file photo by Boyd Loving
November 1,2015
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , “So am I to infer from your email that you are the one in charge of what does and does not get posted on the VOR website; is this correct? And, if so, is it within your purview to directly disregard the request of one of our elected officials regarding a posting on the VOR website?” Resident Anne LaGrange Loving .
This is a good question proposed by the Village manager , does she work for the town , the Bergen Democrats or does she work for the mayor? Can a Village Manager so openly disregard a request from a council person ? Whats the harm in pointed out an issue to the public?
Does this implies once again the Village government has no credibility with its residents ? Do people not understand after one fiasco after the other , the Village Hall, Valley Expansion, the golden toilets , firehouse in a flood zone , turf in a flood zone , traffic easement , Graydon ramp and the hits just keep coming .
Until we get a little more truth in government these controversy’s will continue to hurt the village , the merchants and the taxpayers .
Ridgewood News Letter: Be informed before you vote
October 30, 2015
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
To the editor:
Last Friday, readers of this newspaper may have been surprised to read a letter to the editor (“HPC supports parking garage”) from the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission stating that the HPC had endorsed a plan for a Hudson Street parking garage. Their instincts were correct: it’s not true.
In the letter, Vincent Parrillo asserted that the HPC “supports approval of the parking garage and encourages all residents to vote ‘yes’ for the Nov. 3 referendum.” Not so; in fact, Mr. Parrillo introduced the Oct. 8 HPC meeting (not Oct. 15, as the letter stated) as a “courtesy review” of garage drawings, stating the HPC does not vote on such approvals. I was there as council liaison.
The architectural firm selected by the council to prepare drawings showed components of a proposed design to HPC members, who asked questions and made suggestions. The meeting was entirely informational. HPC members did not approve the garage. At no time did the Village HPC discuss approval.
The letter, on official letterhead, has since been posted on the Village website. It was also published by The Ridgewood News in print and online. It’s been highlighted in the mayor’s communications, signed and sent by him through his personal email account, pressing voters to approve the garage.
Obtaining voter approval is the only reason for next Tuesday’s nonbinding referendum. Voters should therefore consider the following.
The proposed garage would occupy the entire 100-by-300-foot corner of Hudson Street, becoming the largest building in the Central Business District. At 50 to 66 feet high, it would tower over adjacent 25-foot buildings, meeting or exceeding the height of proposed multifamily housing that has been publicly repudiated as out of place in our historic downtown.
All existing on-street parking on Hudson would be eliminated, as would some spaces on South Broad. Traffic patterns on Hudson and nearby roads would be reversed. The garage would be cantilevered over 300 feet of the Hudson Street sidewalk with an additional two feet extending over the street. An additional 300-plus vehicles will be added to the already congested intersection.
To subsidize the project, the Village would increase meter rates throughout town and extend meter hours to 9 p.m. where they now end at 6 p.m. If Parking Utility revenues fell short, Ridgewood taxpayers would be held responsible for the bond and be sole guarantors of the principal and interest.
Voting “yes” would mean: “We 26,000 residents agree to pay lots more for parking, $15 million for a garage plus likely cost overruns, and maintenance and repairs forever.”
Voters harboring doubts about the wisdom of this project should consider carefully how they vote on Nov. 3. This is not a vote “for parking” but a choice about the height and mass of the proposed structure and whether Ridgewood taxpayers accept responsibility for being sole guarantors of a $15 million bond.
Be informed and vote.
Councilwoman Susan Knudsen
Village of Ridgewood
The photo posted here of the Parking Bldg. is much too large and not worth the tax money to be spent on it. Please submit other designs.
And don’t forget, she should be our deputy mayor.
The council will steamroller this garage and cost be damned,a fair amount of people who own a business in town do not live here and could care less. Putting up a second deck at this lot and others seems to make more sense, otherwise the taxpayer will be on the hook for this fiasco for years to come.
Well Roberta???? What say you?
Fire her now.
I will be sure to tell her when i see her in town, but all of us should go out of our way to thank Susan for her efforts on the council. At least one person is speaking for the majority of Villagers, rather than their own myopic view of what the town should turn into.
As long ar we are looking at that website can we talk about the lack of design?
It is one big list of uncategorized documents. Maybe all the parking pages could be grouped together. And all the high density housing PR in another. Folder. Isn’t the whole idea to make information accessible?
Does the fact that this Parking Garage Plan up for a vote mean that it is a political issue? Please read the following:
——————————–
A quote from the IRS web site is below.
(begin quote)
The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
What is Political Campaign Intervention?
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.
(end quote)
Some more info at this link:
https://www.blueandco.com/nfp_03082012.html
——————————-
The above is from The Blog in 2012 regarding Mr. Aronsohn using a Jamboree emailing list to promote his own campaign. Now we have a situation where a private email listing was used by one of our elected officials to promote the VOTE YES campaign. What does anyone think about this? I mean, besides the fact that it was unethical and just plain wrong. For his information, it totally pissed off some of those who received it, who felt it was beyond the pale. Can you say BACKFIRE?
Well, the King & Queen of Ridgewood (Paul & Roberta) are now trying to control the content on 2 by membership only Facebook groups – “It Takes a Village” and” Ridgewood Moms and Dads.” However, Aronsohn has someone doing his bidding for him because “he doesn’t do Facebook.” Are you friggin’ kidding me? The King of e-mail, Social Media, texting, Twittering, etc. doesn’t use Facebook and has the chutzpah to ask someone to communicate for him? He’s one big moron ladies and gentlemen. What nerve. I suppose he has a proxy so he can claim in the future “I never wrote that.” And Roberta – doesn’t she have a life of any kind other than to defend a ship that’s so filled with holes it sinks right out of dry dock? Seems like she’s just sitting on Facebook defending any and all negative comments about the garage. THANK GOODNESS FOR THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG. We don’t have to put up with such ass kissing over here.
And they do not make it easy for her. The backstage shenanigans could fill a book.
Village Manager is a complete disaster. She was hired having no public administration experience whatsoever. She is a farce, placed as a puppet to do what a select few choose. Doesn’t even realize her puppet master is covering her in smut so they appear clean. Big pimpin…
The image used on this here is clearly an electronic pre-production proof. Versioned, dated, crop marks still showing. James, you have good sources. The best part is that someone is posting both front and back sided versions of this same pre-production image on Facebook which leaves, shall we say, less doubt as to the image origin.
1:26 pm – The origin of the image is clearly credited here and on Facebook. So what? This is not child pornography. It is no crime to be the originator of this image. Who knows how the originator came to possess it. Maybe someone sent it to him/her?