Valley Hospital , shouldn’t still be the main issue in this town but it is
Enough already, please rescind the H-Zone so we can tackle other issues. How can we do this without lawsuits? Let me guess, you can’t?
Valley has, and still is, causing this town a lot of pain and taxpayers money! Do they really have $350 Million dollars to get what they want? Wow, we as a town need to and must unite against Valley’s over expansion. Pascack Valley, re-opening should make them renew within their structure now! They are putting themselves in danger and will blame us if they did fail. Which they won’t. They are a non-profit, non-taxpaying, trust fund-baby.
They have heard about PILOT but think that’s the person who will be PILOTing only paying victims to their Helipad once they get this McMansion of a hospital. Are you awake Ridgewood? Does over 30-60 years of No, now mean Yes? The H-Zone is there to protect us. The existing Valley structure is already too large for this piece of land. Do not drink the Valley Kool-Aid, we will all die and we can’t reverse this mistake!
The intelligent voters will vote for Shinozuka and Killion only. The people who are making big money off of Valley, are the other candidates. Right Al Pucciarelli? etc, etc
There is exactly one party to the lawsuit that can make it go away: the CRR. Valley is a defendant. Our Village is the other.
The lawsuit would go away if the H-zone ordinance were rescinded. While there at it maybe they can rescind Obamacare.
Amen to the original post. Valley has been beaten in every measure of public opinion on their over-wrought expansion plan. Face facts: the hospital is too big already. Traffic is already a problem. Their construction will drain half a million gallons of our drinking water a day for years. Caravans of dump trucks will drive past 3 of our schools every day. How many reasons do they need to bury this insane plan?
One thing that everyone agrees on is that we have too many other issues to address. Valley and it’s supporters (a couple of whom are running for Council) have been so self absorbed that they won’t let go of this crazy dream and let the Village get back to business.
Until Valley drops it’s plan, the Valley issue will be top of mind for too many voters leaving other critical issues in the construction dust….
#1 — Actually, there is another and very simple solution. The Village and Planning board can withdraw their opposition to the lawsuit. That would allow the court to issue an order sending the planning board resolution back to the drawing board. I think the Village counsel and Planning Board should do just that to avoid further wasting our tax dollars. It would be entirely consistent with the public action that the Council took.
Paul, How about showing some leadership on this and making that happen?
Aronsohn has come out publicly in favor of repealing the H-Zone Amendment. Let’s hold him to it if he’s elected.
I hope Aronsohn is NOT re-elected. I used to be for him, but after studying and reviewing a lot he has said and done, I no longer support him. I based my change in position not on what went on the other night alone, but on looking at many other things during his current term of service.
But I very much favor repealing those H Zone amendments and have said so many times before, including on this blog.
There must be a way to do that without endless lawsuits and legal wrangling. Why can’t the PB simply conclude that its predecessor members made a mistake in approving the amendments in the first place?
It should be easy to demonstrate grounds for that, since when the very same experts were queried by the VC, a lot of impt. new information sure came to light.
So why can’t the current PB simply cite that as proof its predecessor board did not get the full info as to the impact on the Village, and then decide based on those grounds that it should rescind the Amendments the previous Board passed?
Keith and several others were NOT on the PB that adopted those amendments, by the way. Tom Riche was however.
I don’t know the legal ramifications or procedures. I do know though that often what seems common sense and simple logic does not always work like that within the legal system, which can impose all kinds of other hurdles to something that ought to be relatively simple.
And by the way, I am not against Valley expanding or modernizing though I am against it’s current plan. With another plan that’s more modest, I might support that — depends on the details.
Maybe Aronsohn says he’s for rescinding the amendments because he knows there’s some legal problem with doing that? After all, he’s on the VC and has been privy to any internal discussions they’ve had about all this– along with the Vill Attorney etc.
So if he knows there’s a reason it can’t be done legally… but it’s popular in some circles to have that position — well, that seems like vintage Aronsohn to me based on looking at how he’s handled other things during his time in office.
Given his new endorsement of Hauck, who clearly supports Valley’s current plan, that sure gets me thinking… otherwise why would he say he’s opposed to Valley’s plan –yet endorse others for the VC who clearly have the exact opposite view and have said so?
I’ve lost any real trust in Paul after doing a lot of homework and I’m sad to say I feel his agenda is not really Ridgewood– it’s him — and only him.
Could an attorney -or maybe one of our highly paid Village officials pls tell the rest of us what exactly ARE the impediments legally to the current PB rescinding those amendments? Why can’t it work (for instance) like poster #4 above describes?