Tag: CBD

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Parking Garage : What does “we have confirmed the economics . . . ” (from PDF attachment) truly mean?

parking_enforcement_theridgewoodblog

 

November 23,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, in the PDF on the Village website called “Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager” . The Village manager makes the bold pronouncement that the “We have already confirmed the economics by commissioning an independent consulting firm whose work was studied and endorsed by the Financial Advisory Committee. ” . Sounds a bit bold given that the final garage decisions have not been made . The three garage options listed would involve different economic assumptions .

The three designs presented included the original structure, as depicted on VOR site,  with 405 spaces (130,000sq ft), a modified version with 355 stalls (120,000sq ft) and the lowest profile version with 305 stalls (109,000 sq ft). The cost per stall decreases for each added level:

405 stalls @ $28,000 = 11.5 mil

355 stalls @ $29,300 = 10.4 mil

305 stalls @ $31,000 = 9.5 mil

You can see the higher you go the more efficient the project becomes IF, of course,  those spaces  are utilized.

While we have gotten many assurances that the garage will pay for it self ,Several funding options had been presented to the Council.  Have decisions been reached on increasing parking rates, increasing hours of meter operation, adjusting rates for non-resident parking passes, and increasing enforcement times?  Until such decisions have been made and trialed, how could we possibly have “confirmed the economics?”  As they stand now, these are just assumptions made on paper by the consultant. Lets face it does anyone really know how much money the parking authority really takes in ? And what happens to all the money being currently used from the parking authority to subsidize other Village activities ?

Before we commit to spending millions of dollars based payback from projected revenue streams, let’s check some of the assumptions out in the field.
Hudson Street Parking Deck – Message from the Village Manager

Click Here

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Meet New Jersey Native David Rossi And Sample Four Of His Outstanding Sonoma Wines

12247997_961147750598022_1430343157432186518_o

November 21,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, David Rossi started making small lots of wine in his basement in New Jersey. In 2005, with a shelf full of national amateur winemaking awards, he founded Fulcrum Wines in the heart of California wine country. He has emerged as one of California’s most exciting Pinot Noir makers and one of its best-kept secrets. Vintage after vintage, Fulcrum’s wines are among the finest from their appellations and the accolades are too numerous to list.

This Saturday the 21st, meet David Rossi and sample several of his Pinot Noirs at The Wine Seller between 5 and 8 PM. His outstanding wines are perfectly suited to a Thanksgiving feast and are discounted 15% to 23% for this ‘can’t miss’ event.

David Will Be Here 5 to 8 On Saturday To Talk About His Wines.
Can’t Make It Saturday? Taste David’s Wines this Friday 4 & 8PM.

Cloisonne, 2014 Pinot Noir, Carneros, CA
This affordable, medium-bodied Pinot Noir displays subtle toast aromas from 15 months in French oak barrels (15% new). With enough time in the glass, this wine runs the gamut of distinctive varietal flavors, with plum evolving into ultra-ripe cranberry, black cherry and eventually turning to delicate strawberry and spice in the finish. The fruit remains cloaked in a translucent veil of toasty oak that compliments rather than overpowers the fruit.
Regularly $18.99, Special Tasting Price, $15.99

On Point, 2013 Pinot Noir Christina’s Cuvee, Anderson Valley, CA
This lushly textured Pinot Noir displays restrained nuances of mocha in the nose and palette, followed by rich flavors of dark chocolate covered cherries, cassis, earth and spice. Wispy hints of wood smoke appear in the lengthy finish.
Regularly $32.99, Special Tasting Price, $26.99

Fulcrum, 2013 Pinot Noir, Brosseau Vineyard, Chalone AVA, CA
The nose displays a little of that wild, smoky, earthy Pinot Noir funkiness that Pinotphiles adore. This is a medium to full-bodied red featuring dark, spicy berry flavors folded into a bed of stony minerals. The substantial finish reveals understated notes of earth and mocha.
Regularly $51.99, Special Tasting Price, $39.99

Fulcrum, 2013 Pinot Noir, Landy Vineyard, Russian River Valley, CA
Rich, earthy aromas are reminiscent of vanillin cookie dough and dark fruits. This is a full-bodied Pinot Noir with ripe plum, black cherry and cassis fruit flavors presented with a soft, luscious mouthfeel. When given some time to breathe some strawberry and sweet spice characteristics emerge on the eternal finish.
Regularly $51.99, Special Tasting Price, $39.99

Don’t miss this rare opportunity to taste wines with native NJ winemaker David Rossi this weekend at the Wine Seller. The special tasting prices are good through Sunday the 22nd, so stop by the Wine Seller or reply to this email to reserve your Thanksgiving wine at these prices.

the Wine Seller
6 W Ridgewood Ave
Ridgewood, New Jersey
(201) 444-3300

Posted on by — 21 Comments

Information before Ridgewood Parking Garage referendum vote was confusing

parking garage cbd

Information before referendum vote was confusing

NOVEMBER 20, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2015, 12:31 AM

THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Details on garage were ‘confusing’

To the Editor:

When the village manager and council asked residents to vote on a non-binding resolution to build a parking garage, it did not tell voters what they voted on had little bearing on reality. We were told to look at the village website for a description of the garage, financial plans, the Walker study, etc. for facts before voting. The words “draft” was on the rendering and “preliminary” on the financials, so voters really didn’t know what they were voting on, yet the ballot was specific. On the basis of the wording on the ballot, residents by a 2-1 margin voted yes. The town was very careful to use the words “non-binding,” but I doubt many understood the ramifications, that nothing on the website, in the plans, in the financials was definite. Yet we were told just the opposite.

All the money spent on the plans and financials was only for an “idea” of what was planned. All the details, the explanations, the reasoning taxpayers would not be responsible because of the very detailed financial plan, were not accurate.

Residents were told time and again to look at the website for details before they voted. There was nothing “non-binding” about that. The picture on the “Vote Yes” signs for the garage was a partial rendering of the presentation to the public. Yet in a statement made on Facebook, both the manager and a council member said the vote was just to give an “idea” and in fact there was no decision about size, cost, etc. I don’t think voters knew when they voted. If there was no decision, why spend time, money and signs for this. The goal was to gauge public opinion, but the time, the signs, the letters urging the vote, was time better spent working with neighborhoods on more urgent matters.

It appears we have a council more dedicated to public relations than to good government. This is discouraging to say the least.

Mayor Aronsohn, in his recent Ridgewood News column, excoriated the author(s) of a flyer for what he characterized as inaccurate information. On the other hand, he sent a robo-call to residents urging them to vote yes, stating he was doing this at his own expense as a private citizen. So it was all right for him to do this, albeit he wasn’t anonymous (to his credit) with inaccurate information, but it was not all right for an anonymous flyer to be sent with accurate information? “Non-binding” usually refers to the number of votes pro and con, not on votes based on inaccurate information entirely. The council has turned this on end.

This is a further example of confusing information, vague ideas stated as facts, backpedaling, decisions made without public input. This is not transparency or good government. We deserve better.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all the unsatisfied neighborhoods got together to figure out a way to make our council and manager more transparent?

Ellie Gruber

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-information-before-referendum-vote-was-confusing-1.1459327

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ridgewood Residents feel input ignored on Garage Discussions

Hudson Garage

file photo by Boyd LOving
November 20,2015
th staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Village of Ridgewood is pushing three options for the parking garage design . Village manager Roberta Sonenfeld claims in a recent email to Village Residents that ,”We have already confirmed the economics by commissioning an independent consulting firm whose work was studied and endorsed by the Financial Advisory Committee.”

Sonenfeld went on , “The Council selected an architectural/engineering firm to work with us in designing the deck and putting together the construction bid documents. We are currently in the design phase of building the deck, and have held numerous meetings where input from the community has been received and incorporated into the design. We continue to seek input from you regarding the design, particularly as it relates to the size and height. Below you will find three options for you to peruse and comment upon. Each has pros and cons.”  https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/hudson/20151119-PDwPV1.pdf

Many residents however see things differently , “Since the vote, there has been no council meeting with an agenda to discuss the parking garage. The discussion should be at a council meeting. Put it on the record and for all the public to hear. As I said below, it appears that things are being done backwards and in private yet again. You say you want public input. You say you want communication. You say you want transparency. You said, “vote yes to parking, and then negotiate the size and design.” I see none of that.”, Lorraine Reynolds

Ellen McNamara said , “I attended the second of 2 informal forums and I was the only person not on a committee, who had had prior opportunity to review the garage plans at length. I did not have an opportunity to speak publicly, ask questions on the record, or be heard by anyone other than Gwen Hauck, Fire Chief Jim VanGoor, the architect (forgetting his name at the moment), and Nancy Johannsen from the financial committee – only in private conversations initiated by me. I did not feel as though my input was “gathered.” In fact, I was lead to believe the design and size of the garage were still being worked out, and many of my questions had been asked and answered already, so not to worry. I have worried every second since casting my vote for the garage referendum.”

The Village Manager has once again assured everyone that on the December 2nd meeting residents will have an opportunity to ask questions

 

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Vagianos & Ordway sign now in violation?

Vagianos & Ordway sign now in violation

November 20,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Photos taken at 12 noon on Thursday, 11/19, 16 days post election day.

Ridgewood NJ,  As per Village Code 199-122H6.:  Election signs. Temporary signs for elective office shall be permitted in nonresidential zones. Such signs shall be removed no later than 10 days after the date of the election to which they pertain. In the case of a primary election, the signs of all candidates who fail to remain as candidates in the ensuing general election shall be removed no later than 10 days after the date of the primary election. Such signs may be freestanding or attached to a building wall.

Any summonses issued here?

Posted on by — 5 Comments

Reader says Private Meetings on Garage Design seem to have been set up to avoid the Open Public Meetings guidelines

Hudson Garage

Why did the “design team” (gimme a break) meet with council members individuall Paul???? Trying to avoid a public meeting where all five could hear each other’s opinions and the public could be present? Hmmm, sounds like you tried to avoid the Open Public Meetings guidelines.

The point is, why have each member come in for a private meeting? They should each have been able to hear what the others are thinking, what plans they are favoring, and their reasoning. This stupid system circumnavigates the open public meeting act, and it does not good. Opinions will form before the December 2 meeting, when in fact they all should have started right out looking together in front of the public. That is not Paul’s way. He proclaims openness and transparency, and then holds these secret one-on-one meetings. Kind of like sliding the Health Barn in before telling the residents in the neighborhood. Kind of like letting the RSBA hand-deliver the ballfield grant application. Everything is done wrong under this regime, but it is deliberately done wrong in order for them to control the agenda. The three of them and Roberta stink.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Reader says Anyone pointing fingers at past Councils about conflicts of interest is clearly trying to divert attention away from the several conflicts with the current Council

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

Anyone pointing fingers at past Councils about conflicts of interest is clearly trying to divert attention away from the several conflicts with the current Council. Mr. Killion is long gone folks. We have several critical issues before this Council and the 3 majority members all seem to have cozy relationships with the parties that have a lot to gain from their “YES” vote. Money has already changed hands from Mr. Saraceno to our Council majority in the form of $1,000 fundraiser tickets for them and their dates. Mr. Pucciarelli and Mrs. Hauck have clear conflicts on the Valley Hospital lawsuit.

Apologists for the Council majority cry “old news” when these conflicts come up yet they point fingers at past Councils as a convenient way to deflect any blame that comes their way.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Mary Higgins Clark at Bookends November 18th 7pm

12068956_10153069809480776_8694721206768536455_o

Ridgewood NJ, Bookends of Ridgewood  will host New York Times Bestselling Author Mary Higgins Clark
on Wed. Nov 18th @ 7:00pm .

Appearing authors will only autograph books purchased at Bookends and must have valid Bookends Receipt.

Availability & pricing for all autographed books subject to change.
First In Line Certificate use is the the discretion of Bookends. Blackout dates may apply.
Bookends cannot guarantee that the books that are Autographed will always be First Printings.
Autographed books purchased at Bookends are non-returnable.

While we try to ensure that all customers coming to Bookends’ signings will meet authors and get their books signed, we cannot guarantee that all attendees will meet the author or that all books will be signed.  We cannot control inclement weather, author travel schedules or authors who leave prematurely.

Bookends, 211 E. Ridgewood Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ   07450   201-445-0726

Posted on by — 39 Comments

Mayor Paul Aronsohn, the “next steps” with respect to a proposed parking deck

paul Aronsohn

Dear Neighbor,

I am writing to share our “next steps” with respect to a proposed parking deck.

As you know, we have spent the last few months engaged in a community-wide conversation on this topic – one that has been asking and answering a series of fundamental questions: Do we need a parking deck? If so, what should it look like? How big should it be? Where should it be? How should we pay for it?

To inform this conversation and to fully involve the public, the Council did two things:

First, the Council commissioned architectural renderings and a financial analysis that – together – have not only helped answer those questions, but have also given us a good sense of the challenges and the opportunities. We have made all of the information available to the public on our website and have discussed it during several public meetings … including Council work sessions, a Planning Board meeting, a Historic Preservation Commission meeting and a handful of public forums that involved presentations by the design team and one-on-one conversations with the experts. The renderings — which have evolved to reflect input received throughout this process — have been on display at Village Hall, the train station and the library. And the Village Manager and I have even set up shop outside of Memorial Park at Van Neste to answer questions and hear people’s ideas and suggestions.

Second, the Council also decided to put a referendum question on the November 3 ballot, so that we could gauge public opinion. The result was not only a record turnout on Election Day; it was also a show of strong support for a parking deck, which received a full 65 percent of the vote. In fact, the parking deck was the big vote getter for the day … receiving more support than any of the candidates on the ballot … 3,236 votes in support!

Now, we need to move forward and decide on the size of a parking deck.

To that end, working with our design team, we have settled on three alternative designs. Each has pros and cons. Each reflects feedback received from people throughout our community. And each would cost much less than the $15 million originally discussed.

§ Option A: A parking deck with 4 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 405 cars and cost approximately $12 million. (The current rendering on the Village website.)

§ Option B: A parking deck with 3 ½ floors and an open roof that could accommodate 355 cars and cost approximately $11 million.

§ Option C: A parking deck with 3 floors and an open roof that could accommodate 306 cars and cost approximately $10.1 million.

To facilitate this decision, the design team met individually with Council members last week to go through these options, and the design team will be on hand at our next Council meeting on December 2 to do the same with residents, too. We are also making available in the Village Hall lobby renderings that show what each of the options would look like and the costs associated with them. Our plan is to make a decision by mid-December.

Your involvement throughout this process has been invaluable, and we want to hear from you … again. Please stop by the lobby. Please come to our December 2 meeting. Please let us know your preference.

And as we get closer to resolving this issue – the need for more parking – that has been discussed and debated for over 50 years, I sincerely hope that we can share in the excitement of the moment and work together to make it happen.

Thank you.

Paul

PS. Please let me know if you have questions.

Paul Aronsohn, Mayor
Village of Ridgewood
@paularonsohn

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Affordable Housing Deadline dictates housing dialogue in Ridgewood

Projects_theridgewoodblog

NOVEMBER 16, 2015    LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 2:23 PM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

With the deadline to submit a housing element to the courts, village officials must act diligently to avoid possible lawsuits and meet its affordable housing obligations.

Housing was a major topic of last Monday’s meeting as affordable housing and how to proceed in regard to the issue of multifamily housing in Ridgewood’s Central Business District (CBD) came to the forefront.

The village successfully applied for a declaratory judgment seeking immunity from possible builder’s remedy lawsuits in July and was given five months to come up with a housing plan to be submitted to the court.

Village Attorney Matthew Rogers noted the court had found Ridgewood had been acting in good faith, which can be at least partially attributed to the inclusion of the Planning Board’s June 2 decision to amend the master plan and create new zones that allow residential and mixed-use development in previous commercial areas.

Rogers said he advised the court the council was carrying the ordinances in order to conduct additional studies as to the impact new housing would have on the village.

The housing element must first be determined by the village’s Planning Board, as it is the sole arbiter of the master plan document. The plan must then be submitted to the Village Council for consideration and adoption before the Dec. 7 deadline.

However, Rogers said there were a couple of “major impediments” to accomplishing that task.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/deadline-dictates-housing-dialogue-in-ridgewood-1.1456572

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Ridgewood CBD : Better planning, more trust needed

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ
photo by Boyd Loving
NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Better planning, more trust needed

To the Editor:

Sept. 30 was a great night for Ridgewood. Hundreds of residents bore witness to our council approving, by 4-1 vote, four important studies required to make a truly informed decision on a high-density housing amendment that could change the character of our village forever. Based on a motion by Councilman Sedon, amended by Councilwoman Knudsen, studies for financial impacts, school impacts, infrastructure and a comprehensive traffic review, were all approved.

For the first time in years, residents felt that their voices were being heard. Rather than the frustratingly expected, rushed approval of the out-of-scale high-density ordinances, we instead heard a vote that began restoring our trust.

Unfortunately, at this Monday’s meeting, our council took a scary turn towards breaking that newfound trust. Residents in attendance witnessed several members — Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli — offer commentary questioning the council’s commitment to the studies, with an angle seemingly against prompt commissioning. It further came to light that no work has commenced towards planning any of the studies, despite the matter’s urgency.

Further disturbing were statements by several council members indicating that they couldn’t recall what studies they voted for on Sept. 30, despite the vote’s place in public record. Interestingly, all the residents in attendance knew the vote. A review of the Sept. 30 video shows that all council members were fully aware of the motion and were given opportunity for further clarification. By the time the vote occurred, there were no such clarification requests and the “multiple studies” motion was put forth by the village clerk: “Infrastructure Study,” “Financial Study,” “The School Impact Study,” and “a Comprehensive Traffic Study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village.”

Knudsen, Sedon, Aronsohn and Hauck voted “Yes.” Pucciarelli voted “No.”

These studies are so important because our Planning Board, despite years of deliberation, strategically missed the mark, never “planning” in a comprehensive manner. Their process was too reactionary to the zoning-change applications. Studies used were too site-specific for proper master planning, leaving many questions unanswered in a process akin to spot zoning.

Regarding one study, Councilwoman Knudsen explained: “… there has never been a comprehensive traffic study done of the Central Business District proper, the adjacent communities and/or the village as a whole. It becomes incredibly relevant when we consider that there are four large parcels being considered for high-density development, coupled with the North Walnut Redevelopment Zone with an assisted living facility of … 76 units per acre, upwards of 98 (units). And coupled with the fact that we are pursuing a parking garage that will add over 300 vehicles to an already narrow, difficult, congested corner of Broad Street and Hudson. So when you take all these collectively, it really becomes imperative that we conduct our due diligence and get this right. So, I think that, to the question: What traffic studies have been done? Not enough.”

“Not enough” is not good enough. Ridgewood needs better. Better planning. Better process and a better foundation for trust.

Please promptly commission these incredibly important studies.

Dave Slomin

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-better-planning-more-trust-needed-1.1454595

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Additional studies needed for Ridgewood CBD housing issue

Village Council

photo by Boyd Loving

NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Additional studies needed for CBD housing issue

To the editor:

On Sept. 30, hundreds of residents attended the Village Council meeting to tell our council members we do not want them to approve high-density housing at the 35-unit-per-acre density level and that further studies were needed. A vote was taken and the council passed, by a 4-1 vote, a measure for a “traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and school impact study.” The traffic study was further outlined as “surrounding neighborhoods, the entire Village” as the prior studies had not looked at this area.

At the council meeting on Monday, Nov. 9, the council agreed to move forward and examine finances but Mayor Paul Aronsohn said it is “still inconclusive if we will do additional studies.” It appears they may try and push these ordinances through without ever doing the additional full analysis they are duly bound to do by their 4-1 vote.

Please write them and urge them to keep their word and perform the new studies they committed to in September. Again, those studies are a comprehensive traffic study, school impact study, infrastructure study and financial impact study.

Their email addresses are: Paul Aronsohn – [email protected]; Albert Pucciarelli – [email protected]; Gwenn Hauck – [email protected]; Susan Knudsen – [email protected]; and Michael Sedon – [email protected].

Carrie Giordano

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-additional-studies-needed-for-cbd-housing-issue-1.1454496

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Fiscal impact of Ridgewood High Density Housing must be Considered

parking CBD fullhouse theridgewoodblog.net
NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Consensus can be reached on issue

To the Editor:

I believe wide areas of consensus that currently exist coming out of the Planning Board process for higher density family housing provides hope that we all will be able to do the right thing. Consensus can reach 100 percent if we address the shared fiscal impact which has not yet been considered because, according to our village planner, the Planning Board was precluded from taking it into consideration.

We are all rightfully entitled to develop and invest in private property in Ridgewood. The planning process, while fully transparent to the lawyers involved, was a convoluted community management practice that left out the very simple moral difference between right and wrong. Our free market affords a range of business practices, but one’s profits shouldn’t be realized by increasing the tax burden of every other member of the community they belong to.

We know that every added school-aged resident entering Ridgewood costs more to educate than any family pays in taxes. And, that every town in America has a socialized educational system that distributes the costs of educating some of our residents amongst all. As a parent of three children, I am acutely aware of this since private tuition could easily cost me six times my current tax contribution to the education budget.

We also know that Ridgewood’s ratings on the Internet are the No. 1 reason people move here, but less obvious is that our special education programs, having been labeled “centers of excellence,” draw families to our town as well. The proposed apartments not only appeal to anyone with a child, but they are an ideal environment in which to raise a subset of special needs children for whom living in a detached home is potentially dangerous.

Because of these realities, not “projections,” the negative impact of higher density on our taxes is undeniable. The only question is by how much. It is simply wrong for a select few to leverage our socialized education system to guarantee themselves a business profit on the backs of every one of their tax-paying neighbors. We might easily reach consensus were developers to create an escrow account to reimburse the Board of Education for the cost of educating every new child they bring into town, but I doubt projected profits would allow it.

A simpler way would be for all of us to do the right thing by the one group of our residents who are not being currently accommodated. We can limit apartments to a 55-and-over demographic in order to provide for the current demand for empty-nester housing in town and attract retirees seeking the superior quality of life that our idyllic village setting provides at a stone’s throw from New York City. It’s a no brainer, its fair, and it will bring down taxes for us all.

Martin Walker

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-consensus-can-be-reached-on-issue-1.1454576

Posted on by — 8 Comments

4 Ridgewood Restaurants Now Offer Valet Parking

parking_CBD_theridgewoodblog
Restaurant mémoire, Fish Urban Dining, It’s Greek To Me and Gen Sushi in Ridgewood, NJ now offer Complimentary Valet Parking

Mémoire, a fine dining restaurant offering seasonal, American eclectic cuisine in a casual NYC-style atmosphere, announced that the restaurant, along with Fish Urban Dining, It’s Greek To Me and Gen Sushi will offer complimentary valet parking on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

Mémoire Owner and Executive Chef, Tom Finnelli stated the following: “It was ten months in the making, but we are thrilled to finally be able to offer valet parking to our guests. It is definitely a win-win to have four restaurants included in one valet service because it’s not about the individual restaurants; it’s about the guest and providing a much needed accommodation on nights when parking is limited. Hopefully, this will evolve into valet for every restaurant in the town, which will help to further revive one of the best dining destinations in New Jersey.”

About the Valet Services: Valet services will be available on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays beginning at 5 p.m. Valet stations will be conveniently located on the corners of Chestnut Street and East Ridgewood Avenue and Prospect Street and East Ridgewood Avenue.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Ridgewood Mayor’s column was unbalanced

parking garage cbd

Ridgewood Mayor’s column was unbalanced

NOVEMBER 13, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print

Newspaper column was ‘unbalanced’

To the Editor:

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

In his recap of activities associated with the recent non-binding parking garage referendum (“A big day for Ridgewood,” The Ridgewood News, Friday, Nov. 6, page A6), Mayor Paul Aronsohn did not hesitate to heavily criticize the “anti-parking garage” mailer, but failed to even mention the brouhaha connected with a non-factual letter of endorsement written by the Historic Preservation Commission’s chairperson, Mr. Vincent Parrillo.

I can’t imagine why Mr. Aronsohn didn’t think an inaccurate letter of endorsement, allegedly written at the request of either himself or Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, wasn’t worth mentioning in his summation of significant referendum related activities/issues. He devoted over 80 words of criticism to the mailer, but devoted not even one word to the bogus endorsement. This strikes me as being both an unbalanced and unjust report to your readers.

And why is the mayor so concerned about the mailer having been sent from Newark? Are there people working or living in Newark that we should be concerned about? Would it have made a difference to him if the mailer was postmarked from Ridgewood?

Boyd A. Loving

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-mayor-s-column-was-unbalanced-1.1454581