The problem is that it is not the first time “studies” such as these that forecast no impact from some proposed “improvement” have been presented to the Village. Time and again, we have discovered significant impacts after these projects move forward. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Many villagers are tired of these self-serving reports that don’t reflect reality which are designed only to check off some bureaucratic requirement. Building hundreds of apartments and claiming no impact on schools and infrastructure is just bull**** on the face of it. Some honesty on the other side would go a long way to fostering a constructive dialog.
Stop it. This article shows a complete lack of knowledge about what has occurred in Ridgewood. It has been one of the worst run towns in NJ. It has buried its citizens under a massive tax burden from poor financial stewardship. It has showed no vision on how to increase tax revenue, and be an ally of its downtown business owners. Finally you have some people on the council who understand that you have address changing demograpics and economic realities. Just look at Ridgewood property values, they have recovered far slower then other wealthy towns because of the tax burden. Stop killing the residents with poor management, incompetence, and ignorance.
Bruce – you are complete ignorant. What tax benefits will a county commuter garage and a NYC-working-parent-filling-school-kids apartments do?
Stupidity at its peak.
No Bruce, you stop it. The article is totally correct. Sorry, you lose.
Excuse me, what??? The solutions presented by this council will make our problems much much worse.The majority of our taxes pay for our schools..adding more children to the schools is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of asking seniors to downsize, therefore allowing more children to move into those homes, we should be encouraging those to stay in their homes long after their kids have graduated high school.
Who of the new candidates understands financial stewardship and their fiduciary responsibility to ALL taxpayers? Do any of them actually want to REDUCE our municipal taxes or at least explore alternatives to reduce the tax burden on property owners by.challenging Valley’s “not for profit” status which could add $4mn a year to our Village tax rolls(10% of current budget)?
How ignorant 7:44
“We should be encouraging those to stay in their homes”
Do you live on this planet?
Our taxes are ridiculously high yet people pay them because of the schools – the people who are looking to move into the HDH are the people who are being priced out of Risgewood and are selling their homes anyway to “families” as they leave Ridgewood for towns with lower taxes. Housing in town would allow these people to remain a part of Ridgewood and support the town and business owners that they have grown to love.
Your answer is to force them to stay in a large house they can’t afford and don’t need anymore – it’s exactly this backwards thinking that is crippling this town.
Wake up.
12:23 if your argument is correct – then support making these apartments 55+. Otherwise don’t spread the lies.
@12:23, let’s face the facts that most of these rentals will be filled by young families and NOT downsizing seniors. These will be high enc, expensive apartments. Seniors will move someplace larger, cheaper and not in Ridgewood because they don’t want to live on the train tracks and want more for their money.
Yes, our taxes are ridiculously high because of the schools and we should be considering a scheme where after certain number of years in town your school portion of the budget is maxed out and you don’t pay certain increases, or there is a lifetime cap, something along those lines. We do need to shift the burden away from seniors but assuming they will happily pack up a lifetime of memories to move to the tracks for what will be MORE money a month anyway does not make sense either.