Remember the mantra of the 3 amigos( Paul, Gwen and Albert) that all the problems in Ridgewood was Mr. Gabberts fault. Now they and their
surrogate are blaming the residents. Who are they going to blame in the future?
Well we have certainly turned a corner when a group starts calling themselves the complainers.
For all those that think this is something new, it’s not. It’s not this council, it’s been every council. We saw it with Graydon where plans for improvement were attacked, contributors to that process were demonized personally and professionally. We certainly saw it with the current long, not yet complete, process with Valley (which duplicated the process Valley went through here in the 80’s — I was there for that too), village hall construction, the original parking proposal that the Mayor’s 2008 web page was about, the train station renovation, giant telephone poles, you name it. We’ll see it on whatever comes next. When a small percentage of the population — c’mon people no matter your definition, a few hundred at a council meeting is a small percentage of the population of 25,000 — can block potential solutions to big problems, then you will have zero progress. Zero. You get no change and no change equals no improvement. And in the long run no change equals slow, grinding, decline. You want to know what’s not Ridgewood? Slow, grinding decline, That’s not Ridgewood but that’s exactly what we have at Graydon (in-town membership totals don’t lie), at Valley (Hackensack is cleaning their clock) and in the CBD (we heard it straight from the CBD on Wednesday) and maybe you haven’t noticed but there are two giant dilapidated car dealerships and a run down toxic site in the middle of our quaint picturesque village.
It’s a lot of fun to cheer for your neighbors at council meetings, find that latest gotcha entry in the donor list or some 7 year old web page, and post on Facebook about what a hero of the common people you are but unless you are working for realistic pragmatic answers to real problems that exist in the village you are participating in its inexorable demise. Complaining feels good. Working for solutions takes hard work. From my chair we have far too much of the first and not nearly enough, on any side, of the second. The path forward isn’t cheering at council meetings when saying no to things. It’s figuring our the answer that all sides are a little unhappy with. And before I leave this here: 1] Yes I volunteer in a number of positions to try to help already 2] You couldn’t pay me enough to sit on the dais in that council room on Wednesday nights so this is not some kind of announcement and 3] I have zero relationship with any of the entities mentioned and the only stake I have in the conversation is the value of my home and my sense for what it means to be an active informed citizen. And finally,I didn’t call anyone a complainer here, you did that and they agree with you.
Ridgewood NJ , At the January 6th council meeting after an long and sometime contentious meeting , people were tired ,tempers flared and threats were made . Residents were reminded of their obligation to behave at council meetings , but council members were not .
Most on lookers read the touchy defensiveness as a sign that something is not quite right .
Is is fair to assume that we may threaten and disparage our neighbors as long as they fail to comply with the wishes of the council majority ?
This brings us all back to the original point that the Maser study seemed to magically appear on the Village Website tragically after the vote. This raises serious questions as to the entire process . Was it just an over site , bonding has clear regulations as to what information should be available . Withholding any significant information could throw the entire project in jeopardy.
An Open Letter to Fellow Residents of Ridgewood and the Ridgewood Planning Board,
As residents of Ridgewood, we write to share our thoughts about The Valley
Renewal
.
We are among the thousands of Village residents who support
Renewal
.
To continue to be the high quality hospital that residents of Ridgewood and our neighboring
communities need and desire, it is essential for Valley to renew. Valley must right-size its
operating, diagnostic, and treatment rooms to accommodate new technologies and procedures.
It is also essential for Valley to develop single patient rooms to meet new patient care and
safety standards. These steps are not optional, they are crucial.
During its almost 60-year history, Valley has evolved from a local hospital to the award
winning, top quality regional healthcare organization that it is today. The hospital ranks
among the highest in the nation for both clinical care and patient satisfaction. It has evolved
over time to meet the needs of the communities it serves, and it must do so again. Valley’s
role as a provider of excellent healthcare services for tens of thousands is what makes the
suggested revisions to the Master Plan and H Zone not only acceptable, but vital.
As residents of Ridgewood, we disagree with those who have written or stated that
the Hospital’s Renewal will harm the unique character or way of life of the Village.
In addition, we believe that Valley is wholly committed to the safety and security of the
hospital’s patients, its staff, and the neighbors and students who live and attend school
in the hospital’s neighborhood.
We are proud of The Valley Hospital and we know the majority of our neighbors feel the
same way. As friends and neighbors of many Village residents, we suggest that we move
past the “us vs. them” mentality that has unfortunately become a part of this discussion
and move toward ensuring that Valley remains the hospital that all of us would choose for
ourselves and our family’s healthcare, today, tomorrow, and in the future.
Sincerely,
Scott Agins, D.P.M.
Claudia Allocco
Andrea Aluisi
Michael W. Azzara
George Becker, M.D.
Timothy Berry
David F. Bolger
Mary Camerlingo
Tracey Carbone, M.D.
Eugene Cornell
Anne G. Crane
Thomas R. Crane
Charles D. Crowley, M.D.
Elizabeth O. Crowley, M.D.
Bettina M. Daly
Anne Raftery Denyeau
Marc M. Dreier, M.D.
Stephen J. Errico
Kevin M. Fee
Carole E. Forenza
Russell R. Forenza
James D. Fraser
Megan Fraser
Danielle M. Gaglioti
Robin L. Giordano
Robert Gutenstein
Gwenn Hauck
Cynthia Halaby
Diana Hock
Fletcher Hock
John Johansen
Sally Jones
John Kandravy
Leslie Kane
Sue Kelly
Maryann LeBert
Edward and Joan Lefferman
Kenneth Levitsky, M.D.
Hugo Lijtmaer, M.D.
David Lipson, M.D.
Donna H. MacPhee
Gail M. Matthews, M.D.
Susan H. Mayo
Diane Meissner
Klaus J. Meissner
Audrey Meyers
David Namerow, M.D.
John Nasr, M.D.
Ali Nasseri, M.D.
Pat and Mario Perillo
Thomas J. Rakowski, M.D.
Eileen Richardot
Bettie and Howell Rile
Marivic F. Santiago, M.D.
Kathleen B. Sayles
David G. Sayles
Maria Scibetta, M.D.
Marjorie L. Slankard, M.D.
Ann Marie Snyder
Charles J. Snyder
Susan J. Snyder
Jack Tohme, M.D.
Daniel Van Engel, M.D.
Wayne A. Yankus, M.D.
Patricia J. Van Dyke
Victoria Van Dyke
Susan Viniar
Michael Wesson, M.D
Since the bulletin is prepared on Wednesday, before the Village Council meeting, I cannot share with you what happened. Below, please find the statement of the Parish that was emailed to Council members and read into the record.
On behalf of the Archdiocese of Newark and Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish, I would like to thank Mayor Aronsohn, Councilwoman Knudsen and the architectural/engineering teams working with the Village of Ridgewood for their willingness to engage in these open discussions and for their participation in the two meetings held at the parish last week. I have attached a memorandum from Daniel Disario, P.E., PTOE, of Langan Engineering, the firm that the parish has retained to review the traffic study submitted by Maser Consulting. The memorandum has identified several areas of concern that we would like to see addressed prior to the project moving forward.
While we are encouraged by the fact that the Village is willing to consider reducing the size of the proposed structure, we still believe that the construction of a parking deck for 200 additional cars will significantly impact day to day operations for the Church community and accordingly we would like to see the project proceed with due caution. Though we are thankful that the Village commissioned a traffic study, we feel that the report was limited in scope and a more thorough analysis is necessary.
The study was performed on Wednesday, October 7th for two hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. As a result, the report does not take in to account added volume due to; daily drop off and pickup for Windsor Academy School, drop off and pick up for religious education classes, weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals and other parish events – including the significant attendance for weekend masses. With Mount Carmel being the closest neighbor to the parking structure, we would have preferred more interaction with Maser’s engineers so they could take these factors into account.
We are also uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of issues yet to be determined, including the possibility of the reversal of traffic flow and the elimination of street parking on Hudson and Passaic Streets, both of which border Church property. Certain aspects of the design, including the introduction of crisscrossing left hand turns at the entrance/exit of the lot, a problem which will be exacerbated by the inherent increase of both foot and vehicle traffic at mass times, should be more closely reviewed and fleshed out.
Furthermore, the proposed “cantilevered” overhang is a major aesthetic concern and also could present a series of logistical issues. We agree that solutions need to be found for the parking problem in Ridgewood and it is the intention of the parish to cooperate with the Village to address this longstanding issue. We also recognize the viability of the Hudson Street lot as a potential site, however, we believe the matter needs the type of comprehensive study and analysis that was recommended in the “Summary and Conclusions” portion of the original study completed by Maser Consulting on October 15, 2015 (page 22).
To this end, the parish is willing to retain an engineer at its own expense to examine the ramifications of the proposal in more detail. In conclusion, we formally request that bond approval be placed on hold until both engineering firms are given the appropriate time to study the matter in the required detail and subsequently confer for the purpose of providing a mutually beneficial solution for both the Village and parish communities.
Ridgewood NJ, Questions arise over why the Traffic Study for Hudson Street Parking Deck was not released until after the vote , when some of the Village Council and and the Village manager had access to this key piece of information in October . While both Councilman Michael Sedon and Council Women Susan Knudsen both saw the Masters study when the public viewed it .
According to the Village Manager it was merely an oversight by the Village for not posting it sooner . While the 3 amigos , Paul ,Gwen and Albert stalled in their answer to when the study was available to them , Mike and Susan seemed to indicate they only saw the study recently.
The big dust-up came resident Dana Glazer pushed the issue and Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli as well as Gwen Hauck took offence at the implication . The Village attorney chimed in with a “you can say what you want to the council as long as you agree with them ” ordinance to defuse the tension.
The omission whether it was intentional or not once again brings up the old issue of the Village’s inability to manage large scale projects and effectively communicate with residents . A key piece of information seems to be left out of the mix ,in the race to aggrandize egos and leaves many residents wondering are we once again providing a solution in search of a problem .
Ridgewood NJ, Despite the overwhelming negative feedback about the “Option A” ($12.3 million, cantilevered over Hudson Street) parking garage Village Council members received on Wednesday night, by a 4-1 vote, Council members introduced Ordinance 3519, which gives authorization for Village officials to begin negotiations with the County of Bergen to bond $12.3 million for a “Village of Ridgewood Parking Deck Project.”
I ask you; why would we be asking the County to bond $12.3 million if it was agreed that a MASSIVE garage isn’t suitable for Hudson Street? Am I the only one who heard a big “NO WAY” vote cast by the public in attendance at Wednesday’s meeting? What will it take to get those who sit on the dais to listen?
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
In response to numerous concerns raised by residents, the date for a special public meeting featuring interviews with consultants for multi-family housing impact studies has been changed.
The meeting, which was to take place in the Ridgewood Village Hall Court Room at 5 p.m. this afternoon, was moved to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 12 in Benjamin Franklin Middle School’s auditorium.
Residents raised concerns that they would be forced to miss the meeting because they would be commuting, eating dinner with their families or practicing their religion.
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli explained that the meeting was not intentionally scheduled for such a difficult time.
“Fridays are generally a good time to spend with family and start the weekend,” he said.
Pucciarelli said that the time and date were chosen purely based on scheduling availability, though he noted that the council agreed on Friday “with great reluctance.”
Pucciarelli said it was agreed upon that the date be changed to one that worked better for residents. Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld’s office polled residents to figure out the best time.
Pucciarelli said council members received numerous emails asking them to reconsider the original date. A separate meeting is required for this topic due to the expected length of the interviews, he added.
The Tuesday meeting will not be streamed live because consultants will be in separate rooms during each presentation.
The meeting will be videotaped for subsequent viewing, according to the village manager’s office.
Ridgewood Nj, Residents continue to voice concerns about Gwen Hauck’s serious conflict of interest with Valley Hospital . Many were entirely shocked with last nights discovery the Gwen was representing Ridgewood tax payers in negotiations over the Valley law suit. Its seems common sense would dictate be it legal or not that a life long donor to Valley Hospital as well as her significant involvement with Valley hospital operations since she was a candy striper would make her participation null and void .
At last nights meeting Anne Loving raised concerns about Gwenn Hauck serving on the mediation team in the Valley suit against the village , ” Under any scenario, she should have recused herself. She has stated often that she is in complete support of the entire expansion project. How can she be objective and serve the village properly?”
Gwen was challenged as to whether she was on the current donor list for Valley of not ,readers questioned , What I’d like to know though is why Ms. Hauck would have failed to contact The Valley to advise them of the error if she’s known about it for some time.Hold the phone.who’s lying Valley or Gwenn. How can Valley falsify donor lists?
Councilwomen Hauck vehemently denied that she and her husband had made any donations to Valley since she has been on the council , while Valley had her on the donor list .” The only reason I can think of that The Valley would want to falsify a donor list – to make it seem that everyone important was giving and that we should too.” , speculated a reader.
Playing word games if fine but it does seem like Councilwomen Hauck clearly has a conflict of interest when it comes to Valley Hospital .
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest )
JANUARY 8, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2016, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Residents listen to public comments on a proposed parking garage during Wednesday’s council meeting.
Wednesday’s marathon Village Council meeting ended with the governing body voting 3-2 on a $12.3 million bond ordinance to build a parking garage on Hudson Street.
Because the ordinance requires a supermajority vote (four out of five council members), it was defeated.
Following that vote, a second ordinance was introduced that would enter Ridgewood into an agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) for a garage. The ordinance, introduced with a 4-1 vote on Wednesday, would require three votes for final approval.
Council vote
Prior to the meeting, which went until almost 3 a.m. Thursday, Mayor Paul Aronsohn sent out a statement explaining that while he is still in favor of the largest garage option (option A), he was willing to compromise.
He lent his support on Wednesday to the smallest option (option C) in the hopes of approving the bond ordinance.
“The idea of building a garage is an idea that has been discussed and debated for decades,” he said at Wednesday’s meeting. “While I still think that building a larger garage is the way to go, in the spirit of compromise … maybe at the end of the night, we can come to an agreement.”
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, who had both been strong proponents of option A, also agreed to support option C if it meant moving forward in the process.
“We clearly need to think about this opportunity very carefully,” Hauck said. “I would like to work together in the spirit of cooperation to see this parking deck built.”
Though he noted that he is still in favor of plan A, Pucciarelli said that he understands that there is “objection on the part of plan A,” causing him to reconsider.
“It is clearly time to get going on this garage,” he said, adding that “studies in this town have become a mantra for not making tough decisions,”
While he had initially been in favor of bonding the ordinance for plan C, Councilman Michael Sedon expressed reservations with the idea due to new information about the proposed plan.
He opined that the public did not really have a true view of what the garage would look like before voting in the non-binding referendum in November that started the entire process. Sedon also said that he thinks the process was not made very clear to the public before they voted, which caused him some consternation.
Sedon said that instead of voting to bond option C, he is in favor of looking at less expensive alternatives for adding parking.
“We could do this, and it wouldn’t cost nearly $12 million,” he said. “If it’s decided that it doesn’t work, it’s easily reversed. I can’t support this bond at this time, and I’m voting no.”
“Simply stated, I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage in our downtown area, and I am not convinced that we need additional commercial space. In fact, the more I learn about the situation, the more I believe that a garage now would be a big mistake.”
Dec 19, 2008 • 10:11 pm
Paul Aronsohn
Too few parking spaces. Too many parking tickets. And too many excuses about why nothing meaningful has been done about either situation.
Parking problems in the Village are nothing new. We all know that. In fact, if you listen to some of the old timers,such problems reportedly predated the advent of the automobile! But regardless, the fact remains — we have some serious parking issues that demand some serious answers … now.
A PARKING GARAGE?
In this context, much of the discussion over the past year has been about the possibility of constructing a large garage on the corner of Franklin and North Walnut – a garage that would be a few stories tall and include commercial space. And much of the focus has been on three proposals submitted by three companies – all
different but all seemingly trying to address the perceived needs of the Village.
I, however, remain skeptical. Simply stated, I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage in our downtown area, and I am not convinced that we need additional commercial space. In fact, the more I learn about the situation, the more I believe that a garage now would be a big mistake.
Granted, downtown Ridgewood is often congested and finding a parking space in front of your favorite restaurant or store can be near impossible at times. But there are always – repeat, always – empty parking spaces in the central business district. You just have to walk a block or two to find them. And if you are unwilling or unable to walk a couple of blocks, then a garage – situated on the edge of the business district – would not likely help you.
And as for commercial space, our focus should be on trying to fill the many vacancies that already exist throughout the downtown area. The possibility of adding stores – even a “big box” store – may be attractive to some, but now does not seem to be the time to take such a gamble. In addition to our own vacancies, one only has to drive down Route 17 and in neighboring towns to see that the recession is taking a very real toll on our local economy.
A PARKING COMMITTEE?
Alongside conversations about a possible garage, the Village Council recently established a committee to“undertake a comprehensive review of the parking and pedestrian issues in the Central Business District and train station….” A good idea in theory – one that I initially supported, but one that may be undermined by some of those involved in the process. Specifically, I have been told – in no uncertain terms – that the committee should not address the garage proposal and should not even seek to increase the number of parking spaces in the downtown area.
This, to me, is a real shame and a real mistake. In my mind, it defies logic and good, common sense to establish a parking committee – give it a broad, three month mandate – but not let it deal with one of the biggest perceived parking issues: scarcity of spaces. Sure, there are other issues that can and will be addressed, but how – in good conscience – can we call this a “parking committee” when it is not allowed to deal with the Village’s central parking issue?
Needless to say, I hope the new committee will see fit to revisit the garage proposal and take a broad, meaningful look at the parking situation. Comprised of some really bright, thoughtful members of our community I am hopeful that the Committee will do the right thing.
QUICK, SMART FIXES?
Nonetheless, some of the answers to our parking problem seem obvious as well as easy and cheap to achieve.Here are a few ideas, some of which are already under consideration:
Stop the meterfeeding on East Ridgewood Avenue – a regular practice of some of those who work in the central business district. The police should crack down on this practice. People who work in the downtown area should park in the many longterm spaces that have been designated for their use – spaces that are on the margins of the downtown area.
Reduce the period of time that meters are enforced in the central business district. Currently, the meters run from 9am to 8pm. That should be changed to 10am to 6pm. This would be good for our restaurant owners as well as our restaurant goers. And the lost revenue for the Village could be made up with a system of tiered parking rates.
Implement a more efficient system for commuter parking – one that provides additional spaces as well as an easier way of paying for them. Our commuters should not have to carry a pocket full of quarters, hunt for parking spaces, or worry about getting home from work on time. Consideration should be given to using the parking lot on the east side of the train station for commuters and to using new individualizedmeter technology, as suggested by the Village Manager.
Repaint the parking spaces – and the boxes between them – in the downtown area. According to a friend of mine, who happens to be a traffic engineer, we could add 30 to 50 spaces in the downtown area by just repainting some lines and adding some meters. And while I don’t know this to be true, it certainly seems well worth exploring.
Increase the number of parking spaces for people with disabilities. With the help of the Village Manager’s office, this process has already begun. The idea is to make our downtown more accessible to people with mobility issues.
Enhance the signage for parking lots. Letting people know – through better signage, the Village website, etc. –about the location and availability of parking lots would certainly increase their utilization.
My overall point is this: We have some significant parking challenges in the Village – all of which could and should be addressed in a smart, timely, and costeffective manner. And with New Jersey Transit getting ready to begin a 3year project at the train station, it is incumbent upon us to move swiftly to offset what will be a temporary loss of commuter parking spaces.
I would therefore suggest that we (1) halt the garage proposal, (2) light a fire under the parking committee, and (3)work together – as a community — to address one of the most pressing quality of life issues in our Village.
The bad news is that it has taken us so long to get to this point. The good news, however, is that we are here now,and we have five Council Members genuinely committed to addressing this issue in a serious way.
Ridgewood NJ, This is just a sneak peak of our 11th Annual Alumni Art show. The photos don’t do it justice…come see the show in person. There’s so much more to see and so much talent! Our reception is this Thursday, 1/7 at 7:00 pm.
Ridgewood NJ, For those of us who have lived many years in Ridgewood, we sit and wonder what has happened to the Village we once loved. The walls of the courtroom in Village hall are covered with the photos of those man and women who cared for the Village’s business. Some were great, some were good and some not so. To a great extent most of them thought only of their Village and guided Village government on a course set by those who came before them. They were selfless, caring and kind to the residents who duly elected them and place their trust in them. Today we have a sad situation where Paul, Al and Gwenn clearly are only interested in what THEY want and dismiss the concerns of residents as they would swat away a fly. They are self-serving, nasty, untruthful and full of venom for those who disagree with them. For those who have served with and around them and have disagreed with them, they attack, belittle and create personal and economic hardship. The walls in Village hall that will eventually hold their photos will be stained with their disgusting legacy. Many of those who voted for them now understand that they were taken in by their smooth talk and promises of a better Village. What they got was a Village with employee morale at its lowest, diminished services and a management staff who writes their own rules to fit their personal needs. Residents have always expected and deserve better. As does our country, Ridgewood needs and feels change coming. We will need to wipe the slate clean in the upcoming May election and rid the Village of this angry, nasty belittling trio and the minions they have surrounded themselves with.
file photo by Boyd Loving Ridgewood Residents Grandstanding
What was shocking to me was when Reverend Jan Philips at the beginning of the public comment session accused the Ridgewood residents who were about to speak as GRANDSTANDING.
My God, Reverend Philips, And you head the Civility Meetings.
The residents who attended and spoke had heartfelt concerns. They love Ridgewood and have a vision for Ridgewood and wanted to make that vision known.
They want to preserve the charming character of Ridgewood. So they took time out of their busy lives to stand in line for hours for the opportunity to express themselves. For the allotted time of FIVE MINUTES.
Jan Philips you accused the residents of not engaging in diaglogue. Please tell me Reverened what you meant by that. Residents are given five minutes to pour their heart out.
What should they do? Tell me. Tell me. Knock on the doors of the council people’s homes and demand a long discussion.
Jan Philips you are a disgrace to organized religion. You make people WANT TO leave the church. And they do.
But believe me MS. Philips, we still believe in God, and the love and tolerance God wants us to have for our fellow beings, the civility that God wants us to show to our neighbors. In spite of you.
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.
JANUARY 5, 2016, 12:40 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016, 1:09 PM
BY ESTHER DAVIDOWITZ
FOOD EDITOR |
THE RECORD
Longtime Ridgewood restaurateurs Natalie and Frank Trent have closed their beloved casual restaurant Natalie’s after 25 years, and Due Bistro, the well-received modern Italian restaurant just a few doors down, is set to take over the space next month.
“It will almost triple the size of Due,” said executive chef Adam Weiss, who received 3 1/2 stars for his cooking for guests at the bistro’s small (42-seat) dining room.
Weiss said that Due will probably close its doors at the end of this month at its present location – 13 E. Ridgewood Avenue —and move sometime in February into its new location — 16-18 S. Broad St. Currently, he is “redoing the menu, updating things.” He said that the new Due will be a little more casual but with an “elegant upscale feel.”
