NOVEMBER 16, 2015 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY DEENA YELLIN
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
Advanced Placement courses are all the rage in New Jersey this school year, with many high schools having added more of the college-level courses to meet surging demand.
Students and advocates of the courses cite their value as college preparation, and parents hope to save on the cost of college credits earned for free in high school.
But critical observers also are pointing to the amplified stress that AP courses put on already high-achieving students with packed schedules.
The courses, which lend cachet to a student’s résumé, have long been a staple across the nation. But now, many North Jersey schools, including those in Northern Valley Regional High School District and in Lodi, Bergenfield, Tenafly, Wayne, Emerson and Glen Rock, have launched additional AP courses.
The most popular have traditionally been AP English Literature and AP U.S. History, said staff of the College Board, which administers the AP tests and trains teachers. But school administrators cite a dramatic increase in the number of AP STEM courses added over the past few years, including at Northern Valley High School, which has launched AP physics, science, and computer science; Emerson, which added AP Physics I and II; and Glen Rock, which is adding AP computer science.
New Jersey students have done particularly well on the AP exams, with more than 72.8 percent scoring a 3 or higher — out of 5 — on AP exams in 2015, compared with the average of 60.5 percent internationally.
2015 Ridgewood District-wide Science Testing Report
Click here to read the District-wide State Testing Report for Science 2014-2015, presented to the Board of Education on October 19, 2015 by the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, Cheryl Best.
BY JENNIFER C. KERR
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Results from national math and reading tests show slipping or stagnant scores for the nation’s schoolkids.
Math scores were down for fourth and eighth graders over the last two years. And reading grades were not much better: flat for fourth graders and lower for eighth graders, according to 2015 results released Wednesday for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam.
The falling mathematics scores for fourth and eighth graders mark the first declines in math since 1990.
The results suggest students have a ways to go to demonstrate a solid grasp or mastery in reading and math.
Only about a third of the nation’s eighth-graders were at proficient or above in math and reading. Among fourth graders, the results were slightly better in reading and in math, about two in five scored proficient or above.
The report also found a continuing achievement gap between white and black students.
There were a few bright spots: the District of Columbia and Mississippi both saw substantial reading and math gains.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan urged parents, teachers, and others not to panic about the scores as states embrace higher academic standards, such as Common Core.
“We should expect scores in this period to bounce around some, and I think that ‘implementation dip’ is part of what we’re seeing here,” Duncan said in a phone call with reporters. “I would caution everyone to be careful about drawing conclusions.”
Chris Minnich, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, echoed Duncan.
“One year does not make a trend,” Minnich said at a panel discussion Wednesday. “We set this new goal for the country of college and career readiness for all kids. Clearly, these results today show we’re not quite there yet and we have some work to do.”
The Common Core standards were developed by the states with the support of the administration. They spell out what students should know in English and math at each grade level, with a focus on critical thinking and less of an emphasis on memorization. But they have become a rallying point for critics who want a smaller federal role in education and some parents confounded by some of the new concepts being taught.
The NAEP tests, also known as the “nation’s report card,” don’t align completely with Common Core, but NAEP officials said there was “quite a bit” of overlap between the tests and the college-ready standards.
OCTOBER 25, 2015, 11:38 PM LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2015, 11:47 PM
BY MARINA VILLENEUVE
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
There was a time, just 10 years ago, when Englewood’s high school marching band had a dozen members. Now, the Pulse of Englewood, as it’s called, boasts 175 musicians and flag twirlers whose soulful style has captured the city’s imagination.
Drum major Daniashley Sosa — in her words, “not that typical band geek” — said she knew she had to be a part of it as soon as she saw the rows of color guard and band members swaying and singing in the stands at football games. Now, she’s one in a sea of maroon-shirted band members who fill the halls of Dwight Morrow High School and Academies@Englewood every Friday. It’s as if, she said, she has “a second family.”
“I see it as a common ground for everyone to come together with a passion for music,” she said.
Despite demanding schedules and a gnawing need for funding, school marching bands throughout New Jersey are swelling with enthusiastic recruits and attracting devoted community followings.
PSEG Foundation Grants Special Olympics New Jersey $200,000 Towards Inclusive Sports Program
Multi-year grant awarded to support the Special Olympics Unified Schools Partnership initiative
October 7,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Newark, N.J. , Further strengthening its commitment to diversity and inclusion, the PSEG Foundation has granted $200,000 to Special Olympics New Jersey (SONJ) to support their Play Unified. Live Unified. initiative.
The two-year grant supports SONJ’s Play Unified School Partnership, which provides elementary, middle and high schools with training, equipment and technical assistance to implement inclusive sports, education and social experiences. The goal is to help build self-confidence and provide all students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletic, co-curricular and recreational activities.
“This extension of the relationship between PSEG and Special Olympics New Jersey is built on the shared vision of celebrating diversity within communities and connecting students with opportunities to spur change,” said Ellen Lambert, President, PSEG Foundation.
“Special Olympics New Jersey is excited about expanding our partnership with PSEG following the success of the 2014 Special Olympics USA Games,” said Heather Anderson, President and CEO of Special Olympics New Jersey. “PSEG’s support allows us to create more awareness in schools than ever before as we strive to make acceptance, inclusion and unity an integral part of every child’s education, both on and off the playing field.”
By teaming up with PSEG over the next two years, approximately 30 schools throughout the state will receive support to create sustainable inclusive youth leadership, social and sports opportunities. The Play Unified. Live Unified. program offers a combination of effective interventions that equip young people with tools and training to create athletic, classroom and community experiences that promote inclusion, combat stereo-types, eliminate hurtful language and foster healthy lifestyles and friendships.
“Students with disabilities gain an enormous amount of confidence from unified play. They are no longer a person with a disability, but rather an athlete who is involved in an activity. Gaining this confidence and experience, they become part of the school community,” said Brett Scully, Washington Park School, Play Unified. Live Unified. club adviser and coach. “Without programs like Play Unified. Live Unified., students may never be exposed to different situations that will eventually lead to their becoming leaders.”
”Kids with disabilities never really get the chance to play on a school’s sport team, but Unified Sports gives kids a chance to play and have fun. It also betters both the kids with disabilities and kids without disabilities because it gives the kids social interaction skills and teaches us respect. Unified sports is an amazing opportunity and I love to do it!” Ashley, Unified Partner, Hamilton West High School, Hamilton, N.J.
PSEG was a Founding Partner of the 2014 Special Olympics USA Games and presenting sponsor of the Project UNIFY Youth Summit, which brought together students with and without disabilities from across the country. They participated in a weeklong series of workshops and networking activities that focused on inclusive youth leadership, education and service learning.
Special Olympics New Jersey provides year-round sports training and athletic competition in 24 Olympic-type sports for more than 25,000 children and adults with intellectual disabilities, completely free of charge, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and the community. Visit www.sonj.org for more information.
Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood Schools 2015-2016 parent/peers series consists of eight engaging presentations throughout the school year. Co-sponsored by The Valley Hospital, with support from The Foundation, adults are invited to attend these programs on creating balance in children’s lives.
Click here for the series flyer..
First up is “Staying Safe in Cyberspace” by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, Cybercrime Division. This program will take place on Wednesday, October 28 from 7-9 p.m. in the Benjamin Franklin Middle School Auditorium.
Click here for the program flyer.
Click here for the press release from the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office.
Click here for the tip sheet handout, “Internet Safety for Our Children,” from the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office.
Parent ‘offended’ by REA president’s recent comments
To the Editor:
I take personal exception to Mr. Michael Yannone’s letter to the editor of The Ridgewood News dated Sept. 25. In its own letter, the Board of Education’s president, vice president and two trustees clearly outlined where Mr. Yannone went wrong in his belief that the Board of Education is disrespecting our teachers.
As a parent in this district and as just one of the countless parent volunteers who has worked tirelessly to improve our schools and help our excellent teachers in and out of the classroom, I am very offended by Mr. Yannone’s words and tone. Perhaps he should take the time to go on a field trip or enjoy a parent provided meal with his teachers. Maybe he should visit an elementary school and see behind the scenes as parents and teachers work hand in hand to create amazing moments. Maybe he should attend an HSA and Board of Education meeting to hear the support of parents for their teachers. I can provide countless suggestions.
Ridgewood is a charming New Jersey town whose residents often return to their roots to raise their own children. This village attracts families from the city, such as myself, not just because of its charm or the ease of transportation, but because of the schools.
Our schools are ranked as some of the best in the state and country, yes, because of our excellent teachers but also because of how well run they are by our school board both fiscally and academically. Parents in this community constantly are concerned not only with keeping the bar high academically but in also helping teachers in any way they can to insure our children are provided the best education. Parents work hard to guarantee teachers are given the resources to achieve that goal.
Is Mr. Yannone suggesting updated books, modern technology, refurbished classrooms are not necessary for our teachers? What about our children? I understand Mr. Yannone is the advocate for our teachers, but what is education ultimately about if it is not about the education of our students?
It seems to me that our Board of Education (all volunteers by the way) does an amazing job by balancing the different interests that create our top notch school system. I know their priority is and has always been about educating our children and thereby insuring more people will be returning to Ridgewood or discovering the district’s commitment to educational excellence.
I also know that parents will be there every step of the way with our teachers and administrators to lend a hand.
The time of the Ridgewood Board of Education’s Regular Public Meeting on Monday, October 5, 2015, at 7:30 p.m.
The public is invited to attend the meeting at the Ed Center, 49 Cottage Place, Floor 3. The meeting will be aired live on FiOS channel 33 and Optimum channel 77. Or it may be viewed live via the district website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us using the “Link in Live” tab.
Click here to view the agenda for the October 5, 2015 Regular Public Meeting.
Ridgewood NJ , A huge turn out filled the the courtroom last night with some estimates saying there was another 300 people in the rooms downstairs watching it on the TV’s.It seems the people were finally heard. The council voted 4-1 (Al Pucciarelli the only no vote) to continue the hearings and conduct impact studies on the fiscal impacts, traffic (a comprehensive study that would include all off the proposed buildings as well as the 2 parking garages and the 98 unit assisted living facility), and schools.
The resistance to the over development and urbanization was spearheaded by the Citizens for a Better Ridgewood . The group is non-profit with a mission to make sure development is achieved within the character of Ridgewood.
They are in favor of development that compliments our existing CBD. “Our town has been reacting for far too long. It is time for a shared vision, a comprehensive plan that allows for extensive community input and can move us forward.”
The council has postponed the vote on the ordinances to increase the density from 12 to 35 until those studies have been done. The next meeting will be held Monday, November 9th. Many people left because it just ran too late so If you want your chance to speak Nov 9th, you will be able to.
Reader said , “Partial victory tonight… tabled the vote! However the real solution here is to roll back the “Valley Hospital inspired” master plan changes which allowed these ordinances even be proposed in the first place.”
Subject: letter to Hauck in response to her own misinformation
Dear Councilwoman Hauck,
As you and I have yet to formally meet, I’d like to start by introducing myself. My name is Dave Slomin and I have lived at 36 Heights Road for since 2001. My wife grew up in this town, as did her mother (who still lives here). My two sons attend RW Public Schools (RHS and GW). While I have not been a formal appointee or elected official, I have been very involved in working with the Village – whether my input is welcome or not 😉 – on several recent matters, including as a key advocate for Citizens for a Better Ridgewood. My main volunteer work is with the BSA, where I was Pack Leader of Ridge School’s Pack 44 (the largest Pack in North Jersey) for many years and am now Pack 44’s Executive Committee Chair and an Assistant Scoutmaster with Troop 7. I mention these things, not to toot any horns, but so my opinions are not taken as those of an armchair complainer. As with so many other Residents, I am out there caring about my community, putting in my time for Ridgewood and – having attended almost every planning board meeting for the past 2-3 years – I am well educated in the Multi-Family debate, process and ordinances.
I am also President of Andover Properties, a real estate company that specializes in multi-family properties. We own and manage apartment complexes in 4 states, including New Jersey. I know the benefits and difficulties of the multifamily business and I know how investors and developers work, think and act. At many Planning Board (PB) meetings, I tried to pass along some of my experience and knowledge, given the gaps in data provided by developers. Unfortunately, it fell on too many ears that, if not deaf, were wrongly “prematurely decided.” Given the far too little amount of time the Council has relegated to multifamily discussion, I am hopeful that you will consider some key points, insights and corrections from an industry insider: and one who is a big fan of apartments… when properly planned and appropriately built. I am for multifamily development, but at lower densities and scale that in the ordinances.
I write to you, as I am aware of some responses you have provided to emails from members of the Ridgewood (RW) Community. As they were sent from your official RW email address, I am comfortable that you intended for your thoughts to be shared. They were. And unfortunately, your responses illustrate – to this real estate professional – that you and the council really do need more correct and unbiased information on the matter you are voting on. Beyond that, some of your answers leaned more towards the influences of the developers PR firms, than to multifamily realities. And unfortunately, some of your data and response were wrong. I am writing to help… because this is so important.
I am also writing because of a statement you wrote to a fellow resident saying: “If only people understood the other facts and not the points which have become cocktail party innuendo.” I hope to show, with knowledge of “the facts,” how such a statement is wrong and can appear to come from the developers’ PR Playbook. Please know that I do know the facts. As do so many residents. And I’d like to clarify some and provide others you may not know.
So, some responses:
THE MALTBIE/FRANKLIN APARTMENTS ARE 19.5 UNITS PER ACRE, NOT 33.6
In one email, you incorrectly proffered that the apartment complex across from Ridge School (on Franklin and Maltbie) is a great example “for a comparison” as it represents “33.6 units per acre.” I do agree with you that: (1) it is “attractive” and “quaint,” and (2) they “do not look like Fort Lee,” but a key reason for that is the fact that their density is only 19.5 UNIT PER ACRE. The complex has 13 units and sits on .664 acres. Some outdated records show the property to be .459 acres. That was the case until the owner added an adjacent lot to provide parking when some additional units were built. Nevertheless, the property is most definitely not 33.6 units/acre. It is almost half that. But it is an excellent example of a scale and density that would fit beautifully in RW’s CBD. It is also only 2 stories, plus the roof peak. Dramatically less than the 5 stories we may see downtown if you vote in favor of the current ordinances. Maybe that’s why you like how it looks and fits.
YOU SAY THE OAK STREET APARTMENTS HAVE MORE CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS DENSE. THAT IS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.
In another email you note that the Oak Street Apartments, at 18 units/acres have “more school children in them than higher density apartments BECAUSE they are less dense.” While I can understand how one might make this faulty assumption, it’s not accurate or that simple. There are many other low to mid density complexes in town that have fewer children. And there are many higher density properties in other towns that have lots of children. That’s because there are so many factors that play into apartment demographics. Some key factors are the management company policies and the historic “community” of the complexes themselves. Firstly, management companies, while being required to adhere to law regarding renting vacant units often do have discretion as to how they wish to run their communities. Some managers/owners are happy to have more occupants (including children) in units, if they know they can fill vacancies with paying renters. Others would like to have fewer occupants, as fewer occupants results in less water consumption and often less wear and tear. Furthermore, over time certain properties, like certain towns, gain a reputation, or a community culture. For example, a senior will want to move to a complex known for having more seniors, while a family might skip that complex for one that has more kids… even if both are garden-style properties. So, in sum, your assumption is wrong. Lower densities do not automatically equal more kids. If a manager wants kids or higher numbers of occupants to fill units, and prices units appropriately, there will be more school children. The current ordinance cannot dictate this, so be careful. You just don’t know the answer to this question. And, right now, no one does.
YOU ALLEGE THAT FOLKS WHO WISH TO PUT HIGHER NUMBERS OF CHILDREN INTO UNITS ARE “SCAMMERS” AND/OR WOULD RENT HOUSES FIRST.
In another email you hold that “people who want to scam the schools would rent single or double family houses” before paying a premium for apartments. There are several issues here. Firstly, having high numbers of children in a unit is not a “scam.” It is actual a “right” maintained by law. Many NJ municipalities use occupancy guidelines stating that 150 square feet is required for the first occupant and only 75 additional s/f is needed for each additional occupant (not including kitchens and baths). In a 1,000 S/F apartment, you could potentially, and legally have 6-9 occupants. So again, folks who may wish to put more kids into a unit to benefit from our great schools (provided that the proper guardian is there) are not necessarily running a “scam.” They are really just doing the right thing within the law for their children. As these decisions on occupancy limits often come down to property management, RW needs to tread more carefully. The ordinance cannot define this. So limit the risk. If a property is not leasing fast enough to singles or couples, I guarantee that we will see more families with greater school impacts and costs. That’s just the way it works.
Regarding renters opting for house as a first choice, this again is something that you don’t and cannot know. But you NEED to be right on these things. Be advised that even though the developers are projecting rents in the $3,000-4,000 range, there is no way of guaranteeing that. Nor can you guarantee the “luxury” status in design, and especially management, that the Mayor especially has said he desires. If a property is underperforming – and with so many units coming onboard at once, that may happen – investors will need paying tenants, even if the rents have to come down. Some money is better than no money, when the mortgage bank comes calling.
THESE APARTMENTS WILL NOT EFFECT OUR SCHOOLS.
On this, no true and full study has been done. RW has not done a market study to more accurately determine who may move in. While discussed ad nauseam, data to date has too predominantly been provided by the developers. I am further concerned about the fact that (I believe) only one Council-member currently has children in the Schools. The other members either have no children currently in the system or chose to send their children to private schools. As such, we need all of you to know how current school-age parents are feeling. How have our schools changed since you may have experienced them? What are the current limitations and needs? YOU NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME SPEAKING WITH US. And, on this topic, a 3rd party study really still needs to be done. The very fact that the developers used, and some PB members embraced, the now outdated “Rutgers Study” to determine numbers of school-children was a big data fault. The Rutgers Study looked at no towns with schools anywhere near the quality of Ridgewood. One PB resident speaker pointed out the she chose Ridgewood specifically due to the quality of educational services for her Special Needs child. She said, she’d spoken to many “special needs parents” who are just as aggressive as her and feared that if options availed themselves via multi-family we might see more special needs children. This would, she said, possibly diminish the current programs helping her child. And at up to $100,000 per special needs child, could hit our schools and taxes hard.
So in sum, we have no real data on OUR OWN schools. Lots of speculation from both sides. And that’s dangerous. You should ask for better. Slow down and let’s get it right. That’s why we voted for you!
THE BUILDINGS WITH 80+ UNITS/ACRE YOU NOTE AS “LOVELY” & “ICONIC” DON’T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING… OR ANY PARKING.
Too support a position for higher density, you noted several buildings as “iconic” and “lovely” with higher densities than 35. While you are correct in quoting their densities, you failed to note that none of them have enough parking, and the largest, 263 Franklin, has no parking! They couldn’t and shouldn’t be built today like that. And I guarantee, if the land required for parking was added, their densities would plummet. Please take that into account. As our Representatives, the data you proffer needs to be unbiased and as accurate as possible. Personally, I would argue that 263 Franklin isn’t so lovely or iconic. It’s an example of something that doesn’t fit within its surroundings. Its design and scale is seen more frequently in Hudson or Essex Counties than in northern Bergen… it’s just too “dense.”
RIDGEWOOD WILL BENEFIT FROM TAX INCOME DERIVED FROM MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
Working in the multifamily business for two decades, and having filed dozens of tax appeals, I can tell you that municipalities all agree on one thing: residential development, including apartments, are almost always a tax drain. Residential costs so much more in services… AND SCHOOLS than office or commercial. So PLEASE GO IN WITH YOUR EYES OPEN ON TAXES, there will be a deficit. I believe even Blais alluded to this in some PB testimony, but also noted that tax revenue and financials should not be used in the PB’s considerations. They need to be considered by you and the Council.
APARTMENT COMPLEX OWNERS FILE TAX APPEALS, AND OFTEN WIN OR SETTLE.
I say this, because, anyone who owns properties of these sizes will assuredly be professionals. And RE Professionals file tax appeals as part of the game. Real Estate is not designed to be altruistic. It’s designed to make the biggest profits. Our firm files appeals on most of our properties every year. If our financials are off, we expect to have our assessments lowered. They often are and then we pay less taxes. If the developers don’t get their $3-4K rents, you’ll see appeals very quickly. You’ll see them even if they do!
OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES ARE LESS OPTIMAL FOR RIDGEWOOD.
You state in one email, “the private owners… might build something worse than what is currently being proposed if we do not approve the amendments.” Given that we started talking about 50 units per acre (500-700 total potential units, per Blais) and buildings sized like the new developments in Fairlawn on Route 208, in our constrained downtown, I’m not sure what could’ve been worse! 35 is certainly better, but is still not appropriately sized. Those 208 properties are still not far off from the scale of what we will see. Please note that. To me, a Walgreens on either of the car dealer sites, would provide a great amount of ad hoc free parking, especially after hours. They wouldn’t be so quick to tow, as they’d lose customers if they did. Furthermore, by raising densities, we are also raising property values and making it more expensive to potentially provide much needed additional parking. I’ve told Paul that it would be much more affordable for RW to buy pieces of land, pave and create new parking lots, than to build and maintain a $15,000,000 garage. But if you raise multifamily densities so high, you will make potential land purchases for parking prohibitive.
“WHAT IF THE OWNERS TRY TO PUT UGLY, BUSY COMMERCIAL ENTITIES HERE?”
This is a comment you made to a resident. Please know that nowhere in the ordinances are aesthetics fully defined. RW can and will have some say, but there is no way to require that the apartments that get built will look anything like the pictures you’ve seen. As you know, the new buildings will be near, but not in, a “Historic District.” Apartments can be beautiful or ugly. Commercial buildings can be beautiful or ugly. It’s up to the property owner. Both apartments and commercial are good options, when appropriately sized. Take this down a notch. Make it really and truly fit. You said you like the Maltbie apartments. Let’s zone for something like that!
“WE NEED OUR BUSINESSES TO SURVIVE…” (E.G. APARTMENTS ARE THE ONLY OPTION).
This has come up again and again: the need to save our business. On this, you and the Council need much more real data. Adding a few hundred apartments will not “save Ridgewood.” There’s no guarantee they will shop in town. What is guaranteed is that the current applicants do not fully provide enough parking for their tenants, guests, contractors, etc. As such, business may very well be hurt if the 26,000 current residents find that traffic and parking worsen. I know many West-siders who use the CBD less during peak hours (e.g. for dinner during rush hour, or coffee and breakfast in the a.m.) due to the longer waits at the underpass. And my family is one of them!
Yogi Berra said of a restaurant, “Nobody goes there anymore, the line’s too long.” Ridgewood has a similar issue. It’s beautiful and special… and successful. But we need more parking and better, safer traffic and pedestrian flow to handle the lines. And, to boot, landlords (many who have a vested interested in keeping rents too high) may need to adjust rents overtime to keep businesses in business. What we don’t need is these somewhat artificially created longer lines right now. Especially until ALL the right work has been done to fully understand the impacts. And from statements I’ve heard members of the Council make, yourself included, I don’t think you have all the information you need.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
We haven’t even gotten to the subject of “financial impacts” which, while not a factor for the Planning Board, the Village Council MUST fully assess. That just hasn’t been done properly yet either. You need to. You don’t really know the answer. Too much “innuendo.”
I hope you will do the right thing and try to help convince some of the other Councilmembers to lower the density and scale, or Vote No as-is. At the very least, put off the vote and plan for the much needed independent studies. Real estate is a game. And RE professionals are generally much better at it than municipalities. It’s just the nature of the business. So please be careful with our Village.
Respectfully,
Dave Slomin
CC: Mayor P. Aronsohn, Councilmembers Pucciarelli, Knudson & Sedon, CBR, Residents of Ridgewood
As you may or may not know, on September 30th the village council will be continuing the 2 night hearing and voting on the 5 ordinances regarding the high density housing. These ordinances would increase the density allowed from 12 units per acre (current) to 35 units per acre (UPA) in our downtown. Here’s a comparison as to what some other towns in our area allow: Fort Lee 50 UPA, Teaneck 28 UPA, Englewood 12 UPA, Hackensack 22 UPA. If passed, Fort Lee would be the only town in our area, similar in population, with a greater density per acre. I do believe the majority of the town is accepting of development, but on a smaller scale. Maybe 25 units per acre? Do we really want to be built up more than Teaneck? I certainly don’t want to be anywhere near Fort Lee’s density.
The planning board spent approximately 3 years in discussions and 1 1/2 years in a public hearing before voting. The village council had a small portion of their Sept 16 meeting devoted to this and now the council will be coming to the sept 30th meeting with their written statements prepared on how they are voting and why. The Ridgewood News had an editorial last week about “what’s the hurry?”. I have to agree with them. While I don’t want this to drag out, I do want the council to do their due diligence and get all of the facts before they vote. During the Valley hearings at the council level, the council brought in the traffic expert, planner, geotechnical engineer, etc and each council member asked questions of these experts and based their vote on what was discussed at council.
It appears that the majority of the council does not want to bring in any experts. They are ready to vote without asking any questions of any experts as to how this will effect Ridgewood. At the planning board level, a concern about the increase this would bring to our taxes was brought up several times by residents. The discussion was always shot down, because “it is not in the purview of the planning board to consider finances.” In fact, the village planner stated, “residential housing almost always increases taxes, we should not be doing this if we think taxes will go down, but there are other benefits to residential housing.” The council has a much broader scope of items they can discuss, finances being one of them. You may remember that Tom Riche voted yes to the Valley amendment at the PB level, but no to it at the council level. That is because the council is able to look at a broader range of issues. Finances should definitely be discussed.
I would like to see the council bring in several experts in addition to a financial expert. Water must be discussed. I know this year is an exception with the lack of rain, but we have mandatory water restrictions every year. Can you imagine an additional few hundred apartments to supply? I can’t.
Schools must be discussed. The planning board did not have a member of the BOE at their public hearings. The council needs to ask Dr Fishbein to appear at the council hearing to answer questions.
The traffic expert, the engineer, the planner, etc should all be questioned. I do hear the planner will be there, but that’s it.
I don’t know how anyone could possible vote on something so monumental without questioning all of these experts to see what the impacts will be for Ridgewood.
I urge you to e-mail our council and ask them to have these experts at the hearing, get the facts first hand, and then vote.
These people are our elected officials, and we have a right to make sure they have done their due diligence before they vote.
Whether you are for or against the increase to 35 units per acre, I think we can all agree that each council member needs to be able to ask questions of the experts to help them in their decision making process.
Below are the e-mails of all the council members. Please send them an e-mail today and forward this to friends. Thanks
On Saturday the high school chorus group was holding a car wash to raise a few dollars for their program. The kids were about an hour into it, 2 hoses with nozzles when the police came by and had them shut down due to a complaint. The officers were apologetic but had to act due to a compliant. I don’t have anyone in the schools, but what an awful example for the village. We ask the kids to work a task to help their program and then send the police to shut it down.
We should all be very concerned that their are people so miserable and angry in town that they complain about a organized event at the school to raise money.
Why is there no pressure on the water company to build a system that can meets the needs? Why is there no consideration of water use in the proposed increased in area housing? Why are we using village police resources to enforce water rules, seems if they had the time to do this perhaps we should review staffing levels when the water “crisis” is over ?
The “Stage 4 In Effect” notice posted on the Village’s website says NOTHING about a ban on washing vehicles. It addresses IRRIGATION ONLY.
When were we told in writing that washing cars is prohibited?
Ridgewood NJ, Freeholder candidate John Mitchell visited Ridgewood Train Station this morning after attending the GOP Candidates night in Hasbrouck Heights pushing a Tax Reduction and Strict Budgeting strategy .
It was a “Win-Win” at the Ridgewood train station this morning…
…It was a “win” that I was able to help a commuter understand the intricacies of the unfair school funding formula and how it impacts his ever rising property taxes. And it was also a “win” that I had a chance to meet hundreds of residents in this beautiful town.
John Mitchell , “There are 70 towns in Bergen County and it continues to amaze me how diverse we are but at the same time united in what we want for our children and grandchildren. A good education, the opportunity to work, lower property taxes and a safe environment are what I heard consistently during my recent travels”
Ridgewood NJ, the 2015 winner of the coveted Ashby Award is Ann Brown, George Washington Middle School Library Media Specialist. Ann, who has been the Library Media Specialist since 2001,holds a Masters Degree in Library and Information Science from the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at Long Island University.
The Ashby Award was established in 1966 to honor former Superintendent Lloyd Ashby and his wife, Lois, for their distinguished service to the community. The recipient is selected from nominees submitted by staff members and is someone who, in the opinion of his or her peers, has upheld the Ashby tradition of service and contribution. This is the highest award that can be bestowed upon a Ridgewood staff member.
The 2015 Tradition of Excellence Award for Support Staff was presented to Pat Kowalczyk, Administrative Assistant in the Office of Special Programs.
The Ridgewood Board of Education established the Tradition of Excellence Award in 2014 to honor a member of the support staff, who in the opinion of their peers has made an outstanding contribution to the excellence of the Ridgewood Public Schools
AUGUST 29, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2015, 1:21 AM
BY LINH TAT
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
FORT LEE – A school trustee in the midst of his third term resigned this week, creating a vacancy on the board that, by law, must be filled before the end of October.
Yusang “Jimmy” Park, the only Asian-American ever to serve as school board president in Fort Lee, said he and his family are moving to a house they purchased in Ridgewood, leaving him no choice but to resign. Trustees are required to live in the town in which they hold office.
Park was the top vote-getter when he was elected in 2007, outperforming the three incumbents in that race. Fellow board members nominated him as president in 2012 after former trustee Arthur Levine resigned.
“Looking back, I ask myself, ‘Are we in a better place than we were seven years ago when I started?’ I would say yes,” Park said, reflecting on the state of the district.
When he was first elected, Park noted, the district was reeling from the fallout of a superintendent who plagiarized a speech delivered to honors students. That was followed in 2009 by a grade-altering scandal when officials found that a high school counselor had tampered with college transcripts, and widespread frustration in the community over an absentee superintendent during the 2012-13 school year. That superintendent eventually parted ways with the district.
Now, Park said, the district has voter-approved funding to build and expand classroom space, has adopted new campus security measures and has hired a new permanent superintendent
The Ridgewood Board of Education will hold a Regular Public Meeting on Monday, August 24 2015 at 5 p.m.
The public is invited to attend the meeting at the Ed Center, 49 Cottage Place, Floor 3. The meeting will be aired live on FiOS channel 33 and Optimum channel 77. Or it may be viewed live via the district website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us using the “Link in Live” tab.
Click here to view the agenda and addendum for the July 20, 2015 Regular Public Meeting
Re-registration is Open for Parents and Guardians
Skyward Family Access is the district’s primary mode of communication with parents, so the district must have up-to-date email and phone numbers in the system at all times, especially for emergency situations. Beginning August 10 through midnight September 7, parents and guardians must logon to Family Access to complete the Mandatory Online Re-registration process.
Click here for details on Mandatory Re-registration.
Board of Education Announces Vacancy, Seeks Applicants
The Ridgewood Board of Education is seeking qualified applicants to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Michele Lenhard on August 1. The application deadline is Tuesday, September 15 at 4 p.m. Click here for details..
Back-to-School Night Schedule is Out
Click here to view the 2015-2016 Back-To-School Night schedule.
Substitutes Teachers are Needed
The district has put out a call for additional substitute teachers, nurses and secretaries for the 2015-2016 school year. Substitutes enjoy the freedom of selecting their dates of work according to their personal schedules through a self-scheduling online system. Pay rates for the 2015-2016 school year are as follows: teachers $92 to $125 per diem; nurses $130 per diem; secretaries $12.50 to $17 per hour.
Click here for full information on the requirements and process. For further information, please contact Eileen Rix at 201-670-2700, ext. 10542 or [email protected].
School Calendars are Approved Click here to view the 2015-2016 school calendar. Click here to view the 2016-2017 school calendar.
AUGUST 14, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Ridgewood education leaders this week expressed disappointment with the recently released AchieveNJ Teacher Evaluation chart, saying the scoring system doesn’t tell the entire story.
Village teachers scored collectively low in the evaluation, a tool used by the state to gauge which educators and schools are the most effective. Specifically, the chart showed which teachers fall into the “effective” and “highly effective” categories, and gave a percentage of the total number of teachers in the school who were highly effective.
The highest-ranking Ridgewood school was Benjamin Franklin Middle School, with a 46.15 percent highly-effective rating (24 highly effective teachers out of 52). George Washington Middle School scored 25 percent highly-effective, or 14 highly-effective teachers out of 56.
