Ridgewood has room for ‘beneficial change’
JANUARY 23, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2015, 12:30 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
‘There is room for beneficial change’
To the editor:
For four years now – two as a resident observer and two as a consultant to the Enclave development – I have been following the dialogue around developing luxury residential units in Ridgewood’s downtown. The process will conclude in the next month or so with a vote at the Planning Board on amending the master plan to allow greater density for residential on four underutilized sites including two former car dealerships.
It has been fascinating to see this process unfold in my town after providing services to developers in similar scenarios over the last 30 years. The most common opposition to these plans comes under the umbrella of “Ridgewood is Different.” Yes, we’ve somehow persuaded ourselves to say it with a capital “D” and that is why this process, which should have taken no more than six months and been an exercise in information and logic, instead has dragged in for six years and tangled us in an unnecessarily wrenching dialogue.
The testimony from the developer’s side has been about what you’d expect – perhaps more intense in response to the opposition, but professional and comprehensive. The testimony from the village planner has been conclusive as to the planning issues: there is not better solution for these sites than what has been proposed if benefits are measured against impacts and if professional planning standards are imposed. Truly a masterful job was performed that the village should take pride in.
Where this process has had its breakdowns is not in its structure, which is part of well-established law. The hallmark of this process has been disingenuousness and political messaging – neither of which is appropriate when such critical issues as the village’s strategy to protect the viability of its downtown and its affordable housing obligation are at stake.
Our school populations are falling and even the most dire predictions of added school children have been called a non-issue by the school superintendant. The traffic consultant assures us that impacts from the proposed developments are less than previous uses and less than other options. The planner has worked to prevent additional sites from being subject to unwanted development.
And yet my friends – on the podium and in the audience – who don’t want the development are accusing developers of lying and village professionals of malfeasance. And they also are intimidating my other friends, who would like to move a parent into a nice apartment downtown or move there themselves when their housing needs change – from expressing their opinions by intimating social consequences.
Really people? It’s time to accept that on the edges of our own “Ridgewood is Different” visions and biases – and despite some downright racial prejudices that we very unexpectedly saw emerge – there is room for beneficial, if imperfect, change. When the Planning Board asks for your public comment, try and not use the capital D to Denigrate or Destruct; it should mean Distinguished.
Ron Simoncini
Ridgewood
