file photo by Boyd Loving
April 12,2016
Boyd A Loving
Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood Blog has just learned that employees of the Village’s Streets and Parks Departments have been ordered to remove any campaign signs, specifically those belonging to Ramon Hache, found erected on Village owned properties.
This bizarre directive comes just months after many Village owned properties were literally plastered with “Vote Yes For Parking” signs and Village Attorney Matthew S. Rogers indicated that there was NO LOCAL ORDINANCE that prohibited the erection of election related signage on Village owned properties.
So Ms. Sonenfeld, if there is NO LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS THEM FROM BEING ON VILLAGE OWNED PROPERTIES, why are Mr. Hache’s campaign signs being torn town by Village employees?
Well that’s gonna make me vote for him!
You just couldn’t even begin to make this kind of shit up.
Ramon had my vote anyway, now I hope everyone votes for him. Really Roberta? Is there no end to your perception of how much authority you have?
Bitch has got to go!
I like the decision only because I am not interested in seeing a million campaign signs across town. If you allow one you have to allow all and it would get crazy quickly. But that is very odd considering the prior ruling on the garage. An explanation would be helpful….
Homina, homina, homina!
Not surprising that the village is doing this, the lack of consistency is the real problem. “Do as we say, not as we do” also applies to the $14,000 Garber Sq sign that violates two village codes and which the VC even said should be held to the same standards as any business sign. That was obviously ignored by the VM. There is a deep, deep credibility problem here.
Can’t wait to hear how they plan to spin the explanation for this. Get out the hip waders.
Yet another lawsuit in the making. What a bunch of morons.
What about the pro parking signs that were in the planters all around town. Whos property was that?
Ridgewood village management reserves the right to not uproot and dispose of politically-oriented campaign signs erected by third parties on on public property whenever they either don’t want to expend the effort (or overtime pay) to do so, or if they agree with the political message being conveyed.
time to clean house in may, see ya,
Wasn’t going to vote for him. Don’t trust him. I still don’t think this is right.
Heche made an appearance with Brook.
Brook is the straw man for Vaggianos.
753 – explain please. What does Hache have to do with Brooks? Brooks is a pawn of the trio. Were they debating each other?
Hache has nothing to do with Brooks. The fact that they were in the same room is indicative of nothing. Hache is independent. Brooks is poison. Brooks was brought in by Aronsohn and Vaggianos to do their bidding whe they realized that Gwen was never ever going to get reelected. Never ever vote for Brooks.
Still waiting to hear Brooks’ position on the sell out of the Hillcrest playing fields. Will he publicly announce his current council backer(s) were dead wrong to commercialize the space for our playing fields? He’s running on a sports ticket, so inquiring minds want to know.
9:55. They’re in cahoots. There are a few who would like to say they’re not but that’s a cover. Brooks is definitely the plant for the opposition but Heche is playing both sides and he never answered questions all the way Not getting my vote. That’s for sure
9:03am, in his current position at parks and rec. Brooks is a part of this sellout.
So what’s the score? Do we have three candidates to vote for who are reliably anti-amigo?
We can’t afford to elect even a single pro-amigo candidate this go-round because two years from now that individual could potentially be joined by two like-minded new council members to form a neo-amigo majority.
Voight. Hache. Walsh
The way to go.
by by miss bee,