January 7,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, There were too many discussions focused on needing a garage or not. I voted no, but it passed, let’s build a nice one. We need to be talking about what it looks like and how we pay for it. The only design offered to date is ugly, doesn’t fit the lot, and the council is in a rush to build it. We don’t really know how it gets paid for. The traffic impact is going to be huge. The garage is going to be filled with train commuters every day- the village has been clear about that. The one traffic study (done over 4 hours on one day) says we need to know more about overall traffic impact. The village has a poor record dealing with traffic design. This is a traffic disaster waiting to happen.
Judging by comments to the council and online discussions, too many voters did not educate themselves ahead of the vote. A lot of buyer’s remorse and people who “assumed”. There were some amazing speakers who clearly and smartly got to the issue and were ready to dive into to the details the council wishes to avoid. There were also uninformed garage supporters who thought the architect’s renderings were fakes made by opponents of the garage. Quite the indictment when supporters of the garage have no idea what it looks like and even they think it can’t possibly “look like THAT”.
It is now crystal clear that 3 council members, led by the village manager and mayor, were not forthcoming about their intentions ahead of the vote. They promised a conversation about design and then offered one photo ahead of the vote and no options on design. The only design option was a meaningless 10′ difference. The village seems to revel in ignoring codes and statutes created to preserve what everyone loves about the village. The village should set the standard and go beyond what is required. This manager and 3 of the council now have a demonstrable record of doing the opposite. Let’s hope the promise of a new design to be created is true.
Did anyone expect them to be open about much of anything. It is all monkey see monkey do, and the mayor is top monkey.
The new traffic assessment they will be doing will be done in the dead of winter (“within the next few weeks” I think Roberta said). As this is a pedestrian and shopping area, it seems disingenuous to not conduct a more temporal assessment. How about we look at traffic on the first nice day in the spring? Or any nice day instead of the middle of January? Additionally, this whole garage concept is lacking in forward thinking. Has anyone considered that there will be a DECREASE in commuters in the future? With more and more people working from home office, corporations encouraging telework and corporations embacing the 4/10 work week (thereby saving them a day of expenses!), there is a downward trend in commuting. People are hiring Uber to drive them at night, etc.
Why doesn’t David A Bolger help the citizens out and pay to have a lawyer request an injunction approved to stop this stupidity..?
Then we can elect 3 new VC members that care about the homeowners more than the business owners…??
I think the folks on this blog attribute way too much power to the Village Manager.
Am I missing something…?
3:44, are you kidding? David Bolger would pay to do the opposite!
Great comments. Video of weds meeting illustrated that those on dais going thru the motions. Mnt carmel shud sue. That might slow this crew down
” If it doesn’t fit, you must change the foot print.” A plan for a garage that will encroach on Hudson Street by ten feet will cause more problems than it will solve. It may not be illegal to,proceed but it is impractical. The Council represents the residents but the people have spoken and we are representing ourselves and the council majority is not listening.
” If it doesn’t fit, you must change the foot print.” The best Linda
Such arrogance here.
Garage was approved by a huge majority. Your voting against speaks volumes. Let’s study it for another 50 years.
The people did vote for a garage just not one that changes Hudson Street so profoundly and dwarfs Mount Carmel. We were led to believe the design and size were still up for discussion. Many suggestions at the meeting called for additional parking venues closer to the center of town, refiguring of streets and relining of current spaces. Financial fessibility is important but for many it is more about traffic concerns, safety and if the structure will be neighborhood and user friendlly.I only so impassioned speakers being very civil but I did see a council member completely lose it. People hate to be lectured on civility by people who often behave uncivilly. It is really hard to stand up at a meeting and speak. It is a nerve racking experience that takes many of us out of our comfort zone. I admire those that do. One speaking out represents 20 who feel similarly but didn’t. A 100 people speaking out is more like a mandate. I don’t understand why the council majority would not be guided by that.
Sorry for the iris spelling errors. Am having cataract surgery next week!
Majority that were not aware that the plans were final and would not change. Majority who were not aware that the street will be cut in half, traffic signals will be added etc. So misguided is the belief that this will actually help small stores.
We have gone down the rabbit hole here. One person from the audience speaking represents 20 people while duly elected officials of the town represent nobody. A plan that THIS WEEK was being changed to go from the largest size begin considered to the smallest has been final and unchanged since a vote in November. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Be strong!
Council members often represent their own opinions and suggestions. That is why it takes an active public to act as a check and balance on governing bodies.
The garage is built into the street people. At least 10 feet into the street. That is not building a garage on the lot. We voted for a garage on the lot. Not street. They grossly and intentionally withheld the information that it was on the street. In my house that is called lying. Paul met with Father Ron and told him the intention of the town was to build a deck ON THE LOT!! It was clear to me when other clergy spoke in favor of the garage, none of them were aware that it is going to be built in the street. The fact council would reach out to clergy to use them against Mt. Carmel is so sleazy. Thanks Paul for another example of your “civil” leadership. Real civil pitting clergy against clergy but at least you remain consistent… not disclosing the truth that the garage was in the street to the clergy you set up against Father Ron. I am disgusted.