Ridgewood NJ, With the prospect of being out of State on Election day, I mailed my absentee ballot in so that my voice will be heard on the parking garage “referendum” question. My vote was a resounding NO for some very obvious reasons.
– The property is not suitable for such a large structure
– Cost overruns are inevitable
– On street parking rates will escalate to $1.00 per hour and enforcement will be until 9PM
– Cost of meter enforcement is drastically understated
– A single structure at the west end of the business district will not relieve the parking issues on lower Ridgewood Avenue. Those attending the movies will not scramble up to Hudson Street to park
– The restaurants will cut “deals” for valet parking in the garage thereby skewing the cost justification estimates presented
– We, the taxpayer, will subsidize any and all shortfalls in revenue to pay the multi decade debt service
So what is the real answer to the “parking issue”….. those of us who have been in the Village for many years and have seen the constant drone of ” Oh my God, I had to walk a least a block to get to my pedi/mani appointment and it started to rain on my freshly painted toes on the way back to my car…..OMG my day was ruined because of the parking situation in Ridgewood”
The answer… one level above grade open parking structures at Cottage Place, Walnut Street and Hudson Street. No fancy 4 story facades. Do the numbers…we can have 3 simple structures for the price of one 4 story behemoth on Hudson Street. And, parking will be readily available for the ENTIRE business district not just the few well connected restaurant owners. If this plan moves forward get ready to present your 8:49 PM parking tickets to the three amigos…. Maybe they can chip in to pay them for you…it’s a good thing at least some of them have a day job!
I agree…well said!
100% on the money. I completely agree!
I can add one point/question – why do all of our major choices about development projects in Ridgewood come down to a yes or no on something that is just too big? Valley – needs to modernize, not double in size. Sealfons, Ken Smith and Brogan sites – need to be developed but not at triple the current density. Schedler Property – can be improved to serve the people of the village that owns it but without cutting all the trees down. Parking – we need to improve the parking situation in town but not with a multi-story structure that will be as big as the churches across the street and around the corner.
It seems that both the Planning Board and Council have failed to “get it”. Valley has been shot down on multiple occasions. The apartments are on hold because an angry mob showed up to shout the Council down before they could vote on it. The neighborhood east of 17 is resolved to vote any Council person out of office as they come up for re-election. And now this parking behemoth comes before us.
Our Council bears a healthy dose of the blame for all of this. In each case they appear to have made up their minds far in advance of finishing any impact or financial studies and even farther in advance of weighing public opinion. In addition there always seems to be some cozy relationship between one or more Council members and the applicant. Our Mayor is sending out personal appeals to vote “Yes” on the parking structure just as the (less than complete) “studies” are released. I always feel like the Council is rushing to get things pushed through and approved before the public has a chance to digest what’s being decided.
It’s with a healthy dose of skepticism that I’ll vote NO on Garage-zilla. Back to the drawing board folks – please present us with some smaller options.
perfectly said. I would add that this structure will be mostly for commuters. It is not going to solve a parking problem for shoppers and restaurant goers (except in that immediate area). I also believe it will be for overflow of the high density units that are bound to built at the Brogan Cadillac site, since the units will allow something like 1.4 cars per unit. Those extra cars will have to go somewhere? With 412 spaces (an incredible amount for a small corner on already narrow streets) there will be plenty of spots to fill. The current lot is 76 spaces. Does anyone really think 5 1/2 times the current capacity is reasonable? It’s going to be so huge and so offensive to see.
This is not going to benefit 90% of the shops and restaurants downtown. Face it, people don’t want to park and walk. This is out of the way from the bulk of town. The poster was correct. We need to add one level above grade to the existing public lots on Cottage, Walnut and Hudson. Those lots were put in those locations for a reason. They are scattered throughout the CBD. This will allow you to park in the one closest to your destination.
“Our vision does not entail one huge parking garage as was proposed some years ago, but smaller, low-level parking decks, preferably in opposite corners of the Central Business District and preferably in ways that enhance the streets cape.”
https://www.paularonsohn.com/writings/a-vision-for-downtown-2
With the exception of 22 banks and barely solvent 50+ eateries, the CBD is dead…..no need for a parking garage.
This is Paulie and Pooch looking for a legacy…they must be stopped.
Wonderful! I thought I was the only one who will vote no. Double decker at most parking decks around town, maybe two,
A brief lesson in recent Ridgewood history:
We told them not to build the new firehouse in a flood zone, but they did not listen – firehouse inaccessible following Hurricane Floyd.
We told them that it would be cheaper to knock down Village Hall and start over from scratch, but they did not listen – a $4.5 million project became a $11 million plus project.
We told them not to rebuild Village Hall in a flood zone, but they did not listen – parking lot and building flooded within months after the ribbon cutting.
Now we’re telling them that this garage will be an absolute boondoggle – they are not listening – guess what’s going to happen.
As in this blog a few weeks back, it was noted we are LOSING current parking. Exxon station closed for commuter parking. Bank going there. Brogan parking and Ken Smith’s parking will also be developed and have a net loss in parking.
Sure, develop Hudson St. with a 1 deck simple structure.
Did anyone notice the picture of the new garage?
Look again.
Across the street, it does not show the existing building there, has a very wide sidewalk, and people mingling on the corner. Also, the actual street itself appears nice and wide. Why?? There are no cars parked on the street.
They were Drilling survey Holes into the proposed Side yesterday weds in the rain,SHEER ARROGANCE BY THE Garage Hunta In this Town..yes the town it’s in decline ..THEY THINK WE ARE ALL FOOLS, VOTE NO NOV 3 rd STOP THE PRESSES ON THIS IMMENSLY EXPENSIVE MISTAKE..WILL BITE US IN THE Ass for decades..taxpayers..PS WALKING IS HEALTHY TO OR FROM A MEAL,
I will be voting no. I go to town often and have never had a problem parking. Last Saturday at noon, the huge parking lot outside the old Sealfon’s had 15 cars in it when I parked. I shopped for hours and, when I returned, the lot was still empty. We went back for dinner and parked the car easily.
This lot will cost me a fortune as a taxpayer and it is not necessary.
Why doesn’t the council talk about the real problem with downtown …. not enough shops I can afford. Rents are just so high they have destroyed the businesses in town.
8:03 is spot on: the garage will be built for commuters! Vote NO.
Restaurant and business proprietors appear to have this “if you build it they will come” belief. This is probably not a bad belief to have, especially when most of them are not Ridgewood residents and will not be financially on-the-hook for the cost.
I don’t believe a new parking garage will add one single extra customer to local restaurants and businesses. Some of the most honest local businesses probably know this, but even they likely have a “it’s worth a shot” attitude.
12:23 “No enough shops I can afford”. There is a solution for you. Go shop at Walmart !! Oh, perhaps we should have one of those in town so and the other faux wealthy can afford to shop locally..
I will be voting NO as well. It is a big mistake, a huge mistake. It will cost us and cost us and cost us. The mayor is desperate to get a landslide YES vote on Tuesday. He is like a middleschooler running for captain of the debate team. All these signs, letters, emails…………very clearly he stands to lose something if this garage does not go through. The question is, what?
He is going to be moving. Increased taxes to cover the revenue loss from this monster mistake will be no concern of his. We will be left to pay for it. But when he moves, will his pockets be lined with quarters? Or is just his ego that will be enriched?
Why does the photo say DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS? If the majority of voters have their way, no work will ever take place on this nightmare.
10:03
Yes, you are 100% correct on all of it!
Why is it ok for a sign to be on Willard School property?
Will they lose their 501 (c) ((3) status as a tax exempt entity?
2:45: violated state politicking law but who’s behind the sign! The mayor.
I agree with Gail McCarthy, A few tiers strategically places around the CBD would be more practical,cheaper, easier to monitor, manage and more user friendly. That was former Mayor Mancusio’s suggestion.
Is the parking garage sign at Willard? That is not allowed. If someone put it there, the school should take it down.
Yes, as of yesterday there was a sign on school property.
Update Friday am mayors schilling the Mega PARKING DECK AT RWOOD NJ TRANSIT STATION. INSIDE STATION DIAGRAMS ON EASELS PROMOTING THE CONEY ISLAND SCALE PARKING GARAGE. PUTS AMMO ALSO INTO COMMUTER HAIL MARY IDEA. VOTE NO TAKE BACK THE POWER
I spoke with Bernie Walsh and she said she sent a letter to Dr. Fishbein and he immediately responded saying they were not approved and he said all of the signs will be taken off school property. They were taken off at BF and Somerville. Not sure about the other schools.
So the staff at those schools allowed the signs all week? Unacceptable. Not only have those schools jeopardized their tax exempt status, if the results from those polling places are out of line with the rest of town they should be thrown out as signs on property is an explicit endorsement of the plan.
School leadership needs to be held to Account.Serious blatent disregard for the Law on A major pending voting platform issue,