If you voted for Obama or any Democrat in New Jersey it is your Agenda
This is such bullshit. Why all of a sudden this hysteria of pushing for affordable housing. Whose agenda is this? Why stuff nice towns and villages with buildings that are out of character? Why force villages that people have worked very hard to build and live in to bring low income families who will certainly affect the quality of life? Why urbanize beautiful places that residents are so proud of and care so much about ? This will destroy these places and will provide no value to anyone. If you want affordable housing build in places that are already messed up such Hackensack, Rutheford etc. I am sure I am not the only who is stressed out about this nonsense.
Kala Kachmar , @NewsQuipPublished 3:03 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2017 | Updated 14 hours ago
A Monmouth County judge has ruled in favor of a Howell resident who challenged the zoning for a controversial affordable housing complex, but the setback doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the venture.
Judge Jamie S. Perri ruled that the town didn’t give sufficient public notice for two key project ordinances, one creating the required affordable housing zone and the other applying that zone to the parcel where Howell Family Apartments would be built, at the intersection of West Farms and Fort Plans roads off Route 9.
The $21 million project would help the town fulfill its state-mandated affordable housing obligation.
I have loved the suburbs all my life. Very sad to watch them go. It hurts.What the hell is happening?
I could finally afford to move into a great suburb and now I hear that Glen Rock, Ridgewood, HHK are all building low income high density housing. What is the point of this? Why is this happening?
Matthew Birchenough , Staff Writer, @MattBirchenough2:43 p.m. EST December 29, 2016
GLEN ROCK — The Zoning Board is scheduled to hear a proposal for a high-density housing project on Prospect Street next month.
The application by Glen Park Village LLC is on the agenda for discussion at the board’s Jan. 4 work session, and the company is scheduled to present its project to the board at its regular meeting on Jan. 12, commencing a new phase in a three-year effort by the developer to build on the property.
Salvador Rizzo , State House Bureau, @rizzoTK6:19 p.m. EST December 1, 2016
During a tense hearing Wednesday, the state Supreme Court appeared ready to reject an argument by several towns seeking to tamp down their affordable-housing obligations.
In a series of landmark rulings dating to the 1970s, the Supreme Court said that New Jersey’s low- and moderate-income residents have a right to affordable homes in their communities, and that towns must allow their development.
In a case that could reshape the look and feel of many New Jersey towns, the state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether municipalities must zone for the many thousands of affordable-housing units that they did not zone for during the last 16 years.
If the high court rules that an obligation for that “gap period” exists, it could double or triple the number of affordable-housing units that some towns and cities must zone for by 2025.
In some of their questioning, justices seemed to be skeptical that the obligation could be avoided.
“Are you saying these people [in need of affordable housing] disappeared for 16 years?” asked Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Mark Krulish , Staff Writer, @Mark_Krulish12:02 a.m. EST November 16, 2016
The hearings for proposed housing developments in Ridgewood’s downtown have ground to a halt in the wake of a Superior Court judge’s ruling to issue a temporary stay while matters in a related lawsuit are resolved.
The Planning Board had been set to resume testimony Tuesday evening regarding The Dayton, a 93-unit luxury apartment complex with some affordable units mixed in, slated for the former Brogan Cadillac site on South Broad Street. However, that application has been continued to Dec. 20, Planning Board Attorney Christopher Martin said Tuesday.
Here is my biggest concern with the proposed all day kindergarten. Although conceptually there are pluses, I question whether we can afford it. And I think one of the biggest reasons we won’t be able to afford it has to do with the hundreds of apartments that are being built downtown. These apartments will be marketed to those with two income earners and young families. Our schools are going to be one of the largest drivers of families to those units. I question whether we will be able to afford the influx of new elementary age students as it is, and that problem will be compounded if we have to double the number of kindergarten seats both for existing children and new children. I worry that we are going to need to construct new classrooms at our elementary schools – – and I am not sure that cost has been factored into the equation. I simply haven’t seen enough to convince me that the $110 tax increase is going to cover the costs of new residents from the multifamily housing units. Particularly if we have to build new classrooms to accommodate these new students, then the $110 number may be multiplied very quickly.
We keep proposing to add more and more to our town without thinking through how each addition takes away from the whole. Those pushing for all day kindergarten need to also get involved in other aspects of our town as well so they can view and work towards making sure things remain in balance. It may be a great idea, but does it fit with the needs and budget of the town as a whole? If we are going to keep adding hundreds of new residents, will we be able to afford ideas such as all day kindergarten and are we going to need to cut back on other Village and school services in order to balance our budget?
Many of you have been asking how the Planning Board meeting went last night, especially given the VP debate going on at the same time. So, pasted at the bottom of this email is the speech I gave.
Before I get to it, I think it’s important to note that Planning Board Chairman Richard Joel attempted to stonewall my presentation of this speech. At the only public comment during the meeting, it was explained that only items not on the agenda would be permitted to be discussed. When I stood at the podium and asked whether I would be able to speak during the point in the agenda, when a statement would be made regarding the filed resident complaint (dated Sept. 16th), Chairman Joel said he hadn’t yet decided if I would be allowed.
It was only after several other residents, Mayor Knudsen and members of the Planning Board spoke out to allow my speech did Chairman Joel finally permit it.
This brings into question Chairman Joel’s stewardship as to whose interests he really represents.
While I do not have the exact text here, the statement that was read aloud by Chairman Joel regarding the resident complaint basically says that more consideration needs to be done before the Planning Board can adequately address it. My concern is that this is a delay tactic and that under Chairman Joel’s guidance, the Complaint will not be put on the agenda to be voted on. I hope I am wrong about this. Ridgewood residents deserve a hearing to investigate what ‘mistakes’ happened with regard to the High Density housing issue.
So, here’s the speech I gave along with a video of its presentation:
Mayor Knudsen and Members of the Planning Board, as you know, it is your duty to represent the interests of the residents of Ridgewood.
As such, you have an obligation to put the brakes on the current High Density site plan review and begin an investigation based on the complaint that was signed by myself and other residents, dated September 16th. Within your bylaws, you have the ability to do so and to investigate the conflicts of interest and mistakes alleged in our motion. If you find they are true, you can then seek to overturn a vote that may have been wrongly attained and created so much discord in Ridgewood.
These are some of the questions we demand investigated:
1) Why didn’t our former deputy mayor and planning board member, recuse himself from all the Planning Board work sessions leading up to the formal hearings? The same conflict existed then. How could he advocate so fervently for the ordinances during work sessions and then suddenly find a conflict of interest when the hearings started.
2) Why was an unvetted/unsubstantiated letter from the housing advocacy group, Fair Share Housing Center written into the record as fact/evidence by the former Planning Board Attorney for the High Density Housing vote in June, 2015? Under the Planning Board attorney’s own guidelines, it was clearly hearsay. And why wasn’t the public or Planning Board members given the opportunity to question the Fair Share Housing rep, Kevin Walsh?
3) Contiguous to the timing of the filing of our Motion of Complaint, one of your members who is mentioned as having a conflict of interest in the complaint, strangely resigned his planning board seat. Is this just a mere coincidence? Why did he wait so long and step down long after the vote?
Members of the Planning Board, your attorney may advise you to bundle this complaint with the pending lawsuit by RCRD. However, to do so would be a disservice to the residents of the village as this complaint is completely separate from that lawsuit and should be handled as such. This is not, at this time, a legal matter. It is a matter of proper and fair governing process for Ridgewood. And the grounds for our motion are so strong.
Your attorney might argue that residents should have made the motion within some type of limited window, or that current Land Use law may be in conflict with some of our Planning Board’s Bylaws. But… (1) the village never gave residents access to the Bylaws, nor made residents aware of the remedies available thereunder (despite all the clear cut opposition and complaint of conflict), and (2) the Bylaws definitely do not clearly command the Board to adhere to a 45 day limit.
Rather, the Bylaws state:
Any motions to rehear an application or portion thereof made after the 45 days following the publication of decision shall be considered strictly by leave and discretion of the Board in consideration of the protected interests of the applicant as balanced against the public interest.
We the residents believe the public interest here is greater. Your attorney would have to argue that the developers have a greater interest here than the village or its residents. That’s the criteria and that would be dangerous.
Furthermore, at this time your residents are not yet asking for a “rehearing” or anything that might be argued to conflict with land use law. We are asking, as is our defined right under your own Bylaws 2.13 and 7.22, for an investigation and public hearings to investigate some very material Conflicts and Mistakes that tainted the process and harmed the “public interest.” The PB can decide if an Application “rehearing” is necessary later, after the hearings regarding Planning Board “process”!
Allowing these conflicts and mistakes to stand, uninvestigated, creates a dangerous new precedent for Ridgewood, where village-changing decisions may be made with improper influence and/or error. It is in the Public Interest to review this and, if issues are found, set the right precedent to make sure it doesn’t happen again!
One of two or three of the most important issues facing Ridgewood right now. The massive apartments that are about to be built will forever change the Village. They can be stopped. But in order for that to happen, we need answers and actions now from our Government. Go to the meeting. Write your council representatives.
Arohnson has left us a blight that needs to be remediated now. Go to the planning board meeting – – write the town council. But speak up today before the Aronson projects are approved and built. Do you really want to look at the cover of the Ridgewood news six months or a year from now and see a picture of Aronson’s smug face sneering at you as he stands in front of the “Aronson Arms Apartments” or whatever moniker the land speculators are going to give their new buildings in tribute to their friend who enabled them to build?
Please come tonight, 7:30pm at Village Hall, to help remind the Planning Board who they really represent.
If you cannot attend, please consider emailing the secretary of the Planning Board, Mike Cafarelli, ([email protected]) to share with the Planning Board that we need these questions formally investigated per the complaint filed on September 20th:
Why didn’t our former deputy mayor recuse himself from March 23rd’s vote on High Density Housing, when, as a member of the Planning Board, he had previously recused himself for the same issue?
Why was an unvetted/unsubstantiated letter from the Fair Share Housing Center written into the record as fact/evidence by the former Planning Board Attorney?
Lastly, on the same day a resident complaint was filed against the Planning Board, one of its members who was named as having a conflict of interest, should happen to resign. Is that just a coincidence?
These are questions that we as residents deserve answers to. According to their By Laws, the Planning Board has the right to stop the pending high density housing site plan review and investigate these matters. Let’s hold them to doing so.
Essential to understand that everything proposed and pushed for under the Aronsohn regime, including his years on the council before becoming mayor, and no doubt before he ran in the first place shortly after moving here, was a Lego block in his long game to power. All along he was advised by paid marketing professionals who cared nothing for the populace but were paid to further one person’s career (sound like the Bridgegate trials?).The connections, machinations, and deals could fill a book. It’s left to us to disentangle what happened and to rescind and nullify any progress made in that direction, because it never corresponded with what was best for our village.
Why didn’t our former deputy mayor recuse himself from March 23rd’s vote on High Density Housing, when, as a member of the Planning Board, he had previously recused himself for the same issue?
Why was an unvetted/unsubstantiated letter from the Fair Share Housing Center written into the record as fact/evidence by the former Planning Board Attorney?
Is it coincidence that on the same day a resident complaint was filed against the Planning Board, one of its members who was named as having a conflict of interest, should happen to resign?
These are questions that we as residents deserve answers to. According to their By Laws, the Planning Board has the right to stop the pending site plan high density housing review and investigate these matters.
Please join me on Tuesday, October 4th, 7:30pm at Village Hall to help remind the Planning Board who they really represent.
If you cannot attend, please consider emailing the secretary of the Planning Board, Mike Cafarelli, ([email protected]) to share with the Planning Board that we need these questions formally addressed.
RE: October 4th,the Ridgewood Planning Board will be discussing the Conflict of Interest complaint
Get out and speak up. No, get out and shout. If the Aronsohn projects go through, our downtown may never recover and the Aronsohn blight will spread through town over the next decade. We’ve all spent a lot of tax dollars to maintain this town, let’s not give it up to a handful of land speculators who have to be laughing gleefully at the stupidity of the Aronsohn council majority.
More importantly, the conflict issue raised by these citizens calls out to all of us. Is this how we want our local government to be run? If these allegations are true, we need to put that truth into the light of fay and take appropriate action. If we don’t, what message do we tell the next generation? Just as importantly,, what message do we send to the next round of land speculators who want to take over another section of town for their own profit? Do we want that message to be: “Sure, get some friends placed on our planning board and walk all over us.”
So,email or call your planning board representatives. Show up at the meeting. Write tot he town council, especially those we just elected and tell them you want action.
Please also consider sending the following note to the Planning Board and our Mayor via email:
Dear Mayor Knudsen, Chairman Joel and Planning Board Members,
I am aware that a group of concerned residents delivered a Motion of Complaint to the Ridgewood Planning Board, under By Law Sections 2.13 and 7.21, dated September 16th. Their motion brings to light a series of conflicts of interest and unacceptable mistakes that impacted the high density housing votes. It spotlights the truly defective process by which these highly unpopular ordinances (3489, 3490, 3491 and 3493) were passed. It is not right for Ridgewood residents to have such important decisions made, and the future of our village impacted, by a forum influenced by potential personal conflicts and/or mistakes. Preventing such actions is clearly the intent of the Planning Board’s own By Laws.
Therefore, I fully support the motion made by these residents. I ask that the Board stop all current high density site plan reviews and promptly begin a complete review of the residents’ complaints. Should any conflicts or mistakes be found, the Ordinance votes and Ordinances themselves should be rescinded and reevaluated via a proper and untainted process.
Secretary Cafarelli, please forward/print this email to all Planning Board members.
I can’t believe it was a year ago today that over 600 of us went to Village Hall to stop the Village Council from moving forward on the High Density Housing issue. It was truly a remarkable night that brought people together and made an incredibly clear statement: We do not want high density housing in our Village!
So, here we are, a year later and we need your help yet again.
As most of you know, last March the previous VC majority passed an ordinance allowing these massive multifamily dwellings to be built – and make no mistake – once the shovels go into the ground, our schools in particular will be impacted.
What many of us didn’t know then is that the Planning Board and then the Village Council process was riddled with possible conflicts of interest. A few weeks ago, several residents and I filed a formal complaint requesting that the current Planning Board cease their high density site plan process immediately and investigate.
On Tuesday, October 4th, at 7:30pm in Village Hall the Planning Board will be discussing this formal complaint. I would urge you, for the sake of our kids, to attend so that the Planning Board is encouraged to make the right choice. If you do plan to come, please email me to help better coordinate the evening.
Please also consider sending the following note to the Planning Board and our Mayor via email:
Dear Mayor Knudsen, Chairman Joel and Planning Board Members,
I am aware that a group of concerned residents delivered a Motion of Complaint to the Ridgewood Planning Board, under By Law Sections 2.13 and 7.21, dated September 16th. Their motion brings to light a series of conflicts of interest and unacceptable mistakes that impacted the high density housing votes. It spotlights the truly defective process by which these highly unpopular ordinances (3489, 3490, 3491 and 3493) were passed. It is not right for Ridgewood residents to have such important decisions made, and the future of our village impacted, by a forum influenced by potential personal conflicts and/or mistakes. Preventing such actions is clearly the intent of the Planning Board’s own By Laws.
Therefore, I fully support the motion made by these residents. I ask that the Board stop all current high density site plan reviews and promptly begin a complete review of the residents’ complaints. Should any conflicts or mistakes be found, the Ordinance votes and Ordinances themselves should be rescinded and reevaluated via a proper and untainted process.
Secretary Cafarelli, please forward/print this email to all Planning Board members.
