Category: Village of Ridgewood

> “Keep your mouth closed.” Indeed!!

I don’t know about others, but this is the first I’ve heard of the 200:1 advantage Graydon has over other municipal pools when it comes to avoiding regulatory consequences from poor results in fecal coliform tests. That’s a pretty nice cushion to have if you can get it.

I pay attention pretty well, and I don’t recall seeing Graydon described as a one-of-a-kind man‐made pond having no circulation or filtration systems. Does this mean that if Graydon implements any form of circulation or filtering system at all, that it will immediately be shackled with burdensome cleanliness standards that it has no chance of meeting?

“Don’t drink the water.” NFN, 10:27, but I don’t think you’ll be accomplishing much in the way of personal persuasion with that approach.

It sounds as if Graydon, if it is to be improved much at all, will have to be professionally managed on the Village’s behalf once the improvements are in place, or possibly privately owned under preferential rules set by the Village, if it has any chance of surviving, much less thriving, in today’s modern regulatory environment. Can anyone else with a higher altitude perspective weigh in on this question?

>According to the State, Graydon is not a pool, it is a man‐made pond. It is filled using well water and there are no circulation or filtration systems. Graydon is therefore subject to much different regulations and standards than other municipal swimming facilities. For many years, chlorine was used to disinfect the water at Graydon. Then, in 1992, the Village was fined for this practice because, at the time, there were no chlorination products registered for use in natural bottom swimming pools. The result was that a Special Local Need (SLN) pesticide label was created that allows the Village to treat the water for algae control only, but there are no longer any disinfecting chemicals allowed to be used at Graydon. RPP Final Report, p. 6.

Why does the State require more stringent criteria for a traditional swimming pool different than ponds? Notwithstanding the effects on animal and plant life inherent to ponds, is it because the State intends a different use and purpose in terms of scope and extent for a pond in comparison to a traditional swimming pool? If not, then why aren’t the regulations and standards for a pond sufficient for a traditional swimming pool?

Further, I have read that because there are no disinfecting chemicals allowed to be used at Graydon, the bacteria count in the water is higher than in a traditional swimming pool. The New Jersey State Department of Health has set bacterial and chemical standards for both traditional swimming pools and ponds such as Graydon. In swimming pools, an acceptable fecal coliform test result is less than one organism per 100 ml versus 200 organisms per 100 ml in ponds. See Public Recreational Bathing Water Standards, N.J.A.C. 8:26-1, et. seq. If you were to fill a half-liter drinking bottle with water from a traditional swimming pool, the State would only allow less than one bacteria organism to be present. However, if you fill that same bottle with water from a pond like Graydon, the State would allow up to 200 organisms to be present. Therefore, Graydon is permitted by law to have roughly 200 times the bacteria count of a traditional swimming pool. Again, we must understand why the State makes a distinction between ponds and traditional swimming pools.

I think many residents would find it helpful to have more information regarding the statement about the
grand-father clause referenced above.

I have read the DEP regulations and determinations. In March 2008, the DEP Assistant Commissioner of Compliance and Enforcement
“offered direction as to how to more effectively utilize the approved chemicals, but then stated, “The Department still recommends, however, that Graydon Pool be replaced with a bona fide swimming pool in the future.” RPP, pg. 6.

I would like to know what administrative opinion the DHS would issue regarding the Village’s decision to use a pond as a municipal swimming pool that does not meet State standards for recreational bathing water.

If you refute any of the information I have read above or have answers to the questions I posed, please be kind enough to provide the links and resources to such information.

>The Village Engineer has decided to incorporate into the draft RFP the DEP, State of New Jersey Health Code rulings and site plan for the “Graydon Pool Complex”, which has yet to be reviewed and approved by The Village Council.

The rules and regulations of the DEP and State of New Jersey Health Codes are in and of themselves state and federal regulations and cannot be manipulated by Ms. Ringel, or any other member of the PGC for that matter. If anything, these regulations/restrictions may become even tighter despite all the ranting and ravings from Ms. Ringel and Ms. Kelly.

I fail to see the PGC and RPP reaching any real compromise. The objectives of both groups are completely different, and in my opinion are not within the possibilities of any compromise.

The PGC does not bother to provide any professional guidance regarding the Graydon Pool Complex; they reject any possible guidance and thereby threaten the entire Graydon Pool Complex project.

Thus, I don’t foresee the PGC being successful in their attempts to thwart the efforts of the RPP, but we will only know this with the passage of time.

As you know, I have been sending out letter after letter to Suzanne Kelly and Marcia Ringel, Co-Chairs of the PGC but all of these letters have been returned to my office marked “Delivery Refused”, thus, both women have lost the opportunity to read any of the information contained in any of these letters.

Frankly, I am surprised at their aloof attitude as to their knowledge or lack thereof regarding the “Graydon Pool Complex”.

David F. Bolger

LINK to NJ. Health Code:
https://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/phss/recbathing.pdf

>“If our housing plan fails, we have to be prepared for builders to come in here and go to court and say, ‘I’m building what I want on any piece of property I can get, as long as I include affordable housing,’” Pfund explained. “I don’t think I’m being Chicken Little crying the sky is falling on that, but we have to be very careful.” – Ridgewood, NJ Mayor David T. Pfund, August 12, 2009

There are many versions of the Chicken Little story, but the basic premise is that a chicken eats lunch one day, and believes the sky is falling down because an acorn falls on her head. She decides to tell the King, and on her journey meets other animals who join her in the quest. In most retellings, the animals all have rhyming names such as Henny Penny, Cocky Lockey and Goosey Loosey. Finally, they come across Foxy Loxy, a fox who offers the chicken and her friends his help.

After this point, there are many endings. In the most famous one, Foxy Loxy eats the chicken’s friends, but the last one, usually Cocky Lockey, survives long enough to warn the chicken and she escapes. Other endings include Foxy eating them all; the characters being saved by a squirrel or an owl and getting to speak to the King; the characters being saved by the King’s hunting dogs; even one version in which the sky actually falls and kills Foxy Loxy.

Depending on the version, the moral changes. In the “happy ending” version, the moral is not to be a “Chicken”, but to have courage. In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean “do not believe everything you are told”. In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper.

So, if you believe Ridgewood Mayor David T. Pfund is Chicken Little, who do you think the unscrupulous fox is in Ridgewood?

>

>

>https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10382

https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa642.pdf

President Obama and other leading Democrats have proposed creating a new government health insurance program as an option for Americans under the age of 65, within the context of a new, federally regulated market — typically described as a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” Supporters claim that a new government program could deliver higher-quality health care at a lower cost than private insurance, and that competition from a government program would force private insurers to improve.

A full accounting shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. The central problem with proposals to create a new government program, however, is not that government is less efficient than private insurers, but that government can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers away from private insurance, despite offering an inferior product

A health insurance “exchange,” where consumers choose between private health plans with artificially high premiums and a government program with artificially low premiums, would not increase competition. Instead, it would reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business. President Obama’s vision of a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a prelude to a government takeover of the health care sector. In the process, millions of Americans would be ousted from their existing health plans.

If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets, there are far better options.

Congress should reject proposals to create a new government health insurance program — not for the sake of private insurers, who would be subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of American patients, who would be subject to unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10382

https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa642.pdf

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

>An email I recieved today———-

For three years, we have been volunteers helping the Ridgewood Pool Project (RPP) learn why residents have left Graydon and what will bring them back. As you know, Melinda Cronk and Jane Morales have done an incredible job leading that charge and working closely with Village Parks & Recreation and the Council. Unfortunately, an uninformed group of residents has recently launched the Preserve Graydon Coalition. The group’s approach so far has been to spread false claims about the RPP and its hard work, with the stated aim of stopping the Council’s search for architectural services so Graydon can be left as a sand bottom bathing beach. As you’ve probably noticed from recent news articles (https://www.northjersey.com/community/clubs/news/A_show_of_force.html and https://www.northjersey.com/recreation/news/52737472.html), this group has come out swinging hard, and our voices MUST be heard in response.

With the RPP continuing to work through official channels to meet the collective needs of our residents, we have decided to take a step back from the group in order to further the cause for a new Graydon. The RPP is standing by its recommendation that Ridgewood should build a new pool facility, and all of us need to help the Village understand why they came to that recommendation. We represent the badge numbers that the Village needs. We require a clean, clear, safe, and fiscally responsible pool facility. And, we need to stand up for it NOW.

Since the Preserve Graydon Coalition is providing a large voice for the status quo, we need to have an even larger one. We welcome your support of FIX GRAYDON NOW, our new committee that plans to take a very vocal approach to helping Council understand just how far reaching the support for a new Graydon facility has become. Here’s what we need from you:

1) VOLUNTEER. As proponents for a new pool facility in Ridgewood, we must organize NOW. The Ridgewood Pool Project will stand by their recommendation for this type of facility, but we must show that our voice is much larger than the Preserve Graydon Coalition. Whether you can give a day or just an hour, everyone who can help us plan some activities over the next several weeks should contact us immediately at FixGraydonNOW@gmail.com.

2) MARK YOUR CALENDARS. On September 9 at 7:30 p.m., the Village Council will meet in the Courtroom at Village Hall and we understand the Preserve Graydon Coalition will make a formal case to stop the search for architectural services. We must pack that Courtroom to reassure the Council that they are on the right track and shouldn’t let a vocal minority hurt the progress that’s already been made.

3) SPREAD THE WORD. There is a large population of the Village that has a stake in Graydon as taxpayers, but they do not have a personal need for a swim facility. This group is more likely to support the status quo, because they see it as having less risk. Residents in general should understand that Graydon attendance has plummeted; the facility is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars; young families are losing a sense of community because they’re spread out across other pools; and a new facility can be equally natural and beautiful and bring residents back without any taxpayer burden. Do you have a friend or neighbor who hasn’t been following this issue but may believe the distortions being spread by the Coalition? Make sure they hear the real story!

Please contact us with any questions, but especially if you want to join other residents in the fight to make a new Graydon a reality. Thanks for your support!

Melissa Maloney & Leigh Warren

>

The 100% increase is ridiculous for commuters! It’s fine for the shoppers, because that’s voluntary, but those of us trying to do the right thing and reduce our carbon footprint by taking mass transit (to get to work, no less!) are now being punished for it. This is backwards and wrong.

This seems to encourage people to avoid mass transit and drive instead. $6 a day is outrageous, and in quarters? Could they at least install credit card machines? No doubt the spots will still be filled, but that speaks more to the inadequate number of spaces more than anything else. The town should be ashamed.

>https://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

“It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts’? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own? “

https://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

>
Michael Lang
Tuesday, August 18th – 7:00pm
Producer of the Woodstock Festival in 1969, Michael Lang, will discuss and sign The Road to Woodstock.

Pete Fornatele
Tuesday, August 18th – 7:00pm
To celebrate our Woodstock Week, please welcome back WFUV Radio DJ Pete Fornatele as he signs his new book: Back To The Garden… Note; this Event will be upstairs on the main level while the Michael Lang Booksigning Event will be on the lower level

TELL THEM YOU SAW THIS ON THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG

>Monday, August 10, 2009

When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% hold the opposite view and fear the insurance companies more. Seven percent (7%) are not sure who they fear the most.

Among those who have insurance, 53% fear the government more than insurance companies while 39% take the opposite view. Those without insurance fear the insurance companies more.

Adults under 30 fear the insurance companies more while those in their 40s are evenly divided. However, a solid majority of those over 40 fear the government more.

These findings help explain fears by some of a government “takeover” of health care under the reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this question. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats fear private insurance companies more than government while 82% of Republicans hold the opposite view. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 53% fear government more.

Most of those who attend church at least once a month fear the government more. Those who rarely or never attend church or religious services fear private insurance companies more.

While 41% fear the insurance companies more than the government, just 25% agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that health insurance companies are “villains.”

Recent polling has shown that the public is fairly evenly divided about the health insurance proposals being made by the president and congressional leaders of his party. However, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to oppose the effort.

As Congress has debated potential reforms, confidence in U.S. health care system has increased. Just 19% of Americans now rate the overall system as poor while 48% say it’s good or excellent.

Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of the protesters at town hall meetings, but 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the protests are phony.

Most voters believe that middle class tax cuts are more important than new spending on health care.

>New hours for STREET PARKING regulation are 10AM to 6PM Monday through Saturday. New rates are .50 per hour, .10 for 10 minutes, .20 for 15 minutes (where meters allow). Downtown parking lots will also be regulated from 10AM to 6PM but only Monday through Friday – PARKING LOTS ARE FREE ON SATURDAYS.

COMMUTER PARKING LOTS (Train Station & Park & Ride) – Regulated hours remain 6AM to 6PM, Monday through Friday, with hourly rates increased to .50 per hour.

Ordinance # 3203 establishing these rates took effect August 1, 2009.

>If your looking to run ads or get in touch with the Ridgewood Blog please send all correspondence to onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com

thank you for your support!!!!

Special Events
Garage Sales
Open Houses
Birthday’s
Birth Announcements
Obits
News
Tips
ADVERTS

thanks again

PJ Blogger
the Ridgewood Blog

also now on twitter : www.twitter.com/ridgewoodblog

Speak Your Mind ……………………..