Village priced memberships are available to Ridgewood residents, non-residents who pay local property taxes to the Village of Ridgewood, and employees of the Village of Ridgewood and Board of Education. Proof is required.
ADULT – $120.00.
CHILD – (ages 2-15, under 2 free) $110.00.
SENIOR – $30.00 (62 and older).
PERMANENT DISABLED – $30.00
DAILY GUEST PASS – $10.00
BADGE REPLACEMENT – $5.00
NON-RESIDENT MEMBERSHIPS The Village Council and the Ridgewood Department of Parks and Recreation are pleased to invite all families in the surrounding area to join the Graydon Pool facility for the 2015 summer season.
ADULT – $200.00
CHILD (Ages 2-15) – $175.00
GUEST PASSES – $10.00
BADGE REPLACEMENT – $5.00
POOL AMENITIES AND ACTIVITIES
Pool features include a shaded playground, water play fountains, shade kites, Adirondack chairs, a picnic area with charcoal grills, a sheltered pavilion, and the Water’s Edge Cafe. Additional amenities include volleyball, basketball, ping-pong, shuffleboard, four-squares, hop-scotch, backgammon, a lending library and for the little ones, “Storytime Under a Tree”.
Swim instruction is offered for children and adults along with an adaptive swim class. Patron youth (ages 8-14) may also join the competitive Graydon Swim Team sponsored by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
AQUATICS – INSTRUCTIONAL, COMPETITIVE AND RECREATIONAL
Instructional swim courses will be offered to seasonal members of all ages – from parent and toddler to youth levels, to adult instruction. An Adaptive Aquatics for Special Needs Children, Introduction to Diving and Intermediate Diving will also be offered. Adults can enjoy Swim Fitness, Water Aerobics, SUP Yoga and Beach Yoga.
Graydon Swim Team will continue the tradition of success for youth ages 8 and up (must pass deep water test to participate). Please check back for the Swim Team Parent Manual.
2015 SEASON
Saturday, June 6 to Sunday, August 16
Daily, 10 am to 7:30 pm
July 4th – Holiday hours, 10 am to 4 pm Late Season – Monday, August 17 to Sunday, August 30th
Weekends, 10 am to 7:30 pm
Weekdays, 12 noon to 7:30 pm
POOL CLOSED – Monday, August 31 through Friday, September 4 Labor Day Weekend – Saturday, Sept 5 through Monday, Sept 7
Daily, 10 am to 7:30 pm
CONTACTS
Pool Manager’s Office – 201-670-3376 (in season)
Badge Office – 201-670-5566 (in season only)
Recreation Office at The Stable- 201-670-5560
Ridgewood NJ, As part of the CRS program for the Village, the Engineering Department sends out an annual letter to properties that are located in the Flood Hazard Area of the Village. for a copy of the Village of Ridgewood Annual letter to residents with property in the flood plain Click Her
The Engineering Department also sends a informational letter to local banks, realtors, and insurance companies that service the Village,copy attached. Click Here
The new flood maps may capture additional properties. The Ridgewood Engineering Department will help those property owners as best as we can, although they may have to retain a professional land surveyor and/or professional engineer for their properties.
Existing LOMA’s (Letters of Map Amendment, which indicate a structure on a property in the Flood Hazard Area is not within the limits of the Flood Hazard Area) may not carry over to the new maps (this happened the last time). Those property owners will have a lot of work to do to re-establish their LOMA’s.
The Village outreach letter to property owners generally goes out each year in the Fall.
Today on Armed Forces Day, we honor those who answered the call to serve. Thank you to all of our troops serving in the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force , U.S. Coast Guard. and U.S. Department of Defense .
Village Hall, 131 N. Maplea Ve., Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Event DescriptionForum No. 7 – CBD Panel Discussions – May 20th at 7:30PM
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli has scheduled a CBD Panel Discussion for May 20, 2015 from 7:30PM to 9:00PM; with an “open mike” from 7:30 to 8:00PM. It will be held in the Court Room at Village Hall. The topic for discussion will be determined.
Posted: 05/13/2015 10:36 am EDT Updated: 05/13/2015 10:59 am EDT
By Anjali Enjeti
You remember childhood, don’t you?
We wore our house keys around our necks like dog tags, walked home from school alone and let ourselves inside while our parents were still at work. We crossed busy intersections during rush hour to purchase bubble gum cigarettes with change from empty soda cans.
Our playgrounds were construction sites, heaps of dirt, creeks filled with snakes and turtles we collected as pets. We climbed trees, muddied our Garanimals, scaled fences between neighbors’ backyards. We spent Memorial Day to Labor Day barefoot, the soles of our feet blackened like coal, dirt clumping underneath our toenails. Skateboards, roller skates and bikes defined our boundaries — our Baby Boomer parents would scoff if we asked for a ride somewhere. They were too busy reading the newspaper, watching soaps or drinking beer on the stoop with the neighbors.
We were told to come in at dark, not a second earlier.
We had our kids late. Probably too late. Now we’re cranky, sleep-deprived 40-somethings changing chlorine-free, biodegradable diapers while Dora the Explorer morphs into a hormonal teen right before our very eyes. We claim we don’t regret waiting because we “needed to get established in our careers first” and “wanted to save enough money,” even though we know damn well we have neither viable careers nor anything resembling a nest egg.
We cart our children to chess, robotics, baseball practice, ballet, cello, swimming lessons and birthday parties. Though they run our lives like lunatic ringmasters, we insist such activities make them well-rounded / social / intellectual / competitive / creative.
They are rarely out of our sights. They’re our extensions, buds hanging off our stems, the quality, durability, and character of their bloom wholly dependent on our careful, measured, intentional nurturing. We stuff them into slings as babies, backpacks and strollers as toddlers, tie them with leashes as preschoolers and use GPS and apps to monitor their whereabouts as teens.
Expect bike racks across the country to be busy during National Bike to Work Week (May 11-15) — not that they aren’t the rest of the year.
Biking to work has jumped more than 60 percent over the past decade, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and with more than half of the U.S. population living within five miles of their workplace, bicycling is a feasible and eco-friendly way to get to work.
But the streets aren’t the only place you’re seeing more bikes. It’s gaining new popularity in a different space: online.
A growing community of ‘dot-bike’ (.bike) websites have emerged since the domain option was released in January of 2014. More than 12,000 domains have since been registered. Owners range from bike shops to bike clubs to bike enthusiasts.
MAY 12, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015, 10:13 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Building Safety Month is happening all across the United States and the public safety awareness campaign has come to Ridgewood with initiatives to help individuals, families and businesses understand what it takes to create safe homes and buildings.
The Ridgewood Building Department is planning a public forum that will include presentations on constructing environmentally conscious structures, energy savings and disaster mitigation.
May has been designated National Building Safety Month by the International Code Council and each year there is a different theme. Building departments are encouraged to promote that particular theme, said Ridgewood’s Building Department Director Thomas Yotka.
This year’s theme is “Resilient Communities Start with Building Codes,” which aims to spotlight various areas of building safety and offer tips on how to prepare for disaster and prevent fires and other household accidents.
To give the exercise more local meaning, a public forum will be held on May 20 to not just expand upon the national theme, but apply it to how residents in the village can be affected.
The forum will include presentations on building environmentally conscious structures, energy savings and disaster mitigation. There will also be a presentation focusing on what the local Building Department does and what residents can expect when going through the permit application process.
March 27, 2015
By Martin D. Brown and Rachel Sheffield
In 1965, Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later served as a U.S. Senator from New York, introduced what has come to be known as the Moynihan Report.[1] His report focused on the increases in disparities between white and black Americans in terms of income, standard of living, and education. Moynihan boldly asserted that the root cause of these disparities was the breakdown of marriage in the black community. “The fundamental problem,” he assessed, “is that of family structure.” In his report, Moynihan called for a national effort to strengthen the black family in America.
While the report was denounced by activists at the time, Moynihan’s observations were valid and the problems he identified have worsened over the past 50 years. Family breakdown among all Americans is a far greater problem today than it was five decades ago. To advance opportunity for all in America, policymakers and other leaders must promote marriage and the intact family in policy and culture.
Where We Were in 1965
The following statistics illustrate the state of the American family when Moynihan released his report:
Marriage. Overall, in 1965, only about 7 percent of men and women had never married by age 35. The percentage of whites who never married by age 35 was just about 7 percent. For black women, it was roughly 6 percent; for black men, the percentage was just below 10 percent.[2]
Single-Mother Households. Overall, about 11 percent of children lived in homes headed by a single mother (1968 data). About 6 percent of white children and 29 percent of black children lived in homes headed by a single mother.[3]
Unwed Childbearing. In 1965, 7.7 percent of all children in the United States were born to single mothers. Roughly one-quarter (approximately 26 percent) of black children and about 4 percent of white children were born outside marriage.[4]
Divorce. In 1960, just 2 percent of all men ages 15 and older had ever been divorced and 2.5 percent of all women had ever been divorced. Among white Americans, 2 percent of men and 2.5 percent of women had ever been divorced. Among black Americans, 2 percent of men and 4 percent of women had ever been divorced.[5]
Poverty. In 1965, the poverty rate had been steadily declining for more than a decade and was at 17.3 percent.[6]
Where We Are 50 Years Later
Since Moynihan’s report 50 years ago, marital breakdown and unwed childbearing in the United States have reached far greater levels among all Americans.
Marriage. Overall, the percentage of never-married Americans has increased significantly since 1965. About 10 percent of women and 14 percent of men have never married by age 35, according to 2010 data. Among black men and women, the percent never married was substantially higher, at about 25 percent for both men and women in 2010.[7]
Single-Mother Households. In 2014, about 24 percent of children in the United States were living in a household headed by a single mother, over twice the amount in 1965. Among white children, the percentage had more than tripled, from 6 percent to about 19 percent, and for black children had increased by 42 percent such that over 50 percent of black children were living in a single-mother household last year.[8]
Unwed Childbearing. The number of children born to single mothers has also skyrocketed since the 1960s. More than 40 percent of children in the United States are born outside marriage. About 29 percent of white children, 72 percent of black children, and over half of Hispanic children were born to single mothers in 2014.[9]
Divorce. In 2014, the percentage of individuals ever divorced had increased dramatically from the 1960s. Overall, about 9 percent of men and 11 percent of women had been divorced. These percentages were roughly the same by gender for both white and black Americans.[10]
Poverty. In 2014, the poverty in the United States was slightly lower than it was in 1968, at about 14.5 percent.[11]
Family Structure Matters for Opportunity
Tragically, family breakdown, including the decline in marriage and the rise in unwed childbearing and divorce, leave children in fragmented families and at significantly greater risk for poverty and other negative outcomes that can hinder their opportunity to thrive.
First, children in single-parent homes are at a much greater risk for poverty. Compared to their peers in married-parent homes, children in single-parent homes are more than five times as likely to be poor.[12]
Children in single-parent families also experience diminished educational opportunities. They are less likely to graduate from high school and to attend and graduate from college.[13]
Furthermore, marriage protects children against delinquent activity. Teens in father-absent households are significantly more likely to engage in criminal activity and are also more likely to be incarcerated.[14]Teens from single-parent households are also at greater risk for abusing alcohol and drugs.[15]
Teens in non-intact families are also at a greater risk for engaging in early sexual activity and of becoming a teen parent.[16]
Moynihan’s Report and Opportunity for All
The need to strengthen the family is even more urgent today than it was 50 years ago. While Moynihan’s report focused on the black family, and while the concern today is all the greater for this original group, trends in marriage and family breakdown are a concern among Americans of all races. In order for all families in America to have the greatest opportunity to thrive in the 21st century, it is crucial that America heed Moynihan’s original warning and seek to reestablish the stability of the family.
In 1965, the generations of injustice and racial oppression that had contributed to the weakness of the family in the African American community were poignant. While it is still necessary today to fight systemic injustice where it exists, it is crucial to strengthen the institutions that nurture opportunity and protect against the many adverse outcomes that are associated with family breakdown. Without addressing these issues, far too many children will be left with diminished opportunities to reach their potential.
Conclusion
Policymakers and other leaders must find ways to strengthen marriage. They can start by ensuring that policy does not undermine marriage. This can be accomplished by reducing marriage penalties prevalent in the nation’s means-tested welfare system.
Furthermore, policymakers should send a clear message about the crucial importance of marriage and the intact family, particularly with regard to how strong families protect children from poverty and other risks. They can do this through a public advertising campaign, following the model of anti-smoking campaigns and campaigns that have encouraged youth to “stay in school.”
Leaders in all sectors should utilize their resources to strengthen and nurture healthy marriages. Churches and nonprofit and community-based organizations must also make the strengthening of marriage and family a priority.
It will require great courage from leaders to push back against the prevailing cultural trend of family breakdown, particularly since America is now seeing second-generation and third-generation fragmented families. However, these efforts are necessary if America hopes to restore and expand opportunity for all Americans.
—Martin D. Brown is a Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Rachel Sheffield is a Policy Analyst in the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity.
Two economic research papers published this month show that where children live can have an impact on their prospects for success later in life. Parents already know that—and it is why houses in good neighborhoods often cost three or four times as much as houses in bad neighborhoods.
The new studies have garnered outsized attention,[1] but the results are neither as clear nor as firm as reported. One paper finds both benefits and costs to relocating families with children. The other paper finds that children who moved had different outcomes in different places—but does not prove that their success or failure would be replicated by others who made the same moves.
Disruption and Opportunity
The first study is straightforward and finds that the experimental Moving to Opportunity housing-voucher program in the 1990s had positive effects for young children and negative effects for teenagers.[2] In their new neighborhoods, the younger kids benefited from growing up with safer streets, better schools, fewer gangs, more neighbors with intact families, more prosperity, harder-working adults, and the rest of the characteristics that define a “good neighborhood.” It confirms what families already know: Sometimes the path to opportunity involves a new location.
However, moving to a better neighborhood hurt teenagers’ future earnings, possibly because the move disrupted social networks. The disruption cost confirms the importance of place: Social networks are valuable even in very poor neighborhoods. The paper indicates that the disruption cost is large—equal to about five years of living in a better neighborhood[3]—although it is statistically imprecise. The disruption cost affects young children as well as teens; the authors did not test whether it affects adults.
Families who participated in the Moving to Opportunity experiment understood the potential costs of moving: About half of those who were offered a subsidy turned down the chance to move. Presumably, the families who opted out were those for which the disruption costs would have been larger and the benefits smaller.
The paper makes a contribution by emphasizing that moving has up-front costs as well as long-term benefits for children. It implicitly cautions against housing policies that move families around and recommends targeting existing relocation opportunities to families with young children.
Moving to Opportunity has been widely studied. Previous studies found no effect on most income, health, and academic outcomes for both adults and children.[4] Although the present study finds some positive income effects for young children, the experiment failed to achieve most of its objectives.
It would be unwise to turn the Moving to Opportunity experiment into a widespread feature of housing policy. An earlier generation of urban social planners also believed that geography caused poverty and moved thousands of poor families from their old tenements to brand-new government housing projects. The projects often became much worse neighborhoods and stand today as a symbol of governmental hubris and failure.
“Potentially Misleading”
The second study is much harder to understand and economists are still debating what the results mean.[5] Regrettably, the paper is ripe for misinterpretation. The authors call the study “The Impact of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility,” but the “neighborhoods” in question are counties or entire metropolitan and rural areas. Unlike the Moving to Opportunity study, the second study has almost nothing to say about neighborhoods in the sense of Plymouth-Exchange, Jamaica Plain, or Petworth.[6]
The study primarily uses data gathered from families moving at least 100 miles, not families remaining within the same metro area. When a family moves, the authors compare the outcomes for younger children to the outcomes of older children. They do find that the effects of a move (positive or negative) have more influence on outcomes for siblings who are young at the time of the move than for those who are teenagers. They also find that geography matters more for boys than for girls.
However, unlike the first study, the second lacks experimental rigor. Families who move are dissimilar to families who stay put. The study also tries to remove the effects of parental income, so that a parent who earns $60,000 a year in Santa Clara County, California (median household income: $92,000[7]), is directly compared to a parent who earns $60,000 a year in Colusa County, California (median household income: $52,000[8]). But a parent capable of earning $60,000 a year in Colusa is likely more skilled or more motivated than one earning $60,000 in high-wage Santa Clara. Even more concerning is that the life events (such as job loss, divorce, or graduation) that spark a move to Santa Clara are likely to indicate a different trajectory in family fortunes than the life events that spark a move to rural Colusa.
The authors recognize this shortcoming, admitting that “the availability of jobs is another important factor in a location decision, [so] it is potentially misleading to consider the negative correlation with rent and house prices as an indication that it is cheaper on net to move to a [region] with a higher causal effect.”[9]
The same caution can be extended to most of the paper. One of the primary benefits of living in Santa Clara County is the availability of well-paid work. So when The New York Times reports that Colusa County is “better than about 85 percent of [U.S.] counties”—including Santa Clara—for low-income children’s economic prospects, it is assuming that their parents make the same amount of money living in Colusa as they would in Santa Clara or anywhere else.[10] For most prospective movers, ignoring the job market would be foolhardy.
Technically speaking, the effects that the authors estimate are analogous to the “treatment on the treated.”[11] That is not the same as estimating the marginal treatment effect, which would be of vastly more interest to parents and policymakers.
The paper is so easily misinterpreted because it answers a question that no one is asking[12] while sounding similar to questions that many people do ask: “Where should I move to maximize my children’s opportunities? Should I move at all?” The study does not answer those questions.
Local Policy
Research on neighborhood effects may tempt policymakers to play real estate agent, subsidizing moves from one place to another. A better approach is to use the research as a reminder of the importance of local policies.
Municipalities can improve children’s outcomes by promoting public safety and using competition and parental choice to offer better and more diverse schools. Counties with high wages and low unemployment, like Santa Clara, should permit denser residential construction, allowing more families to afford access to their job markets.
Many, perhaps most, American families will move to a better neighborhood or more prosperous city at some point in their lives. But American families need new opportunities, not just a shuffling around of existing ones. The response to failing schools, shuttered factories, and gang-haunted playgrounds can—and should—be much more innovative than a moving truck.
—Salim Furth, PhD, is Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
MAY 12, 2015, 8:27 AM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015, 8:33 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
SOUTH NYACK, N.Y. — A Ridgewood man and former Nyack College softball coach charged with more than 90 counts of harassment and forcible sexual touching returned to court Monday afternoon for a brief hearing.
Kurt Ludwigsen spoke not a word during his appearance before Judge Dennis Lynch in South Nyack’s courthouse.
Authorities in Nyack arrested Ludwigsen last month after several members of his softball team — between the ages of 18 and 23 — accused him of touching and kissing them inappropriately.
Ludwigsen’s wife, Ann, said in a statement released soon after his arrest that she was “shocked to learn of the charges filed” against her husband and “was wholly unaware of the circumstances surrounding the allegations and is learning the facts of this matter as they unfold.”
Ludwigsen has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
The judge set Aug. 3 as the date for Ludwigsen’s next court appearance.
Meanwhile, police in Petaluma, Calif., said they had conducted a brief criminal investigation into “loose” allegations made against Ludwigsen.
No charges were filed against Ludwigsen, said Petaluma police Lt. Dan Fish, who added that the “very non-specific” allegations were “4 years old” and “revolved around sports.”
The Village of Ridgewood has partnered with Parkmobile the leading provider for on-demand and prepaid mobile payments for on- and off-street parking pay by phone. There will now be an easier effortless and innovative way of paying for parking transactions by mobile phone. The new partnership will allow pay by phone transactions so residents businesses and visitors will be able to conduct their parking transactions by mobile phone throughout Ridgewood.
Ridgewood NJ May 11 2015 – Parkmobile LLC announced today a new partnership with the Village of Ridgewood that will allow customers to use their mobile phones to pay for parking at all Village owned lots. This is the first step in expanding mobile payment transactions throughout the Village of Ridgewood. Parkmobile will be available for the on-street meters in the near future as well. Customers will be able to utilize their smartphones to pay for parking using Parkmobile’s mobile applications for iPhone Android Windows Blackberry and Amazon phones. After an exhaustive search Parkmobile was selected. Patrons may register in advance at www.parkmobile.com or download the mobile app in their phone’s app store.
“We are excited to work with Parkmobile pay by phone industry leader and implement a Village-wide pay by phone option. This partnership will expand current payment options and revolutionize the current parking operation as it has done for Glen Rock Summit Chatham and Montclair.”
“We are very happy to launch our mobile payment parking service in the Village of Ridgewood” said Cherie Fuzzell CEO of Parkmobile LLC. “This technology offers customers a new and better way to pay for parking and is truly beneficial to them as well as the city. Our service eliminates the need to swipe a card or feed coins to a meter and can make our lives easier and more efficient.”
Once registered customers may use the mobile app internet or call a toll free number to pay for parking. After setting up their account they can immediately start using the system with their registered mobile phone. This convenient service also provides customers the ability to receive alerts when their meter time is about to expire and use credit cards in locations that do not offer manual credit card payments. Meters accepting coins are still available except at the Chestnut Street Lot and some parking spaces at the Rt. 17 Park & Ride Lot.
RIDGEWOOD – A seemingly innocent prank is costing one town a lot of money.
News 12 New Jersey first reported last summer that street signs have been disappearing from Ridgewood. Town officials say the problem has gotten worse over the year.
Our budget is probably $15,000 a year. Unfortunately were spending all of our money on thefts, says Jim OConnell, of the Traffic and Signal Division. The $15,000 doesnt include man-hours, the wasted time our guys are out there when they could be doing other things.
May 11,2015
Ridgewood NJ, Starting May 11th the Multi-space meter in the Chestnut Street Parking Lot will be deactivated. The new method of payment for up to 3 hours of parking at .50 cents per hour will be by phone using the Parkmobile App. (.35 cent fee)
The display of the Ridgewood Parking Pass (RPP) will enable users to park from 6AM to 2AM without any further payment.
Parkmobile – Pay by Phone Option available in Ridgewood
It is not too early to install the Parkmobile App on your phone . Be ready to use this “pay by phone” technology to pay for parking in Ridgewood’s Lots. This system will go live May 11th.
Click Here for Press Release.
Questions: 201/670-5500 x200
Parkmobile has created a few videos to assist you with using our service. To view a short, instructional video, please visit:
Emmanuel Baptist Church is delighted to invite you to an installation service for their new pastor, Rev. Dr. Kenneth Gill on Sunday June 7 at 3:30pm at the church. Refreshments will follow.
Emmanuel Baptist is located at 14 Hope St., Ridgewood, NJ. Please RSVP to the church office at 201-444-7300 or admin@ebcridgewood.org by May 20, 2015.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
