The Ridgewood Blog Brings a Free Market Laissez-faire Point of View to Local, New Jersey State and National Issues.
file photo by Dana Glazer
This is a reminder that tomorrow is a Ridgewood-only election to vote yes or no on a binding referendum for the financing of a parking deck at Hudson Street.
The referendum question on the ballot tomorrow is:
Shall ordinance No. 3521 submitted by referendum petition providing for the Council of the Village of Ridgewood to issue $11,5000,000 bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the Hudson Street parking deck, be adopted? Yes or No
Please note that polls are open from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M.
You may also refer to the Village website at www.ridgewoodnj.net for more information.
If you have any questions regarding the election, please contact the Village Clerk’s Office at 201-670-5500, ext 201 or the Village Manager’s Office at 201-670-5500 , ext. 203. We can also be reached by email: hmailander@ridgewoodnj.
Best,
Roberta Sonenfeld
Village Manager
201-670-5500, ext. 203
All information courtesy of The Preserve Graydon Coalition
Events since our June 8 newsletter describing tomorrow’s special election reinforce the importance of voting NO.
The two continuing and three incoming council members do not support the current iteration of the garage, believing that anything built at the corner of Hudson and South Broad Streets should be smaller and not stick out into the street.
The same concern to preserve the Village’s historic character that led the Preserve Graydon Coalition to oppose ill-advised ideas about replacing Graydon with a concrete pool now drives us to join a number of grassroots groups and individuals to oppose the $11.5 million parking garage bond in tomorrow’s binding referendum.
More than a radical alteration in our skyline
Even now, at the 11th hour, many, perhaps even most, residents do not comprehend what’s at stake. And it’s more than a big garage.
Although the official word is that the $11.5 million bond that is the sole item on tomorrow’s ballot would not inevitably fund any particular garage design, it is generally understood that the contract, already prepared and ready to go, would force the new council’s hand, giving them little leeway in determining what, if anything, should be built on the parking lot at Hudson and Broad, and taxpayers would be stuck with the bill.
The garage construction contract that has been readied in hopes of a “yes” vote is said to incorporate a 6% penalty on either side for making changes even though it’s impossible to predict everything that will happen. If the referendum passed and the contract were quickly signed before the outgoing council’s final day, June 30, the new council’s hands would be tied. Apparently that is precisely what the outgoing council members desire, although they deny it. Tomorrow’s special election could have been scheduled for next month, weeks after the new council had taken office—but the “council majority” set it on the first possible day.
Several members of our Village Council have put their concerns in writing. Excerpts, with full text available through the links that follow:
Councilman Mike Sedon:
“I will be voting no in Tuesday’s special election.
In order for the new council to move forward with a comprehensive parking plan for the Central Business District, which includes a reasonable parking structure, it is imperative that we can do so without having our hands tied by the outgoing council majority.
A no vote will not defeat a parking structure. It will allow us, the new council, to incorporate such a structure into the fabric of our CBD along with other solutions that have been mentioned in the past by some of my other colleagues and myself.
A true parking committee should be formed that includes residents, property and business owners along with Village officials to further explore any other ideas that could improve our situation.
The mayor’s previous parking committee did not include residents, and in my opinion resulted in information that appeared filtered and then potentially misrepresented when it reached the wider public.
This outgoing council majority has proven over and over that they cannot be trusted, and I for one will not give them any more trust by supporting what has become a monument to deceit and manipulation.”
https://theridgewoodblog.net/
Councilman-Elect Ramon Hache:
“Ultimately we have a parking distribution problem in our CBD, not a parking deck problem. We have already begun planning for more cost-effective solutions that will require minimal expenditures. . . . The notion that a single parking deck will solve our parking problem is in itself an outdated 90 year old idea.”
Councilman-Elect Jeff Voigt:
Short video: https://youtu.be/hVcW-r8Q-qk
Letter to the Editor, The Ridgewood News, June 10, 2016:
“. . .the Hudson St garage addresses a symptom but not the disease. . . . I am voting no (to not adopt ordinance No. 3521) on June 21st. As a Village, let’s put together something that makes sense, is clear as to what our monies are to be used for, and makes our central business district more user friendly.”
Residents are shocked by the lengths to which Paul Aronsohn and his yes-persons on the Council have gone, along with the Village Manager and others, to make their garage happen.
Dave Slomin, representing Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development (RCRD, formerly Citizens for a Better Ridgewood), notes that the garage would set new guidelines for size and scale that developers would use to obtain permission to construct bigger and more dense buildings here. High-density developers could seek garage-related “parking variances,” giving them the opportunity to build as big as they wanted under new high-density ordinances passed by the outgoing mayor’s voting bloc.
The group recommends voting no in the referendum for reasons outlined here:
https://theridgewoodblog.net/
RCRD supporter Jim McCarthy shares his views in this short video: https://youtu.be/3MSgIMYcfyA
A new lawsuit and a new ethics complaint
A lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court claiming misuse of Village funds and employees’ time to create a video posted on the village website that urges residents to vote for the referendum:
https://theridgewoodblog.net/
In addition, a complaint has been filed with the Local Finance Board in Hackensack—the agency that enforces the Local Government Ethics Law—by the Open Government Advocacy Project of the New Jersey Libertarian Party. The letter names Mayor Paul Aronsohn and Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld as having violated “N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(c), which prohibits a local government officer from ‘using’ or attempting to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others.”
The video was watched several times by Rev. Msgr. Ronald J. Rozniak (Father Ron), Pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, who wrote in his weekly bulletin yesterday (pages 2-3) that it “lists a number of entities that were consulted. You will not hear the name of Our Lady of Mount Carmel mentioned . . . . Incredibly, the single largest reality, neighbor, directly across the street from the deck, not four or six blocks away was ignored. This is despite the fact that Mount Carmel hired its own traffic consultant from an equally reputable traffic consulting firm.”
If reducing Hudson St. to two lanes would “eliminate the on-street parking on the church side of Hudson,” he wrote, it would “unquestionably have a negative impact on the operations of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.”
https://www.olmcridgewood.com/
More quarters in the meter for longer hours
To repay the bond—a loan, after all, not a gift—we would face extended street parking meter hours and fees, including at the Route 17 Park & Ride, rising incrementally over time. This would add insult to injury for taxpaying residents while driving shoppers and diners to the many surrounding towns that provide parking for free. Only a few years ago, when meter hours were extended to 8 pm, downtown business owners objected to the council and the end time for feeding meters reverted to 6 pm. Why would 9 pm fare better than 8 pm did?
For these reasons, we consider it essential to reject the proposed bond and to vote NO onTuesday, June 21.
If tomorrow’s referendum passes, the three outgoing council members, while stating repeatedly that the new council will be in control, are prepared to rush-approve a contract for an enormous garage via a special council meeting a week before leaving office. That would leave the new council in a “bind.”
Bonding…binding…bind.
Only by voting down the referendum can residents prevent GarageZilla from rising above all it surveys at the corner of Hudson and Broad.
Where to vote: wherever you usually do. Polls will be open from 6 am to 8 pm.
To share this message (please do), click on “Forward this message to a friend” below the pail photo below.
Swimmingly,
Marcia Ringel and Alan Seiden
Co-Chairs, The Preserve Graydon Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
I hope everyone realizes the Progress Ridgewood postcard in the mail is the same old group of liars, and their propaganda….like, do I even need to point out that the quotes were taken out of context and distorted to make the point look like it was agreed upon??? I hope not.
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.
Bernies quote was from 2011 or so when a CONCEPT was being discussed.
This new council is in support of parking solutions. Including a garage that fits the lot, and is appropriate to the neighborhood.
Let THEM decide the funding and look at all of the facts. Ridgewood voters came out in RECORD numbers in May to elect them. Now let them be responsible for what happens next. And do NOT be fooled, the outgoing lot of fibbers and thieves will do anything at all that they can to stick it to the village and to have their way.
Vote NO on Tuesday and let the new council decide. We can have the problems fixed by honest people with the villages best interest at heart. Not greedy developers and sneaky politicians. VOTE NO JUNE 21!!!! .
June 19,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood bog
Ridgewood Nj, In this VoR clip from April 6, 2016, at the 1:14:00 mark, you see the village manager admit we have a parking surplus, not crisis: https://www.tubechop.com/watch/8113003 .
Here is a letter from Dave Slomin, who has sent it on belahf of CBR:
Subject: Why A Garage NO VOTE on Tues 6/21 is Important to Limiting High-Density Housing & More – PLEASE VOTE 6/21!
URGENT REQUEST: Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development (formerly CBR) urges you to Vote in the Garage Referendum THIS TUESDAY, 6/21. Vote at your normal polling place. While we always want you to vote upon your own beliefs, HERE IS WHY WE SUPPORT A “NO” VOTE in this election:
PLEASE VIEW THIS VIDEO, BY RCRD SUPPORTER, JIM McCARTHY:https://youtu.be/3MSgIMYcfyA
WE BELIEVE…
1. The Garage Design D developed by the outgoing Mayor and his Voting Block is TOO BIG, CREATING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING PROBLEMS. “TOO BIG” IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE:
a. It will set new size and scale guidelines that will be used by developers to enable them to build bigger and denser in our Village.
b. It offers opportunity for high density developers to seek ‘parking variances’ enabling them to build bigger denser properties. Without garage related variances, these developers don’t have enough parking to build as big as they want under the new High-Density Ordinances passed by the outgoing Mayor’s Voting Block.
2. Location of this massive garage does not solve the parking problem throughout Ridgewood.
a. Puts all new parking in one corner of town and will not help shoppers and businesses in other areas.
b. We need a better plan for improving parking throughout our downtown.
c. AND… in an essay written before the Mayor aligned himself with the High-Density Developers the Mayor himself said: “I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage in our downtown area… In fact, the more I learn about the situation, the more I believe that a garage now would be a big mistake.” https://www.paularonsohn.com/writ…/time-for-action-on-parking
d. RCRD believes that before we sign contracts for a poorly-designed, over-sized, over-scaled, very expensive garage, we should make other parking improvements first:
i. Investigate the purchase of additional ground level lots, like the one behind the movie theater, to spread parking around
ii. Improve signage, alerting drivers to existing lots like the underused Cottage Street Lot
iii. Evaluate making CDB cross streets one-way with all angled parking to add many spaces
iv. Remove the existing archaic buffers between existing parallel spaces to add many spaces
3. Garage Financing Has Not Been Adequately Tested and may become a Tax Burden on Residents if untested projections fail:
a. The garage does not and will not fund it self
b. It will be paid for by raising parking rates in other downtown areas by up to 300-400% and increasing parking hours from 6pm until up to 9pm.
c. The last time Ridgewood tried increasing hours, the Chamber of Commerce themselves complained and hours were reduced back to 6pm
d. THIS NEEDS TO BE TESTED FIRST… AN $11,500,000 BOND IS TO MUCH TO GAMBLE ON!
SPENDING $11,500,000 ON A PROJECT THAT SHOWS EVIDENCE OF INADEQUATE PLANNING IS BAD GOVERNMENT AND BAD FOR RIDGEWOOD’S FUTURE
A NO VOTE WILL ALLOW THE NEW COUNCIL THE LEEWAY TO GET PARKING RIGHT FOR RIDGEWOOD!
LET THE NEW COUNCIL GET THIS RIGHT!
file photo by Boyd Loving
I don’t understand how supporters of the majority council don’t have a problem that these 3, plus Roberta lied to residents to get that November vote. That is telling and shameful- all residents whether you want a garage or not should have no tolerance for such trickery.
Telling residents nothing has been decided with respect to design when indeed, the design has been decided, and we are not disclosing that our chosen design is 12 feet in the street was wrong and horrible leadership. Contracts to begin specs for design A were signed on October 28th – before the vote!!! It was deceitful and despicable, with no accountability and cost taxpayers $120,000 in change orders.
I can understand and be sympathetic to mistakes but not deliberate and deceitful plotting and scheming to get what you want. The current design is still too big. It is 5 feet in the street and 60’10” tall…not 46′ that they keep saying -which is frickin ridiculous they don’t count the towers when discussing height. Mt. Carmel (FYI is 50′ tall) will be here a lot longer than any restaurant or business. The way these people have disrespected the church and ALL residents is shameful, and to defend that behavior or turn a blind eye because you want a garage….what? Why?
Ramon M. Hache
Councilman-Elect
Village of Ridgewood
Ridgewood NJ, On June 21st, residents will be voting on a binding referendum regarding the bonding of $11,500,000 to finance the cost of building the Hudson Street parking deck. There is a high level of speculation and misinformation circulating, including print and video propaganda posted on the Village website. As a member of the next Council, I feel it is important to communicate my views regarding the overall parking issue.
I am, first and foremost, committed to improving the quality of life of our residents, public safety and the health and well-being of our Central Business District. I certainly recognize that bringing additional parking to our Village, if properly done, will enhance quality of life, public safety and the vibrancy of our CBD. Also, as I stated during my campaign, I am supportive of a parking deck on Hudson Street. It is also important to note that the next Council is committed to implementing a comprehensive parking solution, that includes a parking deck, but most importantly, will bring much needed parking relief to the entire CBD. A parking deck on Hudson Street, while crucial, only solves part of the problem. Ultimately we have a parking distribution problem in our CBD, not a parking deck problem. We have already begun planning for more cost-effective solutions that will require minimal expenditures.
Without knowing the outcome of the June 21st referendum, we are exploring all options including the impact and viability of a smaller deck on Hudson Street combined with a second deck/lot at the corner of Walnut and Franklin. While the Hudson Street deck will address the parking needs of commuters and patrons of the shops and restaurants within its immediate proximity, we also need to consider the parking needs of the rest of the CBD. Again, this is why solutions in addition to the Hudson Street deck are so crucial.
We will be working with an expanded group of experts, residents, board and committee members. We are fortunate to have a tremendous amount of intelligent and caring people in our community. We will leverage their knowledge, expertise and love of community to devise the right solution that meets the broader needs of our Village, not just of a selected few.
Ridgewood has waited 90 years for a parking solution, not just a parking deck. The notion that a single parking deck will solve our parking problem is in itself an outdated 90 year old idea. The Village needs a comprehensive and modern parking solution that is both innovative and reflective of the world we live in. Coupled with bringing a better mix of businesses, it should serve to enhance an already vibrant Central Business District.
Being fiscally conscious, we want to avoid unnecessary and costly expenses including changes in work orders. The Village Council has already spent over $600,000 of taxpayer money and we have not added a single additional parking space. The next Council will make final decisions regarding size, shape, and look of the Hudson Street parking deck. What the final comprehensive solution will look like, will depend on the outcome of the referendum. Therefore it would be premature at this time to communicate any specific plan but rest assured we are prepared for either possible outcome. As I had promised during my campaign, I will support whatever the people want to do and I will not direct residents on how to vote. It is my duty as a member of the Council, to listen to the voice of the people and act accordingly. I look forward to working for you, and with you, in moving forward on the various important issues our Village is facing.
Ridgewood NJ, This is the Hudson Street lot at 9:20 Friday morning. I do not know how many Village Council meetings I have attended at which members of the Chamber of Commerce stated that this lot is filled to capacity first thing in the morning every morning with commuters and restaurant workers. My crummy little camera does not show the scope of how empty the lot was. Please vote NO on June 21. We might (operative word is “might”) need a small increase in parking, but we certainly do not need the gigantic garage that Aronsohn, Roberta, Hauck and Pucciarelli are continuing to promote in the waning days of their time in “power.”
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.
Special election Tuesday, June 21
from the The Preserve Graydon Coalition :
On Tuesday, June 21—in less than 2 weeks—Ridgewood will hold a special election for a binding referendum (unlike the nonbinding referendum on the parking garage last November) on whether the Village should bond $11,500,000 for a parking garage on Hudson Street.
Bonding…and binding.
You will be asked to answer yes or no to this question:
Shall ordinance No. 3521 submitted by referendum petition providing for the Council of the Village of Ridgewood to issue $11,500,000 [in] bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the Hudson Street parking deck, be adopted?
The $11.5 million bond was linked from the start to garage design “D,” consisting of 4 stories with 5 parking levels. The southern wall would extend 5 feet beyond the existing parking lot, over the sidewalk and into Hudson Street. The narrower street would contain two lanes rather than the current three: one for parking across the street from the garage and one as a combination “thru lane” and turning lane into the garage.
One might think that with a binding referendum coming up, garage-related activity would be “on hold”—but no. In their zeal to make this project happen and to fulfill promises made, the outgoing council “majority” of Mayor Paul Aronsohn, Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, and Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, aided by Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld, are actively pursuing completion.
Their goal is to sign a contract just before leaving office, committing the Village to Design D and letting the new council cope with the fallout.
Progress toward a construction contract is well under way. A consultancy firm was recently hired to confirm cost estimates by the architectural firm that created Design D and to engage in preconstruction preparations. If the referendum passes, that same consultancy firm will go out to bid immediately. Legal advice has been sought at taxpayer expense as well. Yet a “no” vote on theJune 21 referendum would nullify all this. How’s that for fiscal responsibility?
If, as the “council majority” continues to insist, the bond is not tied to any design, why is a firm being paid $20,000 to work further on Design D, only weeks before the result of a binding referendum could stop the project in its tracks?
In addition, rumor has it that the contract would carry prohibitively steep penalties for making any changes (change orders), further tying the new council’s hands while committing the Village to this massive edifice permanently.
Residents who want a garage, please note: the three incoming and two continuing council members are not opposed in principle to building a parking garage, including on Hudson Street. All, however, acknowledge that the designs proposed to date are too big. They’d appreciate a chance to think smaller and to try lower-cost, less-disruptive ways to enhance downtown parking. They do “get it,” and they want to do something. But not this.
On May 10, voters made a clear statement of trust for the incoming council. The three new council members won in every district. A “no” vote on the referendum would allow them and their two continuing council member colleagues to do their job unshackled by “deals” of the past.
If you want the new council to be given the chance to try comprehensive, achievable parking solutions designed to benefit commuters, residents, and the entire Central Business District, voteNo to the referendum.
If you approve of the amount of the bonding, have no problem with under-the-radar deals, and are willing to let garage design “D” rise noisily in the mist, you may wish to vote Yes—with the understanding that the three council members who have pushed so hard for this project will be out of office on July 1, leaving the new council members—and us, the taxpaying residents— holding the bag. A very big bag.
It may be of interest that Rev. Msgr. Ronald J. Rozniak, P.A. (Father Ron), Pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church (down the street from the proposed garage), stated flatly in the church’s June 5 weekly bulletin: “the parish will never endorse the [currently proposed parking] deck.” (Full statement at https://www.olmcridgewood.com/
Why that reversal? Because behind the scenes, an agreement with special interests was made to reroute the traffic.
The traffic-direction-reversal plan can be reversed. But the enormous structure that has been dubbed GarageZilla and GarageMahal, once built, would loom over us for a very long time, as would paying for it.
Please ignore whatever means may be used over the next two weeks to entice or confuse voters into approving the $11.5 million bond (and, unspoken, Design D) on June 21. Let’s recall the acres of “Vote yes for parking” signs that littered the landscape before last November’s referendum, when it was known but not divulged that all the garage designs under consideration at that time would have occupied a significantly larger chunk of Hudson Street than Design D. Many whovoted “yes” later wished they hadn’t. What else don’t we know?
Developers and others are desperate to build this thing. The lame-duck council members pushing for it would not be accountable for it.
Let’s JUST SAY NO.
Consider voting by mail
If you can’t vote in person on Tuesday, June 21, or if it would be inconvenient, consider voting by mail.
June 21 is the day after RHS graduation. Ridgewood schools will have closed for the summer. Many residents will be on vacation already or busily planning trips. You don’t even need a reason to vote by mail; if it appeals to you, do it.
If you or your teenage children (age 18+ by June 21) who are registered voters wish to have a say in what happens with this enormous and precedent-setting downtown project, but may be out of town or otherwise occupied or preoccupied and might not vote that day…you can vote by mail (now called Vote by Mail Ballot, no longer Absentee Ballot), if you start soon.
There are two steps: applying for a ballot and receiving it, then completing the ballot and mailing it in.
For each voter in your household, print and complete a copy of this application form: Apply forvote-by-mail ballot.pdf
Or pick up a copy at the Village Clerk’s office during Village Hall business hours (8:30 am–4:30 pm, Monday–Friday). Or call and ask to have one mailed to you: 201-670-5500 ext. 201.
Indicate which election: Where you are asked in which election you wish to vote by mail, check “Special.” Where you’re asked to specify, write: Referendum. For the date, write June 21, 2016 (or 6/21/2016). (We have done this in the application form provided above.)
Your name: For your vote to be counted, you must write and sign your name precisely as it appears in the voting records. If you aren’t sure about a middle initial, spelling, or other item, you can check. Go to: njelections.org or voter.njsvrs.com. Click on “Am I registered?” and follow the simple instructions.
Remainder of form: Fill in your address, the date, etc. Fold, seal, and apply first-class postage (one 47-cent or Forever stamp).
If you mail the application form, the county clerk in Hackensack must receive it at least 7 days before the election (that is, by Tuesday, June 14). Therefore, it’s best to send the form promptly.
You may also submit the application in person at any time up to 3 PM on the day before the election (that is, by 3 PM on June 20).
If you mail the application, in due course you will receive a ballot for the election requested. On the ballot, check the desired box (Yes or No) and mail the form. A return envelope will be provided, but you must use your own first-class stamp (again, 47 cents or Forever). (Ballots for future elections may require more postage, depending on weight.)
Vote-by-mail ballots must arrive in Hackensack before the closing of the polls on election day (June 21). Mail early—at least five days before.
Once you have applied for a Vote by Mail ballot, you must vote that way.
If you have questions about obtaining or using a Vote by Mail ballot, you may call the League of Women Voters of New Jersey at 1-800-792-VOTE.
Free to Graydon badge holders; $10 for others. Some of the proceeds will support the DadsNight Scholarship Committee.
Here’s their attractive flier.
Swimmingly,
Marcia Ringel and Alan Seiden
Co-Chairs, The Preserve Graydon Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
June 6,2016
Text copied from post by “Take Back Ridgewood”Facebook page :
The referendum petition which over 1200 Ridgewood residents signed and submitted under Home Rule to the village clerk, called for a referendum question in November election with the following text:
.
“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?”
.
Our Mayor and current council majority are forcing this election before they leave, and they changed the referendum question to:
.
“Shall ordinance No. 3521 submitted by referendum petition providing for the Council of the Village of the Ridgewood to issue $11,500,000 bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the Hudson Street parking deck, be adopted”
.
Summary: Over 1200 Ridgewood residents submitted a petition, asking for a question in November election for 11.5M bond for a 5 level garage. The Mayor and his team fast tracked that election and removed the text about 5th level from the question.
.
1.Mayor Aronsohn is trying to ignore May 10th election and people’s will. If this question is voted “yes” on June 21, he will award a 5 level garage contract in his last 9 days. NO BIDDING has been done for this 11.5 Million$ contract and the details are only known to Gwenn / Paul / Roberta / Albert (I.e. Parking committee). The new council elects and Susan and Mike will have to work with this new contractor for project completion, while they are NOT being part of the contractor selection process or any other design / engineering discussions. Mayor Aronshon and his team will not be here to see through this project to it’s completion – and won’t have any accountability. Why are they hiding the contractor selection process from other council members?
.
2. Mayor Aronshon is again pulling the “it’s only financing question” card, which he did in November election. He is writing to residents saying “Basically, do you support financing and building a parking deck at Hudson Street that could cost up to $11.5 million.”. He is hiding the fact that this special election was called for because of the size and design of the garage. The residents united to stop the financing because of the size of the garage.
.
Please vote ‘NO’ on June 21st, and let the new council pick a contractor for Hudson Street Garage after July 1st. So they can see through the project to it’s completion and can be held accountable for picking the right contractor.
.
Ed says , “High rents are an issue from the past. Commercial rents have declined precipitioulsy since the last recession. Rents and house prices are not determined solely by landlords or home sellers they are determined by prevailing market conditions at the time a transaction is contemplated. The entire process is driven solely by supply and demand. If demand for a particular real estate product is high then the cost of that product will be priced to reflect the current market demand. Conversely when demand is weak prices will fall …..and .sometimes they will fall rather quickly …..and dramatically. Generally speaking at any given time rents are a fairly accurate reflection of either current or anticipated conditions in the specific market to which the property relates. The problem is if a business cannot attract enough customers ANY RENT THEY PAY IS TOO HIGH TO SUSTAIN THEIR BUSINESS. The problem in Ridgewood is a dearth of customers. On the retail side people increasingly prefer to buy goods online at incredibly good prices and they enjoy the added benefir of having the goods delivered right to their door.. A conventional retailer can’t beat that type of competitor.”
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 : onlyonesmallvoice@gmail.com do not forget date, time
Paul,
It has been a while since this group has communicated – I hope everyone is doing well. I received your email below and wanted to respond.
I respect Roberta. I think she has done a great job overall managing this Village. It’s not an easy job by any means. I personally know Roberta…she is a good neighbor and I like to consider her as a friend. She is smart, quick, effective – I respect her and admire her and from what I have heard she has done a better job of executing than previous VMs. However, I was shocked to see the full page ad in the news. I was even more shocked when I read your email and was targeted with a mass email chain from someone in my neighborhood (how she got my personal email is quite a mystery). I guess I am confused…why are we making this election about her or any village staff? Shouldn’t the election be about the issues at hand – high density housing, doubling the size of Valley hospital in the middle of a residential area? When did we turn this election into village hall staffing? You work for a corporation so you know very well that a new boss is entitled to evaluate the existing talent pool. So why is this even a concern? No company will hesitate to bring in the right boss for fear of cleaning up the existing talent pool. We shouldn’t either.
We have to remember, this election isn’t about any Village Hall staff. It’s about whether we trust the people we elect to represent the town fairly and responsibly. It’s about where they stand on the issues that we each find important to our families, to our property values, to our future, to our way of life.
It saddens me that you are trying to turn this campaign around and divert the attention away from the true issues. Not to mention make up deceitful lies. Not one candidate has made any statement about Roberta and her role. It’s simply not part of this election, nor should it be. It’s a non issue. It saddens me that we are not able to campaign with dignity and respect for one another. I hope that changes.
Respectfully,
Bonita Shimpfky
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Aronsohn <paul@paularonsohn.com>
Date: Fri, May 6, 2016, 9:04 PM
Subject: Vote for Brooks, Weitz and Willett
To: <paul@paularonsohn.com>
Dear Neighbor,
Last week, I endorsed council candidates Rich Brooks, Evan Weitz and Janice Willett in a letter-to-the-editor, noting that they have solid experience, uncompromising integrity/ethics and a proven commitment to Ridgewood. I also noted that they are right on issues important to me, such as the budget, the parking deck, the special needs community and the Village Manager.
This week, several additional community leaders – past and present – have also endorsed Rich, Evan and Janice – community leaders who have helped shape Ridgewood’s traditions, while moving Ridgewood forward. And importantly, a group of residents took out a full-page ad in the Ridgewood News today, noting that “only 3 candidates are committed to keeping Roberta Sonenfeld as Village Manager – Rich Brooks, Evan Weitz and Janice Willett.”
Please see the attached list of endorsements and the full-page ad.
Needless to say, many of us believe that this year’s election is especially important, and as explained by the Ridgewood News Editorial Board, every vote matters. Remember, in 2012, there was a difference of only 15 votes between the 3rd and 4th placed candidates.
If you have any questions, about this year’s election, please feel free to email me. If you want to learn more about Rich, Evan and Janice — and their positive, inclusive vision for Ridgewood — please visit their website – www.Ridgewood2020.com.
Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for voting on Tuesday.
Best,
Paul
