We should probably all accept that our form of government allows a small minority to rule the day. Whether youāre for or against parking thatās what essentially happened twice with four years in between events. Lost in these small minorities exerting their will is the fact that we cannot make progress on parking; an issue that, like it or not, a super majority of your neighbors and out of town shoppers/diners would say is the biggest problem in the CBD. So we fight over specific solutions.
Anyone thatās been here more than a week and a half laughed out loud when someone recently had the genius idea to build parking at the Town Garage site. Why? Because 10 or so years ago, we went through this same process with a design, bonding, etc. for a garage there. What happened? A small group of people objected and the project was killed. Fortunately our spasm this year happened before we bonded so we donāt need to service debt that wonāt be used. Anyone care to go back into the meeting minutes to see if someone suggested Hudson Street as a better alternative then? Round and round we go.
So we may seem to be left with glacial progress on big issues. But maybe not. Letās have the argument once and be done with it: letās form a Charter Commission to review the town charter. Maybe we need a ward system, allowable under the terms of our charter, to ensure single issue (again, for or against, no difference here) council-people from one section of the village donāt rule the day. Perhaps a different charter altogether is in order. But something needs to change or weāll find ourselves with a different kind of village leadership: leadership that wears black robes and doesnāt ever need a single vote for re-election. Itās already begun.
It’s really only a problem if you don’t want to walk a couple blocks or pay the ParkMobile surcharge (which IS a load of bullshit by the way).
Funny how the LOSERS like to characterize the “small minority.” Nope, not such a small minority. It was a freaking landslide that brought that stupid garage plan down. Cue up Stevie Nicks
True, 10:24. It was a village wide referendum, and presumably everyone who felt deeply one way or another made it to the polls. The results showed that a vast majority of the people (who cared enough to vote) did not want the garage. This was on the heels of a prior election, wherein an overwhelming majority of people (who cared enough to vote) determined they didn’t want a shell government beholden to private interests.
Black robes? We HAVE freed ourselves of that kind of “government.” Finally. This council is not going to vote 3-2 for everything, I guarantee it.
Please… can we refer to them as “Robes of Color”.
Thanks.
Citing the vote in May as against parking is disingenuous as at least 2 of the 3 council who were elected claimed to support parking. In fact, Voigt has been very vocal promoting parking in his time in office so far.
So when 67% of voters opposed the garage and voter turnout was 60+% above that of the election that put the previous Council majority in office, that is a “small minority”? Didn’t you mean to post this at “The Truth About Ridgewood” page? SMH.
We voted against the monster garage.
People were duped into voting for the monster garage in November. We were reassured that we were voting for A garage, not any specific design.
Then some hard working residents started a petition drive against the monster garage. No one ever said that they were against building a garage. They just want the right size in the right location.
Council members who were elected said that they would look into a redesign/relocation. No one running said that they were against a garage. There will be a garage.
The first election was presumably simply for a parking garage. Many of us voted “yes” because we do need a garage. When Aronson and crew decided that we voters “really meant” to vote “yes” on that monstrosity that he wanted, a second vote was held. On that we voted “No” because it was supposed to be “Did we want to bond money for ‘A’ garage” but Aronson inserted the amount for the largest garage that he wanted. He also set the vote on the earliest possible date, while he was still in office so he could presumably still break the ground for his dream. And yes, our new Council members did say they wanted a garage but not “that” garage. So, to me, what the voters wanted was still a garage, but not something of that size. And they wanted the new Council to handle the details with input from the residents of Ridgewood.
The first election was presumably simply for a parking garage. Many of us voted “yes” because we do need a garage. When Aronson and crew decided that we voters “really meant” to vote “yes” on that monstrosity that he wanted, a second vote was held. On that we voted “No” because it was supposed to be “Did we want to bond money for ‘A’ garage” but Aronson inserted the amount for the largest garage that he wanted. He also set the vote on the earliest possible date, while he was still in office so he could presumably still break the ground for his dream. And yes, our new Council members did say they wanted a garage but not “that” garage. So, to me, what the voters wanted was still a garage, but not something of that size. And they wanted the new Council to handle the details with input from the residents of Ridgewood.
The CBD looks like crap
Anti-development majority doesn’t want parking, so this is a dead issue… Being rehashed here ad nauseum. Don’t we have any more pressing issues than yet another victory lap by the majority who don’t want anything changed – ever – in Ridgewood? How about property tax relief? A BOE settlement with the teachers? A new police contract? Challenging Valley’s “not for profit” status? The parking issue is dead.
Seems some on this blog are hell-bent on political retribution…
clearly the original “reader” was saying that a small group voted in hauck, pooch, and paulie (in favor of parking) and four years later another small group voted to block parking (against parking). two small groups. one for. one against. seems to me the reader was commenting on lack of progress regardless what side you were on. there’s only two people getting their way by blocking progress on everything. we all know who they are. but the planters are still there. oh, and for what it’s worth, i think black robes matter – which seems to be a reference to judges, not council members, for those playing the remedial home game.
Sorry you can’t have someone post that a “small minority” were responsible for the demise of the garage and not get some retorts. Couldn’t agree more about moving on to tax Valley and lower taxes for the rest of us. Time to tell the special interest groups to hit the road.
Ridgewood, on most Friday and Saturday nights, has a “restuarant parking problem.” The rest of the time there is no “parking problem.” So instead of going crazy and putting up an under used garage for a ridiculous amount of money, why not put a deck, not a garage, on the lot across from the Post Office ? This was talked about 20 plus years ago when you really did have a problem in a much more active CBD.
And get rid of those planters/walls/barriers at Greek to Me. One has to be a gymnast to get out on the passenger side of the car.
Hey Aon, what about Sooks stupid barrels and every other obstacle in the walkway in town? Or do you just have it out for Greek to me?
What about Sooks dumb barrels and every other obstacle in the public walkway in town? Or do you just have it out for Greek to me 5:37?
I apologize. I did not mean to single out a particular business. I simply have not tried to park in front of Sook’s (I prefer the lot) so I have not noticed the problem. And, yes, I am not a particularly observant person as far as structures.
Anon, apology accepted. I agree that all curbside obstacles should be removed including the planters/walls/barriers at Greek to Me. They add nothing to the view of the business district and are all a nuisance.
Greek to Me is a bully