Calling for compromise
OCTOBER 23, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Print
Calling for compromise
To the Editor:
Pending projects in Ridgewood call for compromise.
1. Development in the Central Business District: So many people have weighed in on this issue and the overwhelming majority want to scale back the proposed housing density change from 35 units per acre to approximately 24, when 12 is currently allowed. At a low estimate of 800 total people speaking out at recent meetings, sending emails and signing petitions, multiplied by 20 (a standard political statistic for surveying public opinion), 16,000 people spoke against the higher density change.
That number represents just about every adult resident living in town. This is a mandate. No further discussion is needed. The council should take the vote off the table and revise the resolutions.
2. Parking Garage: The projected costs are huge and people are concerned. Former Mayor Pat Mancuso suggested two parking tiers at several locations throughout the CBD. Many thought this was a great idea.
This solution would be much easier to manage and possibly a benefit to those wishing to park a bit closer to their destination.
3. Schedler: This is not the place for a 90-foot baseball diamond. The neighborhood will be adversely affected for a multitude of reasons including its close proximity to Route 17. The integrity of the historical house is in jeopardy and we lose 4.5 acres of woods.
Friends of Schedler are in favor of a smaller field which will allow for the trees to be saved and protect the house with meaningful land abutting it. A playground similar to the one at Ridge School would be a wonderful addition for all of Ridgewood’s children. It is the right thing to do and the most practical.
In addition, I believe the compost facility should be considered as a location for the larger baseball field. The facility had been problematic and the neighbors might prefer a playing field. The site is level on land we own, it is on the west side of town, convenient to get to and we don’t have to remove acres of trees.
I also propose hiring additional people in the Shade Tree Division, which has been decimated over the years, and get back in the business of planting and maintaining our trees. We moved here for the schools, the town and the trees.
Linda McNamara
Ridgewood
Linda, I think we need a slight reality check here…. 16,000 people spoke against the higher density change? 67% of every man, woman and child in Ridgewood? Also, note shade tree division employees were fired in 2010 by then Village Manager Gabbert to cut Municipal costs in order to pay for the wage increases he gave to senior management in public safety when he reopened the Police & Fire CBAs in 2010, without a labor lawyer present. Some have argued that those CBAs should have been voided because they were reopened unilaterally, and then approved by the Council led by a former Police Captain. The greater point is that Police & Fire costs continue to crowd out the Village’s ability to pay for services like planting & maintaining shade trees that benefit all residents. If many of our trees had been properly pruned and maintained since 2010 we might not have had so many trees fall and take down elevated power lines during Sandy, etc. And note all of the increase in municipal taxes since 2010 have gone to pay for higher public safety costs, including pensions & healthcare. The growth in those expenses has come at the cost of cuts in almost every other area of the Village’s budget. It will only get worse.
Someone needs to look at the big picture. It is not just a garage or just The Enclave.
We need to look at a massive garage and possibly 3 high density housing developments. When one apartment complex gets built the others do not go away, they will be building too.
In ten years what will the downtown look like? The downtown will be packed with people and cars. What type of businesses will flourish in this situation? The few bars will be packed but will the (lack of) diversity of stores be any different? I do not see myself battling traffic to go to the downtown to shop. There will be more incentive to head out to Paramus.
Great letter, Linda. Unfortunately these three are NOT interested in compromise. It is their way and their way only..
Linda, thank you. Most of the sensible agree with what you’ve stated. Let me just add one point about shade trees. We have them and we need them, however, we should move in a more sensible manner in the future. Town trees have been poorly managed in my opinion. I’d like to see the proper trees put in and in better locations. We are all aware that the trees that have been put in really disturb a lot of the sidewalks in Ridgewood. The sidewalks are rising due to placement of the wrong trees. Maybe we can plant the trees a little deeper on residents properties? The in between the road and sidewalk is not ideal. If this must be done here, just put in the proper trees. Did you know that there are trees who have roots that grown more downward than heading to our sidewalks? These trees, such as a Zelcova, may be a better choice in the future? If they happen to cost a little more just plant a few less. I’m not looking to increase any spending. We’re going to need that for the town services that do not contribute enough to their healthcare and retirement. I’m not pointing any fingers, I’m just saying stop kicking that can.
Nobody
Anyone who saw the ridgewood news this weekend saw the future of ridgewood if the 3 have their way. The enclave looked like the streets of Hoboken and the garage something you would fine in Baltimore. Fine cities but is that what we want to be??
I may have just posted but I am not sure if it went through. I agree with all the postings. I understand that we can’t continue planting trees in the right of way that are inappropriate for that narrow strip of land and become hazardous as they grow. Other towns have successfully addressed that issue. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for volunteers and some village appointed committees to get their ideas/ solutions across. In all my years in the village, I have never seen so many people show up to a council meeting as did to the meeting where the. 5 resolutions regarding development in the CBD was to be voted on. That effort took much time and money. It shouldn’t have to be so difficult for residents to be heard.
The residents of Ridgewood don’t need a $15 Million Goliath parking garage and high multi density apartment buildings crammed into the center of town. Look no further than the daily heavy traffic jams of routes 17 and 4 which will eventually bring more heavy traffic to an already congested town. When a town is already built out, it does not need to build up to accomodate the overpopulation of cities. NYC already has over reached its population droves into many areas that were former suburbs of NJ. Change is not always for the better when you lose the quality of living that once was.
Hey 8:46 if you ever need public safety for anything maybe you should consider call a plant or shade tree.
Charlie is posting again. Good tack blame the cops for everything. Lets not talk about how much money your friend Roberta has spent on hiring her friends. No wonder they kicked you off the Finance Board. Stick to what you know best. Investing pensions money for those same cops , fireman and teachers the you maline.
Well the Finical Advisory Board knows how to take of their own ( Roberta) This was taken from their report dated November 2012.
j.
We suggest that t
he Village Manager
be exempt from the BPI Schedule. Instead, the Vi
llage
Manager’s
BPI rate
would
be reset every year at
a modest pre
–
determined rate (4
–
7%)
above the
highest
current employee
BPI
rate
. This will ensure an appropriate premium
for the Village Manager’s
annual compensation
and that no employee has a higher BPI than the Village Manager
So the question is let see who our Village Manager gave raises to in order to increase hers ?
I think you were on the Board for this one 8:46.
.
5:33, your comment is highly misleading and not based in fact. The November 2012 FAC report was not binding, and the BPI schedule was just an example of what could have been used, for example instead of the 12% retroactive pay raise given to Gabbert after he’d reopened the CBAs for Police & Fire (without a labor lawyer present) to give raises to the senior brass. He came back to the Governing body and said he should get paid more than the guys he just gave raises to, and amazingly the Council voted 4-1 to give him a 12% retroactive pay raise ! Roberta isn’t doing her job to get a raise and she takes considerably less than the senior police & fire brass when you include their accumulated leave, 10% longevity pay, and future benefits (pension & healthcare from an average “special” retirement age of 52).
Let the readers decide 12:59 but you seem to know a lot about it.