Ridgewood NJ, the no2BCIA petition was certified by the village clerk at the village council open public meeting tonight. (certified means she confirmed that we needed 814 signatures and we had at least 814 valid signatures).
The petition provided two options -the council could either withdraw the ordinance 3519 (bond for garage through BCIA), or put that as a referendum question to the voters of Ridgewood.
The mayor tonight at the council meeting, promised that he will be introducing an ordinance to repeal ordinance 3519 (BCIA funding) at the next meeting, and he decided not to proceed with the referendum question on the May ballot.
According to the petitioners , based on understanding of the law, the BCIA option for garage funding, as it was passed in ordinance 3519 appears to be dead for now.
Ridgewood will get a garage that’s funded by a local bond where Ridgewood will be in complete control. (The size of the garage is still an open question, and if you would like to be a part of petition, which will request the council to consider a smaller sized garage that’s right for that specific lot, please reach out to us at its2big.com
Ridgewood NJ,last night It was a very predictable, 3-2 votes on anything meaningful and the majority stating all the reasons they were voting yes except representing the people. The leaving council majority aka the 3 amigos are enacting a “scorched earth policy” as they will be gone. Turn out was lower than expected because so many saw the vote as a for gone conclusion.
Zoning vote 3-2
Garage vote 5-0
All 5 voted for the Village to bond the garage not the county., Susan and Mike had no other choice but to vote that way because the council majority aka the 3 Amigos would have just gone to the BCPA. This way Ridgewood may retain control of the size, commuter parking and rates. Mike said something about researching a surcharge for businesses owner that are close to the garage to defray cost of maintenance.
The traffic study spokesman talked about increased traffic in several locations( 2 on Broad) and that is without the consideration of the garage. He mentioned some additional policing. No one in the garage discussion talked about the need for policing there or the need of an attendant. I believe I could live with the garage if it was one deck shorter, remained completely on the foot print and the street parking spaces would remain on Broad and Hudson Streets. Local business in those locations will take a hit without them.
Residents again questioned how is it that the council majority refuses to listen to the public? Could it be that they truly are in their own heads and are immune to incoming sounds,like the voices of the residents?
One nuclear physicist spoke wondering how they could be so emphatically certain that the were correct and that the developers could see no cause for concern? He said nothing is that certain and his world is one of exactness.
Mike and Susan seemed on there game and nobody clapped for Rurik and Jim when pontificated .
For most residents it is just too much development/ construction at once ,Yes these developments will bring traffic. The Hudson garage will not be enough. and the business owners must be salivating but most central business district businesses will not survive the construction phase.
Lastly Former Mayor Kieth Killion gets the last laugh , so many voted for this trio ,now buyers remorse .
Ridgewood NJ, Pro City residents continue to harp on the refrain: Didn’t an Didn’t an overwhelming majority of Ridgewood Residents vote in favor of a garage? To say the council only cares about builders, restaurant owners and party bosses is a lie – they are listening to the majority of us who are in favor or a garage. vote in favor of a garage?
Ridgewood Council members have even expressed concern over the “overwhelming majority of Ridgewood Residents”. The staff of the Ridgewood blog turned up some interesting foresight with a recent OPRA request of the Mayor Paul Aronsohns emails .
“I voted for the parking deck like many other before realizing how big the plan was to be . It will never be self supporting inless it is filled with commuters who will clog the narrow streets . There of coarse will need to be stop lights put at the intersection of East Ridgewood and Broad . The parking lot as it now stands is a disgrace and dangerous .certainly build something but not the huge facility that is envisioned now. Floral Park Nassau County ,Long Island also built a parking lot near the LIRR and it was said it was going to be filled and self supporting .It never was and the tax payers make up the difference .”
The OPRA requests turned up many such emails , with the conclusion being that many voted for a garage but not the over sized monstrosity proposed . More did not believe the Mayor and sugested a lack of confidence in the Village decision making process
Ridgewood NJ, with the March 23, meeting just around the corner and the almost certain approval by the Village Council of 4 major developments in Ridgewood’s central business district and a new parking garage on Hudson Street , the only question that remains to be asked is will any Ridgewood merchants actually survive construction?
Readers predict massive traffic jams and a central business district that will remain nearly inaccessible during construction phase.
While the Mayor and rest of the council majority continues to assure us the the 5 simultaneous developments will have no impact on life in the Village . That’s no impact on traffic, schools, water ,and sewage the experts tell us.
Many merchants already claim with out more parking they are done , so how the Ridgewood blog asks can a small business stay afloat with virtually no traffic for two years??
Ridgewood Nj, Garden Homes the developer of the proposed South Broad Street complex at the old Brogan Cadillac site known as the Dayton .”Garden Homes Development’s principal Scott Loventhal said his 1,000- to 1,800-square-foot units, proposed for a South Broad Street complex that could feature high-end appliances, WiFi café common areas and a doorman, would go for $3 per square foot, plus utilities. Proposing a more-than-100-unit development at the old Brogan site (The Dayton) that could incorporate affordable housing”, https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-developers-detail-housing-proposals-1.1196105?page=all
Garden Homes is one of the New Jersey’s largest real-estate developers recently,” agreed to pay $225,000 in federal fines and to preserve more than 100 acres of land to compensate for its alleged failure to prevent storm water from flowing off 10 construction sites, including residential developments in Elmwood Park, River Vale and Allendale. https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-developers-detail-housing-proposals-1.1196105?page=all”
This is not the first time , “When the EPA announced Garden Homes would be preserving 108 acres in the Highlands area of northwestern New Jersey, it pointed to the deal as a win for an environmentally sensitive region that supplies much of the state’s drinking water.
But the announcement also shed more light on an allegation that the company — owned by the Wilf family, including Zygmunt “Zygi” Wilf, the principal owner of the NFL’s Minnesota Viking — had paid loose attention to construction site rules, polluting or potentially polluting water resources all over the northern half of the state.
Inspections turned up violations at three sites — mostly dealing with fencing or basins that are meant to keep stormwater from reaching nearby waterways. At another seven sites, the EPA alleges, Garden Homes failed to conduct weekly inspections meant to guarantee compliance with storm water rules. “https://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/06/where_did_vikings_owners_company_allegedly_pollute.html
Further investigation pointed to a New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling ,The judge, after a two-year trial, declared emphatically: “They robbed their partners!” The Wilfs now have to pay those partners at least $84.5 million. , ” Aug. 5, 2013 New Jersey Superior Court Judge Deanne M. Wilson found that the Wilfs cheated their partners in a Montville apartment complex. The judge excoriated the trio in uncommonly harsh language, finding they acted with “bad faith and evil motive.”https://observer.com/2013/10/big-bad-wilf-did-zygis-stardust-take-it-all-too-far/
I was not initially opposed to the proposed parking structure on Hudson Street in the center of Ridgewood but after seeing the renderings, I am entirely against it because of its enormous size and unfitting design. The residents that are vocally opposed to this structure know that it will destroy the character of Ridgewood. I am personally opposed to it because it will destroy the character of my neighborhood.
I live a couple blocks away with my wife and three children, and walk by this lot at least twice a day. My kids walk by it going to and from school. And my neighbors who have been here even longer than we have pass by it regularly. I have lived on South Broad Street for the past 16 years and have actually been looking forward to development that will improve the area. This will only make it worse.
Good architectural design makes an effort to work with the style of a neighborhood. This does not. If this structure has to be four or five above-grade stories then the right aesthetic approach would be to match the height of the apartments across the street, two-stories high, along South Broad Street and Hudson Street, and then use a set-back of 20 feet so that you could continue up from there without it being an eyesore. That way you get your height and space required but you do not create an ominous structure.
One rule of thumb is to never build something taller than the most attractive buildings. The three-story buildings with spires on the corner of South Broad Street and East Ridgewood Avenue are good examples of our town’s beautiful downtown architecture. To build a massive parking garage just next to them would dominate the center and detract from them. The idea of making a parking garage the most noticeable building in a town’s center is a cultural recipe for disaster.
Ironically the details of the roof on the corner of South Broad Street and Hudson Street, which is the only part of the structure with any kind of actual design sensibility, will not be seen by anyone on the street level because it is too high. And the only time this part of the street and the residences will get daylight is the late afternoon because it is south west of those apartment windows.
I heard that this structure is not supposed to significantly increase the traffic on my street. How is that even plausible? It’s a parking structure! It can only bring more cars…that’s the point. When the New York Sports Club moved in several years ago I was excited that the abandoned car showroom was being turned into something new and bringing life to a fairly run down street.
The problem is that not only did it bring a significant amount more of traffic but it brought a different kind of traffic. The traffic that existed prior to the Sports Club consisted of people who used South Broad Street as a straight shot to Glen Rock. They drove fast and polluted the street as people in cars do but they were also focused on getting in or out of town. The new traffic was a very different scene. People drive faster and a bit more recklessly because they are speeding to or from the gym, while texting on their phones, and they are making turns across busy pedestrian paths without checking.
I anticipate this extra traffic the parking garage will bring will be of this caliber: people hurrying to the structure because it will take extra time to park there than pulling into a spot on the street so they can go shopping and meet someone at a restaurant. On the way there they will be texting that they are arriving or leaving. While the developers are only responsible for the accidents that happen on their property, I worry about the accidents that will happen in the few block radius around their facility, as should the politicians in Ridgewood and the residences of my neighborhood as well as the residents of Ridgewood and people visiting our town.
I think we are at a point where we have to decide (as did the planners of many cities around the United States) whether we want Ridgewood to be a town that favors cars or people.
If I were mandated to build a parking garage in the center, the most natural place to put it would be actually down at the corner of East Ridgewood Avenue and Maple. That area is developed more for higher volume traffic and already has a large surface-level parking lot that could be built up in a way that keep all the stores intact, and already has a large ground-level underpass on Maple Street. But I would actually be in favor of less traffic in general.
The only people clamoring for the parking garage are shop owners who think their profits will magically double once the garage is built. At the town meeting I attended, I heard a senior lady propose an idea that I think would work very well. That is, why not close down some of the streets for cars and make them pedestrian ways. It worked well in Montclair, and it has had an amazing effect on midtown Manhattan. If we leave South Broad Street/North Broad Street open, but closed East Ridgewood Avenue from the Broad Streets to the Post Office and turned that into a pedestrian way and expanded the outdoor seating for restaurants, you would increase the tourist appeal of the center and it would only mean closing down part of one street. If you have been to the tree lighting in Ridgewood and have experienced these car-free nights of East Ridgewood Avenue, then you would see how popular it could be.
Some of my concerns may be a little too close to home but in my nearly fifty years of living in the United States and Europe I have taken note of projects that improve and detract from the character of towns and cities. I have lived in beautiful places including Santa Barbara and Prague. I would include Ridgewood as a beautiful place to live. These are places people want to go to in order to get away from strip malls, busy roads, and generic housing because by being in a unique place, people feel special.
Ridgewood has charm and character but that is in jeopardy with bad planning. The problem with parking garages is that even the best of them have the feeling of an incomplete building, or worse, an abandoned building because of their open structure, which makes them appear gutted. What makes the streets of Ridgewood so pleasant to walk down is that almost all of the buildings have storefront access. The proposed parking lot would just be a lifeless block of concrete. I would not be opposed to a parking garage with special details that would appeal to the public such as a public access green roof and storefront shops/galleries. They would not have to be big spaces, just something to continue the pedestrian window-shopping feel for the streets.
I have also been to and lived in many places that are not nice and one thing they have in common is a corruption of character. Corruption is a good word because it usually starts with individuals who do not have the best interests of the people. That may be a developer who does not have any interest in a region other than profit, or are simply evil people – like a bad government. An example of this is a small city I lived in, in the north of the Czech Republic. It had been bombed out in WWII and unlike cities such as Warsaw in Poland, which restored their historic downtown, the communists built a big concrete structure in their town center, which dominated the historic buildings that were saved. The townspeople had opposed it from the start even though the communist government assured them that they knew best. It was nicknamed “the bathtub” because it looked like the side of an old bathtub. After communism they tore it down.
So, when the style of a town center is lost to a new, ugly building like the proposed parking structure it becomes a symbol of wrongdoing and mistakes and can only be fixed by tearing it down.
The problem is that it is not the first time “studies” such as these that forecast no impact from some proposed “improvement” have been presented to the Village. Time and again, we have discovered significant impacts after these projects move forward. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Many villagers are tired of these self-serving reports that don’t reflect reality which are designed only to check off some bureaucratic requirement. Building hundreds of apartments and claiming no impact on schools and infrastructure is just bull**** on the face of it. Some honesty on the other side would go a long way to fostering a constructive dialog.
Our Mayor has moved onto his own agenda..exclusively and Ridgewood is on the chopping block. Sleazy, self-centered government and years of scheming and plotting by some of our fellow residents has led our village down this dark hole. Ridgewood use to be a great town, under great stewardship for most of its history, until Aronsohn plotted and schemed to get the wrong people on the planning board and council. Collectively what is occurring right now will forever change the Village. A few will benefit from these sell outs, particularly Aronsohn in his bid for senator next year. All of this sleazy sellout of our village is what’s going to drive the good people away over the next decade, the decline will occur, and so the very thing you say you love you will have destroyed.
This is a shocking development on a couple of levels. First that Valley can sue us asserting that the needs of the region justify (in their estimation) such a profoundly negative impact on the town. Second, that Ridgewood can allow a Valley insider to negotiate a settlement when she had sworn an oath to represent the Village. It really is time for a citizens’ revolt at Village Hall since the Council majority are clearly using their remaining months in office to put their personal agendas in place. Shameful.
This garage process has been pushed through in such a deceitful manner from the start.
Lie #1 – Tell Father Ron in July the town plans to build a deck on the lot.
Lie #2 – tell voters the garage will be self-funding
Lie #3 – tell voters that nothing has been decided with respect to the design or size. You are just voting whether you want a deck at the Hudson street lot.
Lie #4 – hide the fact that the intended garage is 23 feet beyond property line, 12 feet into Hudson street
Lie #5 – bury Maser report that shows actual encroachment, claim it was in draft form and it didn’t need to be shared with all council members, only share with those that can keep the secret
Lie #6 – vote for option A, then tell the public that the “discussion” that was promised with respect to size and design just happened. Residents… You didn’t think we really meant that did you?
Lie #7 – when residents realize in late December the true extent of the garage the council majority VOTED on, they come to plead and beg to change this monstrosity. They are told “it’s too bad if you didn’t realize before the vote what you were voting on”.
Lie #8 – told residents that they were going back to the drawing board to pull garage back onto the lot. New design still does not fit on the lot.
Lie #9 – Council run a design meeting with the HPC before the vote but doesn’t clarify to the members that the garage is sitting 12 feet in the street. They write a letter to support garage not realizing they were lied to regarding intended garage being built 12 feet in street.
Lie #10 – architect renderings for option D, not accurately depicting true mass or height of garage or width of street.
Lie #11 – 1 lane of traffic with option D, not 2 as stated in resolution.
Lie #12 – mayor publicly calls residents liars during collection of signatures for a petition. Says they are lying about how much garage will cost if they choose to continue with financing through BCIA. Truth…it could costs thousands over 25 years.
I’m sure I missed a few. We deserve better government. You can turn a blind eye to the way this process has occurred, because you want a garage so badly, but you shouldn’t.
Ridgewodoo Nj, Aaccoring to readers ,Ridgewood is absolutely a magnet for parents with special needs children. We have great services.
I know a family that planned to move to a mega house in Saddle River. Their elementary school daughter was diagnosed, they looked around, and decided to stay.
Please read the key studies here on costs of students, special needs children have a different set of costs to support an excellent education. It is a fact and it is great we excel at it in our schools. As these reports show, one special needs student can tip the funding scales for an entire school. You have to plan for that as a village in all your housing studies. You can’t fail that child and family by not planning for it, and to plan for it you have to talk about it.
What makes Ridgewood different with respect to educating special need children is that we cover so much more, financially, than other districts. Fairlawn school district, as well as others, do not cover all the costs of ot, physical therapy, speech, etc. in a lot of cases, those costs are passed onto the families. To ignore the financial impact to the taxpayer when contemplating growing our population could potentially diminish these wonderful benefits to special need children currently living here. Cuts will be made in our schools when the school population grows. With a 2% cap, cuts will be necessary. It is a fact that families rent their homes in their towns, and find a rental here to take advantage of our school benefits. Our family is grateful for the wonderful services our children receive, including our special need child.
Ridgewood NJ, here is a video of Village Council Candidate Jeff Voigt, regarding his views on the high density issue. Jeff’s perspective is thoughtful and I believe reflective of how many of us see it.The video was filmed by resident Dana Glazer .
It’s so important that people understand what is at stake here and how important it is for all of us to be present at Ridgewood High School on the night of March 23rd for the vote on this issue.
It doesn’t matter where new residents come from. It doesn’t matter if they are here for years or here for just one year. What is important is our town’s ability to provide a great education for each and every student, no matter how new or how old that student is to our district. With a state imposed cap on our school budget that is only allowed to increase by 2% per year, our district may not be able to handle a large influx of children without stressing already large class sizes. More kids does not lead to the hiring of more teachers and additional classrooms, the 2% cap won’t allow for this. If these new zoning approvals to build at 35 units an acre are the beginning of a new development trend in Ridgewood, then the residents deserve to know how this new trend will impact our schools and how will we pay for it? The good news, your taxes won’t go up because the state-imposed 2% cap will not allow for a tax increase. The bad news, you will pay for it with larger class sizes. 200 plus units today will look like a drop in the bucket 5 or 10 years from now when all of this expands throughout our CBD.
Ridgewood NJ, We asked Council Candidate Ramon M. Hache on his thoughts on the high density housing and here is what he said ,”I am a proponent of responsible development and protecting our community from the wrong development. We need to carefully decide on projects that will make our town better without sacrificing the corevalues and character that make Ridgewood the special place we are proud to call our home.”
Ramon then gave us more specifics ,”In terms of high density housing, all the zones around our CBD are currently being considered for a density of 35 units per acre. There are currently four areas under consideration and three zoning changes proposed. Although each area is unique and needs to be analyzed individually, I am comfortable with an average density of 20-24 UPA. This is more in line with the total average throughout the CBD. ”
As for the studies ,” Traffic and pedestrian safety are very important when analyzing the various projects. The impact to schools is a different issue and needs to be looked at collectively for all sites. Although the recent studies suggest there would be a minimal impact to the schools, we all know that Ridgewood is known for its schools and exceptional program for special needs children. Therefore, I would be cautious to solely rely on the student enrollment projections which did not take into account the fact that it could cost around $100,000 a year to educate special needs children.”
Ramon went on saying ,”Ideally, I would rather see us approve one of the proposed zoning changes first. It could provide a good ratable and we could get real-world data on the actual amount of new students attending the schools. We need ratables to finance many of the needed improvements and for stabilizing property taxes.”
We also asked about his thoughts on the fact that the issue is being decided by council members who are leaving office ? Ramon
emphasized , “the current council needs to work together for the welfare of the entire community and make decisions as if they were not going to be replaced by a new council.”
Ridgewood NJ, The Village Council has planned a public hearing and possibly a vote on March 23rd on High Density Housing Issue. It’s widely expected the three outgoing council members are going to vote to increase the residential density in some downtown lots from the current 12 units per acre to 36 units per acre, while the residents have asked them to consider 20-24 units per acre.
This is a big change for Ridgewood, which will probably alter our village forever. The local newspapers have so far reported from the press releases issued by the village administration or from the commentary of what happened at the meetings. Proactive journalism on this issue has been missing so far.
Residents have asked the reporters:
1. When are they going to cover the conflict of interest on the garage vote by Tony and Jim at HPC?
2. When will they be talking to taxpayers ahead of the 3/23 vote to measure opinions?
3. When will they be asking the candidates for VC office to state their positions on the 3/23 vote?
4. When will they talk to the superintendent about class sizes at the middle schools and high school which were not covered by the studies?
5. When will they ask Orchard and Ridge School principals if they can accept the increased class sized?
6. When will they ask the consultants (Ross Haber Associates) on how did he reach to a conclusion of 63 new kids from 4 new developments, while similar sized apartments in the village and the number of school aged children from those apartments suggest that it can be close to 225 new children in the Ridgewood schools?
7. When will they ask and report on the question of ‘what happens to all the 1 acre or more lots that are available in Ridgewood downtown and are waiting for these first four to be approved”?
8. What are the financial impacts to the taxpayer (police coverage, etc.?)?
If you would like our local reporting to question our village government on these very important questions, before next Wednesday’sMarch 23rd VOTE, see below for contact information.
