file photo by Boyd Loving
JANUARY 15, 2016 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016, 12:31 AM
THE RIDGEWOOD NEWS
Urging council to keep trying on garage
To the editor:
I thank the Village Council for the time and effort spent trying to solve the parking issues in Ridgewood, but remain disheartened after the meeting on Jan. 6.
As Councilwoman Knudsen stated, the referendum was a vote for a parking garage on Hudson Street … not IN Hudson Street. Many residents were unaware of the size and scope of what they were being encouraged to vote for in the referendum.
Furthermore, aside from one vague, not widely circulated, and still anonymous flyer, there was very little public opposition. There were no “vote no” flyers all over town or on school property.
Would Mt. Carmel not have fully mobilized before the vote if they had any inkling the impact would be so great? Do you doubt that the 4,000 families of the parish would not have voted down the referendum had they realized there would be a 10-foot narrowing of Hudson and loss of precious on-street parking?
Overwhelmingly the residents who attended the meeting on Jan. 6 agreed to parking — even parking at that imperfect location — but not such a dramatic encroachment into the street, infringement on church life, and congestion to that area of the village in general.
As mentioned numerous times, the town while not legally required to follow its own rules and ordinances, should be expected to do so in all but emergency situations.
The word compromise was often used, but would be more easily achieved if a design was presented that stayed within the footprint of the current Hudson Street lot. Instead all of the options were variations on the same too big for the property design.
Mayor Aronsohn has stressed how important it is to get it right on parking, but isn’t that worth asking the architects to come back with some new ideas that a majority of interested parties can get behind before seeking funding from the county? We have waited decades for a solution and are nearly there, yet suddenly weeks are too long to wait for new drawings?
Lastly, while the financing scheme is not quite buttoned up, there was actually little disagreement around the costs of the garage. How sad then that the majority of council feels the need to seek financing elsewhere and hand the reins over to the county. By doing this, we would incur needless extra financing fees and perhaps ultimately lose some control over the project — design aesthetics, number of spaces dedicated to residents outside of Ridgewood, measures to take if meter revenue is below expectations, etc.
Can this really not be worked out without going that drastic, precedent setting route?
We have agreement on the need for parking, acceptance if not full agreement on location, and agreement on cost. There are a few months left for the council to figure this out together … I urge them to keep trying.
Carrie Giordano
Ridgewood
The 10/2015 Maser parking traffic study says the existing lots are no more than 50% full at peak hours…why do we even need a garage?
“This factor was deemed to be conservative for the purposes of our analysis as the
surrounding surface lots were observed to be at approximately 50% of their capacity during peak
hours and none of the surface lots appeared to approach their maximum capacity simultaneously.”
[page 11] https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015traffichudson.pdf
Status quo more than acceptable. Don’t spend my taxes without input
Does everyone understand the plan of the three amigos that if the “footprint” gets reduced to the size of the lot, the height of the building will be much higher than Plan A? This will not be a compromise. Not in the least.
5:10pm-
[Thank you for quoting a source and providing a link! You rock.]
Walker study found several lots full during peak hours, but the Maser study indicates less demand. Maybe they could figure out a cheap way to collect more data? Like make it a high school class project or something? Would be good to get more rigorous data collection here, rather than just the single point studies so far.
I should note that the Walker study was probably “intended” to find the most demand possible to justify the need for a garage, while the Maser traffic study was probably “intended” to find the least amount of demand to present a slightly lower traffic level.
At a minimum these studies should probably be based on the same assumptions!
The town should have data from parkmobile. That should be the FIRST step to identity exactly how many spots are needed, instead of just pushing for a garage closer to the new proposed development by a company where Mayor’s wife used to work.
They are trying to use old data – 15 years ago to justify the demand. Many people say that you can always get the parking, you just need to know where to park. There are hidden spots. e.g. YMCA lot. The town can negotiate partnership with those private lots to provide parking. We can convert some streets to one way only to increase parking spaces. We can limit all street parking to 30 minutes and make it free – and all long term parking – longer than 30 minutes should be in these paid parking spaces not on the street – not in front of the shops. That will free up most lots and noone will have to circle around, if the street lots are free and are for LIMITED time – you park – do the business and go away.
Anyway – first order of business – IDENTIFY HOW MANY SPOTS ARE NEEDED – WITH A RECENT STUDY – WHICH CAPTURES DATA FOR MULTIPLE DAYS – NOT FOR ONE WEEK, NOT FOR A FEW HOURS. DON’T SPEND TAX PAYERS 15 MILLION DOLLARS ON YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA BY JUSTIFY IT USING FAKE REPORTS.
Once again the vocal minority blocks progress. Ms. Giordano can’t possibly know that the 3,000 people voting YES didn’t understand what they were voting for, or that the 4,000 parish members of Mt. Camel would have “mobilized” against it. The parking discussion has been on the table for the 20 years I’ve lived here and it’s time to follow “studies” with action. The VC put it to a vote to gauge interest, and the response was YES! No amount of “data” or additional research will satisfy those against it. It’s like a flu shot. If you’re against it no amount of convincing will change your mind, regardless of the facts.
The Hudson St. parking garage design concept plans A, B or C, likens dejavu to the failed Ridgewood Pool Project for a cement ‘water park’ Graydon concept design plans choices of A, B or C, all similar, and have a financial plan that would be no cost to taxpayers. A lot of taxpayer vocal opposition to that followed. Sound Familar?
https://theridgewoodblog.net/village-council-agreed-to-move-forward-with-writing-a-request-for-proposal-for-architectural-services-for-a-renovated-graydon-facility/
Action park ! lol
8:43 – show us one document issues by the council / village manager which shows that the garage will be encroaching on the Hudson street. That will tell us if those 3000 people knew about it or not.
843, before we found out the Maser study was not shared with public for 2 months I would have agreed. The public was not allowed to read a study that said we don’t need a $12m garage.
8:43 – Seriously. You call it progress? Narrowing a road is illegal. The property owners on that street purchased their property with a specific town plan / street width.
Not at all, @ 8:43. Father Ron has been speaking at Mt. Carmel masses and at those masses the church goers were outraged. Hundreds flooded the town meeting a few weeks ago in case you weren’t paying attention. Nobody knew what they were voting for because nobody (at least in the public beyond town hall) knew the garage would be in the street. The reason the action never followed the studies is that it really never makes sense to build a garage.
And it would be a shame to go to the BCIA. A waste of taxpayers money and horrible way to run our town government.
Those that say the voters did not know what they were voting for then blame the stupidity of the voter. You need to have an educated voter if not then this is the mess you deserve.
7:58 – a voter cannot be educated if they are being lied to. Show us one document issues by the council / village manager which shows that the garage will be encroaching on the Hudson street. If you were an educated voter, how did you find out the information of Hudson Street encroachment before you voted?
8:20am and 9:12pm-
I’ve studied most of the documents (though not all the meeting minutes and videos), and I believe you are correct that the reduced width of Hudson St was not evident in any documents before the vote.
The encroachment was evident when this document was published in early December (https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2015simdeck.pdf), when there was a public session on design options. Again, the process was always as follows: 1. Vote on the idea of a garage, 2. Discuss design options, 3. Issue bond for the garage and proceed. We are stuck on Step 2 and are having a strong debate on what design works best. I agree that it would be a mistake for the council to use the county financing option to build the “biggest” garage. Most people object to that, particularly the reduction of Hudson St width. They should come back and find a slightly smaller floor plan, like what was proposed by Walker back in July (https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/hudson/20150705Floorplans.pdf), that most people are happy with.
9:16pm-
Narrowing a road is not “illegal” for the town to do. I believe the town is legally allowed to do the reduction in width, just like it can change traffic flow or on-street parking or whatever it wants. The “property rights” of the property owners do not include specific street parking or street width rights. Their “interests” include those things, but not their “legal rights”. Those distinctions matter here.
Measuring parking capacity/usage ignores the fact that people and businesses avoid town because parking is too much of a hassle. As far as reducing Hudson Street is concerned I don’t see the problem. Mt. Carmel members could use the garage would should be preferable to street parking anyway. They could just have handicap parking on the street.
John V, – 9:45 – so the town collects taxes from a property owner. The property owner purchased the lot at X price. Now the road to reach to that property is narrowed and the property is valued X/2. The town has no fiduciary responsibility here?
Yes as per the original letter the town is allowed to narrow the street but anyone else would not be able to, at least not without seeking a that would probably not be granted. So the town does not have to follow its own rules.
Sorry that should have said not without seeking a variance.
10:42am-
IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), so in re-reading my comment above I spoke way too confidently in my claims. Saying that, it’s my understanding that the government would need to compensate a property owner for a “taking”. This is the whole eminent domain thing. I doubt that removing public street parking would be considered a taking, since the property owner has no “claim” or “right” to those spots. (In fact, I’m not sure the town is legally required to provide any public parking whatsoever? That’s a bigger question…) Someone please correct me if I’m wrong here!
The property owner probably does have some right to “access” to their property. This may or may not be built into the deed or into general town rules? Like an easement sort of thing? So I’m not sure a court would hold that simply narrowing a street takes away “access” to a property, thus either requiring compensation for narrowing the street or simply preventing the street narrowing from happening.
Municipalities change traffic patterns all the time. That impacts property owners for sure. But I’m not sure the traffic change in and of itself would be “illegal”, even if it reduces a street width. You often see that the correct process isn’t followed (environmental impact statements, etc.) but if done in the right process I believe it would be perfectly legal, no compensation required. That’s a separate question from whether it’s a good thing to do or not, the right thing to do or not, the moral thing to do or not.
Again, someone who is an expert in municipal law please correct me if I’m wrong here.
A taking is a taking is Best Described as A Taking..an Abuse of a Sacred Trust.Across from a MAgnificent Church & Community…
BEWARE OF unsolicited statements of Gifts…That Street will be polluted Alley within 10 years..AJOINING bus Depot..proximity NJT STATION. Equals DRUGS Vagrants Crime and Blight.
That Election record should be thrown out based on malfeasance
11:25am and 11:29am-
Some reading for you…
Suggestions on “normal” capitalization of the English language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_in_English
Suggestions on “normal” punctuation of the English language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation_of_English
Read it yourself John
1:41pm-
I have! That’s why my comments are easy to read and (hopefully) pretty clear.
You should be proud of yourself then john
Municipalities do not have to abide by their own ordinances and they can encroach on a street by 12 feet but should they? I have heard that it will be impossible to get emergency vehicles safely onto Hudson Street. Maybe not illegal but dangerous.. Because of so many people speaking out, at least they are rethinking the foot print.
2:44am-
I have heard people comment that they don’t think a big fire truck could make it down a narrowed Hudson st. But I haven’t seen any analysis or comment by the actual Ridgewood FD that they couldn’t drive their trucks down that street or around that corner. So I would consider that risk “speculative” at this point.
Its your life
Why is no one discussing Environmental Justice. Arguably, Broad Street is arguably the poorest neighborhood in Ridgewood with residence and churches the least able to pay to fight back (with Mt. Carmel as the exception). Broad Street has borne the brunt of Ridgewood industry and now we’re going to drop a huge garage there continuing the cycle of environmental prejudice. The renters in the apartments will no longer have air but the who cares? They are renters, right? Those landlords only minimally complained so let’s not listen to them. The residents of the neighborhood will be subjected to degraded air quality which, in minority populations, has lead to significantly higher rates of childhood asthma. But who cares? They are minorities and children? Right? And that’s already a busy, noisy area so if we add more congestion and noise, that’s okay, right? The smaller shops along Hudson and Broad don’t have the money to fight back. But who cares? they are small? Right? Environmental justice provides the same degree of protection (environmental and human health) for all people and I just don’t see that here.
While I think there is a parking issue and some sort of garage is needed, the 3 story option proposed will have another impact that does not bode well for Ridgewood if it goes thru…. It opens the floodgates for Valley to do that massive expansion, er, I mean, “renewal”… At least with the garage there is room for compromise… Valley already has shown that compromise is off the table… the biggest option will be an enabler for Valley to litigate their way to victory…
John V, 8:21 AM – Most of your posts are informative. But this one is ridiculous. 18 feet wide roadways, are you serious? Then why not change all the roads everywhere? There is a reason why all town planners keep all roadways to a minimum 30 feet wide. Give some credit to civil engineers and town planners who came up with those numbers and don’t question them to support this political effort. I expected better from you. I did not expect you to argue in favor of narrowing the road.
10:21am-
To be clear, I’m not really in favor of narrowing the road! My opinion is more like “eh, we should really try to avoid doing that if possible”, for all the reasons people have been giving.
Back to my comment from 8:21am. What I was questioning was the statement “it will be impossible to get emergency vehicles safely onto Hudson Street”, as quoted above from 2:44am. Did the fire department actually comment on that? If true, that’s definitely a reason to not narrow the street! I just haven’t seen the evidence that it’s true. There are lots of reasons to have 30 ft wide roadways vs. 20 ft wide. I believe most of those reasons are not about emergency vehicles though.
John you analysis is superficial and ridiculous
11:03 John – then don’t argue in favor of a 18 feet roadway just for the sake of finding a point in someone else’s argument. If 18 feet roadway is not preferred anywhere else in the world, lets not build it in Ridgewood, just to justify egos of some politicians and influential restaurant owners. We can still debate on if the parking lot is needed which will fit within the lot, and you may win that argument, but lets not try to promote the idea of narrowing the road. Trust me – it’s a bad idea. People spoke against it for 7 hours on Jan 6th meeting. Majority were against the size of the garage and encroaching the road. Most people want parking. If they build it on north walnut lot or cottage street lot, most people will favor it because those lots can handle it.
Imagine that smaller roadway in a heavy snow or emergency situation , such as a fire or gas leak or other rescue event,Streets in a tight grid also support the safety of the ajoining neighborhoods access and retreat routes.
Comments here still awaiting moderation?
?
?!
James at 11:17am-
How is what I’m saying superficial and ridiculous? Someone claimed that it would be “dangerous” to narrow the street to 18ft. I asked what evidence do they have to believe that? The distance between the parked cars on each side of Hudson St right now is about 15 ft. (Measured using Google Maps satellite photos, not in person with a tape measure.) Since there would be no parked cars on either side of a “narrowed” 18 ft Hudson St, the actual available travel width for an emergency vehicle would be about the same as right now. Can an emergency vehicle make the turn from Broad onto a narrow Hudson St? I don’t know, that’s the question I guess.
A good argument doesn’t involve just listing every random reason against something, whether true or not. There are plenty of good arguments against narrowing Hudson St. Why pick ones that aren’t true or proven?
12:15pm-
Let’s formalize this a bit. Someone argues: “A is true, therefore Don’t Do X”. I argue: “A is NOT true”. Does that mean I’m also arguing “Do X”? No, it simply means that I believe “A” does not justify the argument “Don’t Do X”.
Read my comment at 8:21am. I’m not arguing in favor of narrowing the street. I’m simply saying that narrowing the street hasn’t been proven to be “dangerous”. That’s it.
Again, I agree with many points raised on why not to narrow the street. But as I note to James above, the “travel way” on Hudson is currently just about 15 ft once accounting for the parked cars on both sides.