file photo by Boyd Loving
Dear Paul,
I hope the holidays were kind to you and that the power issues at town hall are resolved. In case they aren’t, I’ve also included your other email address.
I wanted to discuss your recent Mayor’s Corner column which appeared in my inbox on January 2nd, where you spoke at length about civility.
Civility is something I am so with you about. It is too easy for people to forget this and to fall into behavior that is shortsighted and damaging to the fabric of our wonderful democracy. For you to keep bringing this up is exemplary and serves as a reminder of us all continuing to raise the bar in this regard.
It’s certainly reminded me, which is why I’m writing to you.
While I applaud your efforts to get things done (certainly as a filmmaker, I know the herculean effort it sometimes requires to do so) I also feel obligated to our community to speak out when I observe actions that fall below this bar of civility you and I hold ourselves to.
When I read in your January 2nd email/column that “We need to honor the votes cast by the 3,236 Ridgewood residents – a full 65% — who voted “yes” to building a 400-car parking deck at Hudson Street” it prompts me to speak out.
I speak out because of what you wrote in the pasted below email from November 1st with the subject heading “Parking Campaign – Please Read and Please Share” (bolding/CAPs from your original email included) :
“Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck.”
As you clearly stated in that email, the vote was not a ‘yes’ for a 400 car parking garage. It was a non-binding referendum and to add parking at Hudson, bond the money and work with the public on scale and design.
Furthermore, your intention to vote a bond through the county if you don’t achieve a super majority from our council is not an acceptable path for one who wishes to respect the needs of one’s constituents and to maintain civility.
Lastly, as dictated by September 30th Village Council vote and based on the specificity of the comprehensive traffic study that you voted in favor of that evening, any movement on the traffic garage should be tabled until that study is complete. To override that vote and forcibly move forward with this bond puts the whole process into question.
Paul, many of us, myself included, are in favor of finding ways to assuage the parking situation in town. In the name of civility and for the sake of our village, I urge you to honor the vote you cast on September 30th with regards to completing the comprehensive parking study before moving forward with this traffic garage.
See you Wednesday night at 7:30pm.
Sincerely,
Dana
Dana H. Glazer
61 Clinton Avenue
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Paul Aronsohn <paul@paularonsohn.com> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,
Election Day is just around the corner … and the campaign to build Ridgewood’s first parking deck has been gaining support. As I walk through town and talk to literally thousands of residents, I can tell you that people increasingly realize that a “yes” vote for the parking referendum is a “yes” vote for Ridgewood.
And in addition to the many individual residents who have expressed strong support, we now have three important letters of endorsement – all supporting this initiative, all encouraging a “yes” vote on Tuesday.
§ The Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee
§ The Ridgewood Historic Preservation Commission
§ The Ridgewood Chamber of Commerce President
Without question, this is all very exciting.
Unfortunately, however, an anonymous mailer was sent to many Ridgewood homes this weekend – an anonymous mailer that was sent from a Newark Post Office and that is full of misinformation and distortions. And although no one was willing to take responsibility for the mailer, the language in it is strikingly similar to that used recently by others trying to undermine this important project for the Village.
So, let me set the record straight on some of the key issues being discussed:
ü Parking revenues – NOT taxes – would pay for this parking deck. We have commissioned an independent financial analysis that demonstrates that we could easily pay for a parking deck using only parking revenues. Here is that analysis.
ü There would be NO charge for parking on Sundays. We don’t charge for parking on Sundays. Period. That’s true now. That will be true if/when we build a parking deck.
ü There have been NO decisions taken with respect to meter times or rates. The independent financial analysis gave us a menu of options for paying for a parking deck without raising taxes. It would be up to the Council – with public input – to decide on any rate or time changes.
ü The size and appearance of the proposed parking deck have NOT yet been decided. Our design team – with a great deal of public input – has been developing renderings of what a parking deck could look like, but we have NOT decided on size or appearance. Those two issues would be decided after the vote on the referendum.
ü Tuesday’s referendum question is ONLY asking if residents support financing and building a garage on the Hudson Street lot. Nothing more. Nothing less. You will NOT be voting on the size, look or any other aspect of a proposed parking deck. Here is a copy of the official ballot question.
ü The anonymous mailer greatly DISTORTS the size of the proposed parking deck. As noted on the mailer in very small letters, “artist rendering, not to exact scale.”
ü A parking deck would likely lead to a significant DECREASE in traffic. According to our independent traffic consultant, a parking deck on the Hudson Street lot would have a very positive affect on the overall downtown traffic situation. The primary reason for this is that a parking deck would eliminate the need to drive around and around and around looking for a parking space.
ü A parking deck would benefit ALL Ridgewood residents … commuters as well as shoppers/diners. The Council would have to decide how best to use the parking deck, but we would likely set aside some parking for commuters and some for those shopping, dining and working downtown.
ü Tuesday’s vote provides ALL Ridgewood residents with a unique opportunity. As outlined in my letter-to-the-editor, we have an opportunity to do something smart, important and wonderful for our community.
As always, thank you….
Best,
Paul
Paul Aronsohn, Mayor
Village of Ridgewood
@paularonsohn
Bait. Switch. Oldest trick in the book.
Clinton Ave.. the “private” road with no sidewalks?
If parking revenues – NOT taxes – would pay for this parking deck, how will the Village fund everything else currently paid for by parking revenues?
Funny, GM and Lyft will work on developing an on-demand network of self-driving cars, an area of research that companies like Google, Tesla and Uber have all devoted enormous resources to in recent years…. in ten years people won’t own their own cars to commute, they’ll just get an uber or a lyft which will be far cheaper than paying for the annual depreciation on a car that you only drive for a fraction of the day… cars are a terrible investment, so why the need for a monstrous parking garage if no one will drive their own cars in 10 years? Also, think about it – if you plan to drink during your night out in the Village, you won’t drive either if you can just get an uber or lyft… this garage will be the white elephant of white elephants… that money would be FAR better spent on something else like a PAC where the current Ridgewood municipal garage is located.
“Furthermore, your intention to vote a bond through the county if you don’t achieve a super majority from our council is not an acceptable path for one who wishes to respect the needs of one’s constituents and to maintain civility.”
Puhleeze… Let’s not forget that the three people that would be voting on the BCIA option were elected by constituents just as real as those that voted for the Do Nothings. And those of us with long enough memories know that the Do Nothings were more than willing to consider BCIA funding (hint: check the debate transcript) at first but now they pander.
Saying you’re the majority in town on Facebook, doesn’t actually make you a majority.
Welcome to the new Ridgewood. Home of misinformation, deception and outright lies.
7:28am –
Parking revenues are about $1.3M currently. This is the meter revenue.
“Expenses” are about $1M. This currently includes a few things:
– Parking enforcement officers salary, wages, pension, etc.
– Operations / maintenance / capital work related to parking
– A portion of “overhead” for the village administration, allocated to the parking utility to account for time spent by village management related to parking (manager, CFO, etc.).
So the current surplus generated is about $300k. This just goes back to the general funds of the town right now.
The financial projections for the new garage include a similar surplus generated, even after covering all the current expenses, all the operating expenses for the garage, and the debt payments.
As a supporter of the project, I’m disappointed by two things here:
– The mayor is not being precise in his language. Voters supported the building of a garage on that location and raising the bond to pay for that garage. They were not voting for a specific design. Designs were discussed in December meetings, after the vote. Most people at the meeting supported the smaller option (Option C), or no garage at all.
– If the council can’t generate a super-majority for a Ridgewood built garage, it’s a bit “dishonest” to have someone else do it for them. It might be “allowed”, but it is “dishonest” in some manner. This is a project that will benefit Ridgewood. The village would have no problem raising the money. There’s no reason to get the county involved other than to reduce the need for a 4-1 majority on the council. I believe the BCIA option is also more expensive than the town-built option.
Check the threads about the garage on Facebook, Ridgewood Moms and Dads group. Roberta and Gwenn both said (in various posts) that the garage in the photo was just an idea. Nothing had been decided.
We were voting on whether we needed A garage, not THAT garage. There would be resident input on the actual size.
I never believed them.
They are mostly on their Way out and have ” Own bills and Favors to Repay..” To think otherwise after the County bonding Threat was pre –announced even before the Vote Tells the whole Story. THE FIX IS IN …now what the hell do the honest citizens and Church Communities of RIDGEWOOD INTEND TO DO. ? We unlike many involved will be LONG GONE and actual revenue generally falls less than forecasted.IE TAX SUBSIDIES of local residents should be expected…WE THEN HAVE TO LOVE WITH THIS MONSTROCITY..SHAME
Anonymous at 11:48am-
There was resident input on the actual size at a meeting in December. Did you attend and provide input? Many residents did. Most were in favor of Option C or no garage at all. An informal council vote still had 3 in favor of Option A, and 2 in favor of Option C.
Yes, the options were discussed but it was never made clear that any of these garages were in the street. Did you know that from the renderings? All talk was about levels, height and how it fits with the character of the surrounding area. People are reacting to their decision especially because they now know it’s in the street and directly impacts the church.
Wow….the apologists for the Amigos are front and center this morning….
Paul backed down to the small garage.
Had a “Come to Jesus” meeting with Father Ron.
Father Ron is the best.
Please understand the small garage is NOT a small garage. It simply reduces a level up top but we still lose on street parking, have Hudson street narrowed, reverse traffic flow without testing, and frankly it is still too large for the space. Hopefully Father Ron was not deceived!
2:40pm-
Option C still extends out into Hudson st and has overhang. Only thing different is height. So it’s a trade off of height vs footprint. I’d probably go for a taller building with a milder footprint, but that’s just me.
Fed up at 2:12pm-
The renderings that show the Hudson st view were available and on display in December. And the fact that there would no longer be any street parking on Hudson was stated as well. No new information has been revealed here. It takes away a few street spots on Hudson and would probably reverse traffic flow. Thus the supposed impact on the church. That’s all been known for over a month now.
Saying No spots on Hudson is different than explaining what was really going on. It takes away all spots on Hudson and there was no talk of building expanded over a 6-8 foot sidewalk and 10 feet into the street. That information came out at that meeting. We are reacting to that now. December 9th was not that long ago. Not to mention a few holidays in between. This information should have come out before the vote. I agree, higher up is better than on the street.
Now, John V., don’t go confusing the faithful readers with all your “facts and figures.” At least give them a minute to complain about the fact that they won’t be able to complain tomorrow night. I can’t wait to see how this new information show up in today’s “talking points” memo from the people against everything.
The cantilever was always known before the pictures were put forward in December. The handling of the whole vote was shady from day 1.
I voted “no”, I know we need parking, this wasn’t the way. Just like the housing downtown, we need it, not at 35 UPA.
Fr. Ron fell for the oldest trick in the book.
1. Make an outrageous proposal.
2. Pushback ensues
3. “Compromise” by reducing it to what you wanted initially.
Negotiating 101
This is the same pattern used for years on any toll hikes.
3:34. How did Father Ron fall for anything? How do you know that Father Ron was not in favor os a small garage?
It was only after push back from the church that Ahronson caved. Remember, voters wanted a garage, just not a big garage.
Please understand that the only difference between option A and option C is 10ft in height. A tower that is 67ft & building 50ft vs 57ft tower and 40ft building. Everything else remains the same. The building will not only encompass the entire sidewalk, but will take 10ft in width of Hudson Street. Hudson is narrow already. You should NEVER take away from street width. All options take away street parking. All options change the direction of the one way on Hudson and Passaic. All options don’t fit on the existing lot.
Anon at 3:16
Regarding “from the people who are against everything.” It really is ONLY when something makes no sense. Like this garage, or even Valley. When only a single is needed to win, these (supporters) people want home runs !
@3:07 actually many of us HAVE been paying attention and “complaining” about the lack of studies, testing of increased meter rates, testing of new traffic pattern, impact on the church etc…no talking points needed although I am sure you will see some documents floating around to inform those who were vacationing or otherwise not so involved.
Furthermore, why not just thank those who “complain about everything”? Thanks for being a check and putting pressure on a council that would supersize every new building in this town regardless of the cost or consequences.