Gomangoman a/k/a Craig Snyder a/k/a 1/2 of the developer component for 130 Cricket Avenue:

You wrote: "On these pages, there is one rant after another, about Mc Mansions and the widening gap between haves and have nots. But the blind opposition to the 130 development and the proposed new ordinance to restrict moderate housing provisions in R6A will force any new developments to be affordable only for luxury home buyers. It's enough to make you think. Hopefully. If, say 50 new moderate income residents are not welcome on Cricket, then, who is?"

One rant after another, eh? Your opinion and welcome to it. However, blind is hardly the correct descriptive adjective one would use to describe how residents and members of SAC view your project, and have viewed others in the past. Your project is a square peg in the round hole. And more importantly on what planet do families who need affordable, truly affordable housing pay $320,000 with $40,000 cash down for a 1 bedroom condo? In Ardmore you can buy a HOME as in entire HOUSE for that.

And there you go, twisting words and sentiment: You need clarity: if you have 37 units then you could have up to 74 residents and 74 cars (so WHERE will overflow parking go? Do you care?). It is not that new residents aren't welcome, it is that you will be shoving them in like sardines in a can in an already densely populated area. When you don't live in the actual neighborhood it is easy to make assumptions about how the residents feel and why. Remember the old school saying about the word "assume"? Don't assume that people object to affordable housing (which is to an extent preserving what you already have in a neighborhood like this)...people object to our older homes constantly being gobbled up and sacrificed like the proverbial sacrificial lamb at the altar of new development...130 Cricket doesn't HAVE to come down, you WANT to take it down..

The widening gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is all very true...but then, you are a "have", so no offense, you don't get the "have not" component because that is a town you "have not" visited.

You wrote: "Let us keep an open mind about density, because, for a small town like Ardmore, there are many positives. And it is not a fact that new residential communities will add to the traffic and parking burden. Understandably, that it is a fear. But an argument could be made that new buyers would walk to town, use the train for commuting and shed one of the usual two cars in favor occasional use of a Philly Car Share car. For a homeowner on a budget--particularly members of the workforce living in a transit district--this kind of community might be a great opiton. Imagine, if you can, Ardmore in five-ten years, where an influx of new residents, young and old alike, are on the sidewalks, in the stores and restaurants, and walking home."

We agree, Philly Car Share is a terrific idea and program...but this is suburbia and the Main Line where we are slaves to our cars...well not a lot of us because we practice what we preach and DO walk - although sometimes it is tricky as we dodge the kind folks who love to speed...and ignore pedestrians..."workforce" living. Is that like umm, houses for poor people...as in give us your tired, your hungry, your poor and work here only don't live here too? See that is kinda insulting, one of those things haves say to have nots. And yes, to an extent, all this unwelcome development is a form of class warfare, much like eminent domain...while no one minds progress Mr. Snider, our residents deserve MORE of a say as stakeholders in their community...because if these development projects don't fly, that leaves neighborhoods left holding the bag, doesn't it?

You write: "Finally, the notion that developers are outta town carpet baggers here today and gone tomorrow is a sterotype that does nothing to advance a creative problem process that demands the best of all participants and stakeholders. Healthy skepticism is productive--but blind cynicism obstructs. So let us accept freely the open minds of the best activists, business leaders, legislators, developers and planners to help plan for the future.

Ardmore is in the long shadow of a painful battle that eroded confidence in developers, township officials and in the system. SAC made its case, and thank goodness, won a battle for all of us. Now, let's get out of that shadow, and start the redevelopment process by building trust with those that are capable earning it."

Yes, SAC helped Ardmore beat eminent domain for private gain and worked towards the state level legislation, but that isn't what we are discussing. Right now, right this moment we are discussing development and a lot of developers are to an extent carpetbaggers (your term, not ours) - developers come to these, our, lower and middle class neighborhoods here in Ardmore (but Ardmore isn't the only town wrestling with this predicament), assemble properties and tell residents of their "vision". Let us discuss your vision for Ardmore - Your "vision" is not something you personally would live next door to or in is it? What is problematic? Your "vision" is not how this particular neighborhood envisions it's future, and you seem to have a hard time accepting that. (we also heard from some of those residents that you are considering buying or are buying ANOTHER property on Cricket Avenue, would you like to comment/is this true?)

You are not giving these folks a choice, you merely want them to accept your plan. What are your alternative plans? What about something smaller?

Neighbors on and around Cricket Ave are upset. Selling us and getting our cooperation up here isn't necesarilly all you have to do.

And let us be blunt: really truly affordable and subsidized housing this is not. You might be crafting and developing a project that is to the LETTER of the law, but it is not one that embraces the SPIRIT of the law

There is unfortunately a painful difference.

Parting shot? You are by all accounts, reported to be a very nice man. Most residents would love to be able to look at a project and not be immediately distrustful...but it is a little hard around here. So if you wish to work WITH the residents, you need to give them something to work TOWARDS where they can, at the end of the day, find positives. This plan isn't it. It's too much density in the wrong location. Why not show them something smaller and save the original house?

Thanks for writing, that takes guts. Sorry for the tough love, but as you are entitled to your opinion, so are we...anyone else want to weigh in?

PS everyone - this is what he is referring to with regard to the "ordinance":

SUBSIDIZED APARTMENT HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT

Consider for approval authorizing the Township Secretary to advertise a notice of intent to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance amendment on July 18, 2007 to amend the Zoning Code of the Township of Lower Merion, Chapter 155, Article XII, Section 50.2 entitled Subsidized Apartment Housing to authorize subsidized apartment housing in townhouse buildings, delete the state grant and credit programs, amend the minimum side yard setbacks, amend the parking requirements, and better clarify the separation requirements. (Exhibit “B”)

PUBLIC COMMENT

This item will be heard on Wednesday at B&P. What the commissioners wish to do is correct mistakes that can harm neighborhoods instead of help them. Vice President Phillips and others are on the right track with this and citizens should support this effort.

SAC isn't against development that is truly thoughtful and inclusive. SAC is supportive of housing that is truly affordable. It's all about the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. The spirit is just as important.

And to all of you who don't share our opinion 100% that is your right. But it is also our right to express ourselves, and quite frankly we are used to developers inferring we are 100% "anti development" which of course proves again that the developers aren't listening to what residents are saying unless residents are agreeing with them 100%...such is the cycle of life....SAC isn't anti development at all. And we will continue to lobby for zoning changes, a completed comprehensive plan, state level changes to the municipal planning code, stronger historic preservation and an overall more inclusive and more level playing field for residents.

Thanks for stopping by. We appreciate your thoughts on the issue.

A few things I'd like to comment on:

1) PhillyCarShare. Yes, I am a member. Unfortuantely, there is no pod in Ardmore. The nearest one is two miles up the road in Bryn Mawr. It would take a good 40 minutes or so to walk there from Cricket Ave. Now, if there were one or more cars available in Ardmore, it might be a more viable alternative to the residents here.

2) I work full time as a Software Engineer. I have no children, no debt, and make more than the median income in Ardmore. Despite this, I cannot afford the $320,000 price tag for the condos in question. It is simply out my price range. And I very much dispute the "affordable" label that has been slapped on it.

My 2 cents.

-- Doug

I've been reading this blog for a while now and I do not think the comments are one sided at all. I think it comes down to a simple question people in Ardmore want answered - in what direction is Ardmore going in terms of a community.

It is pretty clear how interests play out in all this. The developer at 130 Cricket stands to make a lot of money. At $300,000 a condo, profits will likely exceed $100,000 per unit for a profit of $3.7 million. We would be kidding ourselves not to think that this is the primary motivating factor for the developer.

The townships interest are in an expanding tax base - both direct and indirect. Of course, the township must make sure all zoning and laws are followed in the sales and development. This is where is gets fuzzy for the residents.

The residents interests are about quality of life. How does the increase in people translate through the Ardmore community in terms of use of services - schools, emergency services, traffice, parking, rain water run-off from the property, etc... I can tell you that in documenting some of the problems we are experiencing three blocks away in South Ardmore, density is an important issue not to be over looked. Crime might very well increase. The drain on public and emergency services will most likely increase.

From a residential point of view it never seems like townships have a clear understanding(plan?) of this increase in tax base that factors in the proportional increase in demand for public and emergency services that comes with this expansion. This often is a zero sum game from the residents point of view. I think this is why groups like SAC exist and are popping up all over the place.

The reality is once development of properties occur, we the residents are stuck with them, the developer moves on to the next project and the residents are stuck fighting over everything that went wrong with the township - and at this point they are often helpless to do anything.

The idea is to stop our going down this "wrong road" from the get go. This is NOT obstruction. It is our right as citizens to create our communites into what we want them to be. It is our right to have a plan for our community, that makes sense to all the residents in the community. It is our right to know in what direction Ardmore will go in the future and to play a part in shaping that future creation.

Philly Car Share comment

I too am a PCS member and I contacted them about putting pods in Ardmore. They locate pods based on membership. So, if we want pods, we may need to do a membership drive for PCS. Its an easy and free process to get signed up.

"...Building and Development, like any other enterprise in our economic system, is powered by the profit motive, but is guided and channelled through the market system of supply and demand. Again, while imperfect, the market for housing is very specific..."

I think this is a very true statement and is scares the heck out of a lot of people. The results of development like 130 Cricket, and there are plenty of other examples all throughout the mainline and other towns in Pa, is something like what you get from an autopsy. The neighborhood gets carved up piece-meal. This is the reality of what is happening with development.

"...the market for housing is very specific..."

Yes, the developers role is ultimately profit, not public policy and planning. This is why we as citizens rely on our local gov't to specify what is allowed and what is not. This comes right back to us the citizens, because it is the citizens who decide what is allowed and what is not, that eventually become the law, the zoning codes, the planning guidlines for communities.

"...Ardmore is in the long shadow of a painful battle that eroded confidence in developers, township officials and in the system..."

On the contrary, the system is working. The citizens are standing up and deciding that a change needs to happen, that the current zoning and current ways of doing business in local gov't is not representing them and their wishes for the community. And this is not easy or painless process. We live in a time where many believe anything worth doing should be easy - well, it has never been easy to do what the residents here in Ardmore are doing. There is going to be upheaval and there is going to be mistakes made on all sides - yet, this is the beauty of this place we live in. That we can do all this, non-violently, within the context of the law, that individual citizens can a do make a difference in their communities.

There was an interesting article on page 5 of today's Philly Metro newspaper. It talked about all of the development that is happening on North Broad.

There was a great quote from Eric Blumenfeld of EB Realty, who built the Lofts at 640 and worked with the Spring Garden Civic Association to make it happen:

"You must respect the neighborhood associations [...] Developers can't come in and think they have a sense of entitlement."

Something to think about.

Dear GomanGoman,

I was wondering if you know whether the developer ever looked into saving the historic house at 130 Cricket. Several months back he met with residents at John Henry's pub and stated, for the record, that he had not even thought of that idea. That has been done well in several other sites in the township. If this person really cared about the area then why did they not try to keep the character of the street by restoring this structure? It sounds in your blog statement that you might know some developers so maybe we could ask them some other questions like:

1)Will the taxpayers be able to afford the renovation of the entire public water runoff system that is already at the point or failure due to development beyond it's capacity?

2) will taxpayers be willing to deal with more power outages from overburdening the power grid?

3) Are there any surveys indicating that people will actually use public transportation and give up their SUV's to reduce traffic or is the TOD a myth. (Are you kidding me?)
4) Blind opposition is mentioned. Do developers really think that the opposition is just a NIMBY thing? If so they must be new to the area. Can people who have fought for the community for 4 years really still be blind to the issues and if so why are the developers worried about blind mice?

5)If the developer cares a hoot about the community why would they not be willing to keep the historic structure on the property to give back some of the HUGE profits they will be taking?

I remember when I was a kid growing up here and I wondered why no developers came in to this beautiful area to rape it and ruin it? It is happening now and the past 7-10 years have begun a destruction of one of the nicest places on the planet. There are so may areas in the township that could make money for developers and, if done well, have only positive impact. It is when the projects seem to be only about money and not good architecture or proper planning, like the "Allaire" project, that a person only has to look with open eyes to see the truth. Development is a misnomer in a community that is already fully developed and more damage than good will result to the community with most of the projects being proposed. The only one developing anything in projects like 130 cricket are the developers and what is being developed is the size of their wallets.

It is unfortunate that, unlike in years past, we do not have the full board of commissioners working to preserve our township. Some do but not enough. Perhaps this next election will change the board's membership to contain less real estate lawyers who aid development and instead have more long term township residents who remember how great this area is when it was protected by our officials.

Silly me, I was responding to the original Blog comment. I added this last line the next day. When I read the first reply I found out that I was writing to the developer himself. Maybe he can answer some of my questions?