patching...
Update: Got a news tip? Email erik.wander@patch.com.
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

School Officials to Deal With ‘Area 5’ Influx In Time

With two developers having received local Planning Board approval for their respective Redevelopment Area 5 projects, concern over the potential impact on an already overcrowded school system is on the rise.

 

It’s been no secret that Fort Lee public schools have been overcrowded for quite some time, and the problem is only increasing. The Fort Lee Board of Education has seen two referendums that would have expanded the school system fail, and only on a third attempt did voters approve a significantly scaled-back version that included little new construction and relatively few additional classrooms.

But with two developers, Fort Lee Redevelopment Associates (FLRA) and Tucker Development Corporation, having received approval from the Fort Lee Planning Board to move forward with their development plans for the long-vacant, 16-acre plot of land known as Redevelopment Area 5, concerns over the potential impact on the local school system are on the increase as well.

The issue came up Monday at the Fort Lee Board of Education’s special public meeting, and school officials said that while the potential problem is indeed on their radar, they’re not ready to lay out a specific, detailed plan until the two development projects begin to take shape and a clearer picture of precisely how they will affect the school district begins to emerge.

“It’s my understanding next year that [Fort Lee School No. 1] is going to be approaching 700 students, and we have the approvals of Area 5 being developed,” said Fort Lee resident David Sarnoff Monday. “I would really like to know how the board is planning for the influx of these students and how it’s going to affect School 1 going forward.”

Sarnoff added, “What’s the plan? Are we going to wait until they’re built and then deal with it, or is there something in place to prepare us for this influx?”

School board president Arthur Levine, reminding people that the referendums that would have provided for the building of new school facilities was voted down in 2010, said school officials are preparing for the eventuality to the extent they can.

“The only way that we’re going to be able to deal with any significant influx is by leasing other facilities,” Levine said.

“Our only alternative is to seek alternative spaces where we can educate our children,” he added. “There are other sites that we are looking at currently that, in the event that the large influx does happen, we will have space for them.”

Northjersey.com recently reported on a "demographic report" revealing that four of Fort Lee’s six public schools are currently over-capacity, and that in five years, Fort Lee High School and Fort Lee School No. 2 will reach 99 percent capacity.

The report also indicated that the two development projects approved for Area 5—FLRA’s for the eastern half and Tucker’s for the western portion—are projected to bring in an additional 82 students to the school district.

“We are bursting at the seams at the schools,” Fort Lee resident Nina Levinson is quoted in the article as saying. “We will have two kids to a desk unless we build more schools. Building more schools is truly, truly expensive.”

Fort Lee School No. 4 PTA president Ada Garcia Monday reminded Interim Superintendent Steven Engravalle that at a meeting on March 21, parents raised similar concerns, specifically about School No. 1, where elementary students living in the development area would go as the district is currently configured.

Garcia paraphrased Engravalle from the meeting in March, saying, “If [development] hasn’t happened in 40 years, that site is never going to happen.”

“That’s exactly what I said, and the context was to talk about that we have many other pressing issues at this time,” Engravalle said. “We’ve done a demographic study. I’ve been in contact with our Mayor and Council to discuss the project itself.”

But Engravalle also said that until groundbreaking actually takes place on the property, which has in fact sat vacant for 46 years, and the district begins to get a clearer idea of how many school-aged children are actually going to move in, the district isn’t going to develop a set-in-stone plan.

“They’ve attempted, I’ve been told, numerous times to develop that property because it’s been referred to as the most valuable property on the East coast time and time again, and they haven’t been able to do it,” Engravalle said. “So I can’t worry that the sky might fall or that it might rain. I have to make sure that it’s going to take place. And once it does, then we’re going to talk about what’s the real [solution].”

****

Find us on Facebook or Twitter, or for news straight to your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter.

  • How concerned are you about the potential impact on the Fort Lee school system resulting from the two development projects?

    (Voting has been closed for this question)
    • Very
        40 (75%)
    • Somewhat
        6 (11%)
    • Just a little
        5 (9%)
    • Not at all
        2 (3%)
    Total votes: 53
  • Your vote will only count once. This is not a scientific poll. View Results Vote!
Related Topics: Development, Fort Lee Board of Education, Fort Lee Public Schools, Impact on School System, and Redevelopment Area 5

William Mays

3:09 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Now that I think of it, it would have been good if the developers provided money for or built a new school. However, I still cannot see myself supporting a referendum similar to the first two. Building a school on a park that was meant for our kids to enjoy and was dedicated with the purpose of forever serving as a place for Fort Lee's youth to be able to come there, have fun on the playground, play tennis, basketball, and all other kinds of activities is not needed. As a friend pointed out to me yesterday, a good plan would have been building a new state of the art high school on the middle school's field and then converting the current high school into a middle school serving grades 6,7, and 8.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tracy Mattei

10:46 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Billy, glad you tagged yourself with a photo.
And yes that is a great idea, the first time I heard about it was from Engravalle just about the time of the referendum failed. We simply need more space and that idea seems to be the more pragmatic, please keep in mind the state of the art buildings are still going to cost a lot and it will come directlyout of FT Lee's residents pockets becasue there is so little if any funding/grants.

These issues of overcrowding existed 20 years ago and were not dealt with appropriately by those BOE's and former adminstration. Lets get it right this time!

Comment_arrow

William Mays

10:53 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Tracy, theres another issue, I wouldn't trust Engravalle with our money, as you can see, he fires people on the whim, and couldn't care less what parents and kids think about it. I don't want that type of person anywhere near my or anyone else's money.

Comment_arrow

Tracy Mattei

4:02 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

Ft Lee BM-- I trust Engravalle,and the BA, and the assistant super-- he has made more improvement in this district in six months than the previous ones did in six years. He had to make some tough choices, the BOE upheld them. We will never know why these teachers were not renewed, they did not go public. I wish them well and I am sure that they will be better off in the long run.
As far as money management goes-- nothing gets by without multiple approvals-- its just that way. I think we, as a community need to put pressure on the BOE to find additional solutions for the incredible overcrowding and try to take advantage of the lower cost bids that are coming in for facilities across the state. We will be footing the bill, its lower proced construction that we cannot allow to pass by again!

Art Elmers

10:07 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

“We are bursting at the seams at the schools,” Fort Lee resident Nina Levinson is quoted in the article as saying. “We will have two kids to a desk unless we build more schools. Building more schools is truly, truly expensive.”

I can't believe my eyes! Is this what Nina is quoted as saying! Has a priciple architect of rejection of two referendums now seen the light? It would have been nice to take advantage of State Funding of a significant portion of the referendums, but that is now gone. This will only cost Fort Lee taxpayers more in the future.

And Billy, I am glad that you thought of an idea that was discussed on the Patch years ago.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

10:09 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Art, I don't have time to look back at discussions from years ago, and I heard this recently, so I posted about it. The first two referendums were severely flawed.

Comment_arrow

alex f.

2:41 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

Art, I believe your comment regarding Nina Levinson was a cheap shot. You are not going to find a more dedicated and concerned citizen than Nina. She has been a hero to the property tax payer of Fort Lee---especially,to the one to two family home owner. The first two referendums were seriously flawed----we would have lost part of our park, created additional traffic, confused both students + parents and added hundreds of dollars more than what was estimated to the homeowners property tax bill. Nina as well as many others clearly saw that. If Fort Lee wants to maintain one and two family homes, both the borough and school officials need to be sensitive to the homeowners or else we will just have high rises here. Yes, Nina has every right to question the impact that the area 5 high rises may have on our schools. The developers should have been held more accountable for any potential overcrowding but I fear the burden will once again fall on the property owners.

Art Elmers

10:16 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

And the State Money they would have provided is now long gone....

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

10:19 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

That can be blamed on no one except our former superintendent Raymond Bandlow and the Board of Education. If they had planned the referendum more carefully, they would have gotten it passed the first time around.

Art Elmers

10:54 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Billy,
Cut the crap! You were against it no matter what. Don't hide behind the lame excuses we heard many times before. There are people in Fort Lee that care and then there is Billy Mays I, Billy Mays II and all the others.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

10:58 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Actually no, the main factor in why I was against it was that they were planning to build on a park. I could have overlooked the other negatives. Don't say I don't care, because I care. I care that those two referendums included a plan to build a school on a park that Fort Lee's children have used for decades and still use. I care that if we approved that referendum, our tax dollars would be used to build a new school so that Bandlow could move to another town and boast of how successful he was in Fort Lee. Oh wait, he already did that, didn't work out very well.

Art Elmers

11:03 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Billy, If you had bothered to look at the site plan, You would have seen that all the park's facilities would have been relocated to where the Park's Dept building is now. There would have been no net loss of facilities. Any other excuses?

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

11:06 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

The Park's Dept building is on a very small lot, if you had bothered to drop by there and look some time, you'd see that.

Art Elmers

11:07 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Been there many times. By the way, good use of a dead man's photo.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

11:08 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Art, you've known me on here long enough to know that I am not trying to give anyone the impression that I am actually Billy Mays.

Comment_arrow

William Mays

11:10 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

The only reason I put that photo up was so that people could distinguish between me and the nut job who keeps trying to impersonate me.

Art Elmers

11:15 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Thank goodness, why did you pick him as your alter-ego?

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

11:18 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

Because I see him as having been a successful businessman, he made people want crap they didn't need. He made tons of money off of 30 second commercials. A great example of a man that gave himself a name and tons of money.

Comment_arrow

William Mays

11:25 pm on Thursday, June 21, 2012

I'll gladly take the photo down as soon as that person stops making fake profiles.

William Mays

12:43 am on Friday, June 22, 2012

Jimmy Lutz, Nose Wayne, same person.

Reply

William Mays

12:51 am on Friday, June 22, 2012

Oh look guys, now Jimmy is trying to pretend that I'm impersonating him.

"Jimmy Lutz
25 seconds ago
Although I not really certain about that. I do know I could use some help in the mental health department."

Reply

William Mays

12:59 am on Friday, June 22, 2012

Giving up already (Jimmy, Milly, etc)?

Reply

Ryan

7:46 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

They need to make the schools bigger regardless of this new building project. They spent 1 million on a parking lot next to school 1.... nice job! They need to build a new school or build onto the others. It is a shame that they cannot make the middle school two stories and move the 6th grade in there. There has to be some empty space somewhere they can build... Otherwise the kids will just have to lose their play areas outside the schools. The middle school is getting some more classrooms and hopefully it will help the overcrowding there.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

9:27 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

The Middle School is built on a swamp and it was originally planned to be two stories but the foundation began sinking. I'd be fine with a new school, just not if our park has to be sacrificed. Expansion is a good idea.

Luca D.

8:53 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

This issue should have been addressed as part of the redevelopment with the developer and with an invitation to the Superintendent of Schools to attend each and every meeting.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

9:27 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012

Yeah, but Engravalle would say that it isn't his job to attend the meetings.

Art Elmers

12:12 pm on Saturday, June 23, 2012

Billy, Too late. The money is gone. Even if it was built on the other end of town you would have not voted for it. So please spare us your excuses.

Reply
Comment_arrow

William Mays

12:31 am on Sunday, June 24, 2012

How do you know? If it was built somewhere else I would have gladly voted for it.

Leave a comment