the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, , a member of Financial Advisory Committee sent out a mass email. It says “Last Wednesday the Village Council unanimously approved funding a parking garage on Hudson Street. It will be funded by Ridgewood (not the county), and it reflects an updated design that seeks to address concerns of residents, including removing a level.”This is just not true. Plan D and Plan A have
SAME number of stories, same number of levels. Plan D is only couple of feet lower than plan A, because it removes the cantilever, so a supporting beam of somewhere between 2-3 feet was removed.
Huge lie in first paragraph! “including removing a level”
Another lie in 2nd paragraph. This petition will have binding referendum question on November ballot. That will cost ZERO. No special election with this petition.
If you received that email, please check the facts yourself before believing it.Unfortunately, there is too much misinformation being spread from some council members, village officials and members of FAC / HPC etc.
Lets ask them to provide Ridgewood residents correct facts on size and street encroachment, and if residents still want to proceed without changes, it’s fine, but please don’t provide incorrect information.
How does someone in a position of authority get away with sending this?
Friends —
Last Wednesday the Village Council unanimously approved funding a parking garage on Hudson Street. It will be funded by Ridgewood (not the county), and it reflects an updated design that seeks to address concerns of residents, including removing a level.
Now, the group that opposed funding the garage through Bergen County is seeking to oppose this vote, even though the issues that arose through county funding no longer apply. They want an even smaller garage. As opposed to standing behind a reasonable compromise, they want to stop progress at all costs. They are asking residents to sign a petition to put the issue to a special referendum, which will create further delays and cost the Village about $45,000 to implement through a special election. Of course, a significant majority of Village residents already voted to support a garage in a special referendum last year.
I am a member of the Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee, and we analyzed the funding model for the garage. We recognize that a taller garage has aesthetic implications. Financially, however, a larger garage is more fiscally sound — more spaces create more revenue, and the marginal cost of each level is much lower than building the base of the structure. That’s why compromise is necessary and appropriate. I believe the current compromise is the best path forward for the Village.
Please don’t sign the petition. Tell your friends not to sign the petition Forward them this email. The group supporting the petition will be in Van Neste Square today seeking signatures — show up and tell them you support progress for Ridgewood.
Thanks.
Rich Cundiff
What is the purpose of the Financial Advisory Committee? They are now cheerleaders for the three council members? They should be neutral.
I would not vote for a financial advisory committee member for a job checking the meters at the new garage.
And it goes without saying that the Village Manager should review her job description and who writes her paycheck. The three amigos are pushing individuals to do their bidding and it is not right.
So, they are not a financial advisory committee, they are a political action committee.
I wonder what the questions were like when they were interviewed for the positions.
Will the shade tree commission be weighing in?
5-0 not 3-2 so you need a new nickname for the Unanimous Council. And did you ever consider that these people may be well past being pushed to do bidding and may actually simply disagree with you on the merits?
Wow – Richard Cundiff – resignation please?
More points to add to the other day’s post James when you had posted 11 or 12 lies on Parking Garage:
1. HPC member Tony Damiano sends a letter to fellow HPC members claiming the garage fits the lot.
2. FAC member Rich Cundiff sends mass email with multiple lies. One story shorter claim and special election claim, both are wrong.
3. Gwenn Hauck continues to post on facebook that garage will fit the lot and only sidewalk is being extended for safety reasons.
4. Village Manager lies in a facebook blog, claiming that the parapet is an aesthetics feature, while its actually required by code for using the roof level for parking.
They are all running scared…stay the course..sign the new referendum….
There would be no progress at all without the initial petition efforts of VOR Taxpayers ..the dirty deal with Bergen County taking over a Ridgewood structure and revenue vehicle would most certainly been forced down our throats by a lame duck shaky town management..
What mailing list was used for the advisory committee emails?
RURIK Sent out a broad get out the Vote Postcard
In his first paragraph, he says, “the updated design includes removing a level”.
In his 2nd to last paragraph, he says, “I believe the current compromise is the best path forward for the Village”.
Sounds like he agrees that 3 stories, 4 levels is the compromise. I agree.
I’m signing the petition with the hope that the discussion will continue, & a compromise of 3 stories, 4 levels will become a reality, not just an incorrect statement to make people believe otherwise.
FAC does not present the FACTS.
So if this FAC member did not do his due diligence before sending out an email full of lies – how do we know that they did their due diligence on the walker report/ parking garage’s financials?
Roberta Sonenfeld came through that committee. Current council candidate Janet Willett is on it now, appointed (by el mayor) to a 3-year term last fall at the same time as Eric Weitz, also a candidate for council, who became chairman of the group at the same time. Guess who MIGHT be backing Willett and Weitz for council?
I got 3 of Rurik’s postcards in the mail today. I am mailing them back to his home address. If he can invade my mailbox, I can invade his. I suggest everyone do the same.
RURIK – I am not interested in receiving your mailings; how do I get off of your mailing list.
I am doing a “Return to Sender” on my postcard. Does Rurik then get charged twice for postage? Three of the four cards sent to my house are not residents so I am sending them back.
The FAC are puppets and want to replace the current three council members.
Two FAC members are running. Is Richard Brooks still running?
What? Eric Weitz became member of the committee and the chair at the same time? Does he have connections with the garden home’s developers?
Rurik’s mailing was to get out the vote… no endorsements, just a request to vote…
Paul Smith – he wants his candidates to win – it’s best that he doesn’t endorse them. With the foul language Rurik uses, anyone endorsed by him is going to lose.