NOVEMBER 10, 2015 LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2015, 9:51 AM
BY MARK KRULISH
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Affordable housing obligations have been a hot topic in municipalities all over New Jersey in the wake of the state Supreme Court’s decision in March to return jurisdiction in cases on affordable housing to the courts.
photo by Boyd Loving
Like many other municipalities, Ridgewood is in the midst of litigation on the matter while attempting to clarify its exact affordable housing obligation.
The village is preparing a plan to submit to a judge by December on how it will meet its obligation.
photo by Boyd Loving
Jeffrey Surenian, an attorney whose practice focuses exclusively on representing municipalities in affordable housing matters, gave a presentation at last Wednesday night’s Village Council meeting in order to shed some light on the issue.
The council was expected to discuss the issue further as part of its work session later in the meeting, but postponed talks as a public hearing pushed the start of the regular agenda past midnight.
Ridgewood NJ, “We’ll see…” was Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s answer when asked about the the September 30th agreed to studies . The Mayor did at lest confirm his commitment to the Financial Impact Study.Residents felt betrayed and reminded the council that you cannot renege on any of the approved studies and maintain our trust. Residents deserve and demand the comprehensive overlook you voted for before you consider any sweeping changes to the Central Business District.
At the Monday night meeting several of the Council Members indicated that they could not recall exactly what they voted on, and “committed” to, on September 30th before an audience of hundreds of residents. The video and Heather Mailander’s clarification of the motion immediately before the vote from the September 30th meeting set the record straight :
It is clear that ALL Councilmembers were fully aware of the motion put to the vote and all parties were given the opportunity for further clarification, prior to the vote.
The Vote then occurred as follows:
Heather Mailander: “So this is the amended version which we just read which is multiple studies. Traffic and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. And it’s a comprehensive traffic study as outlined by Councilwoman Knudsen: CBD, surrounding neighborhoods, entire Village. Correct? Okay. So that’s the motion on the floor. Any more discussion?
Susan Knudsen: “And that would be to table everything until this?”
Heather Mailander: “Correct, correct.”
The vote, was then taken with the following result:
Hauck: Yes
Knudson: Yes
Pucciarelli: No
Sedon: Yes
Aronsohn: Yes
It could not be clearer as to what the Council voted on. The council committed to multiple studies. a comprehensive traffic study and infrastructure study, financial study and the school impact study. That’s now what residents require .
Residents clearly indicated that they need a better answer than, “We’ll see.” The High Density development issue is simply too big of an issue ,fundamentally changing the nature of the Village of Ridgewood forever.
Ridgewood NJ , Several residents in the area of South Monroe Street and Washington Place reported to The Ridgewood Blog’s tip hotline that a vehicle displaying markings of RIDGEWOOD WATER was being used by Ms. Tracy Jeffrey, the Village’s new Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Jeffrey was observed issuing written leaf collection policy warnings late this week to residents in leaf pick up area “D.”
Vehicles assigned to RIDGEWOOD WATER employees are paid for with revenues generated from RIDGEWOOD WATER subscribers. A pending lawsuit by the municipalities of Glen Rock, Midland Park, and Wyckoff suggests that the Village of Ridgewood is improperly using these revenues to support operations exclusive to the Village of Ridgewood. Ms. Jeffrey’s use of a RIDGEWOOD WATER vehicle may be a case in point. At least two of the tipsters who left messages on The Ridgewood Blog tip hotline questioned the connection, if any, Ms. Jeffrey’s code enforcement work has with RIDGEWOOD WATER.
I had to shake my head when I read Mayor Paul Aronsohn’s commentary in today’s Ridgewood News Mayor’s Corner about what he referred to as “a disinformation campaign that sought to confuse and undermine” the conversation about the parking deck. How pitiful it is that our Mayor felt it necessary to fire off such harsh criticism against a document that did not support this project.
He characterized the flyer as “distorted;” it had a drawing that was not to exact scale, but unlike the official drawing being put forth from Village Hall, the flyer’s at least included surrounding buildings, thus making it in many ways a more realistic depiction of what is to come.
“Anonymous mailer?” The signs that proclaimed VOTE YES on parking had absolutely no identification as to who had produced and distributed them. What made these less anonymous than the flyer? And what is the Mayor’s great opposition to anonymity? – when we go into the voting booth, we are always anonymous.
The Mayor actually analyzed the language in the flyer and sought to identify the post office from which it was sent? Really? What is the threat that inspired such intense detective work on his part? Of course the flyer was created and sent from a person or persons who opposed the plan; who else would send it? It is dismaying that the mayor is putting so much effort into determining the source of the flyer; this level of investigation suggests that the sender/s, if identified, could be subjected to some kind of retribution. I am hopeful that the Mayor would tread very carefully here, as freedom of speech is a right and a privilege.
Amazingly, when an anonymous email was sent to Councilman Sedon’s employer minutes after his campaign became official in 2014, Mr. Aronsohn took no action. When members of the public implored him to press forward with identifying who tainted our election process by trying to derail a candidate’s campaign, Mr. Aronsohn still did not take any kind of stand. Only when publicly pressed him to DO SOMETHING did he finally, 17 months later, send a very benign request for information, with no outrage about what had happened to Councilman Sedon, and no description of how urgently the citizens of Ridgewood wanted to identify the culprit. I would have to ask the mayor why his indignation about this anonymous parking garage flyer so overshadows his disinterest in the anonymous email during the 2014 elections.
It is a sad state of affairs when our own Mayor does not encourage those who disagree with him to share their opinions with their fellow citizens, and accuses them of undermining an initiative that he supports. I did not write, pay for, or distribute the flyer, and did not even get one in the mail. But, I was very happy to see it and more than willing to share it once I saw it. The flyer provided another part of the conversation about the Parking Garage project. The last time I checked, here in America we are entitled to express ourselves. Speaking up is our right, and the person/s who sent the flyer should be applauded.
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.
Ridgewood Nj, Is the latest controversy over the so called Historic Preservation Commission Endorsement letter of the downtown parking garage enough to derail the entire project ?
“Any endorsement from the Village of Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission will have great influence on Village residents. Hence, to ensure its integrity, such a letter must be held to the highest standard of accuracy. Mr. Parrillo’s 10/23 letter is not reflective of any discussion amongst HPC members during the October 2015 meeting. The October 8 meeting was merely a courtesy review. Members reflected on the appropriateness of the structure in the Historic Central Business District. Discussion topics included size, height, mass, cantilevers, sconces, arches, parapets and more. At no time was there any talk of “approval” nor was there any discussion about encouraging residents to vote “yes” on November 3. It never happened. Mr. Parrillo certainly could have composed a letter reflecting his own views. I wish he had chosen to do so.” Councilwomen Susan Knudsen.
“I believe that it is highly inappropriate for any elected official to so openly and blatantly work so diligently to promote a project that they themselves have arranged to be voted on in a public election. We need to carefully consider the information available and show the public that their input matters. Promoting a yes vote shows residents that your mind is made up regardless of available information or opinions reducing the referendum to a sham.
To your point on the Historic Preservation Commission’s endorsement letter, it is unfortunate that that committee’s integrity has been compromised, and it has basically been reduced to the council majority’s sounding board. With all of the other parking propaganda floating around the chair of that committee should have just wrote a letter supporting the project as a resident without dragging the HPC into all of this noise. ” Councilmen Michael Sedon
Public Hearing – Habernickel Park – November 4, 2015
VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Village Council of the Village of Ridgewood will hold a Public Hearing on November 4, 2015 at a Special Public Meeting, during their regularly scheduled Work Session, which begins at 7:30 P.M. in the Ridgewood Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey for public comment on the following:
Changing the use of the house at 1057 Hillcrest Road, Block 1103, Lot 16.01, Ridgewood, NJ, located in the Irene Habernickel Family Park from a residential lease to an educational and recreational programing lease.
A public hearing is required pursuant to NJDEP Green Acres Rules N.J.A.C. 7:36-25-6 et. seq. for a change in purpose or use of funded or unfunded parkland.
Documents relating to the proposed development are available for examination by the public at the Village Manager’s Office of the Ridgewood Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Oral comments and testimony will be heard at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted before the date of the hearing or within two weeks from the date of the public hearing.
Written comments or inquiries should be directed to Nancy Lawrence, NJDEP Green Acres Program, Bureau of Legal Services & Stewardship, Mail Code 501-01, P.O. Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 and Janet Fricke, Assistant to the Village Manager, Ridgewood Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07451 or by telephone at (201) 670-5500, Extension 204 or by email to: [email protected].
On Wednesday night October 28, Councilwoman Susan Knudsen asked that a letter which is posted on the Village of Ridgewood website be removed. This letter, supporting the Hudson Street Garage project, indicates that it comes from an entire committee, which it turns out is not the case. Councilwoman Knudsen’s polite request was summarily dismissed by you.
This leads me to ask: Who controls the Village of Ridgewood website? It is paid for by the taxpayers. I am not sure who asked and authorized that the letter (as well as another one supporting the Hudson Street Garage) be put on the VOR website in the first place, but all indications are that it was you, since you have been liberally quoting the letter as “another endorsement for our parking garage.” The VOR website is not your personal website (again, it is being paid for by taxpayers), so if you choose as Mayor to have a letter posted to support a project that you endorse, then another Council member has an equal right to have the letter removed. Last I checked, each councilperson has an equal say in matters of government and policy.
I personally do not believe that such letters have a place on the VOR website at all. But, since you clearly disagree with me, then I respectfully request that you post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter, which appears in The Ridgewood News today, on the VOR website immediately. The entire community has a right to see all sides of the issue. As Councilman Sedon emphatically stated on Wednesday, people should vote any way they wish. Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli wrote similar sentiments in a published letter last week. Enthusiasm for, or against, any project in the Village is the right and responsibility of our elected officials. Overstepping the bounds of your one-vote authority is completely wrong.
For your convenience, I have pasted Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter below, and have also provided a hyperlink to it. Failure to either remove the “endorsement” letters from the VOR website, or to post Councilwoman Knudsen’s letter alongside them, will clearly indicate that you place your judgment, position, and “power” above that of another elected official.
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.
Be informed and vote.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen
Village of Ridgewood
Dear Roberta,
Please immediately remove the Historic Preservation Commission letter, dated 10/23/15, from the Village website. (reference:https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015HPCPGLStatement.pdf)
The letter does not accurately reflect the Historic Preservation Commission meeting held on October 8, 2015. Minutes and audio are available from Michael Cafarelli or I can send a direct link to access.
Thank you,
Susan
Dear Susan,
As you know from the email we received today at 2:57 PM, Vince Parrillo stands by the letter and has affirmed through polling all of the HPC members today (one could not be reached) that they all agree that the letter truly reflects the HPC position.
Thanks, Roberta
Best regards,
Roberta
Roberta Sonenfeld Village Manager 201-670-5500, ext. 203
Clearly you are not aware of the backstory. If you were, I am sure you would understand that CBR had to pay a lawyer for almost 3 years to attend every meeting for every hour to represent their and ultimately our interests as residents. I am sure you understand how much lawyers charge per hour and the amount they bill when they are doing research aside from meetings. I am sure you realize they did fundraise but ultimately there is a big gap that they filled personally for years. How much did you contribute?
Ultimately CBR was holding our council responsible and paying a fortune out of pocket for what our elected officials should do as standard operating procedure. We are at the point now with the clock running out on this council. Hopefully residents are now paying attention and will be putting pressure on so the right studies are done and responsible decisions are made.
I assure you there is nothing beyond that. No promises of anything else.
Now if only the builders would stop threatening lawsuits every time they fear they won’t get their way…
Notice that John Saraceno took a full page ad in last Friday’s Ridgewood News essentially threatening to sue us if he doesn’t get his way. This is going to end up in court one way or another. What a failure of leadership by our Council majority. The only reason that they “did the right thing” was that they were getting shouted down by hundreds of people vowing to vote them out of office if they didn’t listen.
I thought that the full page threat from “The Enclave” was over the top.Coward who paid for it did not ise his name. Threat came from a yet-to-be-built complex.Warning the town that if they don’t get their way there will be hell to pay. Yea, this is going to court.
Ridgewood NJ, Aronsohn, Hauck, and Pucciarelli use the word “civility” so often that you might just think that they are disciples of the church of kindness. And yet, what are we seeing under this reign? We are seeing so much hostility in the meetings that it is an embarrassment to behold.
The three of them have attacked Councilwoman Knudsen ruthlessly, as well as Councilman Sedon, former manager Ken Gabbert, Village Clerk Heather Mailander, former Councilman Tom Riche, former Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh, and Chief of Police John Ward. They also have gone after certain members of the public, as when Aronsohn and Manager Sonenfeld double-teamed Mrs. Reynolds and badgered her about something she said. She had been neither incorrect nor impolite, yet they decided they could bully her because they did not like her message. They permitted the former labor attorney to go on a 50-minute rant, a verbal assault, against Councilwoman Knudsen. They publicly annihilated Tom Riche, against the advice of Matt Rogers, because they wanted to be bullies. When people go to the microphone to speak, Aronsohn will let someone with whom he agrees talk way past the 5-minute mark, while he shuts down anyone he does not like as soon as the buzzer sounds. This is despicable. Mayor Aronsohn, members of the public elected you (or at least some of them did) and they have a right to speak. And Aronsohn often strolls out of the meeting to schmooze with one person or another in the hallway, thereby thumbing his nose at whoever is speaking or whatever is being discussed in his absence. One of them was heard screaming at Councilwoman Knudsen to the point that the witness advised Susan to file an official report. The three of them have admitted that they text or email during the meetings, thereby disregarding that they are conducting an OPEN PUBLIC meeting. The list just goes on and on.
And why the heck has Aronsohn allowed three consecutive meetings to extend into the wee hours of the morning? Why doesn’t he manage things better, schedule more hearings, and make them have defined end-times, so that people can get home at a reasonable hour? This is another form of bullying, when you think about it. The idea seems to be that if they go late enough, people will get tired and head home before speaking. Seemingly many people are mad enough that they stay as late as 2:45 AM.
Anyone who watches these meetings can see that the hostility level is unprecedented. This past week one resident called another an “s.o.b,” and what did Aronsohn do? Nothing. One resident called three others liars, and what did Aronsohn do? Nothing. People are at the point of tears, they are angry, frustrated, they are pleading, they are screaming. People are getting babysitters and missing evenings with their families and going to bed a few hours before they have to start work again, and when they are at the meetings the anger level is off the charts. Residents are coming together to sue the Village. Residents are spending unprecedented amounts of money to take out newspaper ads that encourage residents to fight city hall. The entire atmosphere is toxic and completely unproductive. The topics are many – Schedler, Parking Garage, High-Density Housing, the ramp to nowhere, the bike lane under the train trestle, and on and on. Their ill-advised projects have pretty much antagonized the entire populace of Ridgewood. They have made sure that no resident would feel at peace. What a complete train-wreck this entire administration has proven to be.
And what do they do? Preach civility! Egad, how disingenuous.
Paul and Albert and Gwenn like to think that there are a few “bad apples” in town who are their only critics. They blast this Blog for the anonymity of its posters. Um, excuse me….have you seen the hundreds of residents who come to the meetings and complain about your plans and your policies? Not only are their numbers huge, but they are not anonymous. Have you read the published letters in the newspaper to which authors’ names are attached?
You three have carved your legacies in this town, and the image is miserable to behold. Yes, you will be remembered long after you have gone. Everyone remembers the people who ran over them, bullied them, and wreaked havoc. We won’t forget you, but oh, we will be so glad to see you go next July.
Lawsuits cost big money, the Village Council is now going to do the appropriate studies. What would be the purpose of continuing to sue, have a judge order them to do studies? Regarding “trust”, I don’t believe it either. However, sometimes you have to give the other side some room if you hope at least one of them will vote your way in the future. Remember the changed vote on Valley.
This post leaves out the crucial fact that $100k has been spent by private citizens to fight against themselves [village runs on taxpayer dollars, we pay twice!] There is no way CBR can fight the spending power of debt funded developers. Remember, one of the developers has been fined MILLIONS of dollars for their inability to follow the law and still they spend more. How can we fight that?
Well if you believe that then answer this( 9:26). The CBR have a lot of smart people in their group you mean to tell me that no one anticipated the cost of their law suit? Why did they file it ( If they did ) so early? Why didn’t they wait till the council voted and then decide if a lawsuit was to costly. They fold like a cheap suit and the 3 amigos know it . Something stinks here.
While I don’t trust our Council majority to do the right thing here, they are kind of painted into a corner. The only way out for them at this point is to try to literally “pull a fast one” and wrap these supposedly comprehensive studies up in a couple weeks so that they can all vote yes before they get voted out in May.
It’s probably ok to drop the suit for now, but keep a copy handy in case we need to change the date and re-file.
I would not trust Aronsohn, Hauck, and Pucciarelli to do anything other than what would benefit them politically They are the most self-servicing bunch on the Council in a very long time..
I understand CBR. I wonder if your going to have enough money to fight the BOED when they redistrict after all isn’t this what it all about. You want to keep Ridge and Williard for your kids.
Whoever just discussed redistributing should read up on the topic. In 2012 fishbein said ridge, Somerville and Hawes are full. travel, Willard and orchard would lose the most. Ridge is already BY FAR the most diverse school in town. That isn’t even a question
One reason folks at ridge have been on this issue is because most of the current apartments are zoned for ridge We know how many children WILL move into the apartments and what the impacts of so many units will have on congestion in an already congested part of town. Ever drive west ridgewood avenue at 3?
Telephonic or electronic communication between or among Councilmembers or between a Councilmember and a member of the public during public meetings is prohibited.
This Resolution was written by Pucciarelli and Walsh in 2013. Pucciarelli initiated writing it because his conduct had been questioned as a possible violation of The Sunshine Law. He felt that a road-map for proper conduct was needed for council members. It is entitled “Village Council Meetings and Communications Protocol.” It was voted in unanimously.
When a member of the public asked the Council, in October of 2014, whether they were complying with this particular line item, Pucciarelli, Hauck, and Aronsohn all admitted that they do have their phones on and they do receive communications. Sedon and Knudsen firmly stated that they do not. Hauck was outspokenly affronted that her integrity had been called into question. Pucciarelli went on a riff about emergencies and his family having to let him know what is going on. (note to Albert – the POLICE DEPARTMENT is in the building, they can run upstairs if one of his family members calls in an emergency). Aronsohn said his wife sends him little jokey texts (how cute). No matter whether it is a family member or anyone else, these are members of the public who are in touch with members of the Council during Public Meetings.
What is the point in having the Resolution if it is not respected? What is the point of having a Sunshine Law if quiet communications are taking place during public meetings?
Gwenn Hauck does not need to comprehend the report. Whoever keeps writing to her during the meetings will tell her what to say. Yes, Gwenn, we see that you are busy reading and writing during meetings, we see the glow of your device shining off your glasses. Your handlers are providing most of what you say. You are best when you go off script and start rambling on about people should all be nice to each other. You need to be reminded that you are one of the nastiest people in the room. Just last week you went after Mike Sedon like a pit bull, no that is a bad analogy, unfair to the pitt bull. You were badgering him and hammering him, just as we have seen you do to Bernie Walsh, Tom Riche, Susan Knudsen and others. Honey child, you need to look in the mirror – you can lecture the crowd about how you are always so respectful, and you can reprimand the naysayers, but in fact you have shown repeatedly that you can be a class-A B*TCH.
The Ridgewood Community Center Advisory Board, comprised of Ridgewood residents, is charged by the Village Council with maintaining and improving the Community Center and serving the broader Ridgewood community. To aid in that mission we wish to learn more about the priorities, needs and concerns of Ridgewood residents age 55 and older.
Please pardon the length of this survey. We know some questions apply more to some of you than others. We truly want to learn more about everyone in this age group in Ridgewood and encourage you to share with us as much as you can.
This is an anonymous survey. Please complete the survey if you are age 55 or over and a Ridgewood resident. One survey per person. More than one person in a household is welcome to complete the survey.
