Tag: parking

Posted on by — 18 Comments

Reader say Ridgewood is in Desperate Need of A Master Plan

clock_cbd_theridgewoodblog

Well our town desperately needs a Master Plan of what it wants to be in the next 10, 20 years and how we will get there. Where will the open space be? how does multi-family housing intersect with garage parking and maintaining a safe “walking village”? What streets could have more parking quickly and cheaply (tree streets) and why don’t we try it first? More parking at a garage is one solution but until you lay out where everything will be it is foolish to throw in one monster garage and think problem solved.

The stores in Ridgewood that have a compelling business proposition do great and even expand: Rita’s, Hot Jewelry Box, Fox’s, Alex and Ani, Learning Express are a few examples. If you are a me too store, a la the GAP or Gymboree I can find you in the mall. There are a few business I will go to if I can find a spot out front (Dunkin, nail salons etc) but if there is not a close spot, I will visit Midland Park as it is just as close to my house. I will not park in the garage for those businesses. On a special Saturday night out in town, I can park by NY sports on the street for free or drive farther from the restaurants and always parking. I am of the opinion that the garage will not be that impactful for businesses, more so for commuters. If the businesses really had a push NOW for their employees to park elsewhere (graydon in winter, school in summer) and did some sort of COC busing for them that might help the store front parking.

Now a business such as Roots failing because of parking is NOT OUR PROBLEM. While it is a beautiful space, it is way too large and the owners were mistaken to think the client base in Ridgewood is the same as Summit. And I really hope the new council gets rid of that gift of a zillion spots to valet outside…Why doesn’t every business – regardless of what type of business – get the same valet treatment? Would be much more fair to have the small commuter lot set up as a valet depot for all businesses…could even add a second level on Hudson or Cottage for that purpose and be done with it. Again, if we had proper planning not patchwork planning.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Reader says The opening of Serendipity highlights the fallacy of the current council’s views on our downtown

Serendipity Labs Opens Downtown Ridgewood, Coworking Space Ridgewood

Yes, the opening of Serendipity highlights the fallacy of the current council’s views on our downtown. Albert and Paul in particular kept talking about the parking surveys from 30 to 80 years ago. The “progress” and “2020” movements (which produced the 3 failed candidates) were similarly myopic. The leaders of these groups are all talking about and looking to solve Ridgewood’s problems from the 60’s and 70’s. Developers, land speculators, the owners of Fish and Greek to Me push for housing developments and parking garages solely for their own narrow minded view of increasing their profits over the next few years.

We live in the new millennium and we should plan for our century not the past century. Who and what is going to make use of our downtown. What brings in the most tax dollars with the least amount of expenditures? Is our future developing our downtown as the regions “restaurant row,” or should we be looking to bring more corporate dollars? Are massive parking garages and massive housing developments really the way forward or are they product of staid minds that don’t see or are afraid to look into the future?

This discussion has never been had because our current council “leaders” never asked themselves or challenged the public to debate what is good for Ridgewood as a whole and the future of Ridgewood as a whole. Instead, the “debate,” if one can call it that, has been over how many families should we squeeze into a downtown lot or should a garage be 4 or 5 or 6 stories tall. Let’s depart from this outdated way of thinking and move ourselves beyond the mire of the past. Let’s embrace our future. And to do that, let’s start by having a real discussion on what our future might be.

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Reader says it time to take Photos parking spaces all over Ridgewood CBD on different days of the week, ordinary and holiday

Ridgewood CBD

I wish people would take photos of parking spaces all over town on different days of the week, ordinary and holiday, and at different times to show in aggregate that parking IS AVAILABLE. A large number of photos documented at various times and days of the week would tell the story. Walking a couple of blocks is good for your health! And unless you’re going to a Hudson St. or S. Broad Street venue, you’ll walk a couple of blocks (or much more) from the garage anyway. Please VOTE NO on June 21 and get an absentee ballot if you can’t.

send them in : [email protected]   do not for get date, time

 

Posted on by — 33 Comments

Central Business District on Tuesday Plenty of Parking

Ridgewood CBD

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.

IMG 2118

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Ridgewood’s Hudson Street Garage by the Numbers

godzilla

May 9,2016

Gail and Jim McCarthy

In the name of promoting PROGRESS for Ridgewood, a huge amount of very slanted public relations has been spread about the Hudson Street garage project.Much of it has been in the form of “facts” that are not relevant.They are used only to obscure the real issues.

Here are 10 simple, TRUTHFUL facts that you should consider in forming your opinion.

1. 3236 voters who voted “yes” on the non-binding referendum never saw a drawing that placed the original design in context prior to the vote. We were told to “vote now for funding, and we can work together for a design later”. But plans had already been drawn up in October AND were withheld from the public until December.

2. BEFORE A FINAL DESIGN WAS PICKED, Our Village Manager said $295,000.00 was spent for “full site civil, landscape, utility, structural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical & fire” documents. They then had to issue a change order for $120,000.00 for the redesign because of this.

3. When the original design was finally illustrated in context, and released to the public, throngs of people came to a Village Council meeting and spoke out against the design, which jutted out into Hudson St. by 12 feet.

4. Per our Village Manager, “That garage could have ZERO CARS IN IT and it (the parking utility) can cover it.” She also recently confirmed we have plenty of empty parking spaces in the Cottage Place and Walnut St parking lots. According to her, we don’t even need to consider leasing the Zabriskie lot behind the movie theatre, and that would add 80 spaces immediately.

5. The Archdiocese of Newark, on behalf of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, has been consistent in asking that the garage be reduced one level. They were told the redesign would fit on the footprint and be taken down a level. It has only been lowered 30 inches, and does not fit on the footprint.

6. None of the buildings cited as references by “Progress Ridgewood” are 271 feet long. The three tallest buildings nearby all have front or side set backs of over 50 feet. Unlike all of the other “comparable buildings” in town, none of them jut out into the street by 5 feet.

7. The claim that the Village will spend $10 million to acquire 21 incremental spots if Design D is lowered one level, isn’t just bad math-it is an outright lie. The Village doesn’t own the Brogan or the Ken Smith sites, and the suggested garage will net the Village 187 parking spots.The truth about the garage size is that it needs to be a monstrosity in order to accommodate the parking needed for the high-density housing projects.

8. Resolution No. 16-110 is the resolution that was passed by the Village Council on April 27th after the petition was certified. It clearly states at bottom of page 2 that “the Village desires to submit the Ordinance(#3521) to the electorate at a special election to be held on June 21,2016 pursuant to the provisions of the Faulkner Act or, in the alternative, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:49-27.” THAT IS THE HOME RULE ACT STATUTE. That language was included, according to Bond Counsel, “to protect the village from any litigation” – which means they know petitioners are correct.

9. $40-45,000.00 of municipal funds will be spent for a special election.The Village Council has every right call for one, under both Faulkner and Home Rule. That is a choice that the Council alone made, and for which the Council alone will be held accountable. Their inclusion of the Home Rule Act statute in Resolution 16-110 makes this abundantly clear.THEY ARE CHOOSING TO SPEND THE MONEY. NO ONE IS MAKING THEM.

10. JEFF VOIGT, BERNADETTE COGHLAN-WALSH AND RAMON HACHE refused to sign the pledge the other three candidates signed,which was created and put forth to the candidates by overzealous developers, landlords, business owners & investors.Bernadette Coghlan-Walsh, Jeffrey Voigt, Ramon Hache

HONESTY – INTEGRITY – TRUST A PLEDGE TO WORK FOR THE RESIDENTS OF RIDGEWOOD

Posted on by — 12 Comments

A fact based rebuttal to the Ridgewood Mayor’s smear campaign against the garage petitioners

BCIA petition OLMC
May 6,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, The Mayor and the Village Manager have persistently and knowingly mischaracterized the Village Council’s decision to call a $ 40-45k special election as being required by the terms of the petition.
The special election is NOT required and the Mayor, the Village Manager, The Village Council and now the taxpayers know it.
The clear and compelling evidence of this is that the language of the special election Resolution #16-110 which was passed by the Village Council on April 27 th incorporates the very statute (NJSA 40-49- 27 otherwise known as the Home Rule Act) that specifically provides the option of waiting until the next General Election in November,or if the municipality desires it may call a special election.
This statute was included in the Resolution, according to Matt Jessup, bond attorney for the council since Matt Rogers recused himself (little known fact), “to protect the Council from any litigation.” That says it all right there. Matt Rogers recused himself because he had done some pro bono work for the church, & felt that if he counseled on the petition, it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
The Mayor, the Village Manager and the rest of the Mayor’s customary voting bloc desire a special election because:
1) It creates a diversion from the fact that to date they have wasted $ 415,000 on the design process. They were so arrogantly confident that they could shove the original Plan A and its looming 12 Foot encroachment into Hudson Street through the Council, that they ordered $295,000.00 worth of construction documents BEFORE THE DESIGN WAS SELECTED. They subsequently issued a $120,000.00 change order to try again and we are not done yet
2) They bootstrap a false claim that the petitioners don’t support building a Hudson Street garage at all and are anti -everything. This is false and can be verified as such by any number of Council Meeting recordings and correspondence
3) They can falsely claim that the petitioners are causing the Village to incur the roughly $ 40-45k in expenses, thus smearing the petitioners, when in fact, the Council is deciding to call a special election
4) It puts the election on the calendar when they will be still be using the bully pulpit to misinform the public
5) It fits with their overall victim narrative. They are claiming to hostage to the demands of the petitioners when it’s clearly the Village that is being held hostage to the agenda of the other way around. All the petitioners want is either a more reasonable garage or the residents to make an informed decision Mayor, please stop making stuff up. It hurts the Village you claim to Love
Posted on by — 6 Comments

Reader says the Ridgewood garage is the Trojan Horse the village now admits, we don’t need more parking, we don’t even utilize what we have

3 amigos

file photo by Boyd Loving

The garage is all about high density housing, not restaurants. Without it, the over development of Ridgewood cannot happen. Without over development the property owners, who paid a lot for the land, cannot make money. They need to develop the lots past what parking on the property supports to maximize rental revenue.

They are playing the long game to draw families here to multi bedroom rentals with our schools as the magnetic force. It is very simple. Problem is, our schools are over capacity and our high school is well past capacity. So, how will our schools stay at the top? They can’t. That doesn’t concern the developer, he’ll have sold by then. It will be someone else’s problem. It is simple and undeniably true. They lie about Brogan and Ken Smith parking spaces needing to be replaced, spots that are not a part of the public parking inventory. “Smiling faces with hidden agendas”.

The garage is the Trojan Horse. The village now admits, we don’t need more parking, we don’t even utilize what we have. Higher density, higher congestion, higher fees. They want a city.

Posted on by — 17 Comments

Its2Big petition Supporters set the record straight !

OLMC Ridgewood

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.

Thank you for your help with this petition and for once again doing your part to protect Ridgewood.

Sincerely,

Dana

 

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Ridgewood Parking Garage : Its 2 Big ,Petition drive Saturday!!! April 2nd 10am-4pm

its too big Ridgewood

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

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Support us in requesting the council to consider a garage that’s the right size for that lot

hudson parking garage ridgewood
RIDGEWOOD RESIDENTS
WE NEED YOUR SIGNATURES!

 

Support us in requesting the council to consider
a garage that’s the right size for that lot
The currently proposed garage at Hudson Street
is TOO BIG
Text any of the circulators listed below
and we can give you an address to stop by to sign.
    • Near Van Neste Square, Saturday 11-4. Look for Orange Baloons.
    • Lorraine Reynolds, please call/text 201-264-8151 – Friday, March 25th -10AM-4PM
    • Melanie McWilliams, please call/text 201-675-8937.
    • Saurabh Dani, please call/text 973-903-5361.
    • Ellen McNamara, please call/text 201-874-0966.
    • Jacqueline Hone, please call/text 201-377-8556.
The petition seeks to protest Ordinance 3521 with the following ballot question:
Shall Ordinance No. 3521 authorizing the Council of the Village of Ridgewood
to issue $11,500,000 bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the
Hudson Street Parking Deck, currently contemplated as a 4 story, 5 level
Parking Deck, be ratified?Do you know the difference in height between Option A and Design D?
It’s 2ft 6in. Would you call that a compromise?
We don’t.The in house funding for the parking garage passed 5-0 on 23rd, which is great. Everyone wants the garage funded in house.
Many people who want the garage, and want to fund in house, believe it’s just 2 tall, and should come down a level.
Why a petition to repeal an ordinance that we really want?
Because this petition will put funding on hold (for a short time),
it will allow the 5 council members to talk compromise (something three of them have been unwilling to do).
They have a choice, they can decide to seriously sit down at the compromise table, and see if 1 level lower will work
(all the numbers point to a yes, since any size garage relies heavily on the parking meter revenues).
If it’s agreed to lowering it 1 story to 3 stories, 4 levels, the petition will be withdrawn,
& we move forward immediately with a 3 story 4 level parking garage funded in house.So, it basically comes down to this:

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.

LOOK FOR THE ORANGE BALLOONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION
EMAIL [email protected]
CALL or text 201-264-8151
Visit: https://goo.gl/forms/KpPtDY2We9
Posted on by — 16 Comments

“overwhelming majority of Ridgewood Residents” favored parking but far less support the over sized Ridgewood Garagezilla

godzilla
March 22,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Pro City residents continue to harp on the refrain:  Didn’t an Didn’t an overwhelming majority of Ridgewood Residents vote in favor of a garage? To say the council only cares about builders, restaurant owners and party bosses is a lie – they are listening to the majority of us who are in favor or a garage. vote in favor of a garage?

Ridgewood Council members have even expressed concern over the “overwhelming majority of Ridgewood Residents”. The staff of the Ridgewood blog turned up some interesting foresight with a recent OPRA request of the Mayor Paul Aronsohns emails .

“I voted for the parking deck like many other before realizing how big the plan was to be . It will never be self supporting inless it is filled with commuters who will clog the narrow streets . There of coarse will need to be stop lights put at the intersection of East Ridgewood and Broad . The parking lot as it now stands is a disgrace and dangerous .certainly build something but not the huge facility that is envisioned now. Floral Park Nassau County ,Long Island also built a parking lot near the LIRR and it was said it was going to be filled and self supporting .It never was and the tax payers make up the difference .”
The OPRA requests turned up many such emails , with the conclusion being that many voted for a garage but not the over sized monstrosity proposed . More did not believe the Mayor and sugested a lack of confidence in the Village decision making process
Posted on by — 17 Comments

Good architectural design makes an effort to work with the style of a neighborhood. The Ridgewood Parking Garage does not

hudson parking garage ridgewood
photo by Saurabh Dani
To My Ridgewood Neighbors:
I was not initially opposed to the proposed parking structure on Hudson Street in the center of Ridgewood but after seeing the renderings, I am entirely against it because of its enormous size and unfitting design. The residents that are vocally opposed to this structure know that it will destroy the character of Ridgewood. I am personally opposed to it because it will destroy the character of my neighborhood.
I live a couple blocks away with my wife and three children, and walk by this lot at least twice a day. My kids walk by it going to and from school. And my neighbors who have been here even longer than we have pass by it regularly. I have lived on South Broad Street for the past 16 years and have actually been looking forward to development that will improve the area. This will only make it worse.
Good architectural design makes an effort to work with the style of a neighborhood. This does not. If this structure has to be four or five above-grade stories then the right aesthetic approach would be to match the height of the apartments across the street, two-stories high, along South Broad Street and Hudson Street, and then use a set-back of 20 feet so that you could continue up from there without it being an eyesore. That way you get your height and space required but you do not create an ominous structure.
One rule of thumb is to never build something taller than the most attractive buildings. The three-story buildings with spires on the corner of South Broad Street and East Ridgewood Avenue are good examples of our town’s beautiful downtown architecture. To build a massive parking garage just next to them would dominate the center and detract from them. The idea of making a parking garage the most noticeable building in a town’s center is a cultural recipe for disaster.
Ironically the details of the roof on the corner of South Broad Street and Hudson Street, which is the only part of the structure with any kind of actual design sensibility, will not be seen by anyone on the street level because it is too high. And the only time this part of the street and the residences will get daylight is the late afternoon because it is south west of those apartment windows.
I heard that this structure is not supposed to significantly increase the traffic on my street. How is that even plausible? It’s a parking structure! It can only bring more cars…that’s the point. When the New York Sports Club moved in several years ago I was excited that the abandoned car showroom was being turned into something new and bringing life to a fairly run down street.
The problem is that not only did it bring a significant amount more of traffic but it brought a different kind of traffic. The traffic that existed prior to the Sports Club consisted of people who used South Broad Street as a straight shot to Glen Rock. They drove fast and polluted the street as people in cars do but they were also focused on getting in or out of town. The new traffic was a very different scene. People drive faster and a bit more recklessly because they are speeding to or from the gym, while texting on their phones, and they are making turns across busy pedestrian paths without checking.
I anticipate this extra traffic the parking garage will bring will be of this caliber: people hurrying to the structure because it will take extra time to park there than pulling into a spot on the street so they can go shopping and meet someone at a restaurant. On the way there they will be texting that they are arriving or leaving. While the developers are only responsible for the accidents that happen on their property, I worry about the accidents that will happen in the few block radius around their facility, as should the politicians in Ridgewood and the residences of my neighborhood as well as the residents of Ridgewood and people visiting our town.
I think we are at a point where we have to decide (as did the planners of many cities around the United States) whether we want Ridgewood to be a town that favors cars or people.
If I were mandated to build a parking garage in the center, the most natural place to put it would be actually down at the corner of East Ridgewood Avenue and Maple. That area is developed more for higher volume traffic and already has a large surface-level parking lot that could be built up in a way that keep all the stores intact, and already has a large ground-level underpass on Maple Street. But I would actually be in favor of less traffic in general.
The only people clamoring for the parking garage are shop owners who think their profits will magically double once the garage is built. At the town meeting I attended, I heard a senior lady propose an idea that I think would work very well. That is, why not close down some of the streets for cars and make them pedestrian ways. It worked well in Montclair, and it has had an amazing effect on midtown Manhattan. If we leave South Broad Street/North Broad Street open, but closed East Ridgewood Avenue from the Broad Streets to the Post Office and turned that into a pedestrian way and expanded the outdoor seating for restaurants, you would increase the tourist appeal of the center and it would only mean closing down part of one street. If you have been to the tree lighting in Ridgewood and have experienced these car-free nights of East Ridgewood Avenue, then you would see how popular it could be.
Some of my concerns may be a little too close to home but in my nearly fifty years of living in the United States and Europe I have taken note of projects that improve and detract from the character of towns and cities. I have lived in beautiful places including Santa Barbara and Prague. I would include Ridgewood as a beautiful place to live. These are places people want to go to in order to get away from strip malls, busy roads, and generic housing because by being in a unique place, people feel special.
Ridgewood has charm and character but that is in jeopardy with bad planning. The problem with parking garages is that even the best of them have the feeling of an incomplete building, or worse, an abandoned building because of their open structure, which makes them appear gutted. What makes the streets of Ridgewood so pleasant to walk down is that almost all of the buildings have storefront access. The proposed parking lot would just be a lifeless block of concrete. I would not be opposed to a parking garage with special details that would appeal to the public such as a public access green roof and storefront shops/galleries. They would not have to be big spaces, just something to continue the pedestrian window-shopping feel for the streets.
I have also been to and lived in many places that are not nice and one thing they have in common is a corruption of character. Corruption is a good word because it usually starts with individuals who do not have the best interests of the people. That may be a developer who does not have any interest in a region other than profit, or are simply evil people – like a bad government. An example of this is a small city I lived in, in the north of the Czech Republic. It had been bombed out in WWII and unlike cities such as Warsaw in Poland, which restored their historic downtown, the communists built a big concrete structure in their town center, which dominated the historic buildings that were saved. The townspeople had opposed it from the start even though the communist government assured them that they knew best. It was nicknamed “the bathtub” because it looked like the side of an old bathtub. After communism they tore it down.
So, when the style of a town center is lost to a new, ugly building like the proposed parking structure it becomes a symbol of wrongdoing and mistakes and can only be fixed by tearing it down.
Drew Martin
209 South Broad Street
Posted on by — 8 Comments

Reader says Many villagers are tired of these self-serving reports that don’t reflect reality

misterrogers02

The problem is that it is not the first time “studies” such as these that forecast no impact from some proposed “improvement” have been presented to the Village. Time and again, we have discovered significant impacts after these projects move forward. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Many villagers are tired of these self-serving reports that don’t reflect reality which are designed only to check off some bureaucratic requirement. Building hundreds of apartments and claiming no impact on schools and infrastructure is just bull**** on the face of it. Some honesty on the other side would go a long way to fostering a constructive dialog.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Reader says Ridgewood garage process has been pushed through in such a deceitful manner from the start

Hudson_Street garage ridgewood

photo by Saurabh Dani

This garage process has been pushed through in such a deceitful manner from the start.

Lie #1 – Tell Father Ron in July the town plans to build a deck on the lot.
Lie #2 – tell voters the garage will be self-funding
Lie #3 – tell voters that nothing has been decided with respect to the design or size. You are just voting whether you want a deck at the Hudson street lot.
Lie #4 – hide the fact that the intended garage is 23 feet beyond property line, 12 feet into Hudson street
Lie #5 – bury Maser report that shows actual encroachment, claim it was in draft form and it didn’t need to be shared with all council members, only share with those that can keep the secret
Lie #6 – vote for option A, then tell the public that the “discussion” that was promised with respect to size and design just happened. Residents… You didn’t think we really meant that did you?
Lie #7 – when residents realize in late December the true extent of the garage the council majority VOTED on, they come to plead and beg to change this monstrosity. They are told “it’s too bad if you didn’t realize before the vote what you were voting on”.
Lie #8 – told residents that they were going back to the drawing board to pull garage back onto the lot. New design still does not fit on the lot.
Lie #9 – Council run a design meeting with the HPC before the vote but doesn’t clarify to the members that the garage is sitting 12 feet in the street. They write a letter to support garage not realizing they were lied to regarding intended garage being built 12 feet in street.
Lie #10 – architect renderings for option D, not accurately depicting true mass or height of garage or width of street.
Lie #11 – 1 lane of traffic with option D, not 2 as stated in resolution.
Lie #12 – mayor publicly calls residents liars during collection of signatures for a petition. Says they are lying about how much garage will cost if they choose to continue with financing through BCIA. Truth…it could costs thousands over 25 years.

I’m sure I missed a few. We deserve better government. You can turn a blind eye to the way this process has occurred, because you want a garage so badly, but you shouldn’t.