Many well-thought reasons for voting NO to the garage have already been posted. But here are my central questions? Why on God’s green earth are we considering building a $11,500,000 garage in a remote corner of the the central business district BEFORE we look to simpler solutions such as angled parking stalls, the often under utilized Cottage Place lot, and the potential of the more central N. Walnut Street lot?
Why the hyper focus on Hudson Street? (I think we all know why). I’m not saying that a parking garage should never be built. But the $11.5 MILLION “fix”, especially at that remote location, should not be the FIRST solution we consider to this 80 year old problem. Let’s take more prudent, incremental steps toward freeing up parking throughout the CBD, and then reassess. Tomorrow, please VOTE NO!
John Hersperger
Ridgewood NJ
That’s been my suggestion all along….Bolger’s lot (the old DMV building) would make a perfect place for 150 cars. Throw in a jitney and we’re on our way.
But no…Paulie A wants to give Paulie V a parting gift…the Gyro Garage !
******* VOTE NO *************
A NO vote STOPS the OVERLARGE Garage D from being built.
a NO Vote still ALLOWS for a MORE REASONABLE garage and a COMPREHENSIVE parking solution to be adopted.
.
******* VOTE NO *************
a YES vote insures that Garage D will be built – the current council WILL approve Garage Plan D IMMEDIATELY
.
******* VOTE NO *************
We don’t own Bolger’s lot, Bolger does.
They looked at angled parking a few years ago. You may have to search the village site for the results of that.
We are going in circles. The same suggestions that have been looked at over the years keep coming up as if someone just had a great idea! It has all been done before.
The Village is looking at Village owned properties. We can’t build on someone else’s property. All those other property owners have plans to develop and make lots of money. Start with Village owned sites. There is a map on the Village website that shows all village parking lots. That is where you should start your search.
The parking situation will be adressed, and no one will get all that they want. It will be a compromise. Some do not want any lot at all and others want the five story lot. Compromise. Some will not like the location. Compromise. At some point a decision will be made by our elected representatives with input from residents.
angled parking worked fine it didnt cost enough
This garage is a solution in search of a problem. Let’s start over on July 1st after the outgoing Council members and their developer allies are gone.
The garage is what certain developers want when they put up high density housing at the former car dealerships.
3:37 is right on the money!
Stick with what you already own, put a “deck” on them, get the landlords to cooperate, look at other ways to improve parking, etc. You have to work with the idea that people are doing less retail shopping than they once did, not more as some would like you to believe. Going forward, it really becomes a matter of cooperation and creativity to help get this CBD back to where it once was. A large garage is not going to do it.
This is ridiculous. To suggest a down economy as a reason not to build is crazy and short sighted. It’s not about today but about the future. Vote YES and move Ridgewood into the 21st century. I always find it amazing that the people against the parking garage are against Schedler, High Density Housing and Valley. They will argue progression at all costs.
5:34-A large garage in Ridgewood would never be a plus in a real down economy. And you have to have either a very short memory, or you really have not been here that long, to see what the last downturn did. It’s not “argue progression at all costs,” but rather looking out for the overall good of the town, both in the short and long term.