file photo by Boyd Loving
March 21,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the recent “no parking” ordinance pushed on Bogert and Cambridge has raised concerns over how the Village of Ridgewood communicates it business. Be it a “no parking “ordinance or a raise in commuter parking fees the Village however well intentioned is falling far short at getting the word out.
Many suspect the massive amount of Village committees with overlapping responsibilities seems to be creating more confusion as well as a ‘make work” atmosphere . This often results in nothing more than holding the committees captive to special interest agendas.
But the main question remains is ,’How are these types of proposed changes communicated/broadcast?”
A reader added , “How are 50 to 60 asleep? A posting was possibly put in the classified section of the Ridgewood News, that nobody reads? The people on the two streets should have been given proper notice. The village never enforced the “no parking 50 feet from the corner” sign and this ridiculous ordinance has no parking halfway up the street. This member of the Travell Safety Committee has overstepped her bounds. The council has said they will re-look at the ordinance and hopefully they mean that. Bogert and Cambridge are quiet streets that do not have a heavy traffic flow and this is totally unnecessary.”
Another reader asks ,”How do 50 people not know about it, if it was so well publicized???The Village did not include the people who are directly affected. A notice could have been sent to the people on the blocks affected and they would have been forewarned. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to make my own coffee and drive my regular sized car!”
While some suggest , “Ignorance is no excuse. This change was not slipped in during the middle of the night. It was broadcast, publicized, discussed, discussed some more. So sorry that some of you are too busy having lattes and driving around in massive SUV’s to pay attention to local happenings.”
Giving people on a street advance notice about parking being banned on their street, and seeking feedback, isn’t exactly rocket science.
And those talking about ‘lattes and SUVs’ must be childless and/or jobless. Most gainfully employed people with kids barely have time to catch their breath, let alone follow the shenanigans of the incompetent/malevolent local government.
Like the $ 1000 rich folks vanity train pass it’s a gotcha and takes a revolution to undo what should not have been done in the light of day reasoning world.the fees and denial of street parking are progressively negative for the homeowners year over year..who would buy a home on these blocks
There should be NO private streets in town. zero. Rules should be same for all streets.
It’s interesting that you can park across the street from Travell on Bogert, but if you go a block north, you can’t park on either side of Bogert and Cambridge for a good part of the block…..the ordinance makes no sense. Keep the corner clear at East Glen, that is all that is needed.
How can residents get a copy of the safety study that was done that concluded that there needed to be no parking on these blocks? Who conducted it? What were the parameters? There are a lot of questions and so far the residents on these streets have not been given any further information or a realistic justification for the change.
Go visit the street. It’s a known safety issue. This issue has been created by one lady who doesn’t like the person who asked for the ordinance. It’s just kind of funny because everyone in the neighborhood knows that is the deal.
Hey. As long as the one lady gets vengeance who cares if kids are in danger right??
Some of the rest of us in this neighborhood are able to see the actual danger and would like the nonsense to stop.
Not every street in town is the same. Parking can’t be uniform throughout the village.
When something dangerous rears its head it needs to have a venue to be addressed. Won’t Betty rubble coming out of the woodwork to create a dramatic situation.
What exactly is the known safety issue and how is it addressed by the parking restrictions in question? (This commenter has more than 10 years time living the latte-sipping life on the northernmost block of Bogert and could use some edification)
There is a letter from October 29, 2016 that details the concerns regarding parking on Bogert and Cambridge. How we get from an issue parking along the curve to prohibiting parking within 500(!) feet is, in my opinion, is a lesson in village government run amok.
Yes, go visit the street. There’s no safety issue. But now, there’s a school-related parking restriction stretching 300 feet north of Glen Avenue along both Bogert and Cambridge that is so out of place it fairly screams municipal incompetence.
Cars frequently fail to slow to a safe speed when heading north from Glen onto Bogert or Cambridge, or when heading south along Cambridge or Bogert toward the common intersection with Glen. Those same drivers also often recklessly careen across to the wrong side of the road rather than reduce their speed and stay in their lane while negotiating the two relatively tight S-curves that connect with the common intersection. This must be the safety issue that led to the current change. Pedestrians do not have the benefit of sidewalks to negotiate those same S-turns so they are forced to share the roadway with the cars. The pedestrians are sometimes forced to jump up on the curb or onto the adjacent lawns to avoid being struck. Draconian parking regulations won’t change the behavior of these reckless drivers. The best answer is probably to install short lengths of sidewalk paving along the s-turns on Bogert and Cambridge and extend the same to the Glen Avenue sidewalks at the common intersection. There is already a short length of sidewalk on the west side of the common intersection extending north from Glen and terminating at the beginning of the the S-turn on the Bogert side. That sidewalk should be extended entirely along that same S-turn and terminate just north of it. That would improve safety much better than any parking regulation could.
Is there any documented incidents on the s-turns? Hopefully no accidents. How far up the 2 streets would the sidewalks have to go? Would speed bumps help?
Nobody’s been hit, at least not recently.
Just like the forced village vide 25mph speed limit imposed a few years back.
.
It was a feel good measure that did not address any safety concerns and just imposed an inconvenience for the residents and introduced a LESS SAFE situation.
Municipal incompetence is right
More like cronyism and favoritism.
What’s the preferred latte on Bogert??
I would like to know where this issue was “broadcast, publicized, and discussed” because in my “ignorance” I did not see any of it. And I don’t have an SUV nor do I drink lattes. I, like others, would like to know what the safety issue is considered to be and how this resolves it. I, too, would like to see a copy of said safety study. It seems only fair that the people directly affected by this ordinance would have been included in the “discussion” and given an opportunity for input regarding the solution of this perceived safety issue. As it was, a number of us came home surprised to find signs on our lawn. It seems this came to pass in a rather secretive manner making one wonder if it is more a power/ego issue rather than a safety issue. As another person points out, why would parking be allowed adjacent to the school and not halfway down streets further away. It makes no sense.
I would like to know where this issue was “broadcast, publicized, and discussed,”for, in my “ignorance,” it took me completely by surprise! I, like many others, walked outside one day to find signs posted in my yard. How could so many of us have been so busy “driving our SUV’s and drinking lattes,” which, by the way, I do not have nor do! It seems those of us who are directly affected by this ordinance should have been included in the many discussions referred to and been given the opportunity for input. I was not even aware of these proclaimed discussions. This, happening as it did, seems to have been quite purposefully secretive and it makes one wonder if it is a power/ego issue rather than a safety issue. I, like another, would like to see a copy of said safety study. I would also like statistics on the recent number of implied incidents requiring this ordinance. Also, as another mentioned, it seems strange that there is parking allowed nearest the school where many children enter and exit but none halfway down quiet streets further away. I hope the Council will take another look at this situation which seems to be more of an inconvenience for a number of people than a solution to what may or may not be a problem.