Tag: OLMC

Posted on

Many Residents feel Ridgewood Garage Referendum was compromised by misinformation campaign

pro garage signs
January 13,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ , Discrepancies in the interpretative statement and contradictory statements made by Various Council members  served only to confuse voters and obfuscate the council majority’s intentions.

Readers have echoed  “The electorate was also PROMISED that the sign and scale could be negotiated. The electorate was lied to and misled. Furthermore, there is not disagreement on funding so why go to BCIA? only to get the design the three want…how is that reasonable??”

Other readers repeated the sentiment, “the electorate voted for a garage in a “Non-Binding Referendum”.The actual vote for the bond failed 3-2. That was the only vote that was binding. ”

While most who spoke at the Council meeting on January 6th , believed there was some measures were needed to ease peak parking issues in the Central Business District (CBD) most of the 100 plus people who showed at the meeting came to the conclusion that a super sized garage was an over kill.

The crux of the misinformation issue circled around the fact that the garage is built into Hudson street . Jetting out at least 10 feet into the street. That is not building a garage on the lot. Many felt they voted for a garage on the lot. Not street.

While others thought that the council majority , “grossly and intentionally withheld the information that it was on the street.” While other who spoke cited example after example where council members contradicted each other or gave what was later on perceived as misleading information .
Posted on

OLMC : uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of the Hudson Street Garage in Ridgewood

Mount Carmel

OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL

FROM THE PASTOR Dear friends,

Since the bulletin is prepared on Wednesday, before the Village Council meeting, I cannot share with you what happened. Below, please find the statement of the Parish that was emailed to Council members and read into the record.

On behalf of the Archdiocese of Newark and Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish, I would like to thank Mayor Aronsohn, Councilwoman Knudsen and the architectural/engineering teams working with the Village of Ridgewood for their willingness to engage in these open discussions and for their participation in the two meetings held at the parish last week. I have attached a memorandum from Daniel Disario, P.E., PTOE, of Langan Engineering, the firm that the parish has retained to review the traffic study submitted by Maser Consulting. The memorandum has identified several areas of concern that we would like to see addressed prior to the project moving forward.

While we are encouraged by the fact that the Village is willing to consider reducing the size of the proposed structure, we still believe that the construction of a parking deck for 200 additional cars will significantly impact day to day operations for the Church community and accordingly we would like to see the project proceed with due caution. Though we are thankful that the Village commissioned a traffic study, we feel that the report was limited in scope and a more thorough analysis is necessary.

The study was performed on Wednesday, October 7th for two hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. As a result, the report does not take in to account added volume due to; daily drop off and pickup for Windsor Academy School, drop off and pick up for religious education classes, weddings, baptisms, confirmations, funerals and other parish events – including the significant attendance for weekend masses. With Mount Carmel being the closest neighbor to the parking structure, we would have preferred more interaction with Maser’s engineers so they could take these factors into account.

We are also uncomfortable with potential ripple effects and future implications of issues yet to be determined, including the possibility of the reversal of traffic flow and the elimination of street parking on Hudson and Passaic Streets, both of which border Church property. Certain aspects of the design, including the introduction of crisscrossing left hand turns at the entrance/exit of the lot, a problem which will be exacerbated by the inherent increase of both foot and vehicle traffic at mass times, should be more closely reviewed and fleshed out.

Furthermore, the proposed “cantilevered” overhang is a major aesthetic concern and also could present a series of logistical issues. We agree that solutions need to be found for the parking problem in Ridgewood and it is the intention of the parish to cooperate with the Village to address this longstanding issue. We also recognize the viability of the Hudson Street lot as a potential site, however, we believe the matter needs the type of comprehensive study and analysis that was recommended in the “Summary and Conclusions” portion of the original study completed by Maser Consulting on October 15, 2015 (page 22).

To this end, the parish is willing to retain an engineer at its own expense to examine the ramifications of the proposal in more detail. In conclusion, we formally request that bond approval be placed on hold until both engineering firms are given the appropriate time to study the matter in the required detail and subsequently confer for the purpose of providing a mutually beneficial solution for both the Village and parish communities.

Please pray we come to a peaceful agreement.

God Bless,

Fr. Ron

Posted on

LARGE parking garage still in the works for Ridgewood

parking garage cbd

January 8th 2016
Boyd A. Loving

Ridgewood NJ, Despite the overwhelming negative feedback about the “Option A” ($12.3 million, cantilevered over Hudson Street) parking garage Village Council members received on Wednesday night, by a 4-1 vote, Council members introduced Ordinance 3519, which gives authorization for Village officials to begin negotiations with the County of Bergen to bond $12.3 million for a “Village of Ridgewood Parking Deck Project.”

I ask you; why would we be asking the County to bond $12.3 million if it was agreed that a MASSIVE garage isn’t suitable for Hudson Street?  Am I the only one who heard a big “NO WAY” vote cast by the public in attendance at Wednesday’s meeting?  What will it take to get those who sit on the dais to listen?

Posted on

Ridgewood Garage Council Meeting: It is now crystal clear that 3 council members, led by the village manager and mayor, were not forthcoming about their intentions ahead of the vote

Village Council Meeting

January 7,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, There were too many discussions focused on needing a garage or not. I voted no, but it passed, let’s build a nice one. We need to be talking about what it looks like and how we pay for it. The only design offered to date is ugly, doesn’t fit the lot, and the council is in a rush to build it. We don’t really know how it gets paid for. The traffic impact is going to be huge. The garage is going to be filled with train commuters every day- the village has been clear about that. The one traffic study (done over 4 hours on one day) says we need to know more about overall traffic impact. The village has a poor record dealing with traffic design. This is a traffic disaster waiting to happen.

Judging by comments to the council and online discussions, too many voters did not educate themselves ahead of the vote. A lot of buyer’s remorse and people who “assumed”. There were some amazing speakers who clearly and smartly got to the issue and were ready to dive into to the details the council wishes to avoid. There were also uninformed garage supporters who thought the architect’s renderings were fakes made by opponents of the garage. Quite the indictment when supporters of the garage have no idea what it looks like and even they think it can’t possibly “look like THAT”.

It is now crystal clear that 3 council members, led by the village manager and mayor, were not forthcoming about their intentions ahead of the vote. They promised a conversation about design and then offered one photo ahead of the vote and no options on design. The only design option was a meaningless 10′ difference. The village seems to revel in ignoring codes and statutes created to preserve what everyone loves about the village. The village should set the standard and go beyond what is required. This manager and 3 of the council now have a demonstrable record of doing the opposite. Let’s hope the promise of a new design to be created is true.

Posted on

Catholic bishops adopt Pope Francis’ call for a more welcoming church

Mount Carmel

OCTOBER 24, 2015, 4:28 PM    LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2015, 11:53 PM
BY NICOLE WINFIELD AND DANIELA PETROFF
ASSOCIATED PRESS

VATICAN CITY — Catholic bishops called Saturday for a more welcoming church for cohabitating couples and Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried, endorsing Pope Francis’ call for a more merciful and less judgmental church.

Bishops from around the world adopted a final document at the end of a divisive, three-week synod that exposed the split in the church between conservatives and progressives over how to better minister to Catholic families today.

In a win for the progressive camp, the document emphasized the role of discernment and individual conscience in dealing with difficult family situations, especially the vexing issue of whether civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion.

Conservatives had resisted offering any wiggle room on the issue, since church teaching holds that such Catholics are committing adultery and are therefore barred from receiving the sacraments. While the document doesn’t chart any specific path to receiving Communion as originally sought by the liberals, it opens the door to case-by-case exceptions.

“We are so happy that we could give this to the pope,” said German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who spearheaded the progressive camp on the issue. He called the document a “historic step.”

Through a spokesman, Newark Arch­bishop John J. Myers declined to comment on the synod document, saying he had not yet read it Saturday evening. The final report was released by the Vatican in Italian and will be translated later into other languages.

“When bishops have had a chance to look at it, he’s going to give it a lot of thought,” said Jim Goodness, an archdiocese spokesman.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/catholic-bishops-at-synod-call-for-a-more-welcoming-church-1.1440630