TOMS RIVER, NJ – Most Toms River residents believe the downtown village area needs a facelift, but few believe 10-story apartment towers are the solution.
A recent online poll conducted by Shore News Network reveals that residents of Toms River favor the redevelopment of the downtown village district. However, they are opposed to the construction of two massive 10-story apartment buildings. The poll indicates that the majority of residents would prefer to see more restaurants, bars, and other commercial activities to promote tourism and attract visitors to the area.
The current Toms River mayor supports bulk construction and high-density housing to increase the number of residents in the area, hoping that businesses will follow. His opponent in the upcoming June primary election, Councilman Daniel Rodrick, believes in a more scaled-down vision that focuses on businesses and attractions to draw visitors to the downtown area.
Rodrick is against the construction of high-rise buildings and high-density apartments as they may cause traffic congestion and deter outside visitors from spending a night in the area.
The online poll shows that only 23% of respondents want the village to remain untouched, while 15.7% favor the current administration’s plan to build bigger and higher in the downtown area. On the other hand, 61% support a redevelopment plan that prioritizes businesses and attractions rather than massive apartment buildings.
The mayor recently declared that “going vertical” was an inevitable side-effect of his plan to redevelop the downtown area.
However, Rodrick believes the waterfront could be the centerpiece of a bustling restaurant scene with shops and other attractions to draw visitors from the region.
He is also concerned that building high-rise apartments will cause traffic congestion and deter outside visitors from spending a night in the area. Rodrick also raised concerns over a PILOT program for a planned 10-story twin tower project that will deprive the Toms River School District of much-needed tax revenue in the future.
This article corrects a previous version that had incorrect figures.