file photo by Boyd Loving
I don’t understand how supporters of the majority council don’t have a problem that these 3, plus Roberta lied to residents to get that November vote. That is telling and shameful- all residents whether you want a garage or not should have no tolerance for such trickery.
Telling residents nothing has been decided with respect to design when indeed, the design has been decided, and we are not disclosing that our chosen design is 12 feet in the street was wrong and horrible leadership. Contracts to begin specs for design A were signed on October 28th – before the vote!!! It was deceitful and despicable, with no accountability and cost taxpayers $120,000 in change orders.
I can understand and be sympathetic to mistakes but not deliberate and deceitful plotting and scheming to get what you want. The current design is still too big. It is 5 feet in the street and 60’10” tall…not 46′ that they keep saying -which is frickin ridiculous they don’t count the towers when discussing height. Mt. Carmel (FYI is 50′ tall) will be here a lot longer than any restaurant or business. The way these people have disrespected the church and ALL residents is shameful, and to defend that behavior or turn a blind eye because you want a garage….what? Why?
The village, in the voice of the Village Manager, admits on April 6, 2016 that we do not have a parking crisis, we have a parking surplus, we have more spots than we have demand for: https://youtu.be/iyufI5C3gKU?t=1h14m So we know from the facts the big garage is all about high density housing, not restaurants. Without it, the over development of Ridgewood cannot happen. Without over development the property owners, who paid a lot for the land, cannot make money. They need to develop the lots past what parking on the property supports to maximize rental revenue. The village and the developers lie about Brogan and Ken Smith parking spaces needing to be replaced, spots that are not a part of the public parking inventory.
The garage is the Trojan Horse. The village now admits, we don’t need more parking, we don’t even utilize what we have. Higher density, higher congestion, higher fees. They want a city.
When the village manager in a propaganda video says we have a parking crisis, but her own analysis says we have a surplus, we know there is no crisis.
We t into town last night. At 8:00 parking was tight but available. At 9:30 there were spots in front of my restaurant and several on Ridgewood Ave by Rite Aid and Gap. I realize that there are no restaurants down there but if folks are willing to walk 4 blocks on a beautiful evening it can be done.
There are crunch times in the CBD. Hudson Street garage will benefit the restaurants closer to Broad street.
I think that the garage is for peak restaurant times and to manage the overflow from the high density housing.
The builders assume that being near the train will somehow cause people to not need cars. Residents will still want to shop in Paramus and other areas, downtown has a very limited selection.
The people in high density housing will still get visite from friends and family. For family parties I have about 8-10 cars on the street, adults and young children. The train is not an option.
…And now Father Ron of Our Lady of Mt Carmel is about as firm as he has ever been:
“Here we go again. I had resolved not to write on the deck
again but I find myself on the subject one last time (since the
referendum is Tuesday).
Someone said to me that there was a video on the Village
website and I should be sure to view it. I did. Several times.
And that’s why I find myself writing. Notwithstanding the
article in The Ridgewood News, dated June 10th, in which
Council members indicate the referendum is about the bonding
for a deck, the statement is made in the video, “There will be
one question on the ballot that day, ‘Do you support this
parking deck.?’” And the video clearly points to the 325 car
deck. I find the ambiguity between these two positions
worrisome.
I have said all along I will not comment on the aesthetics of
that deck, “its size, its proportionality to surrounding buildings
and the streetscape it creates.” My two issues remain the traffic
pattern changes and the on-street parking on the south side of
Hudson Street. You will find in the video this statement,
“There are two churches on South Broad and in looking at that
we decided that directing traffic from the parking deck to
Prospect provided better dispersion and less of a loading on
South Board St. Our Office worked with ….” And then the
video lists a number of entities that were consulted. You will
not hear the name of Our Lady of Mount Carmel mentioned in
that consultation. Incredibly, the single largest reality, neighbor,
directly across the street from the deck, not four or six
blocks away was ignored. This is despite the fact that Mount
Carmel hired its own traffic consultant from an equally reputable
traffic consulting firm. In their review of the Village’s traffic
report, they had this evaluation. “The traffic analysis in the
STIS shows that with Hudson Street remaining one-way in the
westbound direction, the parking garage will not (their emphasis)
cause failure operations at the Hudson Street intersections
with South Broad and Prospect Street. As such, we believe
there is no need to reverse the traffic flow on Hudson Street or
Passaic Street.”
Of prime importance to the operations of Mount Carmel
Church is the on-street parking on the church side of Hudson
Street. In the early months of the year, it was claimed that even
with the deck encroaching five feet into the sidewalk (and thus
into the street), it would still allow for three lanes on Hudson
Street, a parking lane (on the church side), a drive-thru lane
and a turning lane into the deck. At a meeting of the Preservation
Committee in March, this was unqualifiedly debunked.
With the width of Hudson Street narrowed, even by only five
feet, there will only be enough space for two lanes. Does this
mean that in the future it may be found necessary to eliminate
the on-street parking on the church side of Hudson? That will
unquestionably have a negative impact on the operations of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
I just thought you needed some further information before you
go to the polls on Tuesday.
God Bless,
Fr. Ron
Time for payback on the lies. Etc. VOTE NO. NO NO June 21. End this scandal. Then the clean out and real planning for honest solutions can begin. What a Scsndal. Many Restaurant owners were aware and along for the Free Ride. We should sue and bill them for their deceit and back dealing. They stood to gain on our BACKS TO INCREASE THEIR OWN PROFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF RUINING THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. AGAIN A SCANDAL. MT ST CARMEL SHOULD HAVE DENOUNCED THESE MONEYCHANGERS AT THEIR DOORS
FR. Ron has been lied to repeatedly by Paul Aronsohn. How well I remember when Aronsohn announced at a VC meeting that he had met with Fr. Ron and that Fr. Ron was on board with the entire plan. Aronsohn is a liar. He is not just a liar. He is a constant, incessant liar. He never tells the truth. Folks, he is lying about this vote on Tuesday. Vote NO.
Vote NO
Vote NO
James, I love how you LOVE this photo of Gwennie and Albert. Albert likes blondes, we know this for sure. And Gwennie likes men who manage her. They would be perfect together.
9.30 is right I witnessed this at a 230 meeting in the church basement in front of the conmunity and the diocesan church real estate official. Town presentation was loaded with deceipt of smaller design which were lies
Mt Carmel does not pay RE taxes to the Village and therefore should not have any voice in the conversation about a parking garage…or for that matter anything else pertaining to operations or decisions made by the.Village. Of course, if Fr Ron suddenly decided to pay taxes than his voice should be heard the same as any other taxpayer.
WOW 10:33. In a year full of stupid people saying stupid things, you are an automatic finalist. Valley Hospital doesn’t pay taxes either and is suing everyone in sight when they don’t get at least 97% of what they want. I know the “R” word is politically incorrect but you are definitely developmentally disabled.
To the comment that Mt Carmel does not pay any taxes to the village that may be correct but the church’s parishoners do so I would say Fr Ron has a solid voice and many influential votes.
The congregants of Mt. Carmel pay plenty of real estate taxes and they are the people that are voting.
10:33 Congratulations for the stupidest statement of 2016. You sound like Gwenn’s husband, who thinks only property owners should run for office.
Owning property should be a prerequisite for sitting on the Council – the governing body has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to protect their interests and make sure Village taxpayer funds are used wisely. If you’re not actually paying taxes this link is broken.
10:33-Well, the ONLY intelligent part of your entry is that you signed in with Anonymous.
8:19- Do you and 10:33 hang out at Klan meetings together? The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which has been the law of the land since 1868 was put in place during Reconstruction just to restrict the application of such ignorant attempts to disenfranchise voters. No landowning requirements, poll taxes etc etc.
The link that is apparently broken is the one between our brain and your fingers, otherwise how would you type such a backward thought? Smash your keyboard with a hammer right now, you’ll thank me later.
Gwennie had her priest write a letter of support for her four years ago. Episcopal priest josh hartnett. From the church up in her neighborhood. And he did not have the transparency to identify himself as the priest of the candidate.
819 – – well said – – Arohnson relies on his wife’s income so he would have not been able to run for office, correct?