Dear Mr. Aronsohn,
On Wednesday night October 28, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen asked that a letter which is posted on the Village of Ridgewood website be removed. This letter, supporting the Hudson Street Garage project, indicates that it comes from an entire committee, which it turns out is not the case. Councilwoman Knudsen’s polite request was summarily dismissed by you.
This leads me to ask: Who controls the Village of Ridgewood website? It is paid for by the taxpayers. I am not sure who asked and authorized that the letter (as well as another one supporting the Hudson Street Garage) be put on the VOR website in the first place, but all indications are that it was you, since you have been liberally quoting the letter as “another endorsement for our parking garage.” The VOR website is not your personal website (again, it is being paid for by taxpayers), so if you choose as Mayor to have a letter posted to support a project that you endorse, then another Council member has an equal right to have the letter removed. Last I checked, each councilperson has an equal say in matters of government and policy.
I personally do not believe that such letters have a place on the VOR website at all. But, since you clearly disagree with me, then I respectfully request that you post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter, which appears in The Ridgewood News today, on the VOR website immediately. The entire community has a right to see all sides of the issue. As Councilman Sedon emphatically stated on Wednesday, people should vote any way they wish. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli wrote similar sentiments in a published letter last week. Enthusiasm for, or against, any project in the Village is the right and responsibility of our elected officials. Overstepping the bounds of your one-vote authority is completely wrong.
For your convenience, I have pasted Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter below, and have also provided a hyperlink to it. Failure to either remove the “endorsement” letters from the VOR website, or to post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter alongside them, will clearly indicate that you place your judgment, position, and “power” above that of another elected official.
Thank you,
Anne LaGrange Loving
Ridgewood News Letter: Be informed before you vote
October 30, 2015
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
To the editor:
Last Friday, readers of this newspaper may have been surprised to read a letter to the editor (“HPC supports parking garage”) from the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission stating that the HPC had endorsed a plan for a Hudson Street parking garage. Their instincts were correct: it’s not true.
In the letter, Vincent Parrillo asserted that the HPC “supports approval of the parking garage and encourages all residents to vote ‘yes’ for the Nov. 3 referendum.” Not so; in fact, Mr. Parrillo introduced the Oct. 8 HPC meeting (not Oct. 15, as the letter stated) as a “courtesy review” of garage drawings, stating the HPC does not vote on such approvals. I was there as council liaison.
The architectural firm selected by the council to prepare drawings showed components of a proposed design to HPC members, who asked questions and made suggestions. The meeting was entirely informational. HPC members did not approve the garage. At no time did the Village HPC discuss approval.
The letter, on official letterhead, has since been posted on the Village website. It was also published by The Ridgewood News in print and online. It’s been highlighted in the mayor’s communications, signed and sent by him through his personal email account, pressing voters to approve the garage.
Obtaining voter approval is the only reason for next Tuesday’s nonbinding referendum. Voters should therefore consider the following.
The proposed garage would occupy the entire 100-by-300-foot corner of Hudson Street, becoming the largest building in the Central Business District. At 50 to 66 feet high, it would tower over adjacent 25-foot buildings, meeting or exceeding the height of proposed multifamily housing that has been publicly repudiated as out of place in our historic downtown.
All existing on-street parking on Hudson would be eliminated, as would some spaces on South Broad. Traffic patterns on Hudson and nearby roads would be reversed. The garage would be cantilevered over 300 feet of the Hudson Street sidewalk with an additional two feet extending over the street. An additional 300-plus vehicles will be added to the already congested intersection.
To subsidize the project, the Village would increase meter rates throughout town and extend meter hours to 9 p.m. where they now end at 6 p.m. If Parking Utility revenues fell short, Ridgewood taxpayers would be held responsible for the bond and be sole guarantors of the principal and interest.
Voting “yes” would mean: “We 26,000 residents agree to pay lots more for parking, $15 million for a garage plus likely cost overruns, and maintenance and repairs forever.”
Voters harboring doubts about the wisdom of this project should consider carefully how they vote on Nov. 3. This is not a vote “for parking” but a choice about the height and mass of the proposed structure and whether Ridgewood taxpayers accept responsibility for being sole guarantors of a $15 million bond.
Be informed and vote.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen
Village of Ridgewood
Dear Roberta,
Please immediately remove the Historic Preservation Commission letter, dated 10/23/15, from the Village website. (reference:https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015HPCPGLStatement.pdf)
The letter does not accurately reflect the Historic Preservation Commission meeting held on October 8, 2015. Minutes and audio are available from Michael Cafarelli or I can send a direct link to access.
Thank you,
Susan
Dear Susan,
As you know from the email we received today at 2:57 PM, Vince Parrillo stands by the letter and has affirmed through polling all of the HPC members today (one could not be reached) that they all agree that the letter truly reflects the HPC position.
Thanks, Roberta
Best regards,
Roberta
Roberta Sonenfeld
Village Manager
201-670-5500, ext. 203
BOGUS, BOGUS, BOGUS! And now we learn that municipal land use law is being violated by the Aronsohn team. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!
HPC members were likely pressured into agreement. The letter from Susan is 100% accurate – what the Chairman said happened at a meeting DID NOT HAPPEN. Vince – RESIGN NOW!
The Foxes are RUNNING THE Ridgewood Henhouse…time to Bulldoze them all out..VOTE NO ON THIS MASSIVE NON CONFORMING MONSTROSITY, LET THEM BUILD IT In some other commercial city.
RIDGEWOOD IS A NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST..NOT A BUSINESS.
TAXPAYERS DECIDE ON WHAT WE WANT : NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND IE merchant pandering .they are trashing us all with this Garage,
Her letter is absent from village website as of 12:20 PM on Halloween. BOO, Mayor.
Thank goodness we have one voice of reason on the Council. Hats off to Knudsen
tl;dr? to summarize: HPC says they think improved parking is a good idea. Mrs. Knudsen tells them that they weren’t allowed to say what they think. HPC says we are actually allowed to say what we think, and we think parking is a good idea.
must be a pretty compelling endorsement to get that much attention.
Why does Mrs. Knudsen’s letter to the editor seem to use the same language as the Mysterious Flyer sent to the mailing list?
Because they are the plain fact not some spin that change at will by the 3 Amigos.We know what your trying to do 5:03.
Wasn’t it our Deputy Mayor who asked the person to write the letter. Why did he do that. I gauss the person who wrote the letter wanted to reappointed . There is no integrity left in thisCouncil or the members they have appointed to their various boards.
5:03 You poor thing. It’s not same language, it’s proper language.
5:03- good try, but no one is buying it. Councilwoman Knudsen had nothing whatsoever to do with the flyer
It always amazing to me how people like 7:24 play fast and loose with the integrity of people that sit on boards in our town. They are always characterized as spineless lackeys willing to do anything to sustain their volunteer positions.
That’s the opposite of my experience with every volunteer that I come into contact with. My experience is that if someone asked them to do something they disagree with they’ll tell you where to put that request.
Ironically we’re seeing people with integrity on the HPC stand up in a way more consistent with my experience, aren’t we. Someone asked them to keep quiet on an issue they all clearly believe in. Since they have integrity, they’ve refused. This has clearly angered the councilwoman who is trying to bully them into silence.
That the way the 3 Amigos work 7:50. The blame game at it best.
A number of us were copied on this email from Councilwoman Hack yesterday:
————————-
“Susan,
The HPC members I spoke to were appalled by your allegations, both in the press and at a council meeting, against the Mayor, the deputy mayor and against the HPC chairman himself. That you would malign the character of others to advance a personal agenda is unscrupulous.
I would like to see you provide any information supporting your very public allegation that the HPC was pressured to say what they said about the need for a garage in our central business district, and of the positive attributes of the architectural design.
The HPC chair has apparently spoken with every member of your committee (but one) today and substantiated that all concurred with the endorsement posted on the village website.
I therefore suspect that YOU could be the one who is putting pressure on, and is mischaracterizing things to advance a personal agenda.
Before you ask to have your individual “repudiation” letter attached to a village-sponsored website, and before you make malicious public allegations, I would ask that you provide us with facts to corroborate your suggestions.
Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck”
—————————————-
Can you say NASTY? Seems that honesty and integrity, coming from Councilwoman Knudsen, have touched a very sensitive nerve in Daddy Duke’s Daughter.
Wow.& yikes. Can’t get a handle why the HPC should be allowed to post this political letter on the same site that has the referendum posted. Is this supposed to mean that that whole town agrees, since it is paying for it. These people can certainly vote however they wish & last time I looked that was the way it was supposed to be. If the jurisdiction of the HPC was to vote on it, then so be it, but an after the fact informal representation under the guise of an official department seems ridiculous & irresponsible. There are plenty of signs around downtown probably supplied by the merchants so everyone gets a chance to see one side & that it has supporters. It might be instructive for the village attorney to check out the legality of a posting that probably has no official status.