Ridgewood NJ, the May 4th work session Gary Cirillo of Project Pride proposed an idea for an ordinance that would keep campaign signs 15-25 feet from the curb and out of the planters: if the village owns the property, you can’t use it in the CBD. Aronsohn supporter Jim Griffith said,” signs are an inexpensive expression of our rights.” They don’t crush flowers in planters when there are no flowers planted.”
A special public work session was called to discuss minute changes in closed session meetings that Ms. Knuden felt were important to better address some statements that didn’t fully express the intended sentiment. This all came up due to an OPRA request. Albert recused himself, and so Paul and Gwenn tried to make an issue out of it. In the end the vote was 2to2 as was expected and it was up to Matt Rogers who advised the council to allow the amended minutes to be released as the unofficial minutes. The vote this time was 3 to 1 with Paul being the dissenting vote.
Next on the agenda was a request from members of the Chamber of Commerce to allow A Frame signs in front of businesses. Ed Sullivan, past president of the Chamber of Commerce and present member of board of trustees stood in front of the Council tonight and made his pitch of A frame signs or billboard to be allowed in the CBD Although there is a long standing ordinance on the books preventing them, enforcement seemed to begin as of April 1st. There is a good case for their value in attracting walking shoppers to come into the stores which is good for business. The council is currently looking at a Princeton ordinance and it was decided that at the next public meeting, enforcement would be rescinded for a period of time while the council discussed a new ordinance and businesses could continue the practice of A Frame signs for advertisement. It seems an easy way to help our CBD.
The down side is now not only do he have signs post on ever corner with the stores name we have vote for the parking garage , political signs and A-frame signs in front of the stores. Will the sidewalks in the Central Business District now be turned into a obstacle course. Is this ABA complaint ? Will the Village be liable if some should fall into one of these signs because it is the Village right of way. People can just about walk on the sidewalk now with all the tables and let not forget the Greek to Me planters.What is the right balance between promoting access and quality of life? Residents remain skeptical this council majority can come a proper resolution.
For many, the most interesting part of the meeting came in closing Public Comment when resident Jackie Hone came to the mic to state all the inconsistencies in Roberta Sonenfeld’s manager’s report regarding Schedler Park. Jackie spoke of all the emails many of which were published on this blog that she has sent to the council and village manager to discuss her findings that went unanswered. Roberta’s recollection of recent meetings with the Bergen County Trust Fund Staff were a bit misleading. The council majority may not have been required to take action, and by not they are clearing hindering the process of historical preservation. One can obey the law and still not do the right thing. Case in point: the Bergen County Historic Preservation Society has stated that the Schedler/ Zabriskie house is eligible for registry but no steps have been made by the village to request the forms to register the house.
Infrastructure was next and there were a few water facility expenses reported on and about a disintegrating pipe on Dayton Street which was releasing sludge.
15-20 feet? That is too far to be justified as a safety-related regulation. If the proposed sign ordinance is attempted to be applied against signs (of any type) erected on private residential property that, objectively speaking, are not a distraction for drivers, and are not an obstruction for pedestrians, then the proposed ordinance will probably run afoul of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and related jurisprudence/case law. Just sayin’.
Mayor probably did not like the linwood ave’s signs, so he is now going to try to force “no signs” on private properties for 15 feet 🙂
not to let facts get in the way but the mayor didnt propose any rules. Some guy in the audience did.
I totally agree though that any rules have to be VERY careful of 1st Amendment Rights. Planters and public property are one thing. I think the village can refuse to tolerate and simply remove them.
BUT expressing political message with signs on your own private property is the very heart of the 1st Amendment and any rules regarding regulation must have very compelling public safety rationale.
Gary Cirillo has been a Project Pride VOLUNTER for years. He puts in a lot of hours. He asked that signs be removed from the planters.
Who is Griffith to say that the signs don’t crush flowers? The VOLUNTEERS don’t all that time on the planters to make the downtown look nice. The signs look like garbage. How dare Griffith act like his political agenda is more important than the hours spent by volunteers beautifying the downtown.
Most (all?) of the Project Pride VOLUNTEERS do not have a business in the downtown. Griffith should have thanked Gary for all that he does, apologized and offered to remove the signs in thr morning.
The business owners do not care anout the residents and all the work that they do.
Forbidding signs in Village property is a no-brainer. “Just do it.” Legally they could be removed even without an ordinance. Putting more and more signs on the sidewalk in front of stores, however, is not a good idea. There were good reasons for an ordinance forbidding that. The store owners have their windows to display whatever they want. I don’t appreciate being TRIPPED to fall into a store. The sidewalks can be crowded in spots and there are people with strollers, baby carriages, bikes, and the occasional wheelchair. The trees are beautiful but often occupy half the sidewalk. In my opinion A-frame signs are dreadful. The legs stick out and seem to be begging the pedestrian to trip.
Political signs that wallpaper the CBD are ok and the Village gives Tito a hard time because he didn’t ask for permission to paint??
Tito was not in the Club..so Tito got hammered.
Kudos to Gary Cirillo. He and many others spend endless numbers of hours making our downtown look beautiful. I completely agree with him in that political signs have no place littering our downtown area and randomly placed on PUBLIC property. Private property is a different story.
10:52, you are so right. I hate that they did that to Tito’s. Tito’s looks wonderful in blue, the place is great, the food is awesome. It is evidently just not the cup of tea for certain powers that be
Take Back our Village. Vote Voigt, Hache Coghlan-Walsh.
No more #paularonsohn #ridgewoodnj #bergencounty #2016election
Love TIto’s! Meanwhile, the crazy neon blue strings of lights zigzagging all over Gen Sushi are tolerated. Cheap, tacky, but not permanent, so good to go? As for the political signs in the CBD, limiting political signs to private property is best. It makes a statement to passersby – “this homeowner/business owner supports this candidate/idea.” Otherwise, it’s just cheap and tacky advertising, especially when in planters meant to be planted with flowers! Gary Cirillo is a gem and should be heard!
I’d welcome an ordinance reverting to the NO YARD SIGNS OF ANY KIND rule we used to have. It was easy to remember and it did not violate the First Amendment. No storks, graduation signs, or “Painted by Pete the Painter,” either. It was nice. This is just tacky and now council signs have overtaken the CBD and even been planted in surrounding towns, thanks no doubt to the dumb recommendations of a professional campaign adviser, as hired by a certain mayor every couple of years–their style is embarrassingly obvious and it does not work. Every two years (plus “yes for parking” times) I can’t wait until it’s over and they are gone. I’ll bet plenty of people feel the same.
Why are we worried about signs when it’s okay to install two big concrete planters in front of ONE STORE?