The Franklin Street “Village Garage” lot was publicly targeted by the Village Council for condemnation as “blighted” as part of a redevelopment plan. The Village would rely on the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a case decided by the U. S. Supreme Court involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. Construction of a municipal parking garage would then follow. $15 million in bond money was raised for that purpose, but when Village residents objected to the heavy-handed use of the eminent domain power, the plan was dropped and the money spent on other priorities. The current owners bought the property at that time at a relatively low price expecting to make a tidy profit in the near future. Obviously that didn’t exactly pan out for them.
Wait, so the argument now is… because a previous council approved the building of condos, in order to “save” the Village we need to appease the developers and build a garage for them given that they will obviously not have the needed parking spaces for their new tenants….and if we don’t build this thing, this town will become a glorified Rt 17 strip filled with gyms, banks and more condos? Come on people…..let’s all assume they build this thing, how does that change anything in terms of the parking landscape in this town? Yes, commuters will use it, yes shoppers will use it, but lets be realistic, probably only those looking to shop on Broad St or very close to it. We all know that everyone in this town or those that come here want to park right across the street from where they’re going, as stated in many of the posts before, if you look for parking you will find it, but you may have to walk a bit. So the taxpayers of this town should spend millions of dollars to alleviate a problem that may or may not exist for two to three hours on Friday and Saturday nights?? Do the math, it doesn’t add up and with Uber that problem is going away. Let’s spend money on updating the current run down parking lots we have or reconfigure current parking lanes and see how that goes….what’s the downside? We need to stop looking backward and look forward….Uber and Amazon to name a few are changing how we live our lives….less brick and mortar, less cars being driven for nights out….that’s the future, not building a garage that maybe in 1990 there was a solid argument for.
The best thing this Council can do is to fix the parking distribution problem stated and recommended in their own commissioned report (Walker and Maser). Before changing of the guard (May election) build smaller, low-level parking decks, in opposite corners of the Central Business District. D I S T R I B U T I O N !!!!! Clearly, one ginormous garage at Hudson is only to appease personal interests. Follow the professionals recommendations/reports.
The notion of building two simple parking decks instead of one big garage makes tremendous sense. It would offer distributed parking throughout the CBD and it has been suggested before and rejected by previous VC’s. The problem with a “distributed” solution is that the economics do not work. Much of the cost of a garage goes into site development costs for footings, , foundations etc. The first level is the most expensive to build and each successive level is less costly.Thus, maximum economic efficiency is achievedby building a single multi-level structure.
Clearly the garage is primarily for the benefit of the business community. It will help keep retailers and restaurants stay in business however it is equally clear that only those residents who commute to NY stand to benefit from a garage. Since many residents do not want or need the garage perhaps they shoulkd not be forced to help pay for it. On the other hand the business community should not be forced to bear the cost of items or services it does not need or use. Specifically, a SIGNIFICANT portion of the rent paid by tenants to their landlord goes to pay real estate taxes of which a large portion are used to pay for the school system. This begs the question why should the business community pay for sending residents kids to school ? Each should only pay for the services they use or need.
In conclusion, the residents should NOT be forced to underwrite the cost for a garage and the business community should NOT be forced to help pay for costs relating to schools or the Board of Ed.
In order to build the garage there must be increased meter rates and increased meter times.Even with that, the garage will not pay for itself and will cost additional taxpayer dollars.
One thing the Council has never responded to: Will a portion of this garage be available to the builders so they can supplement their legal lack of parking by having Ridgewood residents pay to help them out? It “may’ be used by commuters who can’t find parking on the streets. The stores and restaurants in town will continue to have their employees park directly in front of their businesses. Paul will still have his reserved “no parking” space in front of his wall. Who do you actually expect to use this space? Probably not shoppers or diners. And what about the Sunday/other Mt. Carmel uses of the lot that will be covered by the garage? Are we going to be expected to “pay for parking” that was formally free? And, to add insult to injury, the parking meters’ rates will be increased and the hours extended. Who wants that? Unless you can at least force the town’s various commercial employees to use it, who else will?
how does posting at 7pm on a Saturday negate any of the points made above? Does one have to be in town every night to have an opinion on the parking needs of this town? It’s this type of response that makes the argument for a garage so painful. A very small minority think that only those that own shops or restaurants in this town have the expertise to judge what the actual parking needs are in this village. Transference…now that’s funny. I guess your over active social calendar, which allows you to be in town every night makes you the preeminent authority on the traffic and parking issues that we may or may not face. Given we’re going on the time stamps of posts now, should we assume that you were just back from bellying up to the bar at Park West, monitoring the traffic flow through the window as you lectured the other patrons on how much better this Village would be if we had a parking garage? Maybe ask how many of your drinking buddies would use that garage if they had to walk more then a block to and from, my guess would be that none of them would….
The thinking behind building a large garage is “if you build it they will come”. That’s the unbiased logic. There’s also the opportunistic logic of those who stand to financially gain from building a garage (e.g. the lawyers and the various parties who will be involved in the construction project). Then there’s the ultimate beneficiaries, the business owners (mostly restaurants) who believe that they will get more revenue as a result of increased customers). Even if there will be increased customers, which I highly doubt, then why should the Ridgewood taxpayers be on the hook for increasing these business owners net worth?
Parking in Ridgewood right now is no problem, other than Friday and Saturday evenings The dinner rush. Even then there’s enough parking. The folks who think there isn’t simply want to park within a block of their restaurant of choice. Do you honestly think that these same people are going to park their cars in a parking garage?
I ask again. Why am I paying tax dollars to improve the net worth of a select crowd of business owners?
Does The garage allows developers to count the parking spaces there as required parking for the new developments? Since we are screwed by former council approvals the only way to cover the added costs of these new units is to charge ongoing annual “impact fees” for every unit above the usual permitted density. If 50 units are built where 25 is the usual permissible then the additional should bee charged for each bedroom multiplied by the cost of annual student expenditure . So if It costs $20,000 per year per student in the BOE budget,, and a unit has 2 bedrooms,then an annual impact fee of $40,0000 plus assessed real estate taxes. So 25 extra units have 50 extra bedroom require $1,000,0000 annual fees to the village.
Reader says , the Town should be sued for neglect of the Three Municipal surface Parking lots dangerous conditions in the commercial center of town. The trip and fall lawsuits must be stacking up in dark winters.
Add in the adjoining Town Garage privately owned and basically abandoned and you have an absolute mess of a town. A fire and other known hazards are there too. Used for Utility truck staging as if we were Paterson…
THESE ARE THE Facts. People riding through town are amazed as to how far we have fallen,
Sorry but I was in Glen Rock This morning .It was in fair to good shape on most fronts .Parking Lots fair to well maintained and Safe.
Ridgewood NJ, the Village received 4 proposals for the Hudson street garage project. At last Wednesdays council meeting Village Manager Heather Mailander made it clear that the Wednesday review was a quick once over with more in-depth review to follow.
Reader says , “Several months ago Councilman Hache publicly (during an open public meeting of the Village Council) voiced his strong opposition to the construction of any sized parking garage that would result in either increased parking fees, expanded metered parking hours (he cited both of the aforementioned as simply “another form of taxation), and/or an increased property tax burden for homeowners.
Now, all of a sudden, he’s Gung Ho on proceeding with the review of parking garage designs even prior to the financials being discussed. He went so far as to publicly chastise Mayor Knudsen for “stalling” when she suggested that financing arrangements should be discussed first.
WTF Ramon? What gives? Why the sudden about face?”
Many readers pointed out that Councilmen Ramon Hache seemed very focused on pushing the garage project forward for both design and financing . While we are not sure we would agree with that assessment .
The garage issue has be bandied about for the better part of 30 maybe 40 years although some would trace it back to the time when parking meters were first introduced to the Central Business District in Ridgewood making it more like 60 years .
Frankly we think the issues should be moved forward or finally put to rest once and for all .We now 4 proposals coupled with proposals for financing . Either the garage makes sense or it does not .
An anti garage reader summed it up , “Why are we still arguing every week about a garage we don’t need.It’s become the national pastime in Ridgewood. It’s been happening for over 20 years.At this rate it will happen for twenty more. We voted it down and it refuses to die.Politicians continue to ignore the voice of the people and make side deals with developers.There are much better uses of our tax dollars that can be made in our Village’s infrastructure.Is there anyone on the council with some real vision?”
Ridgewood NJ, the Village reported that a total of 267 cars were parked during the trial period for the centralized valet parking in the central business district of Ridgewood .Leaving the Village with a tab of $23,000 to pay the vendor. While we commend the Village Council for trying as many options as possible we are wondering why the CBD restaurants did not support the project ? One can only conclude from the results that the CBD does not need more parking .
Hi, I made that complaint and continue to send emails as there was no follow up regarding my issue. Someone asked for details…. happy to provide…. On 3 sepeate incidents over the last 2 yrs my wife received a parking violation for either not having a sticker or parking in an employee lot without a sticker. In all cases the vehicles are registered to me and the tickets, (which are either mailed or placed on the windshield – with no consistency for either method) are issued to the vehicle owner requiring both parties to show up in court should you wish to fight the ticket. Those are the simple facts…. Here are the details as I see them: Town requires all employees (including business owners) to purchase a monthly or yearly parking pass and you must affix the sticker in the driver side rear side window. Most windows are tinted making it difficult to see them. Note Mayor and Council: You are providing a parking pass to the employee, not the car, so it should be a hang tag that follows the employee regardless of means of transportation. What if the car is in the shop, rental, borrowed a friend or family members car…. What… buy more stickers? Then you must park in designated lots and use the park mobile app…. no coin option. So what happens when the app doesn’t work….ticket thats what…. What happens when the enforcement mule decides its raining or snowing and or too busy checking Facebook to bother getting out of the car to check for the sticker…. ticket thats what…. or his admin app doesn’t work or fails show the vehicle as paid even though it has. Again ticket…. Again, if the car is a rental, borrowed from a friend or registered to someone else its an issue because the driver isn’t issued the ticket the vehicle owner is. This now required both individuals to go to court to have it dismissed. (loss of wages and time) Observation: Enforcement salary, benefits, fuel, insurance and enforcement vehicle cost how much a year?? Guessing has to be easily 100K or more. Then factor in admin staff, utilities, salaries and court time maybe all total 200 – 300K? Too fed up with this abuse to get actual numbers but I bet im close. Calculate How many tickets are dismissed monthly against number written? After all he has to write so many a month based on borough statistics…. how else would they know if he is effectively doing his job…. But noooo its not a quota.. It’s a performance review. Subtract how how many went to court and were guilty and paid…. you are left with a quantity of unknown violations of which a percentage were just paid regardless of guilty or not. So what’s to stop him from writing erroneous tickets or being directed to? After all most individuals wouldn’t waste precious time for a 30.00 ticket…. You now have legal extortion if you ask me. Just like red light cameras which were banned and how hey wanted to issue speeding tickets using distance calcs between tolls based on easy pass. Faceless violations issued to the registered owners of a vehicle regardless if they were operating it or not. With internet sales increasing every hour, downtown rents through the roof… merchants are barely surviving and without employees and shoppers those businesses will cease to survive. So really what is the incentive for fee based parking….. The Answer I received….. other towns do it….. My response…. if I told you Billy jumped off the bridge you should too… would you think it’s a good idea just because someone else did it? Seems an incentive for people to seek employment and people to shop in Ridgewood would be achieved by not charging for parking. If you cannot fiscally manage the town with the taxes you accumulate you should look at your spend and if need be raise taxes to cover the losses for parking at it benefits the community by having a floursihing downtown area with employment opportunities. I am ashamed of the town council and mayor in their dismissive attitude towards this issue which has now cost me approx 1K in lost wages dealing with this administrative nightmare. I have offered to help solve the issue… so I am not complaining without offering to resolve it but again…. no response. Now it comes to light that the Park Mobile solution, which was put in place due to officials stealing quarters, costs more in fees than the town earns…. We call this TCO (true cost of ownership and Return on Investment in the IT world where I have domain expertise.) If this is true…… how do you all still have jobs…… If I screwed up this bad I would be terminated….. This isn’t rocket science nor is it a Democrat – Republican conversation…. its common sense and logic…. Stop charging for parking…. sell the enforcement vehicle(s) layoff the parking officials which saves salary and benefits and I bet there isn’t much of a deficit after it all nets out if any at all… Who knows you may actually be positive….. I may not have all the numbers correct because I don’t have the time or inclination to use the freedom of information act to request records which will cost the town money as well as myself for copies etc just to prove I am right …. ( a ducks a duck – it is as it appears) What are we left with? A poorly managed system which easily lends itself to corruption and or costly mistakes. Let’s level the playing field… for every erroneous ticket issued and found not guilty and or dismissed in court, there should be a $100.00 charge back to the town for lost time and wages per individual affected. Then see how many tickets get issued.
There is a very good reason why the prior Village Council sided with the developers.because they had no other choice. The NJ Supreme Court ruled several years ago that EVERY city, town and village in the State of New Jersey has a definitive obligation to provide a quotent of Affordable Housing in thier community. EVERY municipality was assigned a quota they had to meet based on their population. It was fought long and hard by virtually every town but the court ruling prevailed and it still stands today. The Village of Ridgewood was assigned a quota and the Village must comply. The choice all towns face is either to allow some new development and require the developers to “set aside” a percentage of their units for Affordable Housing or the town must provide it themself. In exchange for granting permission to build new units Ridgewood wisely decided to put the burden of complying with the court mandate onto the developers.. The result is a somewhat less quaint Village and one with fewer trees and more concrete but in the end it will avoid the need for the Village to provide the required Affordable Housing and in so doing it will save the residents a ton of money. Frankly, since the new developments are all located in the downtown area the streetscape for the vast majority of residents will remain wholly unchanged. In conclusion don’t blame the Village of Ridgewood for allowing the new developments because it was forced upon the Village.by the courts..
The last thing Ridgewood needs is high density housing. Our previous “leaders” sold ridgewood residents down the river. I understand that ordinances going forward for high density have been changed, but the original ordinance which allows for the 4 high density projects still prevail. Shouldn’t the original ordinance be repealed to negate the 4 projects that are going forward? If the ordinance was passed under a cloud, it should be repealed, in it entirety.
Traffic on our streets is unbearable now. Ridgewood is a village, not a city. We don’t want to be Hoboken we want to be a bucolic village.
Please, current leaders, don’t let this happen! Trees NOT cement..
