Until all the other Ridgewood problems are solved (Habernickle, high density housing, garage and most of all,Valley!) I can’t see the Village spending one cent on the library. It is already huge for a town this size and it has an auditorium that it rents out. (Check into how often it is rented and that will show you a need for maybe something extra on Sundays when they entertain but it is certainly not being put to daily usage. Why would one think the Arts Center would be any busier?
Stellar research. This item has been sent to all council members with a demand for restitution, the identity of the staff member who signed off on reimbursement, and the question: FRAUD?
In fact, fraud was committed twice: not only on taxpayers, but also on the videographer, reportedly a Hillmann family member, who was gypped out of his full fee on the pretention that the client was a village business and C. of C. member. Even if he was in on the “joke,” it’s wrong.
I suggest a letter on legal letterhead from the village attorney to Ms. Hauck: “It has come to our attention….we have obtained documentation, to wit…please make out your check, including $X in interest, to…and since you have committed fraud, please do not attend the September or subsequent meetings of the Parks, Recreation and Conservation Board, except perhaps as an observer sitting over in the corner. To protect the village from possible legal action based on your fraudulent behavior as a council member, we must remove you from this and any future positions of responsibility within the village. Not-love, etc. etc.”
Elected officials may not use their positions to further political agendas or tax money to fund them.
If nothing is done, residents may ask WHY at future council meetings.
An easy way to send a single email message to all council members may be reached through this link, which is updated after every council election:
https://www.preservegraydon.org/write-council
You can remove the cc: before sending, if desired.
A similar group email form posted on the council page of the village website has been suggested and approved (weeks ago), but not implemented (surprise).
Forget about an arts center. The VH is not an ATM for special interest projects.
Walnut/Town Garage site was always the best place for a parking project. Central location to CBD & transportation. Ground level + 2 upper levels. Install a traffic light at the dangerous intersection of Franklin/Walnut.
If the VC wanted to get us out of the parking lot business, it should look into the owners of the Ken Smith & adjacent properties to do parking on the west side of the property & responsible mixed use on the east side.
As long as the VC is transparent and has no sacred cows to feed, it can be done.
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — The public’s overwhelming rejection Tuesday of a bond ordinance that would have financed a municipal parking garage on Hudson Street has many residents wondering what the next proposed solution will be to the village’s perpetual parking woes.
The question is difficult to answer for several reasons, including uncertainties.
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/path-after-bond-defeat-unclear-1.1622848
Councilman elect Jeff Voigt
THIS TUESDAY – June 21st – Special Election In Ridgewood. Please Vote NO.
Don’t be fooled by the flyer/mailer from Progress Ridgewood which claims that the new council elect wants you to vote yes. That’s simply not true.
Once again, we’re given a “take it or leave it”, “all or nothing”, “our way or the highway” choice on an important matter. I’d love a small parking deck at that location but this referendum gives us two choices: 1.) A 5 story garage which will never be full and doesn’t fit on the lot or 2.) Vote NO.
I had held out some hope that after such a decisive election, the outgoing Council majority would have stepped aside on this issue and left it to the new Council. Yea, maybe not. I can’t say enough bad things about how these 3 elected officials have acted over the past 4 years and they’re apparently trying to go out with one last deplorable bang. They are ignoring the clear will of the people for what can only be personal gain or the desire for revenge against those that have disagreed with them.
I can’t help but think a lot of the pro parking garage noise came from certain restaurateurs. I imagine diners having dinner at their “regular” restaurants and the owner does his meet-and-greet walk-through. He see his regular customer and say,”Hi. Where have you two been? I haven’t seen for for some time”.
Now the diners are sort of regular, and instead of admitting that their lack of attendance is mostly about cutting back on dining expenses, they save face by saying, “We have tried to get in here every week but we can never find a parking place. We had to head over to Ho-Ho-Kus.”
The restaurant bosses hear this so often that they not only believe it, but it’s in their interests to believe it. Most of them don’t live in Ridgewood, so costs of a garage are irrelevant.
May 18,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, despite all the hullabaloo about parking Tuesday 17 10:15 am , the central business district remained a ghost town . The Cottage place lot teachers ,administrators and store office workers parking has plenty of spaces.
April 12,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, The League of Women Voters will sponsor a Candidates’ Night for those running for Village Council . The Candidates’ Night will take place in the Village Hall Court Room, Wednesday, April 20th from 7:30PM to 9:30PM. All are invited to attend to learn positions on local issues.
Reader says the election is less than a month away and I don’t know where any of the candidates stand on important issues.
Do they have websites? Is there any campaign material? If the Ridgewood News were truely an unbiased local paper they would send questions to the candidates for answers and publish all responses.
I know that the League of Women Voters will have a forum but I expected more. What if the forum does not adress my questions?
What do you think the village should do about parking in the CBD? Do you think that we even have a parking problem?
Do you think that the housing density should be 25 units per acre? Do you think that it should be higher or lower?
How many high density projects can the congested downtown absorb?
Will you challenge the latest Valley Hospital Plan and ask for more concessions?
What can be done to end the cycle of empty-nesters fleeing the town because of high taxes? Do you think that there is a benefit to offer a tax break to stabilize the demographics and prevent an overflow of students in our schools?
Will you ask that all council and committee members disclose all conflicts of interest – perhaps without being asked by an angry and skeptical public?
Reader says , Security for parking lots seems to be getting a lot of press lately. If you look at the statistics, roughly 80% of the criminal acts at shopping centers, strip malls and business offices occur in the parking lot. Lawyers make a good living off liability cases based on a lack of sufficient security measures or not taking “reasonable care” in the protection of employees and customers against criminal threats. The lawsuits often revolve around lack of sufficient lighting, surveillance and response. Once crime takes a foothold in an area it is difficult to break the trend, but there are some things you can do that can improve security, deter crime, reduce potential liability and make your customers feel safer. It’s interesting to note that where parking lot security has been implemented, customer use has actually increased because they feel safer. Increased customer use means increased profit which can be used to justify the increased cost related to any security improvements.
There are some general problems inherent in parking facilities that make the security of patrons and employees challenging. A criminal’s vehicle most likely will not be noticed in a parking facility. Also, parked vehicles provide a hiding place for a criminal and can block the distribution of lighting to the area that a criminal may be located. Security is more problematic for parking garages. Parking garages allow more vehicles to be parked on the same amount of land. The ability to see and be seen in one’s surroundings, known as natural surveillance, is reduced in parking garages. This is because parking garages can be partially or fully enclosed, elevated above ground, having multiple levels, or have ramps that provide access to the multiple floors of the facility.
Not every parking lot or garage is the same, nor do any have the same needs to mitigate risks.
It all boils down to a fundamental but complex word that underlies most all security mitigation and litigation: reasonable.
Did the building owner, facility manager, parking firm, chief security officer, security director or loss prevention manager provide a reasonable level of protection at parking lots and garages in the light of the history of incidents; type of business; history of clientele; physical location; application of procedures, policies, people and technology; and regarding immediate response and follow up reaction to situations that arise and alarm?
The details and the devil are both in “what is reasonable,” which can vary among types of businesses served by the parking facility, typical levels of security around the location, past actions taken, history of crime at that location as well as other hard and soft factors.
In addition to cameras placed within the garage footprint for safety, several 360-degree pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) units were installed on the top of the exterior stair towers. Not only does parking management have access to the feeds at will, but the external video feed is shared with the police department, explains Gray. It allows them to take advantage of the view from one of the taller structures in the vicinity as well as eliminate a dead spot at a busy intersection.
Don’t overlook the human element of surveillance either. “Parking attendants are another indirect security measure,” Gray observes. “Having someone there 24/7 adds another level of comfort.” You can also tap them to pull double duty and monitor video between clients.
If your garage or lot is unattended, try scheduling frequent patrols, particularly in the evening. If you have contract security, you can also have guards available to escort occupants back to their vehicles.
Good Morning Neighbor!
There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding this new Its2Big petition and so, to set the record straight, we’ve created a short video which should paint a clearer picture about why it’s so important that you should sign it. Please share it with everyone you know. Too many folks in town have been given misinformation regarding the petition and the local media is not presenting a balanced account about it.
As an addendum, if there was any question regarding the fact that this petition will be put on the ballot in November, unless our Village Council chooses otherwise, please read this statement.
Lastly, if there is any question in your mind regarding the disapproval of the current design by Father Ron at Mount Carmel, please feel free to contact Steve Belloise from the Archdiocese.
Dana
This petition seeks to put the financing associated with Design D on hold
until a REAL COMPROMISE is reached, or until the taxpayers of Ridgewood vote on it
as a BINDING referendum question.
Aesthetically, a lower profile will be more fitting in our Historic Downtown.
A 3-story/4 level garage will more than triple the capacity of the current lot,
and allow for added creative solutions in other parts of the Central Business District.
SIGN THE PETITION
FOR MORE INFORMATION
GO TO WWW.ITS2BIG.COM, OR EMAIL [email protected]
PICTURES USED ARE FROM VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD WEBSITE
*A – https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015simdeck.pdf
*D -https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/images/Ridgewood/Projects/HudsonStParkingDeck/View_2_-_Looking_North_on_South_Broad_Street_copy.jpg
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Village manager Roberta Sonenfeld is at it once again . Sonenfeld attempted to disrupt “petition signers” on this past Easter weekend with high density developer John Saracino . This time the Village manager expressed her concerns in a letter to the “The Ridgewood Daily Voice” .
The Village manager voiced her concerns , claiming petitioners were misrepresenting the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) bonding referendum, saying ” village is subject to the referendum provisions of the Faulkner Act and not the Home Rule Act. As a result, since there is no general or regular municipal election scheduled during the allotted time period, a referendum would be required to be held “not less than 40 nor more than 60 days” after the last possible date of withdrawal of the petition by the petitioners. Such a special election would cost Ridgewood taxpayers approximately $40,000 to $45,000.” “https://ridgewood.dailyvoice.com/politics/letter-overturning-bond-ordinance-will-cost-ridgewood-taxpayers/648624/”
However the Village Council has since voted unanimously to rescind the village’s agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) to fund the $11.5 million downtown parking deck.The vote comes on the heels of the council decision to self-fund the construction of the controversial 325-space parking structure on Hudson Street.
Observers note “I think she is taking this stuff personal.”
If you’d rather see:
design D with 3 stories, 4 levels, approx 37ft building height & 52ft towers- approx 260 spaces- then you should sign the petition
If you are happy with the current design D of 4 stories, 5 levels, 46ft 8in building height & 60ft 10in towers- 325 spaces- then you should not sign the petition
You must be a registered voter residing in the Village of Ridgewood to sign the petition.
EMAIL [email protected] CALL or text 201-264-8151 Visit: https://goo.gl/forms/KpPtDY2We9 |
march 24,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the no2BCIA petition was certified by the village clerk at the village council open public meeting tonight. (certified means she confirmed that we needed 814 signatures and we had at least 814 valid signatures).
The petition provided two options -the council could either withdraw the ordinance 3519 (bond for garage through BCIA), or put that as a referendum question to the voters of Ridgewood.
The mayor tonight at the council meeting, promised that he will be introducing an ordinance to repeal ordinance 3519 (BCIA funding) at the next meeting, and he decided not to proceed with the referendum question on the May ballot.
According to the petitioners , based on understanding of the law, the BCIA option for garage funding, as it was passed in ordinance 3519 appears to be dead for now.
Ridgewood will get a garage that’s funded by a local bond where Ridgewood will be in complete control. (The size of the garage is still an open question, and if you would like to be a part of petition, which will request the council to consider a smaller sized garage that’s right for that specific lot, please reach out to us at its2big.com
