Pennsauken Journal

Well here’s a redevelopment project of sorts. According to the Courier-Post:

Reconstruction of the Maple Avenue Bridge over the NJTransit Atlantic City rail line in Pennsauken will begin on or before Feb. 7, the New Jersey Department of Transportation announced today. NJDOT expects the construction to last about one year.

During construction, Maple Avenue will be closed at the bridge, blocking through traffic, NJDOT said. Suggested detour routes are Church Road to Haddonfield Roads to Maple Avenue for westbound traffic and Haddonfield Road to Church Road to Maple Avenue.

The new Maple Avenue Bridge will be raised 4 feet on the existing alignment to provide 20 feet clearance for the railroad below, NJDOT said. It will have a 12-foot travel lane, 12-foot shoulder and 6-foot sidewalk in each direction.

An issue regarding the redevelopment of the Pennsauken Mart site has been settled. Progress on the redevelopment project, known as Renaissance Walk was in jeopardy. Here are the details according to the Courier-Post:

The Camden County Improvement Authority approved an out-of-court settlement Tuesday with two home builders who claimed their proposals to develop the former Pennsauken Mart site were treated improperly.

Plaintiffs K. Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., and D’Anastasio Corp. of Pennsauken, will have “certain negotiation rights” on land left over after the authority’s chosen developer completes its project.

Scarborough Properties will continue developing a large apartment complex on the site, according to a resolution passed by the board.

Additional details were not released Tuesday because all parties had not signed the agreement, authority counsel said.

Neither John D’Anastasio, nor his lawyer, Jeffrey Baron of Voorhees, was available Tuesday for comment.

The 35-acre site is at the intersection of routes 73, 90 and 130.

The settlement does not call for a cash payment to either party.

The suit had the potential to stop or delay work on the mart site, which has been a financial and public relations train wreck since 2000.

The board also approved spending $85,000 for unanticipated environmental issues at the site, including ground water and soil contaminated with tetrachloroethene, widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics and for metal degreasing.

The former mart — now called Renaissance Walk — appears to be back on track

The settlement was announced at a meeting of the Authority.

What I find curious in the Courier’s article is the following:

Director Terrence M. Carr said he did “not want to vote” on two of the related resolutions and abstained on a third.

Carr would not comment on why.

Overall, Carr abstained on six of eight votes Tuesday. Three dealt with the Pennsauken Mart. Carr is a Pennsauken resident and a township employee.

What’s up with that? While Carr is not compelled to explain, I think he has a moral obligation to his neighbors in Pennsauken to explain his actions.

Pennsauken has much in common with older suburbs throughout the state and nation. For one, it’s fully developed yet desperate for redevelopment and new construction. The last few years have been peppered with plans that have not delivered on the redevelopment promises held up by officials.

At least not yet. Will they ever?

• Petty’s Island and the waterfront: last word was that the project would be scaled back (2007), no word since.
• Pennsauken Mart: the land is being cleared but the proposed ice rink is out; or is it?
• Rt 130 Corridor: has anyone heard of this? It was news in 2006. Any progress?

Do I seem a little disheartened? You bet and I think most Pennsauken residents feel likewise.

To be fair, let me sing praises for the single visible exception: the boathouse on the Cooper River!

In a recent post, I opened up the question of the dilemma facing “first ring” suburbs like Pennsauken. We have precious little open land available, so we have to pick and carefully choose to redevelop choice parcels if we hope to revitalize the town by drawing people back from the newer “exurbs” to the east.

Future posts will weave various threads together: the declining prospects of “first ring” suburbs, the de-suburbanization trend and the various redevelopment projects that could decide the fate of Pennsauken for many years to come.

I think it’s strange that NOTHING has appeared in the mainstream press about the redevelopment project for Petty’s Island and the Pennsauken waterfront. The last buzz was the row over the eaglet that died when a wildlife consultant was contracted to study the impact redevelopment might have on Petty’s Island, but that was ages ago.

Recall that the project was embroiled in politics with pro-development folks extolling the project and conservationists who were opposed. A check of the Pennsauken Tomorrow website that supports the project, has the last news item dated March, 2007. A check of several websites opposing the project were similarly outdated.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer (March, 2007):

Pennsauken has reversed course and decided to back a plan for Petty’s Island that would entail far less development than was originally planned, township officials said last night.

The revised plan for this teardrop-shaped island on the Delaware River eliminates construction of a proposed golf course, and leaves 72 percent of the island undeveloped.

“Tonight’s plan is entirely different,” Mayor Rick Taylor told a group of reporters prior to disclosing the plan to close to 100 residents in the Central Elementary School auditorium. “It calls for a footprint of only 28 percent development.”

That, he said, is 12 percentage points less than the current, controversial footprint proposed by developer Cherokee Pennsauken L.L.C. for the island’s 392 acres.

But he said the details of the new proposal, dubbed the Conservation Development plan, were still to be worked out…

I’ll be checking with Pennsauken officials for details and the status of the revised plan. Stay tuned!