Are there any persons of color currently serving on appointed Boards & Commissions charged with reviewing applications and rendering official opinions related to Municipal Land Use Law issues in the Village of Ridgewood?
Are persons of color actively recruited to serve on these and other Boards & Commissions, or does the Village Council limit themselves to reviewing letters of interest received as a result of web postings and newspaper ads?
Board of Adjustment Members:
David Larsen – Chairman
Joseph Donahue
Bethany Lorenz
Joseph Scanlon
Douglas Cronk
Stephen Wellinghorst
Jacques Harlow
David Parsekian – Alternate Member
Christen Gross – Alternate Member
Planning Board Members:
David Nicholson – – Chairman
Albert Pucciarelli – Vice Chairman
David Pfund – Mayor
Ann Zusy – Councilwoman
Morgan Hurley
James Bombace
Anne Ward
Nick Tsapatsaris
Charles Nalbantian
Richard Barclay – Alternate Member
Thomas Riche – Alternate Member
Historic Preservation Commission Members:
Arthur Wrubel – Chairman
Tess Giuliani
Lynne Brady – Alternate Member
Thomas Stachelrodt
Lawrence R. Hoffman
Richard Barclay
Vincent N. Parrillo
Joe Suplicki
The Ridgewood Blog 
We can get rid of the Historic Preservation Commission without any impact on the town. They sit and pontificate and generally do nothing. Do we need this layer of non-government in our town?
The answer to the original question is no. Now what? Have any suggestions or do you just want to stir the pot so the extremists and conspiracists have something to jaw about?
looks like another example of liberalism at my convience….
1250 is there a conspiracy I must have missed it in the post…
Now what? perhaps you should see if someone is interested ro maybe there is no demand….and i am not even a college grad and i thought of it…wow
yes we can multi-culture the christmas tree or garbage bush or what ever but dont hire any of you know ,those kind of people…lol so busted!!!!!
yes we can multi-culture the christmas tree
Since when is "multi-culture" a verb?
And what does skin color have to do with those serving on Village boards & commissions?
12:50 is right — this is just a lame attempt at pot-stirring for extremists and conspiracists
1:05
Yep..you missed it. Time to put on your thinking cap again–if you can find it.
201 since you made it that way
looks like another example of liberalism at my convience…….
201 i believe its since libs like you made it that way ….
looks like another example of conservatives trying to re-start the Culture War…….
Why is there always a Bombace on the list?
Being “of color”, whatever that means, means nothing. Is someone trying to play a “color” card to get unfettered access to somewhere? People using the “color” and “for the children” qualifiers are almost always promoting their own agenda for personal gain. Come out, come out, where ever you are!
653 you make me laugh practice what you preach buddy !!!!!!!!
423 are you as mindless as you always sound ?
pj looks like you snagged them good this time…lol!!!!!!
does anyone know what the Historic Preservation Commission does? What pray tell do they preserve? I guess not the Christmas tree or the train station …..
Is this poster suggesting that there is a village-wide conspiracy to exclude “people of color” from public service???
In Ridgewood, “people of color” have as much right to volunteer to serve on any of the boards/committees/councils in questions as anyone. They are free to make their interest known and pursue the opportunity, if they choose. I’ve lived here almost 15 years and I can’t recall a “person of color” expressing interest in serving in a public capacity during that time. It is not the responsibility of these groups to seek out “people of color” to satisfy someone’s idea of equal rights. Maybe the question this poster should be asking, now that we have a “person of color” as President, is why no “person of color” has run for the Village Council, BOE or offered to serve on any number of public boards and committees in recent years?
The closest has been Boyd L’s self-appointed role as “watchdog” at the Village Council meetings. Although, he clearly prefers the role of “armchair critic”, without actually taking on any responsibility himself.
Of course, estimates project that within the next 5-10 years, “people of color” will no longer be in the minority in this country. It will be quite interesting to see what happens to the ACLU and NAACP rhetoric then.
Who is Boyd L and what color is he?
“The closest has been Boyd L’s self-appointed role as “watchdog” at the Village Council meetings. Although, he clearly prefers the role of “armchair critic”, without actually taking on any responsibility himself.”
Whoever the self-appointed jerk is who posted the above ought to thank Boyd Loving as well as Roger Wiegand for all their watchdog efforts. As a senior citizen who cannot get out to most meetings, I always enjoy watching them on TV and I sincerely appreciate the serious questions raised by Roger and Boyd. Seems to me that these two keep the council from running amok.
The bottom line: Ridgewood’s Planning Board endorses a conceptual plan for a large residential/commercial complex on South Broad Street. No appointed respresentation from affected neighborhood (South Broad Street)on Planning Board. VC rubber stamps Planning Board’s idea. Certainly seems like taxation without representation to me.
It’s true. The people affected the most by this 80 unit complex had no say in the matter. How sad. The VC just stuck it to ’em.
To 11:14…
It seems that 8:34's post was not criticizing Boyd's attendance at the VC meetings. Rather, it suggested that he was the closest thing to a "person of color" serving on a public board. I do agree, however, that if Boyd truly wants to guide the direction of the VC, he should do it as a member of the VC and be held accountable for his positions and statements. He loses a lot of crdibility when he sits in the audience, throwing occasional "sucker punches" at the VC, with impunity.
To 11:23 & 10:14…
Are you aware of another suitable property in Ridgewood with a willing seller/developer that is large enough for this project? Maybe there is available property in your neighborhood. If you know of such a property that is available, I suggest you contact the Planning Board and VC immediately.
On the other hand, if you do not have a suitable alternative property for consideration, then your comments are nothing more than uninformed antagonism toward those that are doing their best to make this a better place to live, within the often restrictive state imposed guidelines.
“Are you aware of another suitable property in Ridgewood with a willing seller/developer that is large enough for this project?”
The Planning Board has proposed locating ALL of the housing units necessary to satisfy COAH requirements on South Broad Street. COAH rules don’t mandate ALL units be located in the same spot. The question is, why put them ALL on South Broad Street? If they were spread out, i.e., located throughout the Village, a large parcel would not be needed.
So, do we all agree that the Historic Commission is hot air and grandstanding? People who need to feel important even though they do nothing of value.
Gas bags on the hysterical commission.
COAH “…state imposed guidelines.”
Precisely the problem; it is State imposed. Why do we put up with it? What are they going to do, not give us our own money back in “state aid?”?
Give me a break. We should withhold any revenue sent to Trenton.
We had a revolution 200 odd years ago against this sort of tyranny. It may be time for another one. Really folks, what is the state going to do, send in the National Guard?
7:01 – Learn your history before acting like an armchair revolutionary. This situation bears no resemblance to what our founding fathers endured for our liberty. Don’t be a drama queen.
COAH has power because LIBERALS run the place. Run it into the ground, that is. Liberals are morally superior to everyone else (ask Hillary Clinton) so they get to tell everyone else what to do.
For large impact developments, representatives from the impacted neighborhood should have more of a say. I’ll bet that the same people keep showing up because the development is mostly in a small geographic srea.
The current planning board rules by divine right and they pretent to represent the village. Have you noticed where all of the large scale development is going? How about COAH housing at habernickle? After all, it is a residential neighborhood. Perfect!
It is very clear that the powers that be in this town just plan to “shove the poor folks” onto South Broad which is a less affluent area of town. We have to have the housing, so let’s jut put it where it won’t be a bother to anyone. Putting so many people in what is basically a commerical area is really ridiculous. It is obvious that the rich folks don’t want low-income housing near where they live. I agree with the poster who suggested spreading the housing around town – some on S. Broad, some at Habernickle, some by that lot on Route 17 they are going to buy, some next to the mayor’s house, some next to Ann Zusy’s house.
1043 this is exactly why we had a revolution you must be thinking of the Russian Revolution?
Habernickle Fields sounds like a beautiful name for our mixed income development.
12:11…
It would be a great idea to build some tasteful housing as part of the project at Schedler. the Village might even get a developer to cover most of the cost of acquiring the property and dramatically reducing the expense to develop the site for recreational use. Unfortunately, I believe an “open space” grant was accepted for the purchase, which eliminates the possibility of developing the site commercially.
As far as Broad Street goes, I think this is a great site for COAH and middle income property development. It is close to train and downtown sites and is in keeping with the current demographics in the surrounding area on Broad Street, much of which is currently rental property. The site in question would have negligible impact to residents in the immediate Broad Street area, because the neighbors are predominantly businesses, not residential. COAH housing does not mean a “negative” impact to the local school.
In summary the site is large enough to provide a reasonable number of COAH an non-COAH units, without having to explore other sites to satisfy our requirements. The site is readily available with cooperative owner and poses few obstacles. I don’t understand why people are looking to make this into a problem, where one really doesn’t exist.
I prefer to be called a “drama king” and yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that caused the colonists to revolt against the crown. But you (10:43), being a student of history, know this and are preying on the expected ignorance of most readers. Good thing most are not so gullible and buy into your misinformation campaign designed to discredit any dissent with government action, be it local or state.
"in keeping with the current demographics in the surrounding area on Broad Street" Why exactly do they need to be that close to town & transportation? People all over Ridgewood manage to get to the trains and to town. Our new neighbors can manage from Hillcrest as well as Broad. Let's mix it up a bit. When Willard starts building their addition they can factor in the new students.
Hillcrest is already a residential area. The fields there are too small and have never been leveled. Build "tasteful" condos.
The planning board and board of adjustment are just springboards for some people to run for public office. Soon a candidate for the village council will emerge from their midst. He is just paying his dues.
6:49…
I do not live near Hillcrest. While I would like to see Habernickel used more efficiently, Hillcrest is NOT an appropriate location for a 20-30 unit or more mixed housing development. It would be totally out of character for the area. On the other hand, it would be a welcome addition to the Broad Street area in question, which is predominantly commercial (except for the Church).
Spreading the required housing around town in multiple smaller units (even if available properties existed) would be far more expensive, take onger to accomplish and be far less efficient for the residents.
Locating the development on Broad Street has many advantages that are not possible on Rt. 17 or Habernickel (the only other practical suggestions mentioned above). Residents would have easy access to downtown. Many of the potential residents for such a development are more reliant on public transportation. Thus, short/easy walking distances year round, providing easy access to shops and dining, as well as buses and trains is ideal. Providing necessary utility and municipal services is far more efficient and economical with a single central development as opposed multiple smaller developments. Furthermore, a tasteful multi-unit residential property could be an attractive addition to the proposed site, rather than a perceived detraction at other sites dominated by single family homes around Ridgewood.
Your suggestion to “mix it up a bit” is clearly intended to get a rise from Hillcrest residents. Why don’t you grow up and stop the unnecessary agitation?
Many of the COAH residents probably will not be handicapped. They do not need to live in town and overlooking the train tracks. Why put housing in a commercial area when more residential locations are available? We do not need to cluster all of the higher density housing in the business district. To say that the housing would be “out of character” with hillcrest is silly. This housing will be “out of character” with any of our neighborhoods – that’s why some people oppose it.