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
