Winfield Township (also called Winfield Park) is a township in Union County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey. As of the 2020 United States census, the township's population was 1,423, its lowest decennial census and a decrease of 48 (−3.3%) from the 2010 census count of 1,471, which in turn reflected a decline of 43 (−2.8%) from the 1,514 counted in the 2000 census.Table 7. Population for the Counties and Municipalities in New Jersey: 1990, 2000 and 2010, New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, February 2011. Accessed May 1, 2023. The township is the sixth-smallest municipality in the state.Astudillo, Carla. "The 10 tiniest towns in New Jersey (they're really small)", NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, November 1, 2016, updated May 16, 2019. Accessed March 5, 2020. "We used square mile data from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to rank the ten municipalities with the smallest area size.... 6. Winfield Township Situated close to Linden, Winfield township was created as part of a large 700-unit mutual housing project for defense workers of the Kearny shipyards in 1941." Winfield and Linden share the same ZIP Code.
Winfield Township was incorporated as a township by an act of the New Jersey Legislature on August 6, 1941, from portions of Clark and Linden, passing over the Governor's veto.Snyder, John P. The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries: 1606-1968, Bureau of Geology and Topography; Trenton, New Jersey; 1969. p. 242. Accessed May 30, 2024.
History
The Winfield Park Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Project (Project No. 28071) is a 700-unit development of 254 buildings that were originally planned and developed by and built for the defense workers of the Kearny, New Jersey, shipyards. This was the last of eight projects undertaken by the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division of the Federal Works Agency under the leadership of Colonel Lawrence Westbrook. In earlier stages, Winfield Park was known as the Rahway River Park Project. John T. Rowland served as the project's architect."Development of a Park Site", Architectural Record, Volume 90, Number 5, November 1941, p. 86-87 Winfield Park is located almost immediately off of exit 136 of the Garden State Parkway; the municipalities of Cranford, Linden and Clark surround Winfield Township, a governmental entity established to enclose the Winfield Park Project. The Township is bordered on three sides by the Rahway River and Rahway River Park (which adds substantially to the park-like setting envisioned by the planners). Units range in size and type from single-family homes to two-story (plus basement) two- and three-bedroom apartments, better known today as Townhouses; to one-story (plus basement) two-bedroom apartments; and one-bedroom apartments, better known to residents as "bachelors." Within the town are located an elementary school, two-store shopping center and Senior Citizen Hall, Community Center, Mutual Housing Office, and Garage, Volunteer Fire and Ambulance Squad Building, and Municipal Building/Police Office.
The defense workers of the Kearny Shipyards had advocated early in 1940 for housing to be developed in the northern New Jersey area. These workers were early and vocal supporters of the National Housing for Defense Act of 1940, also known as the Lanham Act, and the mutual housing program. In January, 1941, a report on the housing requirements of the northern New Jersey area indicated that 1000 units were needed. The Defense Housing Coordinator approved the construction of a 300-unit project in the Newark/ Harrison area and a 700-unit project "to be built as a project itself sponsored by a responsible committee of the defense workers who will live in them." The housing committee had seven working policies that it had developed and that it wanted to apply to the workers' housing, all of which they believed conformed with the original intentions of the Lanham Act of 1940 ("The housing is to be wherever feasible of a permanent nature, and after the emergency has passed these homes are to be disposed of, and in that way the Government is to recoup the initial investment... and they will be available for permanent homes." The cost per unit was set at, and not permitted to exceed $3000.00.) and fit well within the mutual housing program.
1. Management of all community affairs, including relations with local government, should be in the hands of the residents of the new project. 2. Each unit should be assessable for its portion of local taxes, and every effort needs to be made "that both houses and householders should be easily and naturally assimilated into the normal scheme of the locality." 3. The Federal Works Agency (FWA) would provide all streets, sewers, parks, and all other facilities for the project. 4. All dwellings built for civilian defense workers should be sold as a group to local housing corporation as soon as they are completed. 5. All stockholders in the project are, and should be considered as, householders. 6. All management and operating procedures must be carried out under the direction of the local corporation, and not under the direction of the federal government. 7. Housing Corporation must enter into a contract of sale, rather than a rental agreement, with each householder.
Although the committee was completely convinced of the quality of the mutual ownership program itself, they did insist on improvements in the quality of the units over those that had been first designed and built for the Audubon Park project. They especially insisted on the construction of full basements for their new homes.House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 3213, p.228-230, 233; Elizabeth Daily Journal, Nov. 29, 1941, June 29, 1941.
Choosing the site
The first major job that faced the development committee was finding and selecting a suitable site for a 700-unit housing project in northern New Jersey. The United States Housing Authority provided two site selection experts, and the New Jersey State Planning Commission assisted in the site selection process. The final location had to be relatively inexpensive to purchase, near major utility networks for water, gas, electric, and sewer connections, and be in a financially stable host community with underutilized public facilities and services. Major urban areas in northern New Jersey were eliminated early because no plots of land were large enough for the project. The marshy rural areas near the shipyards were also found unacceptable early on. Quickly the committee began focusing its attention on the surrounding suburban communities, which were very popular among its work constituency. Suburban communities lacked financial stability because they lacked the industrial base necessary to keep residential property taxes low. The people of these prospective host communities were also frightened that the new project would be a direct liability rather than an asset for their towns.
Early resistance from potential host communities over financial impact concerns meant that the committee had two choices: to stop the project and wait for the problems to be resolved or push ahead, utilizing the powers granted in the Lanham Act powers to overrule local resistance, but creating a great deal of friction that could potentially affect the project's future success. The housing need was so great, though, that the only viable choice was the second one, and they pushed forward to find a site. Consciously attempting to avoid conflict, the committee tried to assure potential host communities that projects built within the mutual ownership program would pay real taxes and not make payments in place of taxes as outlined in the Lanham Act of 1940. They also petitioned the United States Congress to provide additional funds to host communities that would allow them to expand public services and facilities without imposing additional local taxes. But the financial concerns of the residents only served to exacerbate other local fears about the new project. Many defense workers took these other fears very personally.
"Realizing that such an influx of families would engulf them (host community) in a tidal wave of financial difficulty, the municipal government of the various towns considered, stirred up a tremendous opposition to the project and the people to live in it with untrue and unjust charges such as decreased realty values, 'tax exempt properties,' 'lower class of people,' and so forth, which are all obviously false. We are a class of people who are gainfully employed, we are law abiding, decent, and respectable, and we are Americans."
Seven potential host communities were eventually identified and researched. The committee named Union Township, New Jersey as their final choice, but under intense community and [political pressure] this decision was reversed, and Clark, New Jersey was selected as the final site of the project. Colonel Lawrence Westbrook, Special Assistant in the Federal Works Agency with responsibility for the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division, wrote the following letter to Union Township opponents of the project, clearly showing his frustration.
"Your letter to Congressmen McLean protesting the location of a proposed defense housing project in Union Township has been referred to this office. This is to advise you that a decision has been made to locate the project in Clark Township. It is desired to make it entirely clear, however, that in reaching this decision this office in no manner agrees that the numerous protests received from various persons and organizations in Union Township were based upon valid premises. We feel certain that if you and the other protesters had been acquainted with all of the facts in the situation, you would not have filed your protest. On the contrary, it is believed that you would have urged the Government to locate the project in your township. Since the project will be undertaken in your immediate neighborhood, you will have ample opportunity to determine whether or not the disadvantages to the community, as claimed by your Mayor, were based upon sound facts."
Clark Township's municipal government had been very desirous of the siting of the project in their township. It had extended an invitation to the Federal Works Agency after the Union Township protests had erupted. However, the reaction of Clark's residents to the project indicates that the Township Committee did not have a good understanding of the actual desires of their constituents.House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 3213, p.230, 231, 235, 237, 233, 244; House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 5211, p. 153, 169,170–173, 225; Senate Hearings on Senate Resolution 71, pt.8 p,.6066; Elizabeth Daily Journal, April 2, 1941, p, July 29, 1941, Nov. 29, 1941.
Clark Township protests The residents of Clark—in 1940, a rural community of 350 homes and 1,250 registered voters—were first informed of their municipality's selection as the final site of the 700-unit mutual housing project at a town meeting on April 1, 1941. During the meeting, a letter from John Carmody, Federal Works Administrator, was read to the residents, in which he said:
"I am glad to say that a decision has been reached to construct this project in your township, and I want to take this occasion to thank you and your associates on the Township Committee for your intelligent and patriotic attitude."
But the residents of Clark were not moved by Mr. Carmody's supportive words. One local paper reported that
"Joseph Aaron, who came up from his winter home in Florida to attend the session, demanded the ousting of the Township Committee. Several spirited sallies of this type marked the meeting, the largest gathering of its kind ever held in the township."
The residents of the Township demanded that they be provided with answers to the following questions: