Ridgewood Nj, The fact is a BCIA garage is a county owned and operated parking garage , that is paid for by Village of Ridgewood taxpayers .The Village gives up all control of the garage and Village residents have no priority.
From the Bergen Record October 13th, 2014 , “The village has been in talks with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) for more than a year about a partnership that would ideally result in the county building a 450-space parking garage at the site of the Hudson Street lot, where there are currently only a couple dozen 12-hour metered parking spots.
The county would own and operate the garage, which the village would pay for over the course of 20-30 years from the revenue from the garage.
Last night a few of us went to the Freeholders meeting in Hackensack because the introduction of their ordinance to OK the BCIA funding our garage was on the agenda. We were welcomed and greeted warmly. Several came over to us before the meeting, introduced themselves, offered great support and adulation for our grass roots effort with the petition, explained the process, etc.
When one of us was speaking the timer went off, and instead of shutting the speaker down, they asked him politely to wrap it up and let him finish. It was unbelievable. Then I realized it was not unbelievable, it was simply not something that we are accustomed to after being beaten and bashed by the Council majority.
While our mayor calls the petitioners outright liars who are fueled by misinformation, these elected officials applauded our interest and passion. Mayor Aronsohn could take a huge lesson in civility by watching these truly fine individuals in action. Well it won’t be long until the three of them are gone and we will have peace, civility and decency once again.
The freeholders had already met with Aronsohn, of course, and they told us that Aronsohn assured them yesterday afternoon that it was going to be funded by Ridgewood and that he expected to have a vote on this by next week. At that point, we were told, the entire involvement of the BCIA and freeholders would go “poof.” (their word). In the meantime, they told us that they would be voting unanimously last night to approve the funding by the BCIA because they are not involved with design, height, location, or any of that. Their only job is to say yea or nay to the BCIA request, and they had no reason to say nay.
Two takeaways –
1. Aronsohn told them that it is definitely going to be funded in town. Interesting, because last night at the VC he refused to take the BCIA ordinance off the books and he continued to sing the praises of the BCIA.
2. Aronsohn will be taking full credit if it gets funded in town, when in fact the efforts of the petition drive is the sole reason that he got backed into this corner. Power to the people.
As you may be aware, many Ridgewood residents are opposed to bonding a parking garage in our Central Business District through the county.
A petition has been circulating widely around town to make this issue a referendum on the ballot of the May 10, 2016, election.
A large number of signatures has been obtained. These will be counted and validated shortly–but not bytomorrow.
We urge the Freeholders to refrain from acting on this matter until the referendum issue has been determined. We wish to handle our own project with internal funding.
Should a judge allow the referendum, any decision that you might make tomorrow would be nullified, and you would have wasted your time.
As a Ridgewood resident for 44 years and counting, I want only the best for my town. Self-funding of the parking garage would be far preferable to bringing in the county. I am also concerned about possible ramifications in the future.
Please consider removing from tomorrow’s meeting agenda the item regarding Ridgewood parking garage bond funding.
In response to your email circulating Sunday afternoon; I was not on the list of recipients, but a friend forwarded it to me. You sent it to a selected list of “friends/neighbors,” yet you did so by blind cc. Therefore no one who received it knows who else got it. How strange.
Why would you send such an announcement to a selected, secret group of residents? Isn’t your suggestion of reintroducing the bond ordinance one that should be shared with ALL residents, not just a few? And more importantly, why wouldn’t this be suggested at an Open Public Meeting, with all five of our elected officials present, rather than in an email of this sort? I am baffled by your choices here.
I am one of the petitioners, as you are well aware. In fact, this morning I waved to you, called out and invited you to cross the street when you were watching us from the corner of Prospect and Hudson, but you opted to ignore my invitation and walk away without even waving back. As one of the petitioners, I am shocked to be characterized by you as participating in an initiative that is “fueled, in part, by misinformation and outright lies.” Why didn’t you cross the street and talk to us, or for that matter why didn’t you cross Maple Avenue yesterday when you were in the King’s parking lot watching us in the Elks Club? Indeed, in the interest of the civil discourse that you espouse so frequently, an actual conversation with us would have gone a long way. You would have learned, first-hand, that we are not fueled by misinformation and outright lies. We are being scrupulously accurate and honest in our endeavor.
Your suggestion that “The people of Ridgewood deserve better” is completely insulting. We ARE the people of Ridgewood; do you envision that all of us are somehow invaders from another town? As you have surely witnessed from your various observation posts in the last two days, we are not only the people of Ridgewood, but we are a large number or the people of Ridgewood. We are exercising our rights under the law, doing so pleasantly, appropriately, respectfully, and with accurate information. We are putting in long hours, in freezing temperatures and in the rain, and all for one common reason – because we care about Ridgewood.
How disappointing that such an unprofessional and potentially slanderous letter was sent by you in your official capacity.
Ridgewood NJ, looks like the Mayor is scared, and running on the defensive. On one hand the Mayors trying to be conciliatory , while calling the petition signers outright liars and of coarse still trying to back Susan and Mike into a corner of blame and shame.
On Saturday the Mayor was in the Kings lot watching the people go in and out of the Elks Club. On Sunday he was over by the Village Green cafe watching the petitioners and one called out to him to come over and sign a petition and he turned and walked away. After that, and only after that, the latest email came out. Meanwhile the Ridgewood blog has been assured the petitioners are all redoubling they’re efforts to get as many signatures as they can.
I am writing to you with an update on our parking deck initiative … and I am doing so with a great deal of excitement.
Simply stated, we are very close to making a downtown parking deck a reality. After months – in fact, years – of hard work and after 3,236 Ridgewood residents (65%) voted in support of a parking deck in last November’s election, we are in the final stages of the process … fine tuning the design, working through the finances and getting ready to put shovel in the ground.
In January, the Council voted on an ordinance to finance the parking deck on our own. Specifically, we voted 3-2 in favor of bonding up to $12.3 million to pay for the deck. Unfortunately, for bonding purposes, a simple majority of the Council is not enough.
So, in February, we voted on a different ordinance – one that would allow the Village to partner with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA), which would borrow the necessary funding and finance the deck. Again, the vote was 3-2 in favor, but since the Village would not assume any debt under this arrangement, the simple majority was enough to pass the ordinance.
In my mind, either scenario is good for Ridgewood. Both would result in a much-needed parking deck at comparable costs.
Some, however, have suggested that our vote regarding the BCIA was taken to “circumvent” the bonding process. That is simply not true. We began exploring a partnership with the BCIA in May 2013 – long before our current discussion – because there are many advantages to doing so. Better interest rates. Better amortization (payment schedule). And such a partnership would allow the Village to finance and build a parking deck without adding to our overall debt burden. Further, I am a big believer in partnerships – public/public or public/private – because they can lead to enhanced efficiencies, enhanced effectiveness and saved dollars.
Regardless, there is now a petition drive underway to prevent our partnership with the BCIA – a drive that has been fueled, in part, by misinformation and outright lies. That is unfortunate. The people of Ridgewood deserve better.
That said, in the spirit of getting this project done –once and for all – and in the spirit of doing it together as a community, I am willing to re-introduce the January bond ordinance at our March 2 Council meeting. Although I still believe that a partnership with the BCIA would be a good thing for Ridgewood, I want to give my Council colleagues another chance to make this happen.
But let’s be clear – if the full Council is still not willing to support the bond ordinance – notwithstanding all of the statements recently made by Council members – we should continue to move forward with the BCIA.
Again, I sincerely believe that either approach – going it alone or in partnership with Bergen County – would be good for Ridgewood. Either way, we must seize this unique moment. Either way, we must keep moving forward.
Ridgewood Nj, The people are taking back the town. No2BCIA ( https://www.no2bcia.com/ ) is on a roll. Keep the signatures coming, we need each and every one. This is a chance to save Ridgewood from a huge financial mistake. We will be able to bond in-town when all is said and done, we will not have a big fat county garage in the middle of town, and we will have full domain over the structure.
Several reports came in that the mayor was reportedly observed looking at the Elks Club building while standing in a nearby parking lot talking on his cell phone.
No2BCIA Petition
OLMC – AFTER EACH MASS
HUDSON/PASSAIC/PROSPECT STREETS
SUN FEB 21ST
Charlie and Nancy Nowinski, 2 Betty Court, Sunday, Feb. 21, 1-5:30 PM
Anne Loving, call cell 201-723-8017 to make appt to sign.
I’m against the single super sized garage and how the Council plans to fund it through the County. However I understand why developers and the Chamber are in favor of it – they stand to profit from it’s construction and/or operation. Much as I disagree with them I at least understand their motives. What I can’t fathom however is that our Council majority seems so set in its ways on THIS design and THIS way of funding it. Why? Do they think that this is really the best solution for Ridgewood? It seems more like they have a bone to pick with their Council mates.
The Council’s job is to say to the developers and the Chamber that yes, we understand you’d like to make more money but this is not the best solution for the Village. It isn’t. What they’ve actually done is side with the developers to use all of their collective authority to ram this plan though as quickly as possible. Again, why? The Council majority is treating the results of a NON BINDING referendum as an electoral mandate when the only question they posed to us in the fall was essentially “do you think we need more parking?”. E-mails I received from the Mayor said that the design was not final (apparently it was) and made no mention of financing the project through the County. Just when I thought my intelligence couldn’t be any more insulted by these 3.
And to those that say that we could bond the garage through the Village if only Mr. Sedon and Mrs. Knudsen would agree with the developers, I’d say that Mr. Sedon and Mrs. Knudsen are the only 2 on the Council actually doing their job. They, like many of us, feel that while we need a parking solution, there are better ways to go about it. And the rush to get this done now in the face of growing doubt and opposition only raises questions about the Council majority’s motives.
I am writing to urge my friends and neighbors to let our council know we reject entering into a lease/purchase agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) to fund the Hudson Street garage.
Our referendum vote shows that the majority of Villagers support funding a garage on Hudson street. We enjoy a triple AAA rating, and do not need Bergen County for funding. The only reason to go to the BCIA is because our own Council can not agree on the design, and the Council majority believes they and only they know best.
If funding through Bergen County, the likely results will be a garage controlled by the county. All Bergen County residents, including out of town commuters, will have the same access and fee structure as Ridgewood residents. Ridgewood’s general parking fund, which has been used to absorb budgetary overages will no longer be allowed to do so, which most likely will impact our taxes.
We elect our Council with the expectation that they will work together to represent the best interests of our Village. I would like to think they wouldn’t make decisions for our Village that they wouldn’t make in their own personal lives. Yet they approved change orders and are pushing forward with a plan to have the BCIA fund the garage when the public and the Council haven’t received photo simulations, rough site plan with footprint, details of how on street parking will be impacted etc. Would you approve funds for work on your own home without knowing what it would look like? Would you build into the street and not let your neighbors know? if you did so would you expect them to be upset?
Council members Sedon and Knudsen have stated that they would support a garage that fits on the lot, fits within the streetscape, and when their is a clear financial plan in place. Councilwoman Knudsen has repeatedly said she would like to have photo simulations to bring to the church and neighbors for their input. Isn’t that what we would desire from our neighbors? Councilman Sedon has expressed interest in having the specific financial plan in place. Again, this is a very reasonable request. We know the garage is not self funding and meter rates will rise but it has not been determined how much and what the impact will be on local businesses. Would you be willing to pay $.75-$1.00 for a coffee in town or to mail a package or might you visit Glen Rock or Midland Park instead?
I believe when all these details are known, we can achieve a 5-0 vote in favor of a garage we can all be happy with. Please email your council and ask them to work together and say no to the BCIA.
I am outraged at the Chamber’s Ad in the Ridgewood News today. They lied from the beginning with the say “yes” and negotiate size later when there is no negotiation. You try and negotiate and they go around you. We are not a small, rogue, nameless group! Most of us speak at meetings, write letters and emails, and stand on the streets with clipboards. So the paper lets them continue to write lies with no rebuttals?
There was an email floating around today suggesting keeping this transaction off the balance sheet will allow Ridgewood to bond more projects. First, what other massive projects are they planning?? Second, anyone who believes in off balance sheet financing needs a lesson in finance. It is still debt, it needs to be paid back and ratings agencies will still recognize it as leverage.
Attached is a clip from his comments at the 1/27/2016 VC meeting at which he repeatedly said “don’t go to the BCIA.”
When the letter is available on line tomorrow, can you run the letter along with the clip so people can see how he’s flip flopped, changed sides like a Gemini?
Ridgewood NJ, Several persons who object to BCIA involvement in the ongoing parking deck debacle have recently written letters to The Ridgewood News only to find receipt of those letters unacknowledged, and also never published.
As a result of a full page ad supporting BCIA involvement that appears in this week’s edition of The Ridgewood News, which was paid for by the Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce, the staff of The Ridgewood Blog now wonders if The Ridgewood News has chosen not to publish too many anti garage letters to the editor for fear of losing advertising revenue from local merchants who belong to the Chamber.
Two letters in direct support of the garage and BCIA involvement are printed in this week’s edition of The Ridgewood News. There are no letters specifically opposing the BCIA becoming involved, although one anti garage letter was printed.
Is it possible that The Ridgewood News sold out its readers in favor of its advertisers?
Chamber of Commerce/Paul Vagianos begged the council to cooperate with each other and “do this in house”…see video of Council meeting Jan 27th…
Roberta dodging his questions of “will this be open to all Bergen County residents?”— the answer is YES, Roberta
Yes, Paul Aronsohn has been “working with the BCIA for 3 years” on this scheme-WHY? Yes, this will cost more than funding within the Village of Ridgewood Yes, parking meters in CBD will be extended until 9pm and increase to a triple the rate it is now Yes, Ridgewood residents will pay the same as out of town commuters Yes, this garage is for Bergen County, not for the people of Ridgewood who will pay dearly for it
Yes, the 3 amigos are shoving this thru as an end run around our municipal government. It is disgraceful and Ridgewood deserves so much better.
To sign the petition, go to https://www.no2bcia.com to find locations and people to sign with. Thank you!
The petition is to repeal ordinance No 3519, which allows the village to enter into a 25 year lease purchasing agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA)
photo by Boyd Loving minutes after the alleged assault at the council meeting
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
RIDGEWOOD – Ridgewood’s Village Council voted 3-2 to bond with the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) on Feb. 10 in order to fund the proposed Hudson Street parking garage.
This came on the heels of last week’s unanimous vote of the BCIA to authorize the submission of an application to the state local finance board, accelerating the process along.
Just as there was at the BCIA version, Wednesday’s meeting featured both proponents and opponents of the decision to bond with the county, including village residents and council members.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, who voted against adopting the ordinance to bond with the BCIA, said that she still has some serious concerns with moving the process along at this time.
“I think that before we get into this, it’s really important to have a conversation with Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and be neighborly and have the simulations and all of the information available to address and allay any concerns that they have,” she said.
While she did admit that bonding with the BCIA “seems like a great option,” she said that she continues to believe “that when we find the appropriate scale and design of this garage, it could be done on self-bonding.”
“While there seems to be some financial benefits to be gained by going through the BCIA, some of the detriments are very real,” Knudsen said. “Maintaining ownership and absolute control is imperative to the success of this garage … I think it’s still an opportunity to bond on our own.”
Councilman Mike Sedon, who cast the other dissenting vote against bonding with the BCIA, said he thinks it is necessary to have a payment plan in place before moving forward.
