file photo Boyd Loving
DECEMBER 4, 2015 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2015, 12:31 AM
BY MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
STAFF WRITER |
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
The Ridgewood Council this week weighed in on a proposed parking garage to be built at the existing Hudson Street lot, and each member offered reasons why they supported one of the three options over the others.
Three members of the council supported option A, a notion that most of the public commenters agreed with, while the other two were in favor of option C.
Councilwoman Gwenn Hauck, who was in favor of the largest-sized and most-expensive option available (option A), explained that her decision was based upon three different factors: finances, aesthetics and intangibles.
“Economically, if you bought into the idea of the garage at all, option A is the one that makes sense; that provides the service that everyone has been clamoring for,” she said, noting that while the first two levels of the garage will cost $10 million to build, the next two will only cost a total of $2 million, allowing the village to save some money while meeting greater demand.
Hauck also explained that current interest rates are favorable, and that taking advantage of a 3 percent rate is the smart thing to do. A bigger garage, she said, means more rentable spots, which will allow the town to pay off the garage faster.
Addressing aesthetics, Hauck said she wanted the garage to be “an experience.”
“I think any substantial detailing that we can have to improve the look and strengthen it, we should have,” she said.
In terms of intangibles, Hauck explained that any large project involves a lot of risk, but that the risk is necessary for the reward.
https://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/council-reviews-design-options-1.1467285
That old man from Robert is right on this one. Read the story, please.
This article is so inaccurate. I guess the newspaper editor must have gotten a “I need a positive article” from Mayor Aronsohn.
Agree 10:41.
10:41am –
Could you say more about what is inaccurate in the article? I wasn’t able to attend the meeting and only saw about 15 minutes of the video stream. I believe of the three public comments I saw, two were in favor of Option C/No Garage, and one was in favor Option A.
Inaccurate –
1. one sentence about public comment at the very end of the article, when the public spoke for hours.
2. indicates that most favor plan A, when many public members spoke about related issues and not about which plan they favor. No discussion of related concerns.
3. completely omitted that Mayor Aronsohn intends to disregard the STATE law and do an end-run around the requirement that FOUR council members must vote for a bond. In the event that two decide not to vote for the bond, Aronsohn will go directly to the county to get them to issue the bond. He has already met with them and already has this in place with them just waiting for his call. This is despicable. Gwenn and Albert are going right along with this. Even though it is LEGAL to do this, it is completely disrespectful to our local government and flies in the face of the spirit of good governance.
Local Bond Law N.J.S.A. 40A:2-1 et seq. November, 2009 Page 1 Local Bond Law N.J.S.A. 40A:2
A bond ordinance shall be finally adopted by the recorded affirmative votes of at least 2/3 of the full membership of the governing body. In a local unit in which the approval of any officer is required to make an ordinance or resolution effective, such bond ordinance shall be so approved, or passed over veto before it shall be published after final adoption.
This law, above, is a state law and requires 2/3 majority to issue a bond. Three out of five is only a 60% majority. Here goes out elected officials all set up to break the law.
John V – why didn’t you come to the meeting? Everyone wants to meet you.
This is going to become an expensive eyesore for the taxpayer. When it goes over budget and not being used will airhead Gwenn foot the bill?
That friggin’ eyesore will be an experience, all right–in our wallets. Time to leave this town to the opportunists who run it and especially those who are blind to their nefarious ways. How can the county agree to override our own council? Horrible.
This is what you get when you elect a failed, frustrated Democrat to local office who is (still) looking to make that big political comeback.
Unfortunately for us, he peaked 10 years ago while serving under the disgraced governor and now we are stuck with him and his destructive policies..
All,
The actual council session is available here online: https://www.ustream.tv/channel/village-of-ridgewood-public-access
It wasn’t earlier but I emailed Roberta about it, then she let me know a few hours later that it was up.
12:24pm-
Sorry to disappoint! Perhaps when the downtown housing is brought up again???
12:02pm –
I agree with your points #1 & #2, at least from the limited amount of the meeting that I’ve seen. The public comments were certainly not “binary”, and the council’s opinion wasn’t really the focus of the time.
Re #3 – Would Ridgewood be “legally on the hook” for any bond the county issued? I agree that seems like a major end-run around the law!
It sure is an end-rum John.
Theres a time to Recognize that the Rats are Ruling the Ridgewood Henhouse. Citizens are You all Ok with that. ? Your house and hard earned property is next to be violated by a ballfield water tower etc. parking garage end Run Bonding is in ALL OUR FACES. STAND AND FIGHT. VALLEY ISSUES WILL BE RESERECTED
What a load of selfserving Manure
I think we should have a rally in front of Village Hall. Residents marching with signs about the garage and the end run 3 Amigos should get their attention and maybe the news media attention also.
OK, John V, this coming Wednesday night is your chance.