February 25,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood Nj, The fact is a BCIA garage is a county owned and operated parking garage , that is paid for by Village of Ridgewood taxpayers .The Village gives up all control of the garage and Village residents have no priority.
From the Bergen Record October 13th, 2014 , “The village has been in talks with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) for more than a year about a partnership that would ideally result in the county building a 450-space parking garage at the site of the Hudson Street lot, where there are currently only a couple dozen 12-hour metered parking spots.
The county would own and operate the garage, which the village would pay for over the course of 20-30 years from the revenue from the garage.
To put the plan into motion, the freeholders and the county executive both need to sign off on the transferring of funds from the county’s planning department to the BCIA through the approval of the resolution.” https://www.northjersey.com/news/freeholders-set-vote-on-funding-study-for-ridgewood-1.1108474?page=1
The deal stinks. (Not to mention the location – that the edge of the CBD in a heavily congested area.)
Eek, that would be bad, and is definitely not what we’ve been told about how a BCIA garage would operate or be “controlled”.
So one of three things is going on here:
1. The Record got its facts wrong back in 2014.
2. The operating model of a BCIA garage in Ridgewood has changed since these 2014 talks.
3. Roberta et al. have been lying about, misrepresenting, or misinterpreting how a BCIA garage would operate in Ridgewood.
Personally, I would put my money on #1 or #2, mostly b/c the comments by Roberta that Ridgewood would operate the garage are from this week, and this article is from 2014.
inventive john I’ll give you that lol
Inventive? How so?
Right. Because it would be so odd for Riberta et al to be lying.
John V has nothing better to do all day than to be inventive.
Cast my vote for #3.
I heard Albert once in the council meeting that “our partnership with BCIA will be as good as the freeholders we elect”, so “keep electing good freeholders and our partnership will be good”.
That’s different from what Roberta is saying. She says that “once the lease is signed, it stays same for 25 years”.
Who is correct? Albert or Roberta?
It certainly could be #3. But here are recent direct quotes from Roberta that indicate otherwise, at least on the “control” part. (All quotes from Facebook so not able to link unfortunately.) Assuming Roberta isn’t lying: James is correct that Ridgewood residents will have no priority within the garage. But the town will retain control and responsibility for all other aspects, even if funded by BCIA. (Again, I don’t support funding through the BCIA personally…)
– “We can design the deck anyway we want as long s we charge the same for residents and no residents. So IF we decided to use the top floor for commuters or the top two then Ridgewood resident commuters as well as nonresidents would park on those levels…..the only requirement is that we charge the same…..”
– “The deck will not be a commuter only deck….this is not the purpose for it ….we will determine what percent of the deck will be for commuters, for visitors (resident and non), for employees – commuter parking as other forms of parking will be capped. ”
– “The County will not be responsible for maintaining the new facility – we will be”
– “this was never meant to be just a commuter lot”
– “commuter parking would be limited to a certain number as mentioned above….Ridgewood residents still have exclusive passes to the other parking lots”
– “we can limit the number of commuters”
– “There was never a plan to make this an all commuter deck – that is not smart so there will be a limit on commuter spots.”
– “We have repeatedly said that the Village Management and the Council will opine on the various rate alternatives presented by Walker and determine which rate increases we will pursue and when”
I don’t think the article is that different from what she says now. Commuters will all be equal, we can’t raise prices on out of towners. That is control enough whether anyone wants to use that term.
Somebody should start pointing to the bigger, most obvious disgrace which is that this is more and more a gift to the restaurants and builders uptown. Saturday night will be free in the new lot as a concession to Mt Carmel (which is convenient for the nearby restaurants) and then they will pilot free Friday nights. They know full well half of these retail businesses will close when they bulldoze for the garage and high density housing anyway. Mango Jam, Hillman et al will not be helped as their customers will be charged full fare, all the hours they are shoppiing.
Very nice job John V… divert, divert, divert… now everyone is talking about (and choosing sides from, and restricting the conversation to) to your three points rather than the disaster that BCIA funding will be for the Village residents, regardless of who did or did not lie, etc…
Total sideshow.
Nice!
This is not John V fault. The fault lies directly with the Council majority and the VM . The information that they have given to the resident has ben vague , forever changing, confusing. again I say show me the contract with the county in writing. Don’r tell me on facebook, tweeter or on this blog Remember “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” There are so many players involved in this that you need a score card. The garage process has been flawed from the beginning with changing information ,designs .expert,studies. Council majority not giving information to the council minority in a timely manner if at all. We all hear the Albert tout Roberta bering private sector experience to Village government. Is this the way its done. The garage may well be a great project but the way it is being done is embarrassing .
6:30pm-
Just responding directly to James’ claims in his post! I’m more than happy to talk about the actual project. For example, how would the BCIA funding be any more potentially disastrous than if the town funded a garage by itself? Projected financing cost is apparently about the same. Revenues a few % less since cant charge non-residents more.
I agree the garage is a big big risk. If you can explain to me how the BCIA aspect makes it significantly worse, I’m all ears.
Well John V Again I say We are being spoon fed this information. Do you think that there no other hidden fees that we and maybe the Village are not be told about. Post the contract in it entirety between the Village and the BCPA so we can see. Other then that I think any speculation on both side is just that speculation. I don’t know anyone in this would that agrees to a deal with just a handshake( Well not anymore) especially with politicians.
8:42pm – Completely agree!
Agree we need to see the contract to fully get it but from a baseline financial standpoint it is a wash (.03 savings in rate but double fees) before taking into account lost additional commuter fees from out of towers for 25 years.
Beyond the lost revenue from out of town commuters, I am concerned frankly about equal access. We will be losing spots at Ken smith and brogan for the unfortunate high density housing that is being forced upon us. This people will be looking for somewhere to go and Hudson street is obviously most likely. Now, if rates are the same and lower than other towns (think glen Rock for example charges 125/month for out of town commuters) it will be a race to park and first come first serve with no bias towards ridgewood residents. That is worse and unnecessary.
10.56 is right. Carve that into that crap traps cornerstone..for all to see a proper toomstone before its 2036 bulldozing. What the hell were those fools thinking..how to start a slum Pod
If the BCPA bonds the garage for X and there are unforeseen cost overruns that exceed X who is responsible for the price of overruns?
The council majority cannot be trusted! Mike and Susan should not vote to support the garage funding, BCIA or Ridgewood. They have proven bad judgment since this garage’s inception, starting with location! A garage that funds itself cannot fit on that lot, period. Voting no on this garage doesn’t make them obstructionist, it makes them the only ones willing to stand up and do the right thing.
@11:24, to be clear, no garage will be self funding. But lets just say more people in town want the garage (say the newest design , 4 feet in the street) than don’t want it…is it the right thing for them to vote no if they believe it is wrong for town? I am not sure…sometimes we can’t protect people from their own stupidity if ykwim…
In the 32 plus years I have lived here I honestly have not seen a more poorly conceived idea proposed for this town. And, for those that are for it, do you have any thoughts on what to do with this garage when it fails ?
When investigating they always say FOLLOW THE MONEY. I wonder who will benefit from this garage the most??
6:58…IDKWYM, lol. People voted for these 3! Council members are stewards of the town and people. All along the way, Susan and Mike have interjected their thoughts, opinions and advice and each and every time they have been swept aside because the other 3 have the power. The majority council have had such disrespect for these two and the people they represent. Now, that they have a group of citizens who put forth a petition to force the power of the people to speak through a referendum vote in May, Susan and Mike have a voice in this process which cannot be ignored. Bottom line, since the beginning, this garage’s location has been the least ideal location. It serves a developer, a couple of restaurants, and commuters. It doesn’t fit and disrupts the workings of the busiest house of worship in this village. It will be horrible to invite another 250+ cars to the area. CONGESTION in our CBD is why people stay away, not the lack of parking. I hope they do what is right and resist the typical bullying pressure they receive from the 3. The people will have their backs! How about pursue some of the other options that have been brought up over the last year? At least try some before spending millions of dollars on a badly conceived monstrosity garage. Now, that would be working for ALL the people, not a few.
8:04 – There was someone who spoke in the meetings about north walnut st lot, “that when our firm was given that contract”.
Lets see if that same firm is given the contract to build the garage at Hudson St or someone else.
They don’t have the bids out yet and they are talking about shovels in the ground in May, and exact amount of bond to be 11.5M. So, is an unofficial bod already received?
8.33 nicely done..all bare truths..question is how do we stop this crime..?
Really what the hell is wrong with the status quo..? Who gives a damm if restaurants & merchants are up at night worried about their throughput..let them wait forever since they tried to shaft the rest of us for the next 30 years of bond payments based on baskets of missing quarters with taxpayers as only responsible parents in this spending patronage petting zoo..deck up a few of the central lots and stop this insanity.
Seriously Ridgewood..look at that photo..its a monstrosity …there is not one single large Parking structure design that would not destroy that neighborhood community ,,,church & school location up there…there are people living up there…it would plant the seeds of a slum….