It's a mistake to reflexively apply post-WWII standards for U.S. housing (affluent people flee cities, want only split-levels or ranches, etc.--that kind of thing) to any given housing situation as we near the year 2010. We apply the same theme to large parts of urban New Jersey that we use for passenger railroading. Sure, it's not 1947. But it's not 1974, either.
With that in mind, it's quite conceivable that more housing might be useful, and used, in the foreseeable future, given the transformation of the Jersey City waterfront (certainly since 1974!), and the growth in transit demand and rail transit service within that area. Put differently, it's no longer a laughable suggestion to consider living in or near Pavonia/Newport, Harsimus Cove, Grove Street ... or Hamilton Park.
Therefore, where's there's such potential demand, the slide in housing prices and/or values might, may, could be less severe than, or at least "only" comparable to, other parts of the Garden State.
For our part, NJ-ARP won't beat up New Jersey's second-largest city (or IS it? Some suggest it really is the largest already) for proactively planning its own growth. That's a change in attitude that's refreshing, at least to us. It's also good for rail transit.