AUGUST 17, 2015, 7:26 PM LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015, 6:31 AM
BY CHRIS HARRIS
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD
RIDGEWOOD — A grassroots citizens group long opposed to any change to the master plan that would permit the construction of high-density multifamily housing projects downtown is suing the village and its Planning Board.
The lawsuit — filed by Citizens for a Better Ridgewood on Aug. 10 in Bergen County’s Superior Court in Hackensack — seeks a judge’s order reversing the Planning Board’s June 2 decision.
Ridgewood officials — including Mayor Paul Aronsohn, a member of the Planning Board — refused to comment on pending litigation.
The board’s June vote to raise the number of allowable housing units per acre in four of the village’s zones to 35 from 12 ended five years of meetings, public hearings, and expert testimony on the master plan amendments, which were first requested by developers keen on building in town.
The developments pitched include The Dayton, a 106-unit luxury garden apartment complex at the site of the former Brogan Cadillac dealership; the 50-unit Chestnut Village, on Chestnut Street; and the 52-unit Enclave, on East Ridgewood and North Maple avenues.
The suit alleges board members and village professionals met privately with the developers requesting the master plan revisions, violating the state’s Open Public Meetings Act.
The lawsuit calls the Ridgewood Planning Board’s decision “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable,” and contends two of the board’s members should have recused themselves.
https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-sued-over-high-density-housing-plan-1.1393932
It’s ON. Go CBR!
I love it….how do I contribute to this group…?
Not sure why the City Fathers want to make Rwood look like Hoboken….
HOORAY!
Send donations here:
Citizens for a Better Ridgewood
PO BOX 354
143 East Ridgewood Avenue
Ridgewood, NJ 07451
To 8:39 AM – https://www.citizensforabetterridgewood.com/?page_id=50
Important that everyone contribute. Small price to pay for preserving the value of our homes.
Just curious who are some of these concerned citizens?
well, Pooch and Paulie are both named in the lawsuit. They deserve the book thrown at the,. Despicable duo.
So if Mr. Pucciarelli recused himself from the Planning Board discussion on this issue because of a business conflict, what has changed since then that makes it okay for him not to recuse himself from Council discussions regarding the issue? Am I missing something here?
Isn’t the Mayor’s spouse employed by a business that owns a large parcel in one of the areas slated to be rezoned?
To 10:55 am – If you are curious, you might read their FB page. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-For-A-Better-Ridgewood/136107879912084?sk=timeline&ref=page_internal You may see people posting on both sides of the issues.
Ridgewood’s Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli should also have recused himself long before he did, according to the suit, given he’s a partner at a law firm whose client list includes one of the developers that petitioned the board for the changes. Big Al the Developers Friend. Well he always says he does his research. Maybe they should look into his other attorney friend.
Another story from the Mayor’s Press Officer so you know the story has the best spinon it if thats possible
Also goes back to Pfund’s folly, ordinance 3066… Without out that, applications to amend the Master Plan would have never happened. Pfund tried to sneak that by in the summer lull in July 2007 so his buddies at Valley could build their monstrosity
Citizens for a Better Ridgewood? A more appropriate moniker is Citizens for a Dead Ridgewood. Which is where we are heading to if these “nattering nabobs of negativism” get their way. And before you pop the champagne, remember Sir Robert Walpole’s famous quote: “”They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.”
Gwenn Hauck heart and soul of communities must be protected FIRST and FOREMOST, always!….
1 · July 4 at 12:54pm Posted on CBR Facebook page. I wonder which way she will vote on the changes. Will she be with the other Amigos.
7:49 You must not watch or attend VC meetings. if you did, you would not wonder whether Gwenn will vote with Albert and Paul. OF COURSE she will vote with them. They are a three headed monster, always in lock step. Disgusting.
Rurik Halaby = napoleon complex
A peronality complex that consists of power trips and false machismo to make up for short height and feelings of inferiority.
Lay off Ririk, there is no point in arguing with a man who quotes Spiro Agnew. “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
I do wonder, however, what was Rurik’s reaction to the Hospital’s suit against the Village?
Is there any truth to the rumor that the Hauck family routinely socializes with the Cancelmo family at their respective vacation homes? If so, is this a conflict that warrants Councilwoman Hauck recusing herself from voting on any ordinance impacting the Brogan Cadillac property?
Rurik – You must have gotten one of Gwennie’s big hugs – we all know that is what jump-starts your diarrhea of the mouth with the big words and jackass cliches. Calm down, take a cold shower, you’ll feel better in awhile. But, you better take that shower while you can, because once a few hundred more people move into the CBD the water supply will be rationed and you won’t be able to bathe more than once a month.
Hey Albert, how’s your newleywed bliss? Guess this kind of puts a damper on the whole thing.
I do 8:21 but Im just surprised that she would post that statement on face book . Oh I get it now she is taking out of both sides of her mouth like the other Amigos
Cancelmo family is the family that owns the Brogen property on S. Broad St. ? WOW
Two points:
1. I live just north of downtown on North Walnut St. I support the increased density. It will lead to better restaurants, shops, and “energy” downtown. All of that will make Ridgewood a more desirable place to live. Trade off is perhaps a bit more traffic, a bit of strain on the schools, and a bit of the “village” feel being lost. Those are real issues with real pain, and shouldn’t be overlooked. But change comes with sacrifices and some pain. It always has, always will. Since things will be better on net, I’m okay with the development.
2. Look at the SF Bay Area for what happens when development becomes overly restricted. Insane house prices over time. Good for existing homeowners, but it’s terrible for the very broad middle class and puts a drag on the economy. Not worth it on net. NJ needs growth. Downtown Ridgewood is as good a place as any.
John, read Ridgewood news from two weeks ago. All but two stores now filled. Why does ridgewood need “growth” – – what is the point of growth for growth’s sake. if you want vibrancy, move to another town. Why should the rest of the town change just to suit you and a vocal minority of people that are trying to steer the town in their own direction? What’s wrong with those of us in town now keeping housing stock and prices in tact? Is there a reason I should have to give up value to others?
Anonymous at 1:30pm:
I doubt that appealing to the “greater good” will be very persuasive to you! Nevertheless, I still believe we would all be better off if each and every town were to increase density by a modest amount. Ridgewood in particular doesn’t “need” growth, but New Jersey sure does! There is a “sake” for growth, namely the success of the economy of our state and country and world. Again, look at the Bay Area for what happens to a region when each and every town and city restricts growth.
Please read Ryan Avent, Matthew Yglesias, Edward Glazier, etc. on housing policies. You’ll understand where those of who favor housing supply growth are coming from.
A couple of other misc. points:
Re: “vocal minority”. Is there any polling data that surveys the entire town on their feelings on the issue? I mean actual polling data, not turnout at city council meetings, not petition signings. Actual polling data on how people feel about the issue and what their preferences are.
From my experience, most people are sort of “meh” on these issues and don’t care too much. They would suffer modest negative impacts but also would receive modest positive benefits. Positive benefits being more vibrancy in town, etc. On net it’s positive for them, but by a modest amount, thus they are not very vocal. The most “vocal” are the activists on either side, be it the developers with a financial interest in the projects or those that are actively opposing development. This is a concentrated costs vs. distributed benefits scenario, which leads to strong activist political dynamics.
funny you don’t sound like you live in Ridgewood ,or you pay absolutely no attention to anything going on the last 10 years
Here is a memo I wrote to some family members in town on this issue when the petition was going around at the beginning of June:
Haven’t changed my opinion on this petition at all! My experience in California was that such bans on housing growth and density were short-sighted and would ultimately hurt far more people than they would help. The high cost of housing drove us out of California and back to New Jersey!
More housing in downtown areas is better for:
– Seniors (cheaper housing, more walkability)
– Restaurants (more foot traffic)
– Town Retail Businesses (more foot traffic)
– Small, Medium, and Large Local Businesses (lower cost of living, don’t have to pay workers as much)
– Young people (cheaper housing, more to do)
– “Energy” and “fun” (more going on, more activities)
– Keeping housing price growth in check (good for current renters who want to buy in the future)
– Walkability
– People who will be living in Ridgewood in the future (they matter too!!!)
– The environment and sustainability
– Economic growth
– “Freedom” and “Liberty”
More housing in downtown areas is worse for:
– People who drive a lot
– People who’s net worth is predominantly tied up in their home value
– People who live in Ridgewood primarily b/c of current school quality
– People who don’t want things to “change” and desire to town to stay just as it is right now
There is no doubt in my mind that the first list matters more than the second list, both from a practical basis and an “ethical” basis. Yes, there is some short term “pain” from construction and new people in town. But it will be worth it in the long run!
We can’t stop growing and evolving and changing. Just like a business dies when it stops growing, so does a town, so does a state, so does a country. Which side of the line are you on?
Hi James,
I do indeed live in Ridgewood. Although I am admittedly a relatively new resident in town, having moved here only about 1.5 years ago. I lived in Northern California for the previous 10 years, but before that I lived my whole life in New Jersey, specifically Morris County and Mercer County.
For my own education, and I’m being honest here: What makes me sound like I don’t live in Ridgewood? What has been going on over the past 10 years that I missed? (I was admittedly mostly in California during those 10 years!)
Some more “bona fides”: I work in Fair Lawn. My great-grandparents lived in Ridgewood in their later lives. My grandfather currently lives in Saddle River, though he raised his family (including my father) in Hillsdale. I have 16 relatives currently living in Ridgewood (mostly aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.), in addition to my own family of four.
Best,
John
appreciate your input , the Village has some very specific issues that your generic augment failed to touch on. Most of the points you made have been touched on in detail on this blog since 2006 . With out reiterating the volumes of information I think you should find the next couple of months very informative and illuminating if not entertaining . Welcome to Ridgewood !
Thank you James, I’ve been reading the blog since moving here but finally have some more time to participate.
As a side note, “specific” vs. “generic” may actually get to the core of some of the issues. The downsides of more housing are indeed quite specific! They affect specific people in specific ways in specific amounts. More traffic affects commuters, more students in schools after people with schoolchildren, real “change” to a town’s feel affects those who really hate anything bigger than a “village”.
In contrast, the upsides of more housing are all pretty “general”. (I prefer “general” here instead of the somewhat pejorative “generic”.) The benefits accrue “generally” to everyone in town and to the world overall. It’s hard to pinpoint who will benefit from a vibrant downtown with increased diversity of dining and entertainment options. Most people will benefit a little bit from that vibrancy, but it certainly isn’t dramatic in anyway for each individual. It’s hard to be specific about who will benefit from keeping housing price growth “reasonable”. We all benefit “generally” from keeping excess cost of living growth in check. Etc. etc.
Again, I highly recommend reading more of the “pro-growth” literature here. Those analyses make the unseen, “general” costs and benefits of restricted development much more clear.
Funny, more and more people are saying that the CBD is “tired” and that Ridgewood isn’t as “dynamic” a Village as it was when we grew up. With the obvious decline in the ranking and quality of the schools despite such a huge budget, aren’t home values and the associated property taxes maybe a little over the top if Ridgewood is, indeed, a Village in decline? You can’t just bubble wrap the CBD and then sit idly by as the wreckage of an era bygone crumbles before you (Chevy and Caddy dealers, old garages) and morphs in to an unending parade of gold pawn shops and frozen yogurt joints. The Village needs new vibrancy, pronto!
To John V., as you stated “Ridgewood in particular doesn’t “need” growth, but New Jersey sure does!” So maybe Ridgewood isn’t the town to put the growth in.
You said limits are “Good for existing homeowners, but it’s terrible for the very broad middle class and puts a drag on the economy.” Changing Ridgewood will not fix the economy or the problems of the Middle Class in this state or country. You have big visions but are trying to apply what you see as fixes on a very local basis. By way of analogy, if you have a headache, would it be sensible to tape an aspirin? You would get little systemic benefit, and get an ulcer on your skin. Solutions need to be applied skillfully.
You said “The high cost of housing drove us out of California and back to New Jersey!” I am sorry if in California you were renting or had the misfortune of buying in the wrong place, while the rest of the market went up. I am just fine living in a place with a high cost of housing. I grew up in a nearby town with a low cost of housing and chose to move here.
To 5:39 PM – I think there are eight ice cream and/or frozen yogurt places in town. So what? If there are “too many”, the marketplace will decide. If people have enough disposable income to support 10 of them, so what? Car dealers are moving to highways, that is economics. We used to have Drapkins Stationery in Ridgewood – but the highway having Staples and Office Depot, plus the internet, took away the economics of that. We now have a Papyrus Stationery for high end stuff. Things change, don’t try to reproduce the old days, you can’t.
By the way, property tax dollars won’t go down if housing values go down, rates will go up resulting in the same property tax dollars.
To Anonymous at 6:37pm,
I believe we’d all benefit if net density and development was increased at a steady, modest rate across the entire New York metro area. This would broadly apply across the entire region.
There are local costs due to new development, but we are all better off on net if it happens. The challenge is that there is little incentive for each town to act independently. Why choose to increase development in just my town when so many of the costs are incurred locally but the benefits spread out into surrounding towns? Let other towns get more dense, not my town!
This is a classic collective action problem. Everyone would benefit from increased density, but each town is incentivized to individually restrict density.
So should Ridgewood “go it alone”? Yes, I think it should, for two reasons. 1. It’s better to be part of the solution than part of the problem from an ethical perspective. It’s the right thing to do. (I recognize this is not a very strong argument!) 2. Ridgewood is positioned to achieve net benefits even if surrounding towns choose not to increase density. Even going it alone, Ridgewood still comes out ahead. With an already bustling downtown, density has the potential to bring even more revenue and vibrancy to town. With existing rail and bus access, traffic won’t increase as much as it would if places like midland park were to build a ton of housing right next to Ridgewood. (Comparatively speaking, more people will walk to trains and buses and shops if living downtown than they would if living elsewhere.)
Of course increasing Ridgewood’s density won’t fix all the issues regionally or nationally, but it’s a start. Any new housing will be around for decades. So let’s build for the future of Ridgewood and NJ, not the past.
To Anonymous at 6:37pm,
Re: California housing. I lived in two of the most expensive, nicest towns in the Bay Area, Palo Alto and Menlo Park. I chose to live there for the high quality of life. It cost more to live in those towns than living in elsewhere in the area. That was something I was happy to spend my money on, just like I’m happy to spend the extra money to live on Ridgewood.
My point is not about expensive towns within a region, those make sense and are a natural result of varying incomes and preferences.
My point is about expensive regions. New Jersey is already an expensive place to live and work. Jobs are leaving to areas where you don’t have to pay people so much. Think MB USA moving to Atlanta. More housing will keep that high cost of living in check. The Bay Area didn’t do that and look what’s happened to home prices and median rent. I don’t think NJ can afford to make the same mistake! So let’s start in Ridgewood and not make the same mistake here.
Does anybody truly believe that seniors will sell their houses in droves to move to expensive apartments in our downtown? Or that Councilman Pucciarelli, who has claimed for years that he would really like to live downtown (“You should buy this sofa–I have 10 of them in my own home!”), would sell his lovely house and drag his new wife to a downtown apartment near an assisted-living facility with 24/7 traffic and ambulance sirens and hearses, or that she would consider doing so in a million years? ‘Bye, Al.
There have always been apartments above stores downtown. Their location was not considered prime! Has a single well-to-do empty nester/Ridgewood home owner moved there because the location was so great and gutted the place to fit it out like a TriBeCa loft and live the high life with no yard and no equity in our crummy (yes, I said it) downtown? In short, who would want to live downtown, now or ever? Whom are we kidding?
We’ve lost the hardware store, stationery store, 5&10, pork store, soft-goods store, Nassau’s, ski shop, nice gift shops (some remain), and much more. Will stores providing comprehensive goods move back in when the rents fall, which they won’t? No. How many meals per day can people eat?
Sounds like a House of Cards 7:03, property taxes stay high despite falling home values?
Have any of the Council members ever been involved with the CBR?
CBR SUPPORTS SUSAN KNUDSEN AND MICHAEL SEDON. Stay tuned for Meet and Greets for the candidates. Let us know if you’d like to host a coffee.
This is a very clear conflict of interest for two of the Council members: https://www.northjersey.com/mobile/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/letter-cbr-endorses-knudsen-sedon-1.841611
10:52-
You guys are desperate. You are also a moron. You are clearly one of the terrible threesome and you are desperate. Candidates can be openly supported by various interest groups. Knudsen and Sedon were supported by the CBR, and that is not a conflict of interest for them when voting on high density housing. Part of their campaign platforms had to do with not overbuilding. This is not a conflict. A conflict is Pucciarelli doing Business with and earring money from one of the downtown developers. A conflict is Hauck serving on aValley Board and then voting on the Valley expansion. A conflict is Aronsohn having a wife who works for a business in the redevelopment area.
Someone endorsing you does not a conflict make.
We are already a dense town, in a dense county in the most dense state in the Country. Enough.
Some seniors will move, emptying their home for school kids Taxes will go up because there will be a net increase in school kids and services needed.. $3/foot will not appeal to many empty nesters.
So candidates can’t volunteer for Valley Hospital? Stunning hypocrisy, shameless. The CBR is suing the Village. The CBR endorsed two of the current Council members. And you see no conflict in those Council members discussing the high density housing plan that is being challenged through a lawsuit against the Village by the CBR?
Hauck voted on the Valley expansion? Check your facts please.
What Valley Board did Hauck serve on when she voted on the Valley expansion?
These are the facts as I know them: Hauck has never voted on the Valley expansion. It has never come to the council since she has been a member. She is involved as a council member with discussions regarding the Valley litigation, which she should recuse herself from for the following reasons: Before she was a council member, she was on or president of the Valley auxiliary for years. She was instrumental in getting millions of dollars in donations during her tenure there, which is a wonderful thing, but puts her in a position where she cannot be neutral towards Valley. She testified as a resident at the council meeting September 19, 2011, urging the council to vote yes on the Valley expansion. She said she “believes and trusts the people at Valley”. She said she “has partnered with them in personal ways”. She is friends with Audrey Meyers and Megan Fraiser (CEO and head of PR at Valley) and spends time with them on a social basis. It’s only natural she has a bias towards Valley and she should recuse herself from any discussions about Valley at the council level. She is not ethical enough to do the right thing. Go to the address below
to see her statement to the council. It starts on page 127.
https://www.stopvalley.com/Resources/2011Sept19ValleyHearing.pdf
8:27 – I guess you do not understand the difference between a conflict of interest and endorsement of a candidate by a group. Mike and Susan were clear that they did not support over-development of the downtwon. The CBR therefore endorsed their candidacies. Mike and Susan are not paid by the CBR, they do not work for the CBR, their family members do not work for the CBR, and they do not stand to make any money off the CBR. If any of the items in the previous sentence were in place, this would be a conflict. It is a conflict that Pucciarelli’s firm does business with one of the possible developers in the CBD, Ned Cancelmo. His firm would stand to make money if Cancelmo’s property gets developed into a massive housing project.
Stunning ignorance on your part to suggest any hypocrisy on the part of the CBD and the two honest members of the Village Council.
Also, Hauck received a campaign contribution from Audrey Meyers. Complete conflict of interest.
51 comments. Are the TRIO listening?