This may be a great way to make money (or even “to fund a garage”), but it does not address the reality that Ridgewood DOES NOT NEED A GARAGE, especially this particular garage in this particular location.
Also, it would seem that this solution (while great for private investments) involves Ridgewood selling public property to private individuals.
Besides, if this is so lucrative, why doesn’t the village just retain ownership and rent out the spaces long term (daily, monthly, annually) like they do art the train station rather than the current garage plan to rent out the spaces short term (hourly parking fees)?
Finally, IF the rationale is that Ridgewood needs a three story parking structure due to unmet demand for parking spaces (an untrue premise, but we will assume it is true for this exercise) then this condo/privatized parking plan totally fails to meet its objectives.
This plan would reduce the number of parking spaces by a) building the condominiums in part of the area previously dedicated to parking spaces and b) giving the remaining parking spaces to the condominium owners which they will likely use at a high percentage thus removing them from public availability and allowing individuals to set rates which will result in price uncertainty and inconsistency of available parking.
As an investment model it has certain merits, as a vehicle to address (the imaginary) need for additional parking, it is a failure.
Ridgewood NJ according to Village Chief Finance Officer Bob Rooney the Walker Report will suggest Ridgewood needs an increase in parking fees and extend parking hours to cover the cost of a down payment for a parking garage on Hudson Street .
The Ridgewood parking utility , if you are a real old timer you may remember the meters were originally installed to provide funding for a garage back in the late 1960’s .
At Wednesdays Village Council meeting the council heard Village Chief Finance Officer Bob Rooney offer some cold hard facts regarding alternative revenue sources to offset the expected $11 million bond, including a $550,000 down payment, needed to cover garage construction costs.
Increased parking rates come as no surprise for most residents , because since 2007 the Village has conceded that in order to build a garage. The Village last raise rates in 2015 at the urging of the defunct FAC or Financial Advisory Committee . The previous administration led by Mayor Aronsohn had parking rate increases as one of the cardinal feature of building their, “Garagezilla”.
According to Rooney ,the parking utility will only break even this year do to the excessive use of the parkmobile app with takes a 30 percent transaction fee on all transactions , fortunately the contract is up early next year in February and the Village will be bidding out looking for a far more satisfactory deal. The current deal was negotiated by the previous Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld . Since May 2015 the village has paid parkmobile $143,000 in fees.
Assuming a cost of 11,000,000 for the garage ,the Village would need $550,000 as a down payment .
Rooney also suggested that a financial feasibility study being done by Walker Parking Consultants is expected to advise higher meter rates and longer hours. Without that, Rooney warned, an increase in the utility budget ie a tax increase would be needed to finance the garage downpayment.
The new new Walker study is expected to advise meter rates of $1 per hour between Broad and Walnut streets downtown, and 75 cents elsewhere. Parking is now free after 6 p.m., but the study is expected to suggests pushing that 8 or 9 p.m.
Rooney also added that a new parking Kiosk will be in operation shortly before thanksgiving witch can except credit cards and while there are trans action fees they are far less than parkmobile .
The law of diminishing returns suggest that the Village maybe quickly nearing a tipping point with parking fees , where higher parking fees will cut into demand for parking in the Central Business District . The Village maybe betting that increased space for commuters and spill over parking from the four new high density projects in the Village will fill the parking spaces , but that once again leaves the merchants with no net gain .
Ridgewood NJ, Jeff Voigt is spitting toxic nails from his mouth on Facebook, desperately sticking to his published LIES. There is NO GARAGE SUBCOMMITTEE, Jeff. None. Do you think if you state this lie enough times it will somehow become true? He claims that the Mayor is on the committee and one other council member. NOT TRUE, there is no subcommittee. He states that the mayor should step off the committee. How can she step off a committee that does not exist? In the person of Jeffrey Voigt have an elected official who lies openly, publicly, frequently and viciously. This is not what our Village deserves. This is not what people voted for when they were duped into thinking he was a straight shooter.
Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood News edition of Friday, August 18th will carry the attached legal notice, which indicates that Fish Urban Dining’s liquor license is being transferred to a new establishment, Oak Street Liquors, LLC.
Our June 7, 2017 Headline Story was then indeed accurate then; Fish Urban Dining is gonzo. The “closed for kitchen renovations” sign previously posted on their front door was just propaganda. Figures. They must think that we’re all a bunch of idiots. Nice try John.
An open letter to Mr. Matt Rogers, the Village attorney:
Dear Mr. Rogers:
I could not attend the Village Council meeting of 2 August on account of my delayed flight back home. Fortunately my plane had WiFi and I was able to stream quite a bit of the meeting.
In response to a question by Councilman Voigt you described some procedure the Village Council was following to short circuit the process to hire Pike to build the garage. As a layman I was unable to follow your answer. Could you possibly tell me what is happening?
More importantly, the Mayor appears to have her mind made up on using Pike and it is damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. Compared to the previous Village Council which held innumerable public meetings to present various plans to the community, the Mayor in typical fashion is playing her cards close to the chest. The Deputy Mayor and Councilman Hache seem to be in on her plans but I was shocked how uninformed Councilmen Voigt and Walsh are.
Comments by some of the mayor’s supporters in the social media seems to indicate that some in her circle are in the know, but not two of her colleagues.
(Side note to Councilmen Voigt and Walsh: By allowing yourselves to be shut out, you are failing miserably in executing your fiduciary to your constituency.)
Thank you,
Rurik Halaby
Village Attorney Matthew Rogers responds : On Aug 4, 2017, at 13:42, Matthew Rogers <msr@mrogerslaw.com> wrote:
Rurik, There is nothing nefarious afoot. I’m responding to you, the Council, present Village staff and your wife. You can always share with whomever you’d like. The Local Redevelopment and Housing Law permits municipalities to consider property(ies) within its borders for redevelopment if the property meets certain criteria. The Statute was designed to promote the rehabilitation and/or the reconstruction of properties that have long gone without attention, particularly in commercial locations or areas. There is a process prescribed by the Statute that must be followed in order to take advantage of the statute’s benefits, which allows the municipality to avoid the public bidding process and negotiate directly with one or any entities that the municipality wants to consider for the project in mind. The Council can start the process by requesting the a study be performed by the Planner to determine if the property, in this case the Hudson Street parking lot, meets the criteria of the Statute. If it does and the process is completed, then the Village can negotiate directly with any contractor it so wishes. As you know, there has already been a presentation from PIKE at a Council meeting, where it became apparent that they can both provide a design and build the garage. The thought is that by utilizing the statute, the Village can avoid the time it takes to bid out design and then bid out to find a contractor to build the design. Additionally, it is the hope that by directly negotiating with the a contractor, the Village can also save money on the cost for several reasons. It will hopefully work and provide those benefits. If not, then the bidding process can always be utilized. This is the process that was used several years ago with Kensington’s proposal for the development of Walnut Street garage and the age restricted housing, which although extensively negotiated, the contractor withdrew. I hope this answers your question and if not, please let me know.
Matt
Matthew S. Rogers, Esq. Law Offices of Matthew S. Rogers, L.L.C. 123 Prospect Street Ridgewood, New Jersey 07451
We voted out the last Gang..perhaps those new folks have crossed the magic river of unreality .You don’t build for peak use times..economics 101.let these terrific business go bond it themselves. Once privately bonded grant them a 30 year ground leased at below market rates,.different story now?.Police don’t patrol today.you think a rent a cop
will make this garage safe late at night..not a chance…useage goes into the can when it becomes a drug and homeless center..then the Car rental and urban blight stores open up 24 /7 for the new homeless..pretty picture
Of Potterville gone Bad..
I feel horribly sad that this stupidity was not put behind us as many believed would happen after the referendum. True, the referendum applied to a specific bond and a specific price, but as others point out here, we’re approaching that dollar figure anyway. HORRORS, especially at this moment in the village’s fiscal history. A garage was never meant to be at that location until the Aronsohn crew began pounding it into our heads. Building it is a big mistake that will be recognized soon, when the money has been spent and that little corner destroyed.Smaller is better, but merely reconfiguring and resurfacing the lot would be even better and cost relatively nothing. I believe this council is allowing itself to be swayed by the squeakiest wheels in town, many with much to gain, financially or politically, from the construction of this monstrosity and others. Those council members who still have a conscience and common sense will deeply regret their decision. Like an engaged person who can’t face admitting that love is gone and dreads the upcoming marriage but can’t disappoint their parents and friends or justify losing the money already spent, we will apparently go through with this, only to rue it later. It will be too late to get a divorce before the first anniversary, as can happen in such cases. Such an edifice in that spot will be ugly and overbearing at any price and in any style…it will cast shadows over a nice sunny area with outdoor tables…it will increase traffic that is already near-lethal. And it will cost us dearly when dollars are badly needed in the municipality for other things.
Unfortunately , despite the fact that the new price tag is significantly less than when the Aronsohn cronies were running the show, this parking garage is still destined to become a financial disaster of major proportions. I predict that parking rates throughout the Village will skyrocket and parking times will be extended in an attempt to raise revenues. This will kill the restaurant business for sure, and maybe even some service businesses and retail stores. Unless the garage is filled to the brim, it won’t even break even. The only way to fill it is to force all commuters there. An operational and financial fiasco in the making. Just you wait and see
My prediction is that the council has already decided to move forward on a garage that will fit on the Hudson space. The new garage proposed offers 240 spaces in total. I believe we have something like 80-90 spaces there now so we are picking up 150-160 additional spaces. Will that solve the parking problem?? of course not. I think it will end up being used as a commuter parking garage which will free up spaces in other lots. Adding another level adds about 60 extra spaces.
Ridgewood NJ, Village attorney Matt Rogers told the council the Village is not obligated to fly the “Rainbow or Gay flag”. Rogers talked at length of both legal and policy implications .Rogers went on to explain the “freedom of Speech ” issues as well as the Village flag pole had not history been used to make a political statement or as a public forum . Temporary signs are also banned from Village public property which would include the Village hall flag pole .
Mike Sedon chimed in that the American flag is inclusive and is the most potent symbol of inclusion world over. Both Bernie and Jeff were supportive of the Rainbow flag on the idea of “inclusiveness ” along the road that other groups celebrate on Village property like the RBSA and so on. Councilmen Hache worried about other groups who may want to raise a flag that may not be supported by the community in general. The mayor worried it was a road we don’t want to go down to be auditing countless groups looking to fly their flag over the Village hall.
Its most significant intended purpose, and the one motivating past council members, is to compensate legally for building LESS parking at nearby apartment developments. Otherwise why would Aronsohn & Co. have cared so much that they made a video about it (on village tax money)? DO NOT BE FOOLED. Garage is a boondoggle to end them all. We have enough to worry about re: property tax increases without adding this unnecessary, voted-down, impossible-to-maintain monstrosity (at any size). ADD retail space? No, please. Let’s just reconfigure the Hudson St. lot.
As someone who is on the fence about the garage to begin with – the FAC presentation did nothing to convince me this is what the town needs. How can the council and residents get an accurate idea of the financial impact of the garage if the numbers are not even accurate for the current proposal. This presentation, while well-intentioned, was a waste of time for all involved.
Ridgewood NJ, at the Village Council meeting the Financial Advisory Committee seemed to be caught with”alternative facts” .
The FAC presented a report still talking about a 350-space garage, which is no longer on the table. This sunk their entire report and made it’s over zealous estimates flawed from the git-go.
The next problem was the allocation tables that would have to change since more personnel resources would be expended toward managing the garage, so any surplus from the parking authority would most likely be less.
And finally, the $500,000 surplus that they seemed to think would be an annual surplus was a one-time amount, in large part because of insurance payment for the pilfered quarters; there was no evidence given that this surplus would ever reach this level again.
The FAC did not have the FACTS so their report was a complete waste of time.
garage fiasco tax ahead , shedded space for drug dealers off the trains..police don’t leave their suvs today you think they will blink an eye to patrol any new parking garage..not a chance..will be the new blight magnet for closed retail stores folks..there will be crappy rental car stations and other alternate businesses there to hide this fiasco
Pilot program is meant to test out ride-hailing as a solution to last mile challenge
by Andrew J . Hawkins Oct 3, 2016, 10:56a
Lately, Uber has been positioning itself as the ultimate solution to the eternal challenge of shuttling people between transit hubs and their homes, also known as the “last mile challenge.” To that end, the ride-hail giant announced today that it struck a deal with the suburban town of Summit, New Jersey, to launch the state’s first subsidized commuter program.
Under the deal, Uber will offer free or extremely cheap rides to commuters who have struggled to find parking at Summit’s New Jersey Transit station. In exchange, the city, which is 30 miles from Manhattan, will subsidize the rides, paying Uber directly to cover the costs of the trips. The city says the deal will help free up nearly 100 parking spots at the transit station, as well as keep it from having to spend millions of dollars to build additional parking.
“As an alternative transportation option, ridesharing is not new,” said Summit Mayor Nora Radest in a statement. “But our program is the first of its kind in the United States to use ridesharing technology as a parking solution. Our innovation has the potential to shape how municipalities think about and implement parking options in the future.”
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
