MAY 22, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, MAY 22, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Don’t make Ridgewood a city
To the Editor:
The Record ran an article on Tuesday detailing applications by two developers in Ho-Ho-Kus to construct new multifamily buildings with unit counts and densities much lower than the proposals here in Ridgewood.
A developer for the 2.12-acre site that currently houses Granny’s Attic on Maple Avenue is pitching 27 one- and two-bedroom apartments along with retail and office space, in a three-story building. This helps maintain the commercial character of Ho-Ho-Kus’ downtown area, while also providing a reasonable and responsible number of new apartments, including some affordable units. Looking at the apartments alone, the multifamily component density is 12.74 units per acre.
Another developer is looking to build 45 townhomes there on 3.66 acres, a density of 12.3 units per acre. I recognize that there are some differences between these proposals and Ridgewood’s, but what does stand out is that commercial, for-profit developers are proposing construction at densities much lower than those they are demanding here.
For the past few years, Ridgewood residents have been hearing from Ridgewood developers, our own village planner, and some members of the Planning Board, that much higher densities are required to incentivize the building of some new housing units downtown. The Ho-Ho-Kus proposals, in a borough very similar to Ridgewood, show that these excessive densities are not required. They are just the product of a desire for improving their property values and profits. But greed is not always good.
To date, Ridgewood’s planner has never given any studied and proper reasoning as to why we need to have densities of, first 50 apartment per acre, and now an amended 30-35 per acre (which is still too high). All we know is that 50 was declared the max and 35 is a number acceptable to some developers. But this is unacceptable planning for Ridgewood.
At the last board meeting, I asked our planner what financial due diligence was done to determine that Ridgewood’s developers needed this high density to make enough of a profit to spur development. I inquired what property purchase prices, what income and expenses and what cap rate of return were used in his pro-forma that says 30-35 is now the number. He admitted he had not done any such study, but came to the higher numbers because the Brogan site developer complained that an earlier determination of 25 per acre wasn’t enough for them. So, the current densities are based on a developer complaint.
That’s not good planning.
Many residents, along with Citizens for a Better Ridgewood, a group promoting smart and fair development in Ridgewood, are advocating for building new housing, but at densities more fitting for our village. If we cannot have the benefit of proper analysis to determine correct densities, we should go with what we know works here. Either keep the master plan the same at 12 per acre, or, if we want to incentivize development, raise it to 18-25/acre, the current average that exists throughout Ridgewood.
Don’t make Ridgewood a city. It’s a village.
Dave Slomin
Ridgewood
“I inquired what property purchase prices, what income and expenses and what cap rate of return were used in his pro-forma that says 30-35 is now the number. He admitted he had not done any such study, but came to the higher numbers because the Brogan site developer complained that an earlier determination of 25 per acre wasn’t enough for them. So, the current densities are based on a developer complaint.”
Unbelievable and unacceptable! The only people sure to benefit from over-building downtown are the developers.
The village will cave into the developers.
“Don’t make Ridgewood a city”?
Little too late for that observation. First you need to stop calling Ridgewood a ” village” … that ended years ago. And comparing Ridgewood to ho ho kus is laughable. For all your efforts in trying to stop progress it will not be stopped. the future is here…either get with the times or move out of the way.
To the above commenter: you must not be a neighbor, but rather a developer. It is clear from your brazen attitude when it comes to the development of our town. I agree, village is an outdated concept when referring to Ridgewood, but it is still not a city. And those of us who support Citizens for a Better Ridgewood are fighting tirelessly to convince our planner and planning board to indeed develop new housing in town, just not to bulldoze the aesthetic nature of it at the same time. Allowing 35-50 units/acre is too much. It does not need to be either/or – we can compromise, create new housing, and still maintain the historic downtown we all cherish. Rather than “get out of the way,” we feel it’s our responsibility as homeowners here to hold our planning board accountable, to do the job they agreed to do, and not be bullied by the developers and people like you. I ask you to move out. Not out of the way, but out (if you even live here now).
Good comment and good luck Ellen.
Don’t know Ellen, but she certainly sounds like someone who this town could certainly use in some elected capacity !
Well done, Mr. Slomin. Ask a specific question and, based on the answer, ask a couple of carefully targeted follow-up questions and, bing-batta-bing, you get some really useful information that the public servant in question would probably have preferred to keep under their hat!
First let me congratulate Ms. McNamara for exoressing her views openly and not hiding behind the Anonymous label. Having said that, I do think she is using hyperbole when she talks about the Village’s aesthetics being bulldozed. The only thing being bulldoxed are these eyesores, these 1950’s vintage boarded up up car dealerships. Also what is she basing her statement that 35-50 units per acre is too much. My last point conerns the developers. Are they truly the bullies? I can argue that is they that are being bullied by a short-sighted bureaucracy. Citizens for a Better Ridgewod. I know the membership is sincere in their concerns but that the road to hell is lined with good intentions. Self absorbed and short sighted attitudes like the CBR could only accelerate Ridgewood’s decline.
Rurik Halaby, the master plan says a density of 12, a developer in HoHokus is proposing developments of 12-13 per acre in their community. I don’t think the responsibility is on Dave Slomin or Eileen Mcnamara to prove 35-50 is too much, it is on the developers and Planning Board that it is not too much and needed. “I want”, “I need”, “They want”, “They need” is not sufficient evidence for a Master Plan change which could greatly affect the town for better or worse.
The developers won’t produce evidence, nor the Planning Board demand evidence. “I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over.” That was borrowed from Adlai Stevenson II. (I am sure you’ll be delighted to know that was his real name.)
I’m still confused why some people prefer eyesores like Ken Smith Chevrolet, Brogan Cadillac, and the old Town Garage, as well as the boarded up remnants of the past along North Maple in to Ho-Ho-Kus. Our CBD is also populated with gold pawn shops and frozen yogurt joints. Why is this worth preserving? We have a Master Plan that should allow for redevelopment without the need for any amendments under Ordinance 3066, so just get on with it.
A|gree with Mr. Slomin; either keep the master plan the same at 12 per acre, or, if we want to incentivize development, raise it to 18-25/acre, the current average that exists throughout Ridgewood…. the CBD is in serious need to some redevelopment, but not unreasonable development,. And ordinance 3066 should be repealed.
So many Anonymous people. Wonder what that says?
To 4:17 AM, You are correct that the current Master Plan allows for redevelopment. It isn’t that anyone prefers these eyesores, it is that it is worthwhile for owners/developers to hold out for the chance of a grand slam rather than just a single.
“George”, it says that this is an anonymous blog, and that people don’t necessarily want to explain or feel pressure at work or from their neighbors. If you use your full name, perhaps you and Rurik Halaby can meet up and create a blog that verifies and uses real names.
Build Valley Hospital first. Much more important asset to the community.
Build Valley Hospital first. Much more important asset to the community than affordable townhouses.
To Anonymous 12:46. What I don’t understand is the big debate about density of 12 vs. 35-50. the apartments will be no higher than other apartment buildings in town, and they meet a pent-up need. Architecturally they will a big plus to thhe CBD. Plus they will help revitalize a very dEcaying downtown. The problem with Ridgewood is that a very vocal minority, so so aftaid of change, seem to control the agenda. We are all paying for it.
The very last thing we need in this town is to “build Valley Hospital first.” Another clown with a personal agenda.
Personal agenda? My personal agenda and that of the over 6,000 Ridgewood Residents who used Valley last years is to be thankful we have a world class hospital in our back yard. And to those self-absorbed Vocal Antis, may you never need a hospital.
sorry my friend but the hospital shot it self in the foot with a lot of arrogant very bad decision making , bad management at its finest , The details of which have been spelled out on this blog over and over ad nauseam . Bad plan ,poorly executed ,leads to disastrous results ie , HUMC might make a run at buying Valley
James, you have been anti Valley from the get go. Arrogance? What arrogance? The patience and dignity that the Valley has shown in the face of all the petty attacks it has been subjected to by narrow-minded critics is the embodiment of Grace and Dignity. The Ancient Greeks defined beauty as grace ubder presure. By that count Valley is one beautiful organization. And yes, it is the Crown Jewel of Ridgewood.
Rurik , you really need to read this blog going back to the Pfund era this thing was a lay up Valley’s management blew it
Rurik, yu]our so-called “vocal minority” is vocal, yes, but definitely NOT a minority. You who sing the praises of Valley and suggest they should be able to build whatever they want to whatever height they want – YOU are the minority.
Rurik, As always, thank you for having the cojones to put a name behind the opinion… with Valley, you couldn’t be more wrong… they could have expanded with a reasonable footprint but either naivete or arrogance was the MO and you saw the results… in terms of town, if they can’t do density between 15-20, yes, a little bigger than hohokus, too bad… the plan is crazy… and I’m always happy to disagree with you 🙂
Rurik, “What I don’t understand is the big debate about density of 12 vs. 35-50” – 3 or 4 times as many people, cars, traffic, children in schools. Of nevermind, these magical people, COAH or regular, who want to live in Ridgewood, won’t have cars or kids.
Mr. Halaby(or is it Dr. Halaby ?),
Tell me, do you think that once the “Grace and Dignity” group gets past the lawsuit they filed against the town that has been taking care of them since 1951, they just might consider taking the “Crown Jewel” and moving it to an area that could better house the monstrosity they want to build here ? I mean, let’s face it, if your “world class” in Ridgewood why can’t you be the same in say, Mahwah ?
Ordinance 3066 = Pfund’s Folly Rurik, just to allow Valley to try and railroad the Village that built Valley in the first place. Audrey and her board are out of touch, and would be well advised to find new people less interested in Hospital system “empire building” and more interested in being a good neighbor and paying a PILOT for all of the Village services they consume; instead they are suing the same Village who without its good graces, Valkey wouldn’t exist in the first place. Shameless behavior and James has been right to highlight it
It’s interesting how the developers, Valley and the unions are all the same in trying to bully Villagers, and foist their unsustainable plans on Village taxpayers. Valkey consumes Village services for free and apparently wants ever more, the developers want densities that will burden our schools, water, sewerage and transportation infrastructure, and the unions want us to pay for CBAs that offer excessive wages and benefits to people in their early 50s and 60s even though we’re all living longer. The common denominator here is “screw taxpayers” who are too busy commuting and raising kids to notice. Enough is enough, we’re being taxed to death. No more.
Rurik, guess you don’t understand the history of Valley https://www.valleyhospitalfoundation.org/who-we-are-auxiliary-70th-anniversary We have a world-class hospital thanks to Ridgewood, and Valley should be thankful to Ridgewood for paying millions every year for municipal services that Village taxpayers are not compensated for