I am a lifelong resident of the Willard School area and might happily live the rest of my life without going near the Valley Hospital except when I need its excellent services or am visiting nearby friends.
That said, I don’t accept the “greater good”argument you raise. I am gravely concerned with the effect of ten years of construction on our school children at BF and Travell as well as on Valley’s immediate neighbors. And, yes, perhaps one could say I am not being entirely altruistic – – but that’s because I realize if you hurt part of the whole without good cause, you hurt the entirety of the whole.
For example, as property prices decline near Valley due to construction and expansion, so do prices throughout the entire town. And even if the reduction in real estate value is confined to that portion of town, that means the rest of our taxes go up to make up for the shortfall resulting from the reduction in real estate prices. And think of the young couple that has heard great things about Ridgewood and for the first time pulls down Linwood avenue to go see their realtor. At the first traffic light they come to, they will be greeted by a 1,700 car garage. Does that garage foster the image of a town they want to move into, or does it cause one of them to turn to the other and say, “honey, take a right over to Glen and let’s go check out Waldwick and Ho-Ho-Kus?”
And in terms of three “minds being made up,” I think Voigt hit the nail on the head when he noted at the debate that he just met this week with the Valley CEO, its director of communications and its legal counsel. He went alone to discuss the construction and see what compromises might be reached. If you listened to the debate, you heard he did not get much of a response. Hache, too, spoke eloquently regarding his affinity for the Hospital in contrast to his concerns over the expansion. So, I don’t think the they (or Walsh) are closed to the notion of compromise and discussion. In fact, I think the three have demonstrated just the opposite.
I can’t think of a single person who wants to see Valley shut down. But, by the same token, are the goals of the Valley expansion worth sacrificing the standards of living for a whole section of town? I view Voigt, Hache and Walsh as three candidates who are not willing to sacrifice that part of town, or any part of town for that matter, in the pursuit of some undefined goal of “progress.”
That’s why this election really is all about where we live and how, and whether we want to maintain the vibrant vestiges of our Village life or change into something else. Perhaps I am being selfish here, and not thinking of the greater “regional good,” but don’t years and years of tax payments lead all of us to vote for candidates who want to preserve the Village for Villagers?
Thanks,
Kevin Mattessich
