April 7,2016
Village Council Candidate Jeff Voigt
Ridgewood NJ, This past Tuesday’s vote by the planning board sent a clear message to the Village of Ridgewood residents; that healthcare trumps the health and well-being of a community. Pete McKenna of the Concerned Residents of Ridgewood said it best back in May 2014: The Village will be inextricably burdened in providing a benefit to the region. Is this fair?
The planning board majority (6 in total out of 9; Aronsohn, Nalbantian, Reilly, Joel, Abdalla, Thurston) who voted in favor of the settlement stated that the Village runs the risk of losing a further lawsuit and as well, if the Village loses the lawsuit would keep in effect the 2010 Master plan H zone, a more egregious plan. However, in the settlement that was negotiated between the planning board and Valley, the terms appeared to fall squarely in favor of Valley, with Valley reducing its size (bulk) by only 3% (and gaining most of what it wanted – to the detriment of the health and well-being of the Village). The total floor area is now going from 562,000 sq ft. (of hospital above grade structures) to over 1,024,500 square ft. of above grade structures which includes: 653,500 sq ft. for the hospital; 95,000 sq ft. for enclosed rooftop areas; 245,000 sq ft. for parking decks; and 31,400 sq ft. for atriums and courtyards. I will get back to this.
The term inherently beneficial was used frequently throughout the Whispering Woods hearings (4 in total) and was used as a “stick” by Valley in gaining the expansion approval by the Planning Board. It is unclear to many whether the concept of inherently beneficial applies to zoning or planning (including me). However, it was used generously through-out these hearings. An inherently beneficial use of land serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. As many may know, courts view hospitals under a more favorable light than other types of development (because it is an inherently beneficial use) and due to this, Village concerns about the size of the development may be discounted. However, courts also view schools as an inherently beneficial used of land. This was lost in the sauce but mentioned by Lorraine Reynolds back in May 2014. So a question becomes: Does healthcare trump
education? The negotiating team lead by Charles Nalbantian (Chairman of the Village Planning Board), who developed the terms of this agreement, thought so.
The Village’s Master Plan has suffered significantly in this process and; as well with other issues that have faced the Village including high density housing. The primary objective as stated in Ridgewood’s Master Plan is the preservation of Village residential in residential neighborhoods. Further, as defined in the Master Plan, building should continue to respect the neighborhood character and the rights of adjacent property owners. These rights (while not explicitly stated in the plan) likely include quality of life, safety, security and a sense of belonging to a community. Interestingly, these rights affect one’s health and healthcare. These rights have been violated by developers and by Valley.
John Hersperger, Village resident, at the 4/5 Whispering Woods hearing stated the following: Developers through the use of Ordinance 3066 have ripped the Ridgewood Master Plan to shreds for the purpose of their own self- interests and not the Villages. Developers as a group, petitioned the planning board at the same time and turned what should have been zoning issues into planning issues. I would agree with John. This Ordinance needs to be modified significantly or repealed. The Valley decision by the planning board could not have come at a worse time for Valley and the Village because of this.
The 3 dissenting views on the planning board by Susan Knudsen, Wendy Dockray, and Debbie Patire all concluded the same thing – the Valley decision does irreparable harm to our Master Plan; calls into question what really is beneficial and; whether a hospital interests should trump the well-being of a Village.
Wendy also stated that the Planning board on behalf of the Village should stand up and fight for what is right, despite the risks. If we go on to a lawsuit, there likely would be other opportunities to negotiate terms which would benefit both parties.
I was frankly surprised, with having several lawyers on the planning board, that no case law was cited. A recent NJ Supreme Court case in Princeton called into question the concept of an inherently beneficial use of land by a hospital and whether functions in a hospital such as administration, billing, and marketing should be considered inherently beneficial. If these are not inherently beneficial, they could be moved to other locations. If this “concept” were applied to Valley it might lessen the bulk of the Valley expansion in a meaningful way.
Here is what I would do if elected to the council: 1) Propose modification to or repeal of Ordinance 3066; 2) Work with Valley and the CRR (if possible, as there is a 5/9 court date on the second count of the lawsuit – Valley v Village Council and the council may not have any ability to negotiate based on the results of this case) in crafting a fair and equitable resolution to the Valley expansion.
A follow on blog will address the issue of how Valley might improve its image with the Village.
I think we all agree with the two takeaways here. But the planning board still did the right thing by setting the 2016 amendment as the baseline instead of the 2010 amendment which would have been worse. Game it out–if the council votes no then the judge now can _at worst_ allow the 2016 amendment. Prior to that vote, the judge would have had the option to select the 2010 amendment which would have been catastrophic.
What Mr. Voigt needs to understand is that when you are in office you sometimes have to choose between bad options. It is easy to be a candidate just ask Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. As a candidate you can say anything is possible. But when you actually have power to make the decision then you have to weigh the real risks, the real costs and the possible outcomes. “This is a serious time for serious people.” Stop the pandering and lets focus on the options that actually exist.
Well done. The bottom lone is some very desperate people running Valley have fooled a Bergen County judge. Using nothing but a fear tactic to convince her that “the region” needs an extra few beds (private) on any given night, she caved. If the town becomes a mini version of Hackensack or Paterson, that’s life. Said another way, if you are a health care facility you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want and eventually get away with it. You really have to wonder if ANYBODY making these decisions for Ridgewood (judge, PB,etc.) has any guts at all. So far, no.
Well, why didn’t you mention the case law about Princeton. Paul Gould head of CRR during the Valley Hearings a few years back was always referring to the fact that Princeton Medical Center moved away from the residential neighborhood.
You had a chance to speak.
It is the private rooms that are considered inherently beneficial and rooms for robotic surgery, which by the way has been proven to be a poor choice for surgery in many instances. (According nyt article)
Valley should cut the beds in half and be a 250 bed hospital with its bells and whistles.
You’re killing us Jeff. Just give it to us plain. Would you vote yes or no to the Valley expansion. Your 500 words or less statement sounds like too much rhetoric and we are trying to get away from politician speak.
Wish you all the way, Jeff.
“The planning board majority (6 in total out of 9; Aronsohn, Nalbantian, Reilly, Joel, Abdalla, Thurston) who voted in favor of the settlement stated that the Village runs the risk of losing a further lawsuit and as well..”
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
I think we all agree with the two takeaways here. But the planning board still did the right thing by setting the 2016 amendment as the baseline instead of the 2010 amendment which would have been worse. Game it out–if the council votes no then the judge now can _at worst_ allow the 2016 amendment. Prior to that vote, the judge would have had the option to select the 2010 amendment which would have been catastrophic.
What Mr. Voigt needs to understand is that when you are in office you sometimes have to choose between bad options. It is easy to be a candidate just ask Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. As a candidate you can say anything is possible. But when you actually have power to make the decision then you have to weigh the real risks, the real costs and the possible outcomes. “This is a serious time for serious people.” Stop the pandering and lets focus on the options that actually exist.
Brain where have you been the last 7 years ??? a multitude of options have been discussed and NO ONE except Valley Management and the Judge thinks the Valley Expansion is reasonable in its present form . Lets face it while Valley wasted 7 years trying to get its own way ,it pissed away money on its “pac man defense” and did nothing to keep the hospital modern . HUMC its arch rival took over half the county opened a new hospital and will probably buy out Valley once the construction is done. Valley is a 2nd Tier hospital that cant compete with the big boys and will disappear in the cumming NJ hospital consolidation .
Totally on your side Jeff. You have the votes of my household.
To anonymous at 12:20pm:
Please note, that that depending upon the result of the 5/9 court case between Valley and the Village Council (taking place in Hackensack), the Village may have a choice in what it does with the planning board’s decision. I am crossing my fingers that we (the Village residents and the new council) will have that choice and; it will not be dictated to us if we (the Village) lose.
James I agree 100% about Valley. They are despicable.
The problem is that one person who thinks it is reasonable is THE JUDGE! The judge gets to decide so we are in an impossible spot. You have to play the hand your are dealt and we were dealt a pair of 2s. Better to find a way to minimize damage instead of risking it all in a big bluff.
Perhaps the Judge feels so strongly in Valley’s favor because of poor lawyering (intentionally or not) by our Planning Board attorney – – she seemed either scared to death of the attorney representing Valley or perhaps she was in awe of him and the Valley people. either way, i know one law firm I would never want to represent my interests.
Petition the judge.
The solution should not be crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Solutions in politics involve mitigating risk and finding the _best_ available solution.
If I understand this correctly on 5/9 2 things could happen:
1) Judge for the Village in which case the Village Council could vote down the Amendment and start the process again with Valley having to petition with a new plan. This is the best result but seems highly unlikely given the judge’s comments to date.
2) Judge rules against the Village and we will not have any say in what happens. Judge will decide.
My point is that the Planning Board decision reduced the potential harm of that 5/9 ruling. At _worst_ the Judge can now leave us with the 2016 amendment which I think we all agree is FAR better than the 2010 amendment.
I hope the Council will not take action before 5/9 unless it is able to negotiate even more compromises from Valley. However, I strongly support what the Planning Board did because it mitigated the potential risk.
The weak and spineless PB attorney is the wife of one of the NO candidates, name is Brooks.
4:02 pm why is 2016 amendment is FAR better than the 2010 amendment.??
That’s a fake advertising by Valley 2016 supporters.