Posted on

Ridgewood Central Business District ,the good , the bad and the ugly

CBD Ridgewood by ArtChick

photo by ArtChick

August 27,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Several readers continue to claim the “Majority” of residents are against all development. Its nice to see that Ridgewood residents have now graduated to a “Majority” from gadfly, loud mouth ,minority status.

Reader says , “I think it is time to look around at all the empty stores in Ridgewood and realize there is a need to revamp the CBD. Soon all the shops will move to malls and replaced by housing; think…..is that what you want? Someone, most likely a shop keeper , is going to come up with ideas to improve the town, what is the problem. Make your own suggestions, welcome those of other residents, and have a discussion rather than complain. Get real people you are losing your central business district!”

Shops moved to malls in the 1970’s , and shopping has moved online since 1994 when Al Gore discovered the internet .

If you are worried about empty stores talk to the landlords not tax payers.  The simple fact is that tax payers are not responsible for a companies business plans. What I would suggest is that in this day and age stores need to make themselves destination businesses ie like Bookends and The Tobacco Shop of Ridgewood & Davidoff Lounge .  Retailers also need to build an online presence , websites, social media , press releases and they need to tell their story ; think why would I want to go here when I have to pay for parking? This is one of the reasons there are so many great restaurants in Ridgewood ,chefs have great stories to tell.

My biggest suggestion for Ridgewood merchants is to be open more hours. No one is home by 5pm. I can not tell you how many businesses have opened and closed that I have never seen open. The fact is most people who can afford to live in Ridgewood need to work a lot or hours , anywhere from 65 -80 hours per week and odd hours early am to late pm. So merchants need to develop strategies ,be it home or Train station delivery or open by appointment what ever it takes that is the new reality.

Destroying Van Nest Square will do nothing to help business and will most likely hurt business as much or more than the so called “traffic easing” ,that now backs traffic up into Midland Park. Making access to the almost CBD impossible from the West side of Town .

Another reader says, “James, you’re ignoring the facts. What is worth preserving of the old car dealers, old Town Garage and its toxic site, etc? What about all the empty shops and gold pawn shops? Why is this worth preserving? The majority rule wants to keep the status quo… which clearly isn’t working.”

First I was only posting comments and turning them into posts , so how exactly is destroying Van Nest square going to get rid of old car dealers,a toxic site, gold pawn shops and empty stores ? This maybe your problem you keep wanting to fix things that are not broken yet you ignore all the things that need fixing ? The solutions have to fit the problems. If the Village wants to clean up a toxic site it needs to take the steps to clean it up, not build a parking lot.

Now in New York City developers who wish to build non-conforming structures can often make a deal with the city by adding to public spaces, fixing subways or adding and maintaining new plantings.  In New Jersey we socialize the investment ie taxpayer funded yet we capitalize the profits. So taxpayers pay and developers make the money. Another words Ridgewood taxpayers build a parking garage so developers can reduce the amount of parking they offer and save money. and thus the continued rejection of a parking garage.

Now what you should be asking yourself is how could a bureaucratic organization like NJT fix the train trestle, raise the tracks , and renovate the train station while preserving and improving its historic nature in a relatively short amount of time. How could New Jersey Transit do all that yet Valley Hospital , a handful of developers, and a cadre of council members could not get anything done at all what so ever. NJT was willing to work with the town ,meet objections compromise and get the job done.

Posted on

Reader says Same Group Behind the Garage is Behind Destroying Van Neste Square in Ridgewood

abraham godwin ridgewood

Paul Vaggianos was the first to get up at the mic at a town council meeting a year or two ago and ask that Van Neste be changed to accommodate lighting at night and entertainment every weekend.

Vaggianos said, “Let’s bring everyone together at Van Nest on the weekends.”

I obviously remember that. I was very saddened by his suggestion. Paul Aronsohn as mayor at the time was very receptive. I spoke against the idea at council meetings. I tried. I love Van Neste as a quiet park as it is now, an oasis of calm and beauty midst the busy downtown. Very charming invention!! Let’s keep it that way. Paul Vaggianos was happy with the big garage at Hudson. I wasn’t and wrote and spoke against it from day one. Vaggianos is a business owner in town and has influence , I have no influence. I think it would be wonderful to preserve Ridgewood a for future generations to experience, no expansion, not more congested. A town with easy accessibility to the Big Apple but with a small town charming quality. And yes, Van Neste is a big part of that as it is right in the center of the CBD. It says something by virtue of letting people experience of oasis of natural beauty and quiet in the midst of the hustle and bustle of a busy but small and charming downtown. ( I love that oasis ……sentence I made up)

Posted on

Reader says We should memorialize Hudson Garage caper with a village plaque to hubris and for the future generations

Village of Ridgewood : Van Neste Memorial Park "Revival" project

We should memorialize this caper with a village plaque to hubris and for the future generations to Trust but first Verify.Could have turned out quite differently without the hard and determined efforts to overcome those developers and some whom they called to dance to their opportunistic tune.

Posted on

Readers Analyse Ridgewood “Garage Vote”

pro garage signs 2

 

The first election was presumably simply for a parking garage. Many of us voted “yes” because we do need a garage. When Aronson and crew decided that we voters “really meant” to vote “yes” on that monstrosity that he wanted, a second vote was held. On that we voted “No” because it was supposed to be “Did we want to bond money for ‘A’ garage” but Aronson inserted the amount for the largest garage that he wanted. He also set the vote on the earliest possible date, while he was still in office so he could presumably still break the ground for his dream. And yes, our new Council members did say they wanted a garage but not “that” garage. So, to me, what the voters wanted was still a garage, but not something of that size. And they wanted the new Council to handle the details with input from the residents of Ridgewood.

DSCF4131

file photo by Boyd Loving

We voted against the monster garage.People were duped into voting for the monster garage in November. We were reassured that we were voting for A garage, not any specific design.
Then some hard working residents started a petition drive against the monster garage. No one ever said that they were against building a garage. They just want the right size in the right location.
Council members who were elected said that they would look into a redesign/relocation. No one running said that they were against a garage. There will be a garage.

DSCF2054

file photo by Boyd Loving

One current council member admitted publicly during the campaign in the spring that he had been among those bamboozled by lies and omissions about the garage (he did not put it quite that way) and voted yes in the November referendum. He was among many. Had a true depiction and description been made available, including the fact that the thing was going to Occupy Hudson Street, and if it had been explained, as was the case, that a “yes” vote was not for a concept, but for the largest drawing–formally “approved,” by mayoral fiat, by the Historic Preservation Commission’s relatively new chair (appointed by the then-mayor), without checking with the members, and by the mayor’s personally created and hand-picked Financial Advisory Committee–how many residents would have agreed to it? Only those with something to gain, those who pay no attention, and those whose finger slipped in the voting booth. I think the “yes” votes would have amounted to about 150, including mistakes.

Posted on

BREAKING: Ridgewood Voters Say “No” to bonding of Parking Garage

Vote Ridgewood NJ
file photo by Dana Glazer
June 21,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

RIDGEWOOD, NJ,  Ridgewood voters decided today in a special election to repeal an ordinance to bond $11.5 million to construct the Hudson Street parking deck!

Voters turned out to overwhelming say NO in every district in  what can only be called a landslide for the NO votes.

Full results

1425 yes votes 34.8%
86 absentee 
2675 no  votes  65.2%
81  absentee
total turn out 4097  24%
total registered voters 16901 

Proposal – Ordinance No. 3521 for $11,500,000 Bond to Finance Hudson Street Parking Deck

 

Click Here for District Results.

 

Posted on

Why are we considering building a $11,500,000 garage in a remote corner of the the central business district BEFORE we look to simpler solutions

Hudson Street Parking Garage

Many well-thought reasons for voting NO to the garage have already been posted. But here are my central questions? Why on God’s green earth are we considering building a $11,500,000 garage in a remote corner of the the central business district BEFORE we look to simpler solutions such as angled parking stalls, the often under utilized Cottage Place lot, and the potential of the more central N. Walnut Street lot?

Why the hyper focus on Hudson Street? (I think we all know why). I’m not saying that a parking garage should never be built. But the $11.5 MILLION “fix”, especially at that remote location, should not be the FIRST solution we consider to this 80 year old problem. Let’s take more prudent, incremental steps toward freeing up parking throughout the CBD, and then reassess. Tomorrow, please VOTE NO!

John Hersperger

Ridgewood NJ

 

Posted on

Ridgewood Train Station Buzzing with Pre-Referendum activity

Ridgewood garage referendum

June 20,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, the Ridgewood train station was buzzing with activity this morning as Council Person Mike Sedon payed a visit to encouraging people to vote in tomorrows special election . The  June 21 referendum is asking residents if they want to repeal an ordinance to bond $11.5 million to construct the Hudson Street parking deck.

DSCF0069 1

The Village Council approved the resolution certifying a petition put forth by a committee of five dedicated residents. The petition calls for a repeal of an ordinance the council approved in March bonding $11.5 million for the project.

A “NO” vote is by no means and end to the parking garage but it does give the incoming council , that won election in a historic landslide more input in to the process.

DSCF0074

more photos  : https://www.facebook.com/theridgewoodblog/

Posted on

EVERYONE PAYS MORE FOR MAYOR’S PROJECT EXCEPT HIS DEVELOPER/LANDLORD FRIENDS

vote no on garage
June 19,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, As you can see from the reports prepared by the Village’s own expert’s parking rates are going sky high, hours are getting longer, enforcement is going to get tougher and shop owners more than a few blocks from GarageMahal will actually see business decrease because of the steps needed to subsidize the massive garage the Mayor wants to bond on June 21.
So it not hard to see why landlords who own properties and businesses right next to the Garage are working so hard and stooping so low to get the “YES “ vote out.  It’s worth a ton of money to them in increased rents and property values.  For example, Paul Vagianos, who controls the Pearl Restaurant building directly adjacent to the Hudson St lot, runs It’s greek to me less than a block away and now has an interest in FISH, also immediately adjacent, was handing out flyers to morning commuters yesterday that used snippets of conversations with Incoming Council Members, taken out context, to falsely imply the incoming Council was endorsing a “Yes” vote, when he knows this is not true.  Lass week in a Letter to the Editor of Ridgewood News incoming Councilman Jeff Vioght clearly laid out his own reasons why he is voting “No” on Tuesday.  For others to imply he supports a “yes” vote is wrong, but large amounts of money will make some people do unsavory things
This is financial analysis data is all drawn directly from reports on the Village Website
Here is what rates to subsidize the Mayor’s Design will look like (they might move around by street or lot or hour but its a zero sum game, the cost of the garage is what it is and the money is going to be found from taxpayer’s pocket either when they are shopping/dining or when they are paying
their mortgage)
 ?ui=2&ik=17acd9e61b&view=fimg&th=15565019a4c53e01&attid=0.1
Here is what enforcement is going to look like and if your business if too far away to benefit you are
?ui=2&ik=17acd9e61b&view=fimg&th=15565019a4c53e01&attid=0.1
Don’t let anyone tell you that bigger garages are always more economical than smaller garages
?ui=2&ik=17acd9e61b&view=fimg&th=15565019a4c53e01&attid=0.1
Posted on

Councilmen Michael Sedon Urges a No Vote in Tuesday’s special election

mike_sedon_theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving

Some confusion has been building the past few days surrounding the upcoming June 21st special referendum vote for local bond ordinance 3521, and I want to take this opportunity to unequivocally state my opinion.

I will be voting no in Tuesday’s special election.

In order for the new council to move forward with a comprehensive parking plan for the Central Business District, which includes a reasonable parking structure, it is imperative that we can do so without having our hands tied by the outgoing council majority.

A no vote will not defeat a parking structure. It will allow us, the new council, to incorporate such a structure into the fabric of our CBD along with other solutions that have been mentioned in the past by some of my other colleagues and myself.

I would like to explore the option of creating one way streets on Chestnut, Oak, North Walnut streets and Cottage Place to add angled parking on both sides. This could potentially increase parking by 60 to 80 spots on the street right in front of where customers are trying to go. A side benefit could also be increased pedestrian safety, as visitors to our CBD would only have to look one way for oncoming traffic.

A comprehensive plan could also include the purchase or leasing of private lots throughout the CBD and an expansion of technology to aid in the parking solution.

A true parking committee should be formed that includes residents, property and business owners along with Village officials to further explore any other ideas that could improve our situation.

The mayor’s previous parking committee did not include residents, and in my opinion resulted in information that appeared filtered and then potentially misrepresented when it reached the wider public.

This outgoing council majority has proven over and over that they cannot be trusted, and I for one will not give them any more trust by supporting what has become a monument to deceit and manipulation.

The new council is willing and excited to work with the public and bring all interested residents along in a process that we can be proud of as a community.

Residents spoke loud and clear in the May 10th Village Council election with the landslide victory of three bright, intelligent and independent candidates, who I am greatly looking forward to calling my colleagues very soon.

Please send that message one more time with a no vote on Tuesday and let the new council finish this important work for the benefit of all of Ridgewood.

Sincerely,

Michael Sedon

Posted on

Father Ron of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Issues a VERY STRONG statement on Hudson Garage

Mt_Carmel_Church_theridgewoodblog

Dear Friends,

I liked last year’s Father’s Day reflection, so I decided to put it in again. I may fail to be as clever as my neighbor down the street, I may fail to be as wealthy as some other men I meet, I may never win the glory which a lot of men have had, But I’ve got to be successful as a little fellow’s dad. There are certain dreams I cherish which I’d like to see come true, There are things I would accomplish when my time of life is through, But the task my heart is on is to guide a little lad And to make myself successful as that little fellow’s dad. I may never come to glory, I may never gather gold, Men may list me with the failures when my business life is told, But if he who follows after me shall be manly, I’ll be glad, For I’ll know I’ve been successful as that little fellow’s dad. It’s the one job that I dream of, it’s the task I think of most, If I fail that growing youngster, I’d have nothing else to boast; For though wealth and fame I’d gathered, all my failure would be sad, If I failed to be successful as that little fellow’s dad. God bless all our dads on their special day and thank you for who you are. As a gift from the parish, please take a pen with you and know how much your faith contributes not only to your family but to the parish family as well.

Here we go again. I had resolved not to write on the deck again but I find myself on the subject one last time (since the referendum is Tuesday). Someone said to me that there was a video on the Village website and I should be sure to view it. I did. Several times. And that’s why I find myself writing. Notwithstanding the article in The Ridgewood News, dated June 10th, in which Council members indicate the referendum is about the bonding for a deck, the statement is made in the video, “There will be one question on the ballot that day, ‘Do you support this parking deck.?’” And the video clearly points to the 325 car deck. I find the ambiguity between these two positions worrisome. I have said all along I will not comment on the aesthetics of that deck, “its size, its proportionality to surrounding buildings and the streetscape it creates.” My two issues remain the traffic pattern changes and the on-street parking on the south side of Hudson Street. You will find in the video this statement, “There are two churches on South Broad and in looking at that we decided that directing traffic from the parking deck to Prospect provided better dispersion and less of a loading on South Board St. Our Office worked with ….” And then the video lists a number of entities that were consulted.

You will not hear the name of Our Lady of Mount Carmel mentioned in that consultation. Incredibly, the single largest reality, neighbor, directly across the street from the deck, not four or six blocks away was ignored. This is despite the fact that Mount Carmel hired its own traffic consultant from an equally reputable traffic consulting firm. In their review of the Village’s traffic report, they had this evaluation. “The traffic analysis in the STIS shows that with Hudson Street remaining one-way in the westbound direction, the parking garage will not (their emphasis) cause failure operations at the Hudson Street intersections with South Broad and Prospect Street. As such, we believe there is no need to reverse the traffic flow on Hudson Street or Passaic Street.” Of prime importance to the operations of Mount Carmel Church is the on-street parking on the church side of Hudson Street. In the early months of the year, it was claimed that even with the deck encroaching five feet into the sidewalk (and thus into the street), it would still allow for three lanes on Hudson Street, a parking lane (on the church side), a drive-thru lane and a turning lane into the deck. At a meeting of the Preservation Committee in March, this was unqualifiedly debunked. With the width of Hudson Street narrowed, even by only five feet, there will only be enough space for two lanes. Does this mean that in the future it may be found necessary to eliminate the on-street parking on the church side of Hudson? That will unquestionably have a negative impact on the operations of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

I just thought you needed some further information before you go to the polls on Tuesday. God Bless,

Father Ron

Posted on

Fourteen-year resident of Ridgewood , father of four Explains what the upcoming garage vote on June 21st

vote no on garage

June 16,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

 

Ridgewood NJ, Jim McCarthy is a fourteen-year resident of Ridgewood as well as the father of four daughters and husband to his wife, Gail. Listen to what he has to say about the upcoming garage vote on June 21st.

Posted on

BREAKING : Ridgewood Residents file lawsuit against Village

Village of Ridgewood

June 15, 2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Hackensack NJ, A group of Ridgewood residents filed a lawsuit in Superior Court today, challenging a decision by the Bergen County town to place a political propaganda video and written propaganda on the municipal website “expressly advocating a “yes” vote on a bond referendum to finance a parking deck, which is slated to go before Ridgewood voters on June 21, 2016, and have urged voters to view this one-sided presentation. This action is brought to redress these violations of law.”

The filing comes less than a week after Ridgewood officials began distributing an 11-minute political video and four-page parking referendum guide, via the Village of Ridgewood website, urging voters to support an $11.5 million bond issue to build a parking deck on Hudson Street. The town’s mayor, manager, CFO, and engineer, along with the architect and contractor hired to design the garage. All appear in the video.

Ridgewood voters will go to the polls on June 21 to decide whether or not to adopt an ordinance that would allow Ridgewood to bond 11.5 million for a parking garage at Hudson Street. The $11.5 million is associated with what is known as Design D- 325 spaces, 4 stories, 5 levels, 5 ft over the footprint of the existing lot.

Ever since a 1953 ruling issued by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice and New Jersey Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, it has been illegal for local governments in New Jersey to use public resources to influence voters on a local election. While towns are allowed to send evenhanded factual material to voters, the ruling says it is “outside the pale” and “not lawful” for towns to spend money on political materials urging voters to pass or reject referendums.

According to the lawsuit, the video and the 4 page parking referendum guide on the village website, are “propaganda” that contains a “one-sided, slanted and unjust presentation” of the parking vote. Using “extravagant and dramatic language,” the ads argue in favor of the referendum’s passage, while disparaging the referendum’s opponents.

“The use of Ridgewood’s municipal funds to pay for political marketing is unconscionable,” said resident Gail McCarthy..

The lawsuit comes two days after Ridgewood’s mayor, Paul Aronsohn and village manager, Roberta Sonenfeld, were accused, by the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government, of state ethics law violations for their roles in the political video.“Aronsohn and Sonenfeld are certainly entitled to their own opinions about the referendum, but they are not entitled to use taxpayer dollars to aggressively promote a one sided opinion to the public,” added resident Lorraine Reynolds.

The lawsuit asks for an injunction declaring the advertising illegal, and asks for a formal accounting of all public money and time spent promoting the referendum. If the referendum succeeds, the suit also serves notice that the voters will seek to have the election set aside as being based on “payments and expenditures that are contrary to law, and not authorized by the election or other laws” of the State.

Posted on

Ridgewood Mayor Aronsohn is making a case for a 5 story garage because his team can’t keep a surface lot clean.??

paul Aronsohn

file photo by Boyd Loving

June 13,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, from the Facebook page “Take Back Ridgewood” , Mayor Aronsohn is making a case for a 5 story garage because his team can’t keep a surface lot clean.??

We just elected a new council, give the council elect a chance and please vote NO for Mayor Aronsohn’s 11.5 Million bond on Tuesday June 21st.

Can’t keep a surface lot clean? Or did they actively choose to let the Hudson St. lot fall into disrepair? from Its2Big on Vimeo.

Posted on

What’s his hidden agenda behind the rush to issue the bond for the Ridgewood Garage ?

Ridgewood Bond Referendum

June 13,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

 

Ridgewood NJ, from the “take back Ridgewood ” Facebook page , “Mayor Aronsohn is spreading the word that the current council will not make any decisions on the garage in his last 9 days in the office, and June 21st vote will be for funding / bond only.
We ask if the newly elected council is going to make a decision on final size of the garage and other parking solutions, why is he so desperate for the bonding in his last 9 days? Why commit 11.5 Million dollars and start paying interest on it, if the new council may come up with a smaller option that may require less money? What’s his hidden agenda behind the rush to issue the bond?

Vote NO on June 21st. Not to the garage, but to Paul Arohnson, Gwenn Hauck and Albert Pucciarelli railroading the process on their way out. If you voted for responsible government, in other words, Jeffrey Voigt, Bernadette Walsh, and Ramon M Hache, you know to vote NO now. Let our new VC take the reigns!”

Posted on

Reader says Bigger is not always better for Ridgewood

Valleywood_theridgewoodblog

why are you so interested in Valley increasing it’s business? To bring more traffic, more people smoking on our sidewalks, more employees parking on our streets, more of our police and fire department time spent filing reports of theft and unruly behavior? Maybe you are looking forward to talking to the residents of Steilen Ave who have been dealing with noise and light violations from Valley for years or maybe you are just looking forward to driving into Ridgewood and seeing a 1700 car garage at the intersection of Linwood and Van Dien. Won’t that look beautiful! Maybe they can make the lights that will shine from it 24 hrs a day in a residential neighborhood color coordinated for the holidays. Maybe we should turn the houses on either side of you into high density housing in order to fulfill our fair housing. It will only take 8 months of construction for that, not 6 years. What’s the matter? Just because you bought a house in a residential zone that doesn’t allow hdh doesn’t mean things can’t change, right? In just the same way that Valley’s lot cannot be turned into apartments, Schedler cannot be a 7-11, so just stop with that stupid argument. And yes, the car dealerships should be developed, but changing the density in our cbd from 12 units per acre to 36 was unnecessarily excessive. 24 units per acre would have brought the same benefit without as much downside. Unless of course all you’re concerned about is maximizing the profits of developers. Here’s a word for you to ponder…moderation. Is that so hard to achieve? Bigger is not always better.