As many of you have likely read, Mayor Aronsohn yesterday proposed that the traffic garage be altered to the smallest of the three options.
On the surface, this seems like a generous compromise and that he is listening to the needs of Mount Carmel and the rest of us in town but I am concerned that he is still not hearing us.
Let me explain:
1) The footprint for the smallest proposed garage is the same as the biggest. More than anything, this is the most unseen problem. The proposed garage will in essence extend nearly to the center mark on the center line of Hudson street. As resident Rob Kotch put it today, “It’s like trying to fit an elephant into a VW bug.” So, the width is of equal concern as the height. This will affect traffic in that area in a major way, particularly with regard to the parishioners of Mount Carmel.
2) The only traffic study already commissioned by the town was conducted between 7-9am and 3-6pm on the same day in October. The study itself states: “We recommend that an analysis be performed to incorporate the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue into our traffic model as these intersections are already operating at capacity and may affect access to the surrounding land uses. We recommend that a study be performed to include Passaic Street as Hudson Street and Passaic Street operate as a pair within the roadway network…It is also our opinion that the study should include the intersections of South Broad Street & East Ridgewood Avenue and North Broad Street & Franklin Avenue as these intersections are operating near capacity and have a noticeable effect upon traffic.”
In other words, more study is needed to do this properly, which of course brings us to–
3) On September 30th, the Village Council voted in favor of doing a comprehensive traffic study that specifically includes the parking garage. It is essential we make sure the council follows through with this particular study and do so before anything further is done with the proposed garage.
MY ESSAY ON WHY WE NEED YOU AT THE PARKING GARAGE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, 1/6.
By Dave Slomin.
Dear Supporters of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood,
This Wednesday night, 1/6, our Village Council is meeting (7:30 at Village Hall) to vote on a $12 million dollar bond to fund the biggest garage possible on the Hudson Street lot, near Sook and Mt. Carmel. We need Residents to attend… to be seen and be heard, to share your thoughts and concerns. The current plan is approximately 270’ long by 50+’ high… almost the size of a football field. Even if they opt for the smallest current option, it only shrinks by 10 feet in height. Once built, Hudson Street will be narrowed by 10’, street parking will be lost, neighboring buildings will be dwarfed, Mt. Carmel will be impacted and it will set a size and scale precedent which will be used by developers to argue for bigger, taller and denser multi-family buildings throughout our historic downtown.
That said, personally, I don’t think a parking deck, fittingly sized, is necessarily a bad idea at all… just like I don’t think that multifamily developments, fittingly-sized, are a bad idea at all. I just think the proposals we’ve seen on both are way too big, too dense, and too out of character to preserve the small-town feel of our beloved Village. For parking, in addition to a revised garage plan, the council should better review and advise on other options that spread new parking throughout our CBD, while also making drivers better aware of current parking options through signage.
I’d also like to hear more about possibly creating a Business Improvement District (BID) downtown, to get the landlords who will directly profit from this garage to chip in some more to help pay for it. That’s needed, because financing the garage is too tentative at present. The language of the actual referendum didn’t point out that much of the funding for the garage will come from increasing current meter rates in other key areas of downtown by up to 300-400% and increasing paid parking hours from 6pm to 9pm. The garage does not pay for itself. That’s pretty important stuff to know… or at least test out before you start writing checks that bank on its success. The last time Ridgewood increased parking hours to raise revenue, the Chamber of Commerce themselves complained and asked to have the hours paired back to 6pm. So before we spend $12MM, we should have a firmer idea how it’ll be paid back. Last time, some of these “givens” didn’t work so well.
Regarding size, in a November email, one Councilmember supported the notion that “quaint” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not sure I know of any ‘beholders’ that would think the current garage plan is quaint. It’s not. As is, it’s massive. At a recent Council Meeting, the former Chairman of Ridgewood’s Historical Preservation Committee said he feared if we build this thing, we’ll look at it afterwards and think, “My, that’s a really big building.”
Backstory is… in November, our Council put forth a parking referendum, asking: “Do you support a proposal to finance and build a downtown parking garage on the Hudson Street lot… by bonding up to $15 million in public funds, which will be paid for principally, if not entirely, with parking revenues.” 65% voters voted “Yes.” However, even in voting “Yes,” many folks asked indicated they really voted more for “parking in general” than a singular giant garage. No one had any real idea how big the garage would be, as it was not determined. Yet, several Councilmembers are using this vote as if it were a ‘blank check’ in support of building the biggest edifice possible, or something close to it. That’s not right.
At the time of the referendum, Residents were essentially promised that we could vote “Yes,” and then negotiate the garage’s size later. Despite this promise, the Council so curtailed the subsequent public garage discussions that concerned residents could not give full voice to their opinions. At the main post-referendum garage meeting, initial public comment was limited to 30 minutes total (at five minutes per speaker) and then to a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker later, with no repeat speakers allowed (even though the meeting was not running late and some folks, myself included, could not finish their presentations within the 3 minute limit). I was actually asked to sit down and not speak again by a Village staffer. As such, there was no real negotiation on anything. The post-referendum garage selection process felt frustratingly preordained… like so much of what we are seeing happen in Ridgewood lately.
At the end of that meeting the Council polled 3-2 to bond for the largest garage option. This all-too-quick and ‘non-negotiated’ selection, which also wrongly occurred before the comprehensive traffic and parking study promised on 9/30/15 has been performed, raises further concerns with the “process” by which things are happening in Ridgewood.
So, in short, while we should use the opportunity of this referendum to make some smart and truly fitting decisions regarding parking, we should not rush into construction of the current over-sized garage options. Bigger for Ridgewood is not better.
Ridgewood Nj, Are increased meter rates killing down town Ridgewood more than the precised lack of parking ? Both Glen Rock ,Westwood both have lower parking rates Ridgewood and similar down town shopping districts or Central Business districts ( CBD’s ) .
The funny thing was given all the metered parking in the USA there is very little written on the effect of parking fees on shopping behaviors . We did find a pretty in depth study done in Massachusetts by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) which we will refer to in this article.
First it obvious to us that parking fees are only one of many variables in attracting shoppers to a CBD and creating a successful climate for merchants.
Rents, resident demographics , types of retail, destination locations and infrastructure all play a part.
The MAPC makes to interesting points about parking fees :
If free on-street parking means there are never any spaces available, charging for parking can improve business. The inability to find a parking space can be at least as much of a deterrent as the need to pay for one, so if charging a nominal fee for parking means that there are usually a few spaces available rather than there rarely being any spaces available, this may make the area more attractive to customers.( https://www.mapc.org/resources/parking-toolkit/strategies-topic/charging-parking )
In order for charging for parking to be effective, it must free up some parking spaces, which means it must impact travel behavior and reduce demand for parking. The question is whether discouraging people from parking discourages them from visiting the area, or simply encourages them to get there another way. Some possible impacts of charging for parking are given below. Whether potential shoppers who might be deterred by the price of parking are driven away or whether they simply find other ways to get there will depend in part on the availability and appeal of alternate ways to get to the area. ( https://www.mapc.org/resources/parking-toolkit/strategies-topic/charging-parking )
Again the key finding :
A large part of whether charging for parking will negatively impact businesses depends on how attractive the district is relative to other options. If there is a popular mall a short drive away providing many of the same goods and services with free parking, that can increase the likelihood that people will go elsewhere. On the other hand, if the downtown provides enough amenities and attractions – such as restaurants, bars, and appealing outdoor spaces – that cannot be replaced by a mall or isolated shopping center, the downtown is more likely to succeed.( https://www.mapc.org/resources/parking-toolkit/strategies-topic/charging-parking )
But an even more interesting conclusion about garage vs street parking :
Many people prefer to park in on-street parking rather than an off-street lot or garage because of the convenience. If off-street parking is limited or is primarily available as pay lots or garages while on-street parking is free, drivers will tend to circle blocks repeatedly looking for an open space on the street rather than paying to park. This congests streets with unnecessary traffic and pollutes the air with unnecessary emissions. It also means that expensive garages in which the municipality may have invested a significant amount of money may be underutilized and generate less revenue than expected. In this type of situation, implementing charges for on-street parking is critical to free up on-street spaces, encourage drivers to use pay lots or garages, and reduce “cruising” for parking. If off-street parking is priced, on-street parking should be priced as well, and should ideally be priced higher than structured parking. If off-street parking is mostly free surface lots and there is rarely a shortage of spaces available, low prices may be effective in encouraging people to use off-street options where available if convenience is not a top priority. ( https://www.mapc.org/resources/parking-toolkit/strategies-topic/charging-parking )
Parking Utility Revenue – 01/01/15 – 11/30/15
January 5,2015
Boyd A. Loving
Ridgewood NJ, This data was obtained via a formal Open Public Records Act request.
As you can see, discounting the insurance company settlement received in connection with the theft of funds by Thomas Rica, the largest source of line item revenue for the Parking Utility during the noted time period is cash from on street parking meters.
Other significant revenue sources include: Fees for annual parking permits, rental fees for dedicated parking at the Route 17 Park & Ride, CBD employee parking at the former Ken Smith Motors facility, metered parking at lots on Cottage Place, North Walnut Street, Prospect Street, Station Plaza, Hudson Street, and the Route 17 Park & Ride, and revenue generated from the Park Mobile smart phone application.
This data should enable you to understand why a proposed increase in metered parking rates, coupled with a extension of the time metered parking is in effect, could significantly boost overall Parking Utility revenues.
I hope the holidays were kind to you and that the power issues at town hall are resolved. In case they aren’t, I’ve also included your other email address.
I wanted to discuss your recent Mayor’s Corner column which appeared in my inbox on January 2nd, where you spoke at length about civility.
Civility is something I am so with you about. It is too easy for people to forget this and to fall into behavior that is shortsighted and damaging to the fabric of our wonderful democracy. For you to keep bringing this up is exemplary and serves as a reminder of us all continuing to raise the bar in this regard.
It’s certainly reminded me, which is why I’m writing to you.
While I applaud your efforts to get things done (certainly as a filmmaker, I know the herculean effort it sometimes requires to do so) I also feel obligated to our community to speak out when I observe actions that fall below this bar of civility you and I hold ourselves to.
When I read in your January 2nd email/column that “We need to honor the votes cast by the 3,236 Ridgewood residents – a full 65% — who voted “yes” to building a 400-car parking deck at Hudson Street” it prompts me to speak out.
I speak out because of what you wrote in the pasted below email from November 1st with the subject heading “Parking Campaign – Please Read and Please Share” (bolding/CAPs from your original email included) :
“Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck.”
As you clearly stated in that email, the vote was not a ‘yes’ for a 400 car parking garage. It was a non-binding referendum and to add parking at Hudson, bond the money and work with the public on scale and design.
Furthermore, your intention to vote a bond through the county if you don’t achieve a super majority from our council is not an acceptable path for one who wishes to respect the needs of one’s constituents and to maintain civility.
Lastly, as dictated by September 30th Village Council vote and based on the specificity of the comprehensive traffic study that you voted in favor of that evening, any movement on the traffic garage should be tabled until that study is complete. To override that vote and forcibly move forward with this bond puts the whole process into question.
Paul, many of us, myself included, are in favor of finding ways to assuage the parking situation in town. In the name of civility and for the sake of our village, I urge you to honor the vote you cast on September 30th with regards to completing the comprehensive parking study before moving forward with this traffic garage.
See you Wednesday night at 7:30pm.
Sincerely,
Dana
Dana H. Glazer
61 Clinton Avenue
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Paul Aronsohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,
Election Day is just around the corner … and the campaign to build Ridgewood’s first parking deck has been gaining support. As I walk through town and talk to literally thousands of residents, I can tell you that people increasingly realize that a “yes” vote for the parking referendum is a “yes” vote for Ridgewood.
And in addition to the many individual residents who have expressed strong support, we now have three important letters of endorsement – all supporting this initiative, all encouraging a “yes” vote on Tuesday.
§ The Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee § The Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission § The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce President Without question, this is all very exciting.
Unfortunately, however, an anonymous mailer was sent to many Ridgewood homes this weekend – an anonymous mailer that was sent from a Newark Post Office and that is full of misinformation and distortions. And although no one was willing to take responsibility for the mailer, the language in it is strikingly similar to that used recently by others trying to undermine this important project for the Village.
So, let me set the record straight on some of the key issues being discussed:
ü Parking revenues – NOT taxes – would pay for this parking deck. We have commissioned an independent financial analysis that demonstrates that we could easily pay for a parking deck using only parking revenues. Here is that analysis.
ü There would be NO charge for parking on Sundays. We don’t charge for parking on Sundays. Period. That’s true now. That will be true if/when we build a parking deck.
ü There have been NO decisions taken with respect to meter times or rates. The independent financial analysis gave us a menu of options for paying for a parking deck without raising taxes. It would be up to the Council – with public input – to decide on any rate or time changes.
ü The size and appearance of the proposed parking deck have NOT yet been decided. Our design team – with a great deal of public input – has been developing renderings of what a parking deck could look like, but we have NOT decided on size or appearance. Those two issues would be decided after the vote on the referendum.
ü Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck. Here is a copy of the official ballot question.
ü The anonymous mailer greatly DISTORTS the size of the proposed parking deck. As noted on the mailer in very small letters, “artist rendering, not to exact scale.”
ü A parking deck would likely lead to a significant DECREASE in traffic. According to our independent traffic consultant, a parking deck on the Hudson Street lot would have a very positive affect on the overall downtown traffic situation. The primary reason for this is that a parking deck would eliminate the need to drive around and around and around looking for a parking space. ü A parking deck would benefit ALL Ridgewood residents … commuters as well as shoppers/diners. The Council would have to decide how best to use the parking deck, but we would likely set aside some parking for commuters and some for those shopping, dining and working downtown.
ü Tuesday’s vote provides ALL Ridgewood residents with a unique opportunity. As outlined in my letter-to-the-editor, we have an opportunity to do something smart, important and wonderful for our community.
As always, thank you….
Best,
Paul
Paul Aronsohn, Mayor Village of Ridgewood @paularonsohn
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the setting of Fish Urban Dining is striking. Situated in a former Bank of America branch on East Ridgewood Avenue, the restaurant has 30-foot-high ceilings with six huge chandeliers, and its sleek dining room extends into what was the bank’s vault, complete with a five-ton steel door.
Jim and Karen DeGilio, the married couple who own the restaurant and a second Fish Urban Dining, in Asbury Park, opened their Ridgewood place in July. It has been packed ever since. It has high-quality seafood, attentive service and some excellent nonaquatic dishes, too.
“We pride ourselves on serving fresh, uncomplicated seafood with fair prices in a comfortable, fun setting,” Mr. DeGilio said in a phone interview following my visits.
Dave Symniuk, the executive chef at both locations, has worked with the couple for over a decade and oversees a team of cooks that handles day-to-day preparations.
JANUARY 4, 2016, 6:47 AM
BY JOHN CICHOWSKI
NORTHJERSEY.COM
Officer Tim Franco offered one final wish as he left his job for the final time last week.
“Cameras,” said Fair Lawn’s retiring traffic safety officer.
Most cops love recent improvements in law-enforcement technology, especially surveillance cameras that provide powerful evidence for documenting shoplifters, cheats, liars and worse. But Franco likes them for recording what happens at busy intersections.
“Not just crashes,” he said. “Close calls, too.”
Police usually know crash details from accident reports. But unlike pilots who must report close calls to aviation authorities, it’s rare for drivers or police to document events that almost happen – except when regaling colleagues or reporters about the harrowing experiences that nearly become the big events of their day.
But as Franco learned over his 31½-year career, these experiences have value beyond locker-room chatter.
That’s because workplace bean counters figured out years ago that there are about 30 close calls for each accident. If cops and engineers had access to a huge sample of these “what ifs,” as Franco calls them, they could be added to the small number of crashes they record. Doing so would add more precision to their ability to improve road safety – either through enforcement or through charges made in signage or the design of troublesome intersections.
“Right now, the system for gathering crash data is very limited,” Franco said. “But the camera technology exists to do a better job,”
Ridgewood NJ, It seems that many who voted YES, voted ‘yes” for more parking. More parking yes , but not a monstrosity of a parking high-rise building being proposed for the Hudson Street parking lot. Many feel they were misled into thinking that a particular design had not been decided upon, even though this giant megastructure was the only option that was ever, in reality, on the table.
Everyone is quite aware of the peak demand parking shortage in our Village. The above is an image of what the proposed garage would look like. As you can see if dwarfs all the surrounding buikdings. If this monstrosity of a garage is not what you signed up for, when you voted YES for parking, please attend this Wednesdays Village Council meeting and let the Mayor and members of the Village Council know that this mega garage may work for Hackensack or Ft Lee but definitely does not fit in to the character of our Village. Furthermore, plans for any garage should be held off until the 4 impact studies are concluded. What is the point of having impact studies on traffic, etc… if our Village Council pushes through this huge garage.
DECEMBER 30, 2015 LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2015, 1:21 AM
THE RECORD
Ring in the new year with a scrumptious meal. The following are just some of the restaurants going all out to satisfy palates in the final moments of 2015:
Picnic on the Square
The Ridgewood restaurant is celebrating New Year’s with a loaded prix-fixe menu. The meal includes a snack plate to start followed by salad, appetizer, entrée and dessert courses. This year’s celebration features an all-new menu crafted by chef Christine Nunn and a complimentary champagne toast. Other than the toast, the meal is BYOB. $85 per person, 26 Wilsey Square 201-444-4001; picniconthesquare.com.
Photo credit: Boyd A. Loving Ken Smith parking lot in Ridgewood to be repurposed
December 31,2015
Boyd A. Loving
Ridgewood NJ ,At a recent public meeting of the Village Council, Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld reported that the large parking lot at the former Ken Smith Motors will be repurposed by the property’s owner.
The lot is now being used for CBD employee parking on a permit only basis. Village of Ridgewood parking enforcement agents patrol the lot and issue summonses to violators. The Village currently receives a percentage of each permit fee.
The effective date for complete control by the property’s owner was said to be 1/1/2016. It is reported that the owner plans to offer commuter parking as well as employee parking (maybe “open” parking as well). The Village will not receive any revenue under the new plan, and will not provide any enforcement services.
Special Public Meeting – Multi-Family Housing – January 8, 2016
Ridgewood NJ , There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
The firms that are competing to conduct the special impact studies that residents overwhelmingly requested on September 30th. The question arises is ,”why would you schedule such a meeting at 5:00pm on a Friday unless you did not want residents to attend?”
Contrary to the view point promoted by the Deputy Mayor , most residents do have a jobs. Jobs are particular necessary to pay the enormous amount of federal ,state and local taxes . No one who can afford to live in Ridgewood who works in the private sector gets home that early .
The other issue that would make sense would be to delay any decision regarding the parking garage until the comprehensive studies are done. It makes absolutely no sense to hire an outside company to conduct the studies without including the proposed garage.
Ridgewood NJ, There will be a Village Council Special Public Meeting held on Friday, January 8, 2016 @ 5PM in the Court Room at Village Hall. Various Consultants will be presenting proposals for the 4 Multi-Family Housing Studies covering; fiscal impact, traffic, education & municipal infrastructure.
Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission – Proposed Master Plan Amendment to Permit High Density Multifamily Housing Around the CBD
an article worth reading and so relevant to what Ridgewood is going through right now..
PUBLISHED BY LESLIE WRIGHT ON DECEMBER 22, 2015
At this time of year, when we gather with loved ones, often returning to, or remembering, the places we hold dear, the reflections of Orton Family Foundation Trustee Ed McMahon on the importance of place seem especially apropos. Ed is senior resident fellow at Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C.
We live in a world of rapid change: immigration, new technologies, global trade, instantaneous communication, changing consumer tastes, rapid movement of people, ideas, and goods, etc. However, if I have learned anything over 25 years in the community planning arena, it is this: change is inevitable, but the destruction of community character and identity is not. Progress does not demand degraded surroundings. Communities can grow without destroying the things people love.
Place is more than just a location or a spot on a map. A sense of place is a unique collection of qualities and characteristics—visual, cultural, social and environmental—that provides meaning to a location. Sense of place is what makes one location (e.g. your hometown) different from another location (e.g. my hometown), but sense of place is also that which makes our physical surroundings valuable and worth caring about.
Land use planners spend too much time focusing on numbers—the number of units per acre, the number of cars per hour, the number of floors per building—and not enough time on the values, customs, characteristics, and quirks that make a place worth caring about. Unfortunately, many American communities are suffering the social, economic, and environmental consequences of being places that simply aren’t worth caring about. The more one place (one location) comes to be just like every other place, the less reason there is to visit or invest. Just take tourism, for example: the more a community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to enhance its distinctive identity, whether that is natural, cultural, or architectural, the more reasons there are to visit. Why? Because tourism is about visiting places that are different, unusual, or unique; if one place was just like everyplace else, there would be no reason to go anyplace.
Similarly, when it comes to 21st century economic development, a key concept is “community differentiation.” If you can’t differentiate your community from any other community, you have no competitive advantage. Capital is footloose in a global economy. Natural resources, highway access, locations along a river or rail line have all become less important. Richard Florida, a leading economic development authority and author of The Creative Class, has said, “How people think of a place is less tangible, but more important than just about anything else.”
The CSAC is absolutely right when it identifies parking lots as dangerous places and anything that makes them a little safer would be a welcome change. There is obviously be a cost associated with that plan – how much would parking lot re-striping cost? This is where the devil really IS in the details. As an example, how much change could there be in even one parking lot for the amount that was just spent on that electronic sign at the train station? There are ways to scrimp and save when something is really important.
Additionally, we can’t expect the police department to be everywhere all the time. It seems unrealistic to think they can provide full traffic safety coverage in the CBD all the time. An increased police presence would definitely be an effective deterrent and make people less likely to drive like maniacs, but in the meantime we must figure out some other ways to protect ourselves. Can’t we have (some version of) crossing guards in the most dangerous intersections at the most dangerous times of day? Crossing guards are not full-time and not paid much but, for the most part, drivers do yield to their directions. Reasonable hourly pay and no benefits makes it at least something to consider in the short term – until we figure out another way.
I think most of us appreciate Ridgewood for its relative safety, i.e. low crime rate. We have a town in which it’s actually possible to allow our kids to go downtown alone and walk around – in many ways a really nice throwback to an earlier era. However, even though we have that luxury, we have to worry that they will be killed by a car if we let them go. It’s sad and a waste of the police dept’s efforts to keep it a safe place.
