During public comments at the end of the meeting, 2 residents reminded VC members that there are already 76 spaces on the ground there. Thus, the construction cost per space is much higher than what was presented by the developers last night. That is, you must subtract the current number of spaces from the total being built to obtain the net increase in spaces, which should then be used to calculate the cost per space.
Also, last night was the first time the public was made aware of the perpetual maintenance costs associated with the operation of precast parking structures. Several of the presenters indicated that unless the structure is properly maintained, its life expectancy decreases dramatically.
It was said that the use of ice/snow melting agents and HARD WATER are particularly problematic. And the only way to clean the ice/snow melting agents away is by using water on a regular basis. And what type of water do we have in Ridgewood? HARD WATER, of course!
This is going to be the biggest financial boondoggle ever. Way beyond the boondoggle of post Tropical Storm Floyd renovation costs at Village Hall. Way beyond. Way, way beyond.
Wait for the Walker Feasibility Study before you call this a boondoggle.
Then you can.
What is the schedule for futher public comment??
How on earth could the members of the Village Council have lost tension on the fact that the total number of currently-existing functional parking spaces on the building site of the proposed future garage MUST BE SUBTRACTED from the total number of functional parking spaces associated with the as-built new facility? This is essential in order to arrive at an accurate per-space cost for new spaces that will be achieved over and above the number of functional spaces we have now. Only then can apples-to-apples comparisons be made between different proposals. This is a rudimentary concept! The net increase in total functional parking spaces is the only number that matters when making those specific comparisons.
.
Of course, any decision to erect a third or fourth (or fifth!) level (i.e., to build a bona fide “parking garage” as opposed to a simple elevated “parking deck” above an existing parking lot) has to be done with full consideration of the projected aesthetic, logistical (including future post-build traffic), and fiscal (including future maintenance) impacts on the proposed building site. Avoiding these impacts could potentially be a good and defensible reason for accepting a higher per-space cost for net additional functional parking spaces. The council members are certainly elected to make those kinds of decisions on our behalf. But transparently! Not like the three amigos (plus Sonenfeld) tended to do.
These structures are Black Holes with dirt attached & filthy neighborhood killers ..ever seen one you admired? The approach Roads& scale is completely inadequate …case closed …Stop this boondoggle// one way trip to a ruined section of town. People live up there;
kids walk to School and instruction daily . Its not an inner city location ( yet ) Pave the Lot & Install curbing & paint / line the ground surface.Shovel in winter .Case closed./People should be held responsible if this mistake is forced on that neighborhood and its environmental impact on those living and working there, .
Dear VC, the garage is a lousy idea. Kill it before you waste any more taxpayer dollars.