NOVEMBER 13, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Newspaper column was ‘unbalanced’
To the Editor:
Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
In his recap of activities associated with the recent non-binding parking garage referendum (“A big day for Ridgewood,” The Ridgewood News, Friday, Nov. 6, page A6), Mayor Paul Aronsohn did not hesitate to heavily criticize the “anti-parking garage” mailer, but failed to even mention the brouhaha connected with a non-factual letter of endorsement written by the Historic Preservation Commission’s chairperson, Mr. Vincent Parrillo.
I can’t imagine why Mr. Aronsohn didn’t think an inaccurate letter of endorsement, allegedly written at the request of either himself or Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli, wasn’t worth mentioning in his summation of significant referendum related activities/issues. He devoted over 80 words of criticism to the mailer, but devoted not even one word to the bogus endorsement. This strikes me as being both an unbalanced and unjust report to your readers.
And why is the mayor so concerned about the mailer having been sent from Newark? Are there people working or living in Newark that we should be concerned about? Would it have made a difference to him if the mailer was postmarked from Ridgewood?
…the fly has learned that many residents voted in favor of the parking garage , giving the council the benefit of the doubt as a result of the Village Council agreement to do in depth studies on the High Density Housing proposed for the central business district at the September 30th Council meeting in addition to the assurances that residents would have input into design etc. It now appears that the council majority is attempting to renege on that deal …
Regarding “Parking garage work could start in spring” (Page L-3, Nov. 6):
Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s rhetoric is changing as fast as the leaves are falling. Until recently, Ridgewood residents were repeatedly told by him that property taxes would absolutely not be used to fund the garage. Many were skeptical, since significant cost overruns and expensive change orders frequently populate Ridgewood Village Council agendas.
In the above article, the mayor’s quotes now indicate that he is wavering, as he states, “Costs could be entirely supported by parking revenues” and that his “aim is that it should not be paid for using tax revenue.”
As he now notes, the “Village parking utility would be on the hook if the garage failed.” Residents of Ridgewood, hang onto your wallets, here it comes.
NOVEMBER 5, 2015, 5:43 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2015, 6:16 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Local officials expect plans to construct a parking garage in the downtown commercial district to progress quickly after the overwhelming support showed by village voters in Tuesday’s referendum.
The referendum was non-binding — meaning it was only meant to take the public’s pulse, said Mayor Paul Aronsohn. But now that the public has okayed it, shovels could hit the ground as early as next spring — even though the project’s size and design haven’t been finalized, he said.
A rendering of the proposed parking garage in the downtown commercial district in Ridgewood.
“We’ve zeroed in a lot of this — we have a sense of what it could look like,” he said, noting the council has been considering a four-story, open-roofed rendering. “We’ve been very aggressive … in the way we approached this.”
The mayor anticipates nine to 10 months of construction for the garage, which is expected to benefit local commuters who use the village’s train station, as well as customers of the downtown’s shops and restaurants.
Although the ballot question asked voters to approve a bonding of up to $15 million to fund construction, Aronsohn said it would likely be more in the $12.5-million range. The referendum gave the question 3,236-1,777 voter approval. Village officials said voter turnout was around 30 percent.
The garage is a done deal. wake up people. the mayor wants this as his legacy. Of course it will be a financial disaster when we take money from NJ transit and Bergen county and the garage will end up being a commuter parking for out of town people. I predict the taxpayers will get stuck footing the bill as the garage will be underutilized and not meet the expected income Keep in mind that the money we now get from the parking garage goes to subsidize other elements of the town budget. Those funds will now be used to subsidize the debt on the garage so the taxpayers will need to fund that shortfall.
The recent report explaining that the income steam from the garage would be insufficient to cover the cost of the bond used to erect it, and that our entire parking fee system (i.e., meters all over town) will be made much more financially and logistically (in terms of having to pay through until 9pm every night) onerous to motorists in order to defray just PART of the added financial burden, should now be made the subject of a village-wide discussion, regardless of what 3000 die-hard supporters of big government wish to say in a “non-binding” way and during an off-year election cycle when for the first time since 1999 the lowly NJ assembly was at the top of the ticket.
NOVEMBER 3, 2015, 10:35 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015, 10:42 PM
BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — Village residents voted to support a referendum proposal Tuesday that would bond for up to $15 million to construct a parking garage downtown.
The non-binding referendum, which was meant only to assess public sentiment on the plan, passed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin — 3,236 voted in favor, while 1,777 opposed. Village officials said voter turnout was around 30 percent.
The proposed garage, which officials hope to break ground on next spring, will be built on the corner of Hudson and South Broad streets, the referendum stated, and paid for “principally” with parking revenues. It would add about 300 parking spots to the dense commercial zone.
It is expected to benefit local commuters and residents, as well as customers of downtown shops and restaurants.
Village Mayor Paul Aronsohn said he felt “very good” about the results.
“This is something we’ve talked about in Ridgewood for decades, and it looks like we’re on the verge of making history,” he said. “A parking deck is something we really need. And the folks in Ridgewood came out in large numbers and they spoke with a very compelling voice today.”
Funding for the garage would come from Ridgewood’s parking utility, as well as county and state monies, the referendum said.
INCREASING REVENUE Given that the new demand stream is not anticipated to cover debt service for the garage, the parking system will need to increase revenue on existing spaces if it is to be self-supporting.
There will be a natural uptick in revenue as Parkmobile becomes more utilized. Apps of this sort increase compliance and also disallow “piggybacking” onto a previous parker’s leftover meter time. We have increased revenue in 2015 and 2016 to account for Parkmobile’s impact. While a 15 percent increase is common, we are projecting a five percent increase. Extending meter hours and enforcement until 9 pm is the first recommended step. Since daytime retail and restaurant customers pay to park, it is fair to ask evening restaurant customers to pay as well. In addition, metering the streets in the evening can provide parking management solutions to crowding in the future, should the Village wish to reduce employee parking along streets that should be available to customers.
Evening rates alone will not cover the projected debt service; it will be necessary to increase rates as well. In order to achieve a debt service coverage ratio of 1.5, our projections assume the following:
• Evening rates will go into effect in 2016. • On-street meter rates will be increased to 75¢ along key streets (blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11) in 2016.
• Core area rates will be increased to $1 in 2017, with the rest of the on-street parking and all off-street parking going to 75¢. This is projected to be the opening year for the garage.
• After five years (in 2022), $1 parking should increase to $1.25 and 75¢ parking should increase to $1 if necessary.
• We assume some reduction in parking demand with each increase as people look for free alternatives (farther away on street, or in private lots) or choose to go elsewhere. We use an assumption of 10%.
• We have not projected a shift in demand away from Ridgewood Avenue and other core streets to the cheaper garage or other off-street lots, as we assume the 25¢ differential will not significantly alter people’s preference for convenient spaces. We further assume that the demand reductions discussed above will cover the limited shift from more expensive to less expensive resources.
“Investigating the flyer” BRING IT ON. The Three Amigos and the Chamber should tread lightly.They may get caught up in any investigation for what they have done. I suspect the the person or persons that mail the flier have done their homework
Oh by the way, the law has been seriously broken; a major crime has been committed according to some speakers at tonight’s Parking Forum.
They wonder who committed the so-called crime of making Vote No parking flyers and didn’t sign name.
Don’t you know that only Vote Yes Parking signs are allowed. Those signs are not signed either; but that is OK.
And it is OK that they are placed all over Ridgewood on PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Dictatorship is alive and well in Ridgewood N.J.
So what are we going to do about it. Well, I am going to vote no on parking.
Watch out for dictatorial council practices in future. Attend meetings and let them know that democracy is NOT being practiced in Ridgewood.. Democracy in name only; not in practice.
Investigating the flyer? Are you kidding me???? What the heck is going on around here? Do they investigate every real-estate postcard that comes in the mail? Every advertisement? Such an investigation is illegal I am sure of it. And by the way, Mr. Transparent Mayor – where was all this super sleuthing when the anonymous email was sent to Mike Sedon’s employer? You were not in the least bit curious or concerned, and in that instance a HUGE ethical breach had been committed.
Let them go ahead and accuse someone about the flyer. We will be all over them like fire ants. They will rue the day they started this investigation.
NOVEMBER 2, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2015, 11:35 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
A presentation of the current plans for the proposed Hudson Street parking garage was provided to the village’s Planning Board at the Oct. 20 meeting, allowing members the opportunity to have a question and answer session with designers and architects.
Tim Tracy, principal for Desman Design Management, gave the board a primer on the garage, which will give Ridgewood a net gain of approximately 300 spaces over the current set up on Hudson Street.
Tracy reviewed the size constraints for the site as the process by which Desman arrived at the solution of building a cantilever over the sidewalk for the top levels of the garage that was able to give the village more spaces and better parking efficiency by adding an additional row of spaces.
Although the garage is exempt from zoning standards, Tracy noted they tried to come as close to complying with regulations as possible without sacrificing efficiency. One example is the rear yard setback, which is required to be 26 feet. With the eastern end of the garage considered the rear of the property, the setback there is approximately 23 1/2 feet.
The five-level, four story parking facility currently sits at 51 feet high, although Tracy said when the final design is complete, the building will be closer to 48 feet. A couple of the driving factors in that regard are the eight-foot clearance required on the ground floor and the supporting slabs on the cantilevered section.
The height of the building was certainly the concern of some board members. Nancy Bigos asked if the garage could be built as at least a partially underground structure to ease the scale of the deck.
Televised Parking Deck Information Session – Tonight- Nov 2 @ 7:30PM
Cablevision (Channel 77) and FIOS (Channel 34) will broadcast live tonight starting at 7:30PM the CBD Forum with details of the Hudson Street Parking Deck. If you cannot attend the meeting at Village Hall tonight, please tune in!
Ridgewood Information Forums – Hudson St. Parking Deck – November 2
Two important forums scheduled in Village Hall – 4th Floor Court Room – to discuss the proposed Hudson Street Parking Deck: Wednesday, October 21 and Monday, November 2 from 7:30pm to 9:30pm. Village professionals as well as the design team from Desman Associates will be on hand to discuss all aspects of the proposed parking deck, including the design and financials. All are welcome to attend. All questions are welcome!
Questions:
Official Parking Referendum Question
Community Support
President of the Chamber of Commerce statement
Financial Advisory Committee Statement
Historic Preservation Commission Statement
Study,Design, and Analysis
Walker Parking Preliminary Financial Analysis – October 2, 2015
Walker Parking Consultant Study – July 5th, 2015
Walker Parking Floor Plans
Resolutions
Resolution 15-222 : Non-Binding Referendum – Nov 3, 2015 Ballot
Does the fact that this Parking Garage Plan up for a vote mean that it is a political issue? Please read the following:
——————————–
A quote from the IRS web site is below.
(begin quote)
The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
What is Political Campaign Intervention?
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.
(end quote)
Some more info at this link: https://www.blueandco.com/nfp_03082012.html
——————————-
The above is from The Blog in 2012 regarding Mr. Aronsohn using a Jamboree emailing list to promote his own campaign. Now we have a situation where a private email listing was used by one of our elected officials to promote the VOTE YES campaign. What does anyone think about this? I mean, besides the fact that it was unethical and just plain wrong. For his information, it totally pissed off some of those who received it, who felt it was beyond the pale. Can you say BACKFIRE?
Ridgewood Nj , So the big vote is tomorrow and where as cynics would suggest residents will have the option to once again agree or disagree with a proposed project that will be jammed down their throats whether they like it or not . Not buying it ,take one look at Schedler Field ah Park or what every you call it .
A historic land slide loss for the RBSA backed candidate in the last Village Council election ,who’s sole purpose was to put a “turf field in every pot” has resulted in a you guessed a turf field for Schedler Field . So much for the electorate has spoken .
We decided to actually speak with some people in the Central Business District who actually make a living from their business in Ridgewood .
Several reminded us of promises past . That promise was that all the parking meter money would be used solely for the purpose of building a Village Parking facility . Yes this promise was made to justify the installation of parking meters in the Central Business District way back in the late 1960’s, yes we said 1960’s. Little did anyone know that change would leave the building mysteriously in 50 pound bags unnoticed by anyone . Too many old timers , the garage has been paid for over and over.
The next issue many brought up was and we have seen this with our own eyes , that the metered spaces are all ready filled before 10 am . Funny but not many businesses are open that early . Some merchants felt that spaces are taken by commuters, CBD employees and now the valet parking people . The valet parking is thought to provide parking for a select few while most merchants and their customers are left fighting over the few remaining spaces. The merchants we spoke with all felt the garage would go along way to alleviating those issues. Maybe the valet parking , or commuter parking can concentrate in the garage while shoppers use street parking.
Another old issue that popped up was the so called $13 summons lawsuit that lost the CBD over 90 spaces, that my friends is a tale for another time .
Merchants on Oak Street complained about the the multiple valet parking issues leaving their customers with no place to go but to out of town locations. While others felt the rents due to taxes and fees ,triple net leases , left little wiggle room and the loss of a couple of sales a month would be the difference making it or closing up when the lease expires.
Yes most would agree there would be more traffic , but again take that up with the “traffic easing specialist ” in Village hall .There are just too many choke points in the Downtown already but if you want a vital and unique business district you need traffic .
Most didn’t mind the extension of metered parking hours giving dinners a chance to share in costs while merchants feel their customers are currently subsidizing the whole, but extended hours does not mean anyone was a fan of higher parking fees .
We asked many about cost over runs , and the answer was vintage entrepreneur; create a community over site board of all those who oppose the garage idea and have then audit the construction process and make sure the quarters end up in the right hands .
Many of the merchants clearly understood the public’s reluctance to finance the garage and said the Village had lost all credibility since the Village Hall fiasco , pursuing one foolish folly after another and not being up front with taxpayers . We all know there is going to be more traffic , stop the lying and lets prepare for it. We all know Ridgewood water is woefully un prepared stop lying and lets fix it . We all know if we build in the CBD more kids will attend the schools stop the denials and lets deal with it . We all know Valley needs to update, time for a realistic plan not fantasy monstrosities. Leave tito’s alone , focus on building the business downtown not wrecking it. We got the feeling like most of the regular readers for this blog ,that some vision and leadership is sorely needed.
While we could not help feel a sense of doom hanging over the downtown , it seems for too long the Village has taken the CBD for granted and the Chamber of Commerce has played footsie with the Village council . New Jersey is not exactly a business friendly environment, so the Village needs to decide whether it wants a unique vital down town or not . The parking garage is not a panacea but in combination with proper vision and a little planning the downtown could play a significant roll in the Villages future.
I have just sent the following email to the Village Council:
“Dear Members of the Village Council: I have just filed a police report, with Officer D’Amico, concerning the theft of the pro Parking Garage sign from the front of our house. At least seven other signs from our immediate neighborhood were also stolen. Putting up a sign expressing my views on a political matter is protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whoever stole my sign is trampling on my Constitutional rights, and I will do what I can to see that he/she is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Ridgewood politics continues its descent to a new abyss. Richard Nixon must be looking up, from wherever he is, with a big smile on his face: Dirty tricks are alive and well! Thank you Rurik Halaby”
Ridgewood NJ , “So am I to infer from your email that you are the one in charge of what does and does not get posted on the VOR website; is this correct? And, if so, is it within your purview to directly disregard the request of one of our elected officials regarding a posting on the VOR website?” Resident Anne LaGrange Loving .
This is a good question proposed by the Village manager , does she work for the town , the Bergen Democrats or does she work for the mayor? Can a Village Manager so openly disregard a request from a council person ? Whats the harm in pointed out an issue to the public?
Does this implies once again the Village government has no credibility with its residents ? Do people not understand after one fiasco after the other , the Village Hall, Valley Expansion, the golden toilets , firehouse in a flood zone , turf in a flood zone , traffic easement , Graydon ramp and the hits just keep coming .
Until we get a little more truth in government these controversy’s will continue to hurt the village , the merchants and the taxpayers .
Ridgewood News Letter: Be informed before you vote
October 30, 2015
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
To the editor:
Last Friday, readers of this newspaper may have been surprised to read a letter to the editor (“HPC supports parking garage”) from the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission stating that the HPC had endorsed a plan for a Hudson Street parking garage. Their instincts were correct: it’s not true.
In the letter, Vincent Parrillo asserted that the HPC “supports approval of the parking garage and encourages all residents to vote ‘yes’ for the Nov. 3 referendum.” Not so; in fact, Mr. Parrillo introduced the Oct. 8 HPC meeting (not Oct. 15, as the letter stated) as a “courtesy review” of garage drawings, stating the HPC does not vote on such approvals. I was there as council liaison.
The architectural firm selected by the council to prepare drawings showed components of a proposed design to HPC members, who asked questions and made suggestions. The meeting was entirely informational. HPC members did not approve the garage. At no time did the Village HPC discuss approval.
The letter, on official letterhead, has since been posted on the Village website. It was also published by The Ridgewood News in print and online. It’s been highlighted in the mayor’s communications, signed and sent by him through his personal email account, pressing voters to approve the garage.
Obtaining voter approval is the only reason for next Tuesday’s nonbinding referendum. Voters should therefore consider the following.
The proposed garage would occupy the entire 100-by-300-foot corner of Hudson Street, becoming the largest building in the Central Business District. At 50 to 66 feet high, it would tower over adjacent 25-foot buildings, meeting or exceeding the height of proposed multifamily housing that has been publicly repudiated as out of place in our historic downtown.
All existing on-street parking on Hudson would be eliminated, as would some spaces on South Broad. Traffic patterns on Hudson and nearby roads would be reversed. The garage would be cantilevered over 300 feet of the Hudson Street sidewalk with an additional two feet extending over the street. An additional 300-plus vehicles will be added to the already congested intersection.
To subsidize the project, the Village would increase meter rates throughout town and extend meter hours to 9 p.m. where they now end at 6 p.m. If Parking Utility revenues fell short, Ridgewood taxpayers would be held responsible for the bond and be sole guarantors of the principal and interest.
Voting “yes” would mean: “We 26,000 residents agree to pay lots more for parking, $15 million for a garage plus likely cost overruns, and maintenance and repairs forever.”
Voters harboring doubts about the wisdom of this project should consider carefully how they vote on Nov. 3. This is not a vote “for parking” but a choice about the height and mass of the proposed structure and whether Ridgewood taxpayers accept responsibility for being sole guarantors of a $15 million bond.
