Key verbatim assumptions/findings taken from the Village Council commissioned parking study prepared by Walker Associates:
Easing crowding does not, in and of itself, create a new revenue stream; it transfers revenue
from other metered spaces in the Village. The garage will likely encourage people to come
downtown who have been avoiding it due to parking constraints, but this is not a quantifiable
revenue stream and is not included in our analysis. More conservatively, we project the
following net new revenue streams for the garage:
• The 72-space Brogan Cadillac lot on South Broad Street at Essex Street and at the 92-
space Ken Smith Motors lot just east of the train tracks and north of Franklin Avenue are
going to be demolished for development. Both of these dealerships have closed and
lease out their parking. The Ken Smith Lot is permit parking for downtown employees.
The Brogan Lot accommodates commuters during the day and is leased out for
restaurant valet parking at night. We anticipate these demand streams would transfer
to the garage.
• We understand from Village staff that there are other restaurants downtown that use
valet services in private lots that would use the garage instead (probably doing away
with valet service since self-park options would be easier).
• The Village used to have 120 non-resident commuter permits, but doubled non-resident
permit rates because there was not enough space for these commuters. Currently
there are very few non-resident commuters parking in the train station area. The Village
plans to reduce the non-resident commuter rate to $875/year to increase that demand
stream again.
It is typical in downtowns that the revenue stream in a given garage is not sufficient to cover its
operating costs and debt service. Downtown parking systems are just that – systems – that rely
on pooled revenue from all resources, and especially the on-street meters (which tend to
have the highest turnover), to cover the higher cost associated with building and operating a
garage. This is the case in Ridgewood, where the net new revenue projected for the garage
is not projected to offset its expenses.
Therefore, our revenue projection includes all downtown revenue and all expenses associated with the parking system.
To operate the garage and have a revenue-positive parking utility (with funds available for other parking lot
maintenance projects), we project that the Village will increase meter rates as follows:
• In 2016, meters will be extended until 9 p.m. and meter rates on key downtown streets
will increase to 75¢.
• In 2017, 75¢ meters will be increased to $1 and the rest of the on-street and off-street
meters will increase to 75¢.
• If needed, rates would increase by 25¢ after five years.
• Commuter permit rates would increase by $25 in 2021 and 2025.
May 2015, the Village Council tinkered with it and sent it to the Planning Board for comment, the Planning Board liked the tinkering. I don’t know whether the Village Council adopted the changes yet or not.
“Board member David Thurston asked if the new language opened up the board to a charge of making an arbitrary decision if it decides not to move forward with an application.
Village Planner Blais Brancheau said it should not be a problem in obvious cases,…..”
I am sure anyone who makes an application, particularly a big developer, will not regard their application as one that should obviously be turned down. We need to do what other towns do, not have such an ordinance.
file photo by Boyd Loving
OCTOBER 2, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015, 8:44 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Informed public must be heard
To the Editor:
With all that is going on in the world and in our private lives, we often don’t focus on the very things where we can actually make a difference. I believe it was Tip O’Neill who said, “All politics is local.” There are several important issues that will be decided on by our Village Council in the very near future.
The council was scheduled to vote on an ordinance that would change the housing density in the Central Business District from 12 units per acre to 35. Many village residents worked hard to prevent this from happening as it has the potential of negatively changing the character of our village. Citizens for a Better Ridgewood, the leading opponent to the density change, had an online petition which garnered over 1,000 signatures that was seemingly dismissed by the current council. A gentleman recently spoke at a public meeting calling for a compromise: an increase from 12 to 22-24 units per acre. His suggestion made so much sense and I can only hope the council listened.
The proposed 90-foot baseball diamond at the Schedler property is another case in point. Many villagers have signed petitions and spoken out at public meetings to prevent this from happening for years. They have offered proposals that would allow for a modest-sized playing field while preserving a historic home and 4 acres of woods. This compromise would allow the village to move forward in a manner that would respect the interests of all concerned parties. It doesn’t appear that the council majority will move in that direction.
We always hope that our elected officials will have an ear to the public and make decisions accordingly. This is not the case currently at the council level. Many recent votes have gone 3-2, always with the same council members in the majority and the two in the minority actively seeking to be more inclusive regarding public opinion.
A functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate. At the local level, you can truly have your voices heard and maybe effect the decisions being made supposedly on our behalf. My anthem used to be, “I fight authority and authority always wins.” With people working together for a common cause, we might be able to change the word always to sometimes. Hopefully, John Mellencamp won’t mind.
Ridgewood NJ, Finally, it has become abundantly clear, that the current Council majority totally disrespects the will and wishes of the taxpayers of Ridgewood. The Ridgewood “elite” has woken from their Pinot Noir induced stupor and seen and heard the arrogance of the three worst Council members of all time.
They are, by far, the most self-serving, small minded nit wits ever to grace the dais. The jig is up! Their back room dealing and campaign donor promises, at the expense and pain of the Ridgewood taxpayers, have come to light and people now have seen the three deceitful Council members as they truly are.
Let them know it’s time to pack their “carpet bags” and move on. Al can go back to his day job, Gwenn can get back to her regularly scheduled nail and hair appointments and Paul can move to Washington and help Hillary pack for prison.
By the way October 13 is the last day to Register to Vote in Nov. 3 Election. On Tuesday, October 13 from 8:30am to 4:30pm, voter registration forms are available in the Village Clerk’s Office on the 5th Floor of Village Hall.
On October 13 from 4:30pm to 9:00pm the Village Clerk will be in the Ridgewood Library Lobby with forms to assist residents with voter registration.
Even though it’s probably important to update the code, I shudder at who is doing it. They know nothing–any of them–including and especially Rogers. And I do not trust their motivations whatsoever. With any luck they’ll be too busy to do very much, and then the project can continue after the next council has replaced Rogers and Sonenfeld.
Past bad acts are still past bad acts on behalf of the village manager and council. This does not absolve them from their sins.
“In order to complete the project without an astronomical cost to the village, it was announced by Sonenfeld last week that Rogers would be doing the work free of charge.
“The cost for this would be significant,” said the attorney. “I just felt it was something that should be done, needs to be done and I wanted to get it done. The only way to do it was to donate the time.”
I wonder how much this complete overhaul will cost? I can see some very large bills from outside counsel coming as I don’t expect any of our in-house legal beagles to be up to the task.
Robertas letter to the editor last week: “..when we find an issue or a problem or an ordinance that is outdated, we don’t ignore it – we fix it.”
CORRECTION: when we find an issue or a problem or an ordinance that is outdated, WE IGNORE IT, do whatever the hell we want, and then when Knudsen, Sedon, or a member of the public pints this out we decide to fix it after the fact.
Roberta has done this multiple times in she short train wreck of a tenure with us
Mayor’s Office Hours for Residents – October 3rd, 2015
Mayor Paul Aronsohn holds office hours for Ridgewood residents on Saturday’s every month. Mayor Aronsohn will meet with residents on Saturday, October 3rd from 9AM to Noon in the Council Chambers (Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room) on the fourth floor of Ridgewood Village Hall.
For an appointment to meet with the Mayor, please call the Village Clerk’s Office at 201-670-5500 ext. 206. You may come to the Mayor’s office hours without an appointment, but those with appointments will be given priority.
We are overwhelmed by the number of residents who have emailed council members, canvassed the community to help spread the word, and shared thoughtful opinions on social media. You are all awesome! Ridgewood is amazing — and worth every effort!
THIS IS IT.
TODAY….THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE TO CHANGE OUR VILLAGE FOREVER.
THE FINAL VOTE WILL BE HELD WEDNESDAY AT VILLAGE HALL.
The agenda says the meeting starts at 7:30 pm, but please arrive by 7 pm to get a seat.
RESIDENT ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL
PLEASE bring your friends, family members, neighbors. A room filled with concerned citizens is our only chance to urge Council members to reconsider enacting these ordinances in their present form.
Details about the Meeting
Please come early and carpool, if possible. Park on both sides of Vets, at Graydon and on side streets, if needed.
The Mayor has stated that ALL residents will be heard (https://ridgewood.dailyvoice.com/…/ridgewood-mayor-a…/592174/).
If the meeting room on the fourth floor fills to capacity, overflow will be directed to the senior lounge on the first floor with a live stream of the meeting.
We encourage EVERYONE to sign his/her name, take a number and get into the cue to speak. Please approach the podium and say something as simple as “I oppose raising the density to 35 units per acre. Please vote NO.” The more people who voice opposition, the better. Short and sweet is good! It’s going to be a long evening.
This is YOUR village and you do have a voice. This will be your last chance to speak up!!
Thank you for your continued support! We hope to see you tomorrow!
Citizens For A Better Ridgewood
3 DAYS LEFT…..Email council to VOTE NO!Paul Aronsohn – paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.netAlbert Pucciarelli – apucciarelli@…
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
SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Officials cannot disregard laws
To the Editor:
Certain elected and appointed officials in Ridgewood increasingly disregard local ordinances. This is unacceptable.
The organizational chart was revised, creating some positions. A human resources director was hired and working for quite some time before the position even existed. The chart should have been rewritten, then a discussion should have taken place among the entire Village Council at a public meeting, followed by a vote. Then, and only then, should a person have been hired to fill any new position.
Instead, the revisions were introduced and voted in by three council members well after the fact.
Village Code indicates that new hires for civil service classified positions and employees in newly created positions should be hired at the lowest possible salary in the range. At least one new employee has been brought in at a higher salary. Now, the village manager wants to change the ordinance to allow some leeway with new salary offers. While flexibility should be allowed when hiring, this should not have happened before the law was changed.
Laws should be amended as needed, but they cannot be disregarded because an elected (or appointed) government official feels like it. A law should be modified when necessary, and then (and not a moment sooner) the new regulation can be followed.
In the same vein, the third line of a recent grant application regarding the Schedler property states that all members of the Village Council had reviewed the document. This is false. At least one elected Village Council member indicated not even seeing the application before it was submitted.
First, I do not understand why everyone on the council had not seen the document; who is it that decides to bypass the input of certain elected officials? But, since it was not distributed to all, the application should have been withdrawn until all had the opportunity to read it. On Sept. 9, the response from some on the dais about this was that this is common procedure, as long as the final resolution is accurate. I am appalled that some of our officials would willingly sign and send a grant application that starts right out with a known lie.
In a true emergency a rule might be broken. If your child is bleeding heavily, you would rush to the hospital, disregarding speed limits. But these cases have not even remotely been urgent. I am left with the impression that laws are, to certain of our elected and appointed officials, merely suggestions that they can take or leave.
Those who are not diligent disciples of our Village Code, who submit official documents that are known by them to contain inaccuracies, are not appropriate representatives of the citizenry of Ridgewood. They make a mockery of our local village government.
Does anybody actually believe the Village’s upcoming senior survey will help seniors? What can the Village possibly do to “help” other than add more lunch sessions to Ms Hauck’s playlist? (She’s only doing her lunches to get votes anyway, although she would be unlikely to win if she ran again…she achieved third place by only a handful of votes in 2012. Did Aronsohn’s P.R. advisers, White Horse Strategies, come up with seniors as her ideal constituency? Please.)
I’d bet dollars to Dunkin’ that the unmentioned goal of the survey, or at least the reason the Amigos support it, is to assemble an email and address list of residents over a certain age so they can assault a targeted audience with materials on those intended new apartments, the assisted-care place, realtor ads, and who-knows-what-all. Somehow something dastardly is being planned. The people who suggested the survey probably don’t know that–I’m not necessarily faulting them.
Well, I have no intention of playing into their hands by responding in any way, and I suggest that others age 60+ do the same, or at least read all the questions before agreeing to supply any answers. And don’t let them have your email address.
Unfortunately, three-fifths of the current Village Council has behaved so selfishly and cynically in ways that will destroy the Village that it has become impossible to attribute motives to them other than egotism, greed, and self-seeking.
The three of them absolutely do not care if they broke a law. Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from Pucciarelli from last Wednesday
“Maybe we’re breaking the law, but it’s not a good law.”
This is a perfect quote, demonstrating without question that the Deputy Mayor needs to be retired from public office ASAP.
Public figures are not at liberty either to violate the law, or blithely leave the impression that they are flouting the law. If a Councilmember thinks a law is bad, they should act to bring about a change to the law, not simply break it in an act of contempt to demonstrate how bad it is!
Yes, our deputy mayor, who happens to be a LAWYER (something he loves to remind us of every other minute) has that little respect for the law. Listen to him on the U-stream. Who would believe that a lawyer would say this? Who would believe that an elected law-maker would say this?
Disgusting, despicable, disgraceful, disingenuous, dastardly, damnable. The three of them stink.
Aronsohn – he looks like a doe staring at headlights, absolutely no comprehension of what is being said, he is not paying any attention whatsoever, and as soon as the speaker finishes he finally brings his eyes into focus and says Thank You For Your Comments. And he never replies to anyone’s concerns.
Sonenfeld – did you check her out when the TV was focused on her on Wednesday nonstop? Her head bobs up and down when someone is at the microphone, like a chicken pecking around for scattered corn kernels. And she makes little sounds of disapproval or disagreement, while her hand fidgets with her chin.
Hauck – she stares at her ipad when anyone speaks, and reads whatever notes are being sent to her electronically from her “handlers,” who dictate what she should say (read) next.
Pucciarelli – he also stares at his ipad, but he has it on “camera” and the camera is reversed so he is looking at himself and trying to determine if the toupee needs a little more salt-and-pepper highlights woven into it yet.
Only Sedon and Knudsen actually pay attention and give thoughtful responses, even though Aronsohn has instructed all council members that they are not to engage in conversation with any member of the public.
Ridgewood NJ, Is it just a coincidence that the Village Council’s approval, by a 3-2 vote, of a controversial 90 foot baseball field at Schedler came less than 30 days prior to a $100k donation from the Ridgewood Baseball Softball Association, in the form of matching funds for a Bergen County Open Space Grant, or is this a classic case of quid pro quo? What say you?
And why were some Village Council members kept completely in the dark as to the grant application and the donation?
2. Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act
Mayor: “Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board in Village Hall, by mail to the Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to same as provided by law of a schedule including the date and time of this meeting.”
3. Roll Call
4. RESOLUTIONS
15-261 Renewal of Liquor License
15-262 RBSA Donation to Improve Citizens Park Lower Field
15- 263 Endorse BC Municipal Grant for the Schedler Field
15-264 Endorse BC Historic Grant for Schedler House
5. Adjournment
09/09/157:30PMVillage Council Special Public Meeting
09/09/157:30PMVillage Council Public Work Session
09/15/157:30PMPlanning Board Public Meeting
09/16/158:00PMVillage Council Public Meeting
09/22/157:30PMBoard of Adjustment Public Work Session
09/29/157:30PMBoard of Adjustment Public Meeting
09/30/157:30PMVillage Council Public Work Session
