October 1,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood bog
Ridgewood NJ, it seems to meany readers that the previous administration worked long and hard to exacerbate the parking problem in the Central Business District . Claims of missing signs making it difficult for the public to find parking intentionally. Decisions made that always seemed to make things worse not better.
We ALL know that there is ample parking. Even Sonenfeld says so. “The problem is that PROMISES WERE MADE to certain key people that a garage would be built near their properties and businesses in the business district.” What Aronsohn, Saraceno, Pucciarelli, Vaggianos, Sonenfeld, Hauck and company failed to consider is that the town if full of very smart people. And the people rose up and ran a petition drive and stopped the insanity.
While others have claimed the signs went missing and lots hidden from public view on purpose .
Readers continually site , “The developers are deliberately going to exacerbate the parking problem with there one car per unit plans. Why should my taxes go to pay them to put in parking?”
And of coarse ,”it’s interesting that the existing apartments all have a shortage of parking and the developers keep insisting that there will only be one car per household in the proposed developments. how is this possible.”
What? You mean to say that people with a vested financial interest in the garage would stoop so low as to exaggerate stories about lack of parking? Never.
In my humble opinion, it always appeared that Aronson sold us out to developers and other profiteers with whom he wished to curry favor. Its shameful Yes, we have parking issues. They were never addressed by the Arohnson administration because his focus was on those who seemed to want to profit from government largess and not Village residents. Distribution is probably our main “problem” – – and its good to see the new council recognizing that and attempting to address that issue before spending millions on a new garage. Yes, we may need a new garage, but let’s see what some of the other solutions are first. I thought Voght laid it out very nicely a meeting or two ago. Yes, let’s spend a few thousand on signs, parking and street re-alignment and then see if we need the garage. Keep up the good work!!
Well said @ 10:24…also the previous administration changed the rules to allow commuter parking where it was prohibited before making parking for diners and shoppers that much more scarce.
As I have said here several times: The village, in the voice of the Village Manager, admitted on April 6, 2016 that we do not have a parking crisis, we have a parking surplus, we have more spots than we have demand for: https://youtu.be/iyufI5C3gKU?t=1h14m So we know from the facts any garage is all about high density housing led by the local developer. Without it, the over development of Ridgewood cannot happen by this developer and his cohorts who own property at key intersections. Without over development the property owners and this local developer, who paid a lot for the land, cannot make money. They need to develop the lots past what parking on the property supports to maximize rental revenue. The former mayor, former village manager and the local developer lie about Brogan and Ken Smith parking spaces needing to be replaced, spots that are not a part of the village’s parking inventory. The former mayor and former village manager let the Hudson Street lot fall into disrepair, then said in a video paid for with tax dollars, that neglect was a main reason to build a $12m garage.
The garage is the Trojan Horse. The village admits, we don’t need more parking, we don’t even utilize what we have. Higher density, higher congestion, higher fees, and easier profits for the local developer paid for with tax dollars.
When the now ex-village manager says in a propaganda video we have a parking crisis, but her own analysis says we have a surplus, we know there is no crisis.
Using the degraded state of the Hudson St. parking lot in their insulting, illegal video as proof of the need for a garage on that site was a sublime example of manipulative marketing. If the parking lot looks bad, why would that be? Because it has been neglected by the very council members “complaining” about it? How much does it cost, compared to an $11.5 million bond to build an enormous, unwanted edifice, to repave and restripe a parking lot, with additional spaces carefully engineered? How long would it take, compared to having nearby business owners nervous about having the street closed for a year during construction (which probably wouldn’t even be necessary for more than an hour at a time, if that), to achieve this? A week?