Just a thought – Since employees need a permit card (displayed on the dash) to be able to park in the reserved spots in the lots, doesn’t the Village have the license plate of the cars that are supposed to park in the designated spots in the lots?
If they do, can they ticket the offenders?
If the Village does not have that information, should they both have it and use it?
Every employee who parks on the street is effectively taking two parking spots. The one with the vehicle, and one reserved (and thus unused) spot in a parking lot. That does not seem ethical or fair. Neither does it help the downtown parking crunch, indeed, it magnifies the problem.
The Village needs to check the lots to see how many employee spaces go unused, and then reduce the number of reserved spots. That would be simpler and less expensive than trying to enforce a system of no employee parking on the streets.
They might also enforce the “no repeat parking” rules on the street.
… employees are parking in spots for the general public, then we should eliminate the majority of the designated employee spots in the lot behind Bookends.
The main function served by those spots now is ticket writing, since it is almost impossible to find a parking spot in that lot, or on any nearby street on many occasions.
The designation of expensive valet parking will reduce parking spaces for the general public, which in turn will reduce business downtown or result in more “illegal” parking and increased fine revenue and revenue for the valet company.
How does any of that serve the public interest in Ridgewood ? I now spend less time and money in Ridgewood than I did a few years ago, and that trend will continue. Parking has become more difficult in my 20+ years in Ridgewood. Glen Rock, HoHoKus, Waldwick, Wyckoff and other local towns have managed to avoid this degree of parking problem.
Ridgewood NJ, the Ridgewood blog staff translates Jeff Voigt’s recent pro garage letter to the editor .
One of the initiatives important to Ridgewood council members elected last year is to build a garage on Hudson Street, an area close to the train station. Prime users are rail commuters during the day and restaurant goers at night. NOPE – the taxpayers do not need to spend a fortune just so commuters can park in an ugly garage and restaurants can pad their wallets.
In this three block area, there are 50 restaurants with close to 3,000 seats. Ordinances that deal with such intensity of use issues generally call for one parking space for every two to three restaurant seats or; approximately 1,250 parking spaces needed for the restaurants alone. There is a supply of 655 parking spaces in this area. This is total bullshit. At any given time there are more empty spaces in Ridgewood than you can count. Just walk a block or two before sitting down to your meal. This is some funky math that our elected official is playing with.
Add to this, that on any given night approximately 280 of these spaces are taken up by restaurant employees. In other words, the supply is actually 375 spaces for restaurants goers or; a shortage of 875 spaces. In my conversations with restaurant owners, they’ve told me during the first seating for the Thursday through Saturday high-demand times, their customers are able to find a parking space. However, at the second seating many out-of-towners will drive around for 15-20 minutes in frustration, not find a parking space and then leave. This obviously hurts our village’s businesses. The central valet may solve this. Or they can park on Cottage place and walk two blocks, just like you would do in the city. Come on people…..walk a little, or spend millions and millions of dollars on an ugly garage?
Back in 2015, a non-binding referendum for a garage on Hudson Street was voted 2-1 in favor for building a garage by voters. So why can’t the Village Council move forward on this? Voigt conveniently fails to mention that in 2016 there were TWO referendums that reversed this, one of which was binding. And he conveniently fails to mention that the 2015 referendum was flawed because Aronsohn and company gave false information to the voters who thought they were just voting for “more parking.” Furthermore, Voigt neglects to mention that he signed the two VOTE NO TO THE GARAGE petitions, he collected signatures himself for these, he solicited people to sign, he made a video encouraging people to sign, and his wife and daughter signed.
In early February, a subcommittee was formed to figure out how best to move forward in building the garage. The mayor and one other council member volunteered quickly for the committee, preventing other council members from serving. Due to public meeting laws, no more than two council members can be present at any one time on official business. The Mayor said on October 4 at the Village Counci meeting that no such subcommittee was ever formed, she is therefore obviously not on it, and other members of the council all agreed publicly at the meeting that they are not on it and it does not exist. Voigt was conveniently (and inexplicably) not in attendance at the meeting on October 4. I believe the mayor needs to be taken off the garage subcommittee and replaced by a council member who wants the garage built. Why she is on it, is a mystery to me. She has never come out publicly in support of the Hudson Street garage. The Mayor cannot be taken off a subcommittee that exists only in the fantasy corners of Voigt’s corrupted brain. Furthermore, the Mayor did in fact publicly support the Hudson Street garage, voting in favor of it while stating that it needed to be smaller. Another FACT that Voigt gets wrong.
Information coming out of the garage sub-committee has been virtually non-existent. Even as a council person, I often first hear about the Hudson Street garage at public meetings. There is no garage subcommittee. Got it Jeff? It does not exist.
The public has a right to know about such issues as building a garage. It is their money that will be spent. The public has a right to know that Councilman Voigt spews lies with every breath he exhales.
Jeff Voigt
Ridgewood, Sept. 24
The writer is a soon-to-be-former Ridgewood councilman.
Just received this email from the
Village Manager…
POSTPONEMENT OF CENTRAL VALET SERVICE IN RIDGEWOOD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
The Village f Ridgewood Central Valet Service, scheduled to launch on Friday, October 6th, has been postponed to a later date. This will allow the Village to address some minor technical issues. We appreciate your patience ad are grateful for your continued support.
NOTICE from the Village of Ridgewood to all the Businesses in the CBD …
On Friday, October 6, 2017, the Village of Ridgewood will be launching a CENTRAL VALET service (“CV”). It will be a three month pilot program through 12/31/17. The CV will operate
Friday and Saturday nights from 6pm-1am.
The goal is to bring more people to the CBD.
The details:
1. Valet Parking will be in 2 locations:
– Between Van Neste Park and the NJ Transit Bus Station.
– At the end of E. Ridgewood Ave, in the small parking lot
by Latour restaurant.
– Overflow parking for the CV will be in the North Walnut
Street Parking lot, in the CBD employee parking section.
2. The fee charged to the patron is $5 per vehicle.
3. The parking areas for the CV, Van Neste Square, Latour’s and
North Walnut Street lot, will be barricaded by 4pm on Fri/Sat.
CBD employees who usually park in the CBD spaces in North
Walnut St. lot will park in the Cottage Place CBD spaces
after 4pm.
Merchants can opt-in to pay the $5 fee for their patrons. These businesses will be listed both online and at each location.
For more info email [email protected]. To fill out form
www.ridgewoodnj.net/cv or call 201-60-5500 x 203.
If you did not received a copy of the official letter from the
Village Clerk, call 201-670-5500 x203.
Ridgewood NJ, at last nights Planning Board meeting the Ridgewood Planning board cleared the way Village Council designate the Hudson Street Parking lot an “area in need of redevelopment.” .The vote is a major step toward stream lining the garage development process , lowering costs and giving the council members the ability to negotiate directly with a developer of their choosing, rather than putting a design out to bid.
This vote did not mean that the Ridgewood Planning Board approves a garage at Hudson Street , it merely designated the area a “blighted area” , giving the council the ability to more more effectively for tax payers.
The council has been eyeing a modular design, using precast parts, from Pike, a Rochester, New York, firm. The Pike proposal came in far cheaper , saving tax payer money and with a much shorter disruptive construction period. Pike’s more modest and cost effective proposal is far different than the “Garagezilla ” that the former mayor Paul Aronsohn and his collogues attempted to push through .
While many resident supported a garage , they rejected “Garagezilla” on both the choice of financing schemes , making no financial sense for the Village and because the gigantic garage did not fit the footprint of the current lot .
Ridgewood Councilman Ramon Hache sees one downside to restaurant valet service as towns across North Jersey try to boost their central business districts.
“Valet parking is great because each car that pulls into a valet lot is a car that’s not driving around the block over and over,” Hache said. “But for other businesses, that customer is not walking past other retailers.”
On Monday, Hache visited businesses along East Ridgewood Avenue to gauge their interest in a municipally run downtown valet service, which will begin a three-month pilot program on Friday, running through the end of December.
With a municipally operated valet service, he said, people dining downtown can enjoy the convenience of valet parking without the downside of door-to-door privatized valets, which can reduce impulse shopping at other businesses. Instead, customers can walk a few blocks back to the village’s valet station, passing other shops and cafes.
Each Friday and Saturday night, the angled parking along the west side of Van Neste Square and the commuter lot on South Broad Street will be closed at 4:30 p.m. Then, from 6 p.m. until 1 a.m. the village will offer valet service to anyone shopping or dining downtown.
Parking 31 % Unelected Special Interests 6.9 % Urbanization 11 % Taxes 33.1 % CBD 2 % Development 7.3 % Cost of Living 8.7 %
September 16,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the long running Ridgewood blog poll gave us an interesting take on what residents feel are the biggest issues in the Village . As expected taxes garnered 33.1 % of the vote , trailed by a close second Parking with 31% .Urbanization came in a distant 3rd with 11% followed by cost of living 8.7% , surprisingly development at 7.3% ,unelected special interests 6.9% and last the Central Business District (CBD) with a mere 2%. The CBD number may be more of a parking issue and a cost of living or Urbanization issue but despite all the hub bub from certain sectors ,no one seems to think its an issue .
While our crack staff concluded that even if you combined Urbanization and development it still only came in with 18.3% , which was still a distant 3rd . Adding unelected special interests ie developers and out side political interference that would still leave it in 3rd place with a 25.2%.The conclusion being that most residents do not object to development but perhaps its the size and scale that seem to raise the ire .
Taxes as expected is the number one issue in town and in New Jersey and its also the number one reason for people leaving the state , the assumption being residents vote with their feet and see no evidence that taxes will even stabilize anytime soon. Feeding the say yes to everything because your moving out on graduation day and most likely meaning that all the “Age Friendly” Ridgewood stuff is just a complete waste of time.
We don’t think the polls told us anything different that we expected , but given all the talk from local officials about trees, ball fields , schools , the CBD, quality of life issues , most readers seem ready to park their cars in a new state as soon as soon as the graduation pronouncement is made.
Nicholas Katzban, Staff Writer, @NicholasKatzban Published 10:37 a.m. ET Aug. 28, 2017
Two years ago, the Village of Ridgewood proposed to ease its parking crunch by building a garage in the Central Business District.
As the chosen site for the project still lays in disrepair, and the council aims to designate the area “in need of redevelopment,” some locals and officials are beginning to question how a seemingly straightforward objective has grown so long in the tooth.
Seeking to streamline the process, the council unanimously approved a resolution on Aug. 9 to hire the village planner, Brigette Bogart, to determine whether the Hudson lot meets the criteria for an area in need of redevelopment.
That option was presented to council members by Village Attorney Matthew Rogers during a workshop meeting the prior week. Rogers explained the designation would allow the village to negotiate directly with a chosen contractor, rather than work through a public bidding process, to “save some time, save some money” and “be able to approach this in a faster and more efficient manner.”
Got any quarters? If you plan on parking for a day at the beach you’ll likely need plenty to feed the meters. And we all know what happens if your meter runs out and your car is still there— That’s right, parking tickets!
The truth is, you’re a lot more likely to get a ticket in some shore towns than others. We’ve compiled a list from state municipal court records for a year-long period in July 2015 to June 2016.
We’ve calculated how many tickets Jersey shore towns write per square mile and ranked them from 44, the least likely place you’ll get a shore ticket, to the No. 1 town for papering over cars.
Regardless of Cronin’s permission, State law requires 2′ of space between curb and any object so that cars can open doors:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/pdf/PedComp/pedaccomodating.pdf
Where sidewalks are adjacent to a parking lane, an additional 0.6 meters (2 feet) of width is required to compensate for the opening of car doors.
Same thing happened to me in Ridgewood, but I luckily used the Park mobile app to pay which does give you an emailed receipt as well as showing up on the Park mobile site. I called the violations bureau in Ridgewood and they told me to send in the receipt from Park Mobile which clearly showed that there was no violation which I did. I got a call from the Violations bureau that they reviewed it with police officer Chuck who supervises these tickets and was told I had two choices. Either pay the ticket or show up and sit through court. I went to court and after spending several hours was found not guilty by the Judge. There seems to be a problem when a clear mistake is made that officer Chuck doesn’t want to dismiss the ticket.
Ridgewood NJ, When will the Council apply Eminent Domain to buy the long-abandoned Town Garage site on Franklin Avenue?
This, in conjunction with other small fixes, such as repaving and reconfiguring the existing Hudson Street parking lot, which was never designed properly, would (at far lower cost than building a parking garage) add plenty of spaces downtown, tucked into small areas here and there. We must not build an $8+-million edifice at Hudson and Broad (and we know how it goes with change orders, etc.) that would require a huge bond and endless expensive maintenance and potentially serve as a hangout for kids at best or a site of drug dealing or other crime at worst while casting a hideous shadow (literal and figurative) over that small, cozy corner. The entire central business district is a historic neighborhood–this would wreck it.
Nothing I have read or could read from any so-called expert will convince me that adding significant numbers of cars to that corner would be anything but a disaster in traffic and injury.
The garage was always a boondoggle to help the developers. Are we going to allow Aronsohn, Pucciarelli, Hauck, and Pfund to continue to manipulate us to this extent?
The referendum to quash the garage was specific to that design–yes, technically and legally. However, many, many people who voted NO were voting NO GARAGE even if that’s not what it said on the ballot.
Council, please buy Town Garage and let’s see how it goes before putting up a monstrosity and white elephant that nobody wants. Please!!
Anybody agree? Tell the council you want Town Garage bought for parking. If the town doesn’t buy it, don’t you think a developer will? Just what we need is more apartments there. We can then change the name of Franklin Avenue to Death Row.
It’s not too late, but it’s getting there. Speak out!
2. Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act
MAYOR: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided
by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall,
by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”
3. Roll Call
4. RESOLUTIONS
17-170 Award Contract – Infra-red Paving Restoration
17-171 Reject Bids – Central Valet Parking Services
17-172 Authorize Application to the Bergen County Historic Trust Fund – Zabriskie-Schedler House, Phase 2
17-173 Authorize Application to the Bergen County Open Space Trust Fund – Turf Field at Maple Park
17-174 Annual Renewal of Liquor Licenses
17-175 Set Public Hearing Date for Settlement Negotiation
5. Adjournment
VILLAGE COUNCIL WORK SESSION
THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL’S
PUBLIC WORKSHOP AGENDA
JUNE 28, 2017
7:30 P.M.
1. 7:30 pm – Call to Order – Mayor
2. Statement of Compliance with Open Public Meeting Act Mayor: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”
3. Roll Call – Village Clerk
4. Flag Salute/Moment of Silence
5. Public Comments (Not to Exceed 3 Minutes per Person – 40 Minutes in Total)
6. Presentation – Open Space Survey Findings
7. Discussion
a. Ridgewood Water
1. Award of Contract – Infrared Asphalt Restoration
b. Budget
1. Bergen County Open Space Trust Fund Grant Application
c. Operations
1. Purchase of Property
d. Parking
1. Rebid Central Valet Services
8. Motion to Suspend Work Session and Convene Special Public Meeting
9. Special Public Meeting – See At tached Agenda
10. Motion to Adjourn Special Publc Meeting and Reconvene Work Session
11. Discussion (Continued)
a. Ridgewood Water (continued)
1. Lease of Property for Co-Location of Wireless Telecommunications Antennas – Glen Avenue Tank Location
2. Award Contract – Polyphosphate Pumps for Corrosion Control
3. Award Professional Services Contract – Cedar Hill Reservoir Improvements
b. Parking
1. Train Station Parking
2. Update on Parking Garage
3. Clinton Avenue Parking – Safety Concerns
c. Budget
1. Declare Fire Department Equipment Surplus
2. Award Contract Under State Contract – Tires
3. Award Contract Under State Contract – Police Handguns, Holsters, & Magazine Pouches
4. Award Contract Under State Contract – Two Police Patrol SUVs
5. Award Contract Under State Contract – Lifts and Support Stands – Fleet Services
6. Award Contract Under National Joint Powers Alliance – Front End Loaders with Snowplows
7. Award Contract Under National Joint Powers Alliance – Two Sanitation Trucks with Snowplows
b. Policy
1. Boards and Committees – Fields Committee
2. Endorse Bergen County Open Space Trust Fund Program – The James Rose Center
3. Title 59 Approval – Painting Curbs Yellow
4. Options for Glenwood Road Railroad Crossing
5. Amend Chapter 145 – Fees – Tree Protection
6. Garber Square Bike Lane
e. Operations (continued)
1. Appoint Clean Communities Coordinator and Recycling Program Coordinator
2. Municipal Complex Parking Lot Changes
12. Manager’s Report
13. Council Reports
14. Public Comments (Not to Exceed 5 Minutes per Person)
