Reader says “Save Ridgewood” group should focus on solutions
Has anyone in the “Save Ridgewood” group thought about the impact of doing nothing. Three of the four proposed residential development sites are currently vacant. At the recent Planning Board meeting in which the Brogan site was discussed one genius suggested that the site be developed for Retail use. This would produce far more traffic, noise and clutter than any residential use. It is time for the Save Ridgewood group to stop complaining and come forth with some well reasoned suggestions for the long term use of what are becoming increasingly blighted properties.
Has the Reader thought of the responsibility of the owners of the vacant lots? The owners are the ones doing nothing; except trying to use the property for purposes NOT originally INTENDED OR currently ALLOWED. Save Ridgewood is trying to either make them use the land for its current zoning (which they were well aware of when they bought it) or to request more reasonable zoning change. Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Not keeping up your property should not be an option.
The only property that seems blighted is the former Ken Smith property which is starting to look like local junk yard. Maybe our town council can look into this.
There is a bare minimum that the village can compel the property owners to do. Government can make them maintain their existing structures. Government can’t make them build something. That leaves two deteriorating vacant car dealerships in the middle of town.
The property owners could within current zoning make improvements that are far less desirable uses of that land. Uses that drive higher traffic than residential and exacerbate other problems our village has.
There is probably at least one solution that gets to middle ground. How do we get there? Demeaning the volunteer members of the Planning Board? Spreading rumors disguised as facts? Buying lawn signs? Writing internet posts with ALL CAPS? Probably not.
Pitch forks and torches have their time and place. Cooler heads need to figure out a way to work out a solution that everyone can agree with. Otherwise, get used to the look of those car dealerships.
#3, ‘far less desirable uses’, you mean far less profitable for the property owners. If they build something within the current zoning, and more traffic, etc. occurs, so be it. A car dealership is retail, by the way. The only reason these blighted properties are in the condition they are in is because they are waiting for the chance to make the highest profit they can, its their jackpot – high density apartments. Period. This has been the only time in Ridgewood’s history that this opportunity may come to fruition. Previously, we have always had pb members and council members who appreciated our MP for the power it beholds. Bolstered by our mayor who is on the pb and council and fully supportive of these high density buildings, these developers taste those profits. Its so close. That is why these properties sit, the potential in profits is worth the wait. If you support these developers, whats in it for you? I have met not one person who thinks they are good for the town. And its not just these 3 projects, amending the MP to allow this rezoning sets a precedent.
Solutions to what? How to make the most money from property in downtown Ridgewood? Not my problem.
Reader…its simple, these developers will not be doing nothing, its business and they will eventually build something. Personally, I don’t care what they build at any of these spots, its America, just do it within the current zoning. Our village has the power to say no to their petitions, but they won’t. Why we are contemplating accomodating these developers is disconcerning. Why? As a resident, the negatives far outway the positives.
Establishing commuter parking at Ken Smith (with some kind of bridge to the train) is a rare opportunity–a no-brainer that if not taken advantage of now, will haunt the village forever. There is no reason the owner couldn’t make money on it.
whats the up side for Ridgewood for more commuter parking ?
Some folks believe more commuters using the train station equates to more people patronizing shops and restaurants in the CBD, the theory being when they get off the train, they will not go directly to their cars and leave town. I’m not sure I buy into that theory though.
“Three of the four proposed residential development sites are currently vacant.” They are being kept vacant by owner/developers hoping to cash in with a Master Plan change. Owners/developers don’t like the free market options under the current Master Plan that is good for the residents? Fair enough – SELL!
#9. The commuters will get in their cars and drive home. After a long work day most are not looking for retail therapy.
Who are these extra parking spots for, residents or out of towners?
Residents were asked to focus on constructive solutions to the Valley expansion and now we are told (one year into the hearings) that Valley’s plan cannot be changed and residents input will not be considered. Instead of constructive solutions we should be protesting on the sidewalks in front of Valley.
If valley can’t change the plan, deny the plan and let valley propose something that fits the master plan. If valley doesn’t like they can build somewhere else.!
Eminent domain…