I am outraged at the Chamber’s Ad in the Ridgewood News today. They lied from the beginning with the say “yes” and negotiate size later when there is no negotiation. You try and negotiate and they go around you. We are not a small, rogue, nameless group! Most of us speak at meetings, write letters and emails, and stand on the streets with clipboards. So the paper lets them continue to write lies with no rebuttals?
There was an email floating around today suggesting keeping this transaction off the balance sheet will allow Ridgewood to bond more projects. First, what other massive projects are they planning?? Second, anyone who believes in off balance sheet financing needs a lesson in finance. It is still debt, it needs to be paid back and ratings agencies will still recognize it as leverage.
Yes, when I make purchases in town I will inform the merchants that they are making a mistake and I will happily shop elsewhere when meter rates are raised. I might be just one person, but I will be one less shopper.
The chamber only cares about their wallets, not ours. They are very happy to run ads touting off balance sheet transactions as good for Ridgewood. Does anyone remember Enron? Few of these businesses will even survive the garage and multi-family construction. Amazing they haven’t a clue and continue to do the council’s dirty work.
I’m against the single super sized garage and how the Council plans to fund it through the County. However I understand why developers and the Chamber are in favor of it – they stand to profit from it’s construction and/or operation. Much as I disagree with them I at least understand their motives. What I can’t fathom however is that our Council majority seems so set in its ways on THIS design and THIS way of funding it. Why? Do they think that this is really the best solution for Ridgewood? It seems more like they have a bone to pick with their Council mates.
The Council’s job is to say to the developers and the Chamber that yes, we understand you’d like to make more money but this is not the best solution for the Village. It isn’t. What they’ve actually done is side with the developers to use all of their collective authority to ram this plan though as quickly as possible. Again, why? The Council majority is treating the results of a NON BINDING referendum as an electoral mandate when the only question they posed to us in the fall was essentially “do you think we need more parking?”. E-mails I received from the Mayor said that the design was not final (apparently it was) and made no mention of financing the project through the County. Just when I thought my intelligence couldn’t be any more insulted by these 3.
And to those that say that we could bond the garage through the Village if only Mr. Sedon and Mrs. Knudsen would agree with the developers, I’d say that Mr. Sedon and Mrs. Knudsen are the only 2 on the Council actually doing their job. They, like many of us, feel that while we need a parking solution, there are better ways to go about it. And the rush to get this done now in the face of growing doubt and opposition only raises questions about the Council majority’s motives.
We no longer shop in the CBD
VAggianos supposedly went rogue with the ad and paid for the COC full-pager himself. Just what I heard.
If thats true 12:17 then I suspect that the price of Gyro will be going up at his restaurant
If I were a member of a five-person elected board I would be mortified, not proud, to be routinely lumped in with the same two people as “the council majority” for four years, clearly indicating that I had no mind of my own.
The merchants west of the train station do not want parking garage. It’s not going to help them and may, in fact, hurt them. No more foot traffic over there from people coming and going to the station. The COC ad was NOT supported by the west side merchants.