Tag: Ridgewood Village Council

Posted on

Ridgewood Village Council Approves “Mysterious Garage ” by 3-2 Vote

Village Council Meeting
file photo by Boyd Loving
January 27,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  The Ridgewood Village Council approved changes to the planned parking garage on Hudson Street by a 3-2 vote Wednesday night.

In the “newest version” of the Hudson Street Parking Garage ,residents were told the reduced size garage would provide close to 325 parking spots and will be 43 feet tall. The foot print of controversial  structure will now be no more than 5 feet over the property line with Hudson Street will be slightly reduced in width but will stay at lest 25 feet wide so it will be able to maintain the three lanes, two for traffic and one for parking. The mystery of coarse is that no actual garage drawings were shown.

The encroachment onto Hudson street has become one of the most divisive issues surrounding the garage causing concern from Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioners and many residents who voiced concerns over traffic congestion, fire safety as well  the feeling the encroachment seemed very well concealed from referendum voters.

I think Boyd Loving summed it up best when he recounted the story of how he met his wife – His best friend from grammar school through high school came to him 41 years ago and said he’d met a girl that Boyd would probably want to marry someday.  Boyd’s first question to his friend was “Well, what does she look like?”  In short, it is insane to expect the public, especially property owners near Hudson Street, to wholeheartedly embrace the “revised” garage plan without first seeing what the hell it looks like.

Many felt that ,”To have the council vote on a design that doesn’t exist and to have our village manager justify the benefits of going to County is within the realm of farce.” , “Spin, subterfuge and slander are what I witnessed last night.”

It seemed that most resident questioned the amount of the change orders for the new plan. They also wanted to see the new design which was not available. Susan and Mike wanted some time to digest the new plan and speak to neighbors. So did most residents but the Council Majority were in a rush.

The interesting  thing  is Roberta said that bonding through the BCPA not cost anything it just about breaks even. Seemed a bit of a stretch  ,there are paper work cost and attorneys fee. Plus what in it for BCPA ?

However the council did postponed the vote on entering an agreement with BCIA for funding but will likely do so at its next meeting, Feb. 10.
Disgusted. But not surprised residents especially love how the Deputy Mayor so smugly dismissed public protestation over going around a supermajority to the BCIA with “it’s perfectly legal…” but then are disgusted by Dana Glazer taping the HPC meeting even though that, too, is perfectly legal.

How the Chief Finance Officer replies to a resident who understands some numbers : https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7641044

Legit or not residents remained very skeptical with the BCIA funding . The biggest issue was going through BCIA (besides not seeing the actual garage drawings)…even if the Council assumptions on rate savings are correct and the bond through BCIA vs bonding ourselves is a wash we create 2 problems by doing this:
1) give up additional revenue by not being about to charge out of town commuters more
2) create more out of town commuter traffic to the lot that actually takes away parking spaces for residents

Just seems stupid , the BCIA gets hundreds of thousands in fees (great deal for them), and we get more commuter traffic that we don’t get to charge a premium for.

The Deputy Mayor who previously lost his temper and made threats at a previous council meeting now has a problem in recording the public meetings. Councilmen  Mike Sedon stated that the NJ Law allows one party consent for recording, and Matt Rogers stated that as per the case laws, courts have allowed anyone to record a public meeting  . Deputy Mayor pushed his dissent and stated that he is going to introduce an ordinance to limit it.

Here is the link – fast forward to  4h9m54s

https://youtu.be/4fa9ET4nvtM?t=4h9m54s

Posted on

Ridgewood Village Council : Revised agenda for tonight’s VC meeting?

Hudson Street Parking Garage

A very recently revised agenda for tonight’s VC meeting?
Am I nuts or does this imply no presentation to the public, no further discussion, etc. ?
16-31:  Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design

______________________________________________________

Discussion: Parking

  1. Authorize Change Orders No. 1, 2, & 3 – Hudson Street Parking Deck (Desman)
  2. Authorize Change Order No. 4 – Hudson Street Parking Deck (Desman)

3. Award Professional Services Contract – Validation Study of the Revised Design of the Hudson Street Parking Deck (Walker)
4. Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design
Discussion: Budget
Award Professional Services Contract – Professional Land Surveyor Services
Discussion: Policy

  1. Revisions to Field Policy
  2. Healthbarn – Irene Habernickel Family Park


Highlights – Special Public Meeting:
ORDINANCE #3519: PUBLIC HEARING –  Leasing Agreement with the Bergen County Improvement Authority Resolutions
16-28:  Authorize Change Orders #1, #2, & #3 – Hudson Street Parking Deck – Desman, Inc. (in the amount of $20,800)
16-29:  Authorize Change Order #4 – Hudson Street Parking Deck – Desman, Inc. (in the amount of $121,650)
16-30:  Award Professional Service Contract – Validation Study of the Revised Design of the Hudson Street Parking Deck (Not to Exceed $12,500)
16-31:  Approve Hudson Street Parking Deck Design

Posted on

PLEASE COME TO VILLAGE HALL, THIS WEDNESDAY, 7:30PM TO ASK THE RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL TO PLEASE LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF RIDGEWOOD!

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

file photo by Boyd Loving

Dear Village Council & Village Manager,

As you are aware, in recent years, your Residents have voiced ongoing concerns with the “process” by which many important matters facing the Village are undertaken. Included in our concerns are handling of the High-Density Housing Ordinances, Schedler redevelopment, Habernickel house leasing/parking, and, of course, the Parking Garage designs and rushed BCIA Bonding for construction.
The Agenda set for this Wednesday, January 27’s Council meeting,https://www.ridgewoodnj.net/…/480-20160127-village-council-p…, is further evidence that our Village government is still not handling “process” in the well-planned, open and Resident-focused manner we have requested time and again. We need you to do the right thing, from the get-go, without the now routine changes that follow the constant, but fully valid and sadly necessary, complaints from your Residents.
For example, justifiable Resident complaint led to changes in the problematic scheduling of: (1) the original high-density ordinance public comment and vote, set for a single meeting on a night shared with 3-4 back-to-school nights, and (2) the recent “special public meeting” for high-density housing impact studies at the prohibitive time of Friday evening at 5pm.
We should not be Ridgewood’s guardians. That’s the Council’s job. But once again, your Agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting forces our hand. Why? Here’s why:
1. DANGEROUSLY RUSHED GARAGE BONDING WITH BERGEN COUNTY: Firstly, this Special Meeting is set to review the Bergen County Improvement Authority (BCIA) application and bonding, despite the fact that we don’t even have a finalized garage plan. In effect, we don’t know what we’re buying, but are still applying for the loan! It doesn’t take a financial genius to see the problem with that. At the 1/6/16 garage meeting, you committed to working on a new garage redesign that (1) fits on the lot, (2) does not cut Hudson Street in half, and (3) tries to address the concerns of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. So far, Residents have yet to be fully presented with any formal revised designs that we can use to either support or question the ordinance. We need to see these plans. What we do know is that the revised draft still does not fit within the Hudson Street lot and takes over several feet of Hudson Street itself. Based on the wording of the Referendum and the commitments of the 1/6/16 Council meeting, that is unacceptable and requires correction. Remember, several Councilmembers specifically told residents to “Vote Yes to Parking… and then Negotiate the size, scale and design of the garage later.” As such, based on your commitment to us, we ask that – as promised – you allow us to be a “real” part of the process. So let’s see the new plans before you write any checks.
2. FAILURE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN YOUR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY (by Maser): Beyond design, size and scale issues, Ridgewood must address and resolve the recommendations of its own Maser Traffic Study, which not only mandated further study of ‘at-capacity’ intersections at Broad/Ridgewood and Broad/Franklin, but also raised questions about the need for such a large garage at that location. In prior years, even the Mayor himself, in a very smart December 2008 essay on parking, stated that “I am not convinced that we need a large, potentially expensive garage… 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). The Mayor then wisely added some cost-effective recommendations, he called “Quick, Smart Fixes,” including enhanced signage for current parking lots (something that still hasn’t been done, but is a GREAT idea) and repainting existing lines to gain spaces. Many residents have voiced agreement with Mr. Aronsohn, circa-2008… let’s try other let costly (and maybe more effective) options first.
While you can legally take POLITICAL action towards bonding, you cannot take RIGHTFUL action towards bonding, in any manner, unless you let your Residents know exactly what you are bonding for, and give us a real opportunity to weigh-in and approve. Ultimately, Residents will pay this bill, either as parkers or through real estate taxes.
3. SCHEDLER DISCUSSIONS NEED TO HAVE THEIR OWN NIGHT, OR AT LEAST EARLIER PLACEMENT AT T A LATER MEETING: Lastly, but of similar importance, it appears you have scheduled a meaningful discussion on the Schedler Redevelopment matter at the tail end of this meeting, after what may be a lengthy parking review. Schedler is too important to too many Residents, and to the Village itself, to be given such short shrift. By the time the Schedler discussion occurs on 1/27, so late on the agenda, many or most of the concerned Residents who need to be there, will be gone. And even Councilmembers have complained of trying to make important decisions at late hours. Whether intended or not, this will continue to raise the specter of this Council’s legacy of problematic scheduling and “process.” This specter hurts your ability to be trusted by Residents and to be effective as leaders at a time you need to be the most effective. Please give this some real thought. According to many empty-nesters and seniors I’ve spoken with, Ridgewood has not seen so much government distrust and community group outrage in decades. Only you can fix this… and here’s a quick way to start:
Please do the following:
1. Put off the BCIA discussion and vote until we have answers to the Maser Traffic Study questions and until we know what parking plan we are bonding for.
2. Reschedule the Schedler discussion to a future meeting out of respect to your concerned Residents and to the import of the matter itself.
As always, while frustrated, we hope that you will do the right thing in the handling of both these related requests.

Thank you, in advance.
Dave Slomin,
Concerned Resident
Posted on

Look Who is Getting Ready to Run for Ridgewood Village Council

3 amigos in action Ridgewood NJ

January 2,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ , Gwenn Habernickel Hauck is getting ready to run for Village Council  ( https://www.gwennhauck.com/ ) . Gwen is a current Village Council member and is a key member of the Council Majority ,know to most blog readers as the “3 Amigos” .

While Mayor Aronsohn  is as many have long expected moving on , Gwen is preparing for a new electoral challenge.  Gwen has long catered to the senior set in town ,but has become a very controversial figure on the dais . Her tenure has been dominated by her unwillingness to address the obvious conflicts with Valley Hospital, her frequent non sequitur out bursts , her addiction to electronic communications during council meetings and he unwillingness to listen to alternative point of views .

It is important to note you get the Government you vote for. So all you posters on this blog that voted for the 3 Amigos and now posting negative opinions about them let us remind you what your vote did and how it screwed the rest of us.

Yes Westsiders, hows your leaf pick up coming along and the high density housing ,cant wait for little Johnny to lose his AP spot, ah?

Yes Preserve Graydon Group hows the new ramp looking , we hear 3 people have used it in 2 years? And the far east side Schedler Field hows the house coming along and enjoy the 90X60 baseball field , especially the lights at night and the traffic .

 And of coarse we are all looking forward to paying for the 5 story parking garage through increased in parking rates and hours and of coarse as the Walker report stated ,increased property taxes .
And lets not forget the 0% tax increase for two years and all that money taken from the emergency fund ,the down grade of municipal services ?
Don’t forget the increase in the debt service which we will be paying for long after you 3 are gone. And of coarse our personal favorite ,fill the Village with high density housing destroying the very character , and turning Ridgewood into just one more New Jersey dump waiting to be the next Hoboken, the key word is like Bayonne ,”waiting”.

ALBERT J PUCCIARELLI 2078 55.50%

KEITH KILLION 1711 45.70%

RUSSELL R FORENZA 817 21.82%

PAUL ARONSOHN 2479 66.21%

MARY JANE SHINOZUKA 1484 39.64%

GWENN H HAUCK 1727 46.13%

Posted on

Ridgewood councilman’s question worth considering

mike_sedon_theridgewoodblog

JUNE 12, 2015    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS

Councilman’s question worth considering

to the editor:

During the June 3 Village Council work session, Councilman Michael Sedon asked if the salary of Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld should be reduced in order to offset the “six figure” salary of the newly created position of human resources director. Quite frankly, this question had been on my mind, and Councilman Sedon’s idea was, in my opinion, worth considering.

Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld’s reply included that she is not “outsourcing” any portion of her job, and that she is “still responsible” for human resources. Perhaps, but the fact remains that the overall salary now allocated to manage human resources has abruptly increased by at least $100,000.

Moreover, I was quite surprised to hear Ms. Sonenfeld state that her salary is “already down,” which was followed by a comment from Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck that she thinks Sonenfeld is “already the lowest paid manager in New Jersey,” and by Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s response that he “can’t imagine that [reducing her salary] would be the plan.”

Ms. Sonenfeld’s salary, established by Village Council members, is what she agreed to just over a year ago when she was hired. No one forced her to take the job or the salary. For her to now publicly complain that it is so low, so soon after she came on board, and especially when some of her responsibilities have now been delegated to a new hire, is quite disheartening.

Finally, Ms. Sonenfeld’s tone, when she replied to Councilman Sedon, coupled with the quick dismissal of Sedon’s suggestion by three of his colleagues, illustrates that civility is still not consistently practiced under Mayor Aronsohn’s leadership.

Anne LaGrange Loving

Ridgewood

https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-to-the-editor-ridgewood-councilman-s-question-worth-considering-1.1354676

Posted on

Swimming champ Charlotte Samuels honored by Ridgewood Village Council

unnamed-19

photo by Boyd Loving

Swimming champ Charlotte Samuels honored by Ridgewood Village Council

OCTOBER 8, 2014, 11:08 PM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014, 11:13 PM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — Swimming sensation Charlotte Samuels was honored Wednesday night by the Village Council.

The 16-year-old athlete set records recently by swimming across the English Channel, thus becoming the youngest person to complete the Triple Crown of Open Water Swimming that requires the Channel swim, Catalina Channel swim and Manhattan Island Marathon Swim.

– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/swimming-champ-charlotte-samuels-honored-by-ridgewood-village-council-1.1105011#sthash.rqCuaheh.dpuf

Posted on

Nominating Packets Available for Ridgewood Village Council

Mr_six_original

Nominating Packets Available for Ridgewood Village Council

Nominating packets are available for Ridgewood residents who are registered voters and wish to run for and serve on the Ridgewood Village Council. They may be picked up at the Village Clerk’s Office in Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The deadline for filing completed nominating petitions is March 10, 2014.

This year, there are two positions, with four-year terms, to serve on the non-partisan Village Council which will be voted on at the May 13, 2014 Municipal Election. The newly elected Councilmembers will be sworn in and take office on July 1, 2014.

Any questions concerning the Municipal Election should be directed to the Village Clerk’s Office at 201-670-5500 ext. 205 or by email to: hmailander@ridgewoodnj.net or djackson@ridgewoodnj.net

Chemistry.com

Posted on

Reader says Have Paul and Al learned nothing from the Valley fiasco?

Bike_Valley_theridgewoodblog.net

Reader says Have Paul and Al learned nothing from the Valley fiasco?

46 emails and mulitple meetings between only two councilmen, meetings that other council people were not aware of despite asking if anyone was meeting with developers does not sound above board, nor ethical given the scope of zoning changes being asked of the village. Have Paul and Al learned nothing from the Valley fiasco.

And the irony of Gwenn “can’t we all just get along” Hauck, blaming Bernie Walsh for the dysfunction on the Council, while Al didn’t even have the courtesy to stay seated while Bernie spoke, (or tried to speak – as Paul gave the floor to everyone but her), was laughable.

Paul and Al are bullies and appear to be in bed with the developers. And I would strongly recommend that the League of Women Voter’s review the tape – because in my view they are misogynists as well.