility for residents, covered, garaged and/or structured parking,
common area improvements conducive to senior living, price points at or below the
median price of a home in Haddonfield, and other community and site features that
support independent living of older adults.”
Bingo. Folks like me fit the profile perfectly. Late 60s. Children married and on their
own. A home in the Estates section that fits the definition of “median” for homes in
Haddonfield ($480,000).
But on February 13 of this year, things changed, and the possibility of downsizing
to Bancroft slipped away. Why? Because in response to requests by the developer
– some prefer the word “demands” – the commissioners amended the redevelopment
plan. Now, the principles, including the key one quoted above, merely provide “general
guidance for the design of the development.” [emphasis added] The word “ensure” has
been diluted to mean “abide by ... if you wish.”
Under the amended plan, adopted by the commissioners over the objections of an
overwhelming majority of the Planning Board, the developer can build townhomes
of up to 2,250 sqft – nearly the size of the house I live in now – plus up to 1,500 sqft of
habitable basement and attic space. That’s “modest unit size”?
He can build two-story townhomes with all of the bedrooms on the upper level.
That’s “age-targeted”? (The work-around is an elevator in each townhome. How much
will that add to the purchase price?)
He can build townhomes that local Realtors say are likely to sell for $600,000.
That’s “market-rate”? Perhaps ... if the target market is families who want to move to
Haddonfield for the schools but don’t want to pay $800,000 or so for a “rebuild.”
To break even after the costs of selling, buying, and moving are taken into account,
the seller of a $480,000 single-family home cannot pay more than $440,000 for a new
residence, at Bancroft or elsewhere. Or, to look at it another way: To break even on
the purchase of a $480,000 townhome at Bancroft, the owners of a single-family home
would need to sell it for at least $520,000. That’s “downsizing”?
But seniors like me aren’t looking to just break even – they’re looking to buy for less,
and invest the rest. To reap the rewards of working for years to build home equity.
That’s what Haddonfield residents who moved to Uxbridge in recent years have
been able to do. Two empty-nest friends of mine sold their Estates-section home last
year for $500,000+ and now are happily ensconsed in a 1,264 sqft townhome that, with
major improvements, cost them around $300,000 – with a Cherry Hill property tax rate
that’s one-third lower than Haddonfield’s.
Many seniors are willing to pay very high taxes to enjoy the benefits of living in
Haddonfield. They love this town, and want to stay here.
• What they don’t want is 2,250 sqft of living space. They’d be happy with 1,500 sqft.
• What they don’t want is two levels with an elevator. One-level living makes sense.
• And what they don’t want is to pay $480,000 for their next home. In fact, if their
current home were to sell for the median price, they couldn’t pay $480,000. Therefore,
they need a purchase price at Bancroft that’s closer to $300,000. South of it, ideally.
The bottom line? Haddonfield seniors want and need the “market-rate, agetargeted
housing ... attractive to empty-nesters” that the Planning Board proposed
and the commissioners initially approved and continue to promise, even though the
developer appears to have no interest in providing it.
Anything else misses the target by a mile.