Ridgewood’s problem is under-development
February 6, 2015 Last updated: Friday, February 6, 2015, 12:31 AM
The Ridgewood News
Print
Under-development is the problem
To The Editor:
I’m one of many “empty nesters” with no organized campaign but love Ridgewood, want to continue living here when downsizing occurs, and am enthusiastic about the option of modern apartments near the Central Business District. But leave aside my personal interest. As I told a victorious Village Council candidate, last year’s campaigners talked of “over-development” but Ridgewood’s problem is clearly under-development – vacant storefronts and auto dealerships and large empty tracts along the railroad.
The proposed apartments would boost our image as a thriving town, help the tax base, and add foot traffic for stores. The building plans are visually attractive. We’re fortunate that developers believe in Ridgewood and want to invest. Of course village officials must consider adequate on-site parking, traffic and pedestrian patterns, and school enrollment (unless apartments are designated for seniors). But any issues can surely be negotiated as necessary so these valuable projects can proceed. This, plus a major new parking facility a la Montclair, will help our merchants prosper and benefit everyone.
Richard Ostling
Ridgewood
Totally agree!
The “over development” complaints are not based upon economic reality, but rather an idealistic view. These people are the same ones who complain about crappy cell service or annoying water restrictions, but then complain about plans to install new cell towers or bigger water tanks. It’s not just a Ridgewood thing.
Montclair already exists, no need to recreate it here. I chose and continue to choose Ridgewood over Montclair.
There is a need for some development in town but you have to be careful as to over doing things. I also agree we have one Montclair and do not need another.
Yes, I am puzzled by comments like these. If you don’t like the town, move out. Why do we need to make the downtown more “attractive” to someone else by bringing in apartments. Its such a circular and cray argument.
Of course developers love us — they have a town council they run circles around. “Oh, but if don’t let them put up 500 apartment units rather than the 50 the properties are zoned for, they will build a supermarket.”
Mr. Ostler can move to any number of locations within 5 miles or so and park himself in an apartment building and live out the rest of his life in bliss. Why does he and the developers need to ruin the town for the rest of us?
I wish I believed all the letters and statements at hearings from people who say they will move into an apartment in Ridgewood’s CBD the second they can. But I don’t. It’s not that nice there! That’s kind of the point.