Posted on

Valley Hospital like everyone else, it needs to conform to the current Master Plan


March 30,2016

Linda McNamara

Ridgewood Nj, We are talking about 10 years of construction at one of the busiest intersections in Ridgewood. Most hospitals don’t build next to schools. Homes were there before Valley.

We like having a hospital in town but like everyone else, it needs to conform and we should demand that they abide by the current Master Plan. Valley is looking to become a noted regional facility. They can do it but not all of it at the current site. They have purchased many properties in the surrounding area.

Most of us prefer going to satellite locations for many of our medical needs. valley sued Ridgewood for “arbitrary and capricious” deliberstions. The town held numerous forums and the Planning Board voted 5-2 against the expansion plan. They keep coming back because they have tons of money and paying lawyers poses no difficulties. We need a strong defense and I am not sure the powers that be are up to the task.

7 thoughts on “Valley Hospital like everyone else, it needs to conform to the current Master Plan

  1. Unfortunately the courts do not agree with your agenda. The Master plan will not hold up as a defense in court. The Village was already told by the mediator that they are very unlikely to prevent an expansion via litigation. Valley has the trump card. They will ultimately be allowed to expand. The only card the Village still has is that if they do not agree to compromise we can force protracted litigation that we will ultimately lose. Litigation would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and in the end a judge would decide what Valley can build.

    I say leverage the threat of protracted litigation to negotiate. But to negotiate you have to commit to actually allowing an expansion. Lets try to get them to agree to put money in for property taxes, to manage the construction process and to limit the expansion as much as possible. I would also call on Valley to address inconsistencies like putting 2 equipment hookups in rooms they claim will be single occupancy. Channel our inner Trump and get the best deal we can.

  2. You really have to wonder why any PB, or VC member, would vote for this as the negatives far outweigh the positives. I get the part where they have to improve by updating the rooms and keeping up with the changing technology. BUT, when you choose to do it in a residential neighborhood, in a town that really benefits little from the outcome of the change, a vote for something like this is taking a risk that should not be taken.

  3. 830… exactly… we have been dealt a hand with the best result to be the least worst deal… The plan as presented is murky… an executive summary differentiating 2010 and 2014 would give a clearer picture for everyone… they came back reducing overall maximum height by 14 feet (including machinery) and a reduction in floor space clearly but the byzantine summary of floor footage etc should be more black and white… also buffers need to be clarified as well as the above ground footprint, which increases from 70- 80 %…

  4. Is tonite’s meeting in the hall or courtroom?

  5. I think everyone is being too pessimistic here – – that’s the tone set by this near-sighted council majority and its cheerleaders. Its our Village, period. And we need to start acting like we own it, rather than as if we are here as quests.

  6. There’s still room for negotiation but the end result will definitely not please everyone… some sort of expansion WILL happen… the council shot down the 2014 plan, which included our mayor… look at the plan and let’s see what say they this evening….

  7. Maybe they think they can downsize the latest proposal and write a fat check each year as a large commercial taxpayer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *