Tag: Schedler

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.