February 1
...serving up your daily dish.
Score one for the internet and all the jargon it has spawned: the Crescent parking lot in Montclair went "offline" yesterday -- in the words of Dale Jacobs of the Montclair Parking Authority.
Jacobs, along with about 30 people, mostly downtown merchants, convened at the Soda Pop Shop last night to go over downtown Montclair's new parking reality, but nobody ordered any ice cream and nobody had any fun. The good news: A 430-space deck is going up on the site of the Crescent lot, and in the meantime, some new metered spaces are opening up in one of the parking lots of the former Gibbs school. The bad news: downtown Montclair just lost its biggest parking lot.
The town's PR on the parking change has been abysmal. Fliers to local merchants only went out late last week and the closing of the lot took many by surprise. "They closed it today," said architect John Buchholz, whose office is on Church St. "I have no idea where my permit people are parking. I have no idea where I'm parking."
The fliers and a map of available meter spaceswas distributed to merchants last week, but haven't appeared yet on the town website.
A physical therapist was concerned that clients would have trouble making the walk to his office from distant spaces. "I'm looking not to go out of business between now and next November," he snapped. Wendy Westock, director of Mother's Morning Out, was concerned about the fact that the Crescent, located just feet away from her playground, will be a construction staging area. She added that she'd sent repeated e-mails trying to find out ore about the parking lot closing, and received no reply.
The Crescent lot contained 179 public parking spaces.
Some more meter spaces will be added to the streets nearby, but restaurant owner Greg Spinelli said, "The streets are already full."
"This is the beginning of even worse long-term parking problems," Garrett Morrison told Baristanet today. Garrett Morrison, a parking advocate in town, forecasts that, even with the deck, Montclair won't have enough parking to handle the new development initiatives in town.
For town suggestions on where to park, click on the flier and map links above.
That flyer says "additional parking is available."
The lots and metered streets they mention were always available. So the only different scenario (italicized) is that they will be putting meters, where there were none, further down on South Fullerton Ave.??
Posted by: Gonzo Journalist | Feb 1, 2005 11:20:38 AM
Well, the BID knew about it....for some time.
http://tinyurl.com/494y3
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 12:27:46 PM
Oh, yea forgot.
The BID knew about it for a long time...
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 12:28:31 PM
good god. what a mess. i got home last night after midnight and went to park...i actually thought it was temporary.
i have a tough enough time finding parking in my neighborhood - now, it'll be even worse.
even with two permits, i manage to get one or two tickets a month because the lots are all full...
Posted by: Left Of Center, like Suzanne Vega | Feb 1, 2005 12:37:24 PM
Though my garage is still hanging by a thread after the Hahne's building fell on it, it still manages to provide spaces for several of us over here on Trinity Place.
Don’t believe the hype about this parking situation getting better after these short-term growing pains are over. The parking breaks to developers, lost lots and increased demand will eat up any gains from the new parking deck and then some.
Mayor Remsen and Deputy Mayor Michaelson, maybe you could make your best arguments for why you voted to reduce the developer’s commercial parking requirement by 50%?
Good luck to those without spaces,
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking
Posted by: Garrett Morrison | Feb 1, 2005 12:59:54 PM
Though my garage is still hanging by a thread after the Hahne's building fell on it, it still manages to provide spaces for several of us over here on Trinity Place.
Don’t believe the hype about this parking situation getting better after these short-term growing pains are over. The parking breaks to developers, lost lots and increased demand will eat up any gains from the new parking deck and then some.
Mayor Remsen and Deputy Mayor Michaelson, maybe you could make your best arguments for why you voted to reduce the developer’s commercial parking requirement by 50%?
Good luck to those without spaces,
Garrett Morrison
Committee for Montclair Parking
Posted by: Garrett Morrison | Feb 1, 2005 12:59:54 PM
Considering how long this project was on the books, I am baffled by the fact that no one in town management has taken the bull by the horns and proposed a viable solution to the imminent demise of business in this already troubled district. The future of this area may be bright, but only for those who can afford to wait that long. I think it is pretty apparent that nothing was proposed because it would require extra effort and financing on the part of the township.
We have all known for over a year about the deck plans and the Hahne's project. Couldn't the powers that be have been more pro-active in finding parking solutions for the shopkeepers and their customers? Couldn't the town have made some satellite lots with shuttle service to and from the area? How about a town loop that would transport people around without having to use their cars at all? Valet service? How about closing South Park Street, as I heard was up for discussion at one time? What about suspending meters altogether in this area until construction is done, since it will take people longer to get to their destinations and back to their parking spaces? Or is this another revenue producing idea for the town through parking tickets? Scheduling a parking meeting after the lot was closed was a bit like closing the barn doors after the horses have left. The effort this town has made to support businesses is not very impressive. In fact, dismal and pathetic come to mind. I am very disappointed in our town management.
Cheryl Spinelli
Posted by: Cheryl Spinelli | Feb 1, 2005 1:04:09 PM
It might be easier to park in Manhattan and then take Midtown Direct home.
Posted by: Chris | Feb 1, 2005 1:07:37 PM
Cheryl,
Suspending meters? That would have the opposite effect of helping local businesses.
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 1:19:52 PM
p.s. why should it be up to the taxpayer to build a "jitney" for the benefit of some local businesses?
It will be hard for awhile and then it will be better.
Anyone suprised by this has not been paying much attention. I don't run a business in Montclair and even I knew that this has been planned for "Early 2005" for some time.
Well, it is early 2005!
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 1:23:01 PM
Garrett -
Glad to hear you still have a garage. Did you ever get any satisfaction from the demolishers or the town on the damage?
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 1:30:25 PM
You know if I was the owner of the other restaurant for sale downtown, I would be paying a not too pleased visit to Church Street after this recent post. Actually if i owned any business downtown.
Parking problems are NEVER solved, but the Crescent Deck is about a temporary inconvenience and a permanent improvement.
It would be nice to view the construction in this manner.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Feb 1, 2005 1:30:44 PM
btw, ROC, I believe that this was widely printed in "The Montclair Times" and in the BID Newsletter, not just the BID web site.
Trying to confirm the latter.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Feb 1, 2005 1:32:12 PM
Lex,
My garage hasn't been repaired yet.
So, no satisfaction.
The work would probably just take a contractor a couple of days to complete. Maybe they are waiting for warmer weather.
I wonder what Right of Center would do if his garage was trashed back on December 28th and nothing has been fixed yet?
I really don't want to get a lawyer with money short and a baby on the way.
Posted by: Garrett Morrison | Feb 1, 2005 1:44:37 PM
I think some people just buy jobs when they open a small retail business. They do not have an entrereneurial spirit, and rather than working towards creative solutions to the challenges they face, they put their energies into posting long winded complaints.
It seems to me that It is easier to blame others than to take responsibility for your business.
Posted by: sharky | Feb 1, 2005 1:48:22 PM
Garrett,
As wrong as I think you are in your township-corruption innuendo campaign, I am solidly behind you with the damage to your garage.
As I said on this very blog back then, I'd be hopping mad!
Make as big a stink (about your garage) as you want and you have my full support!
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 1:54:36 PM
Garrett-
That's just not right. Maybe Ed can come by and tell us why a citizen's property can be damaged and nothing done about it? C'mon, Ed, one call from you and the garage would be fixed tomorrow, I bet.
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 2:02:48 PM
Lex,
Why would the mayor have sway over a dispute between two provate property owners and damages?
If he DID make the phone call and THERE was action well then there would be a hew and cry about corruption.
"why is it that the *mayor* can make a single phone call and solve *garret's* problem and not *mine*"
Think about it Lex, yours is a REALLY BAD idea.
The mayor and the council have nothing to do with this and should stay out of the issue.
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 2:06:15 PM
or at least refer the matter to the "nothing-bad-ever-happens-in-Montclair-without-it-being-the-council's-fault" commission.
Posted by: Right of Center | Feb 1, 2005 2:09:06 PM
Right of Center,
You are right and wrong.
The elected officials shouldn't be do private favors for individual citizens.
The building department should work to protect all neighboring properties. They didn't in this case.
In a way, the developer and the town are partners on this project. The town picked the developer and it is the town's redevelopment site. So it is a little diffferent from the normal private developer situation.
The developer is mostly responsible for fixing my garage. The town is also responsible because they took over the property as a redevelopment zone.
Posted by: Garrett Morrison | Feb 1, 2005 2:34:02 PM
ROC-
I'm not sure of the department that regulates compliance with safety regulations on construction sites in Montclair, but I'm pretty sure it reports to the mayor. I'm also pretty sure that debris falling on and damaging adjacent structures is in violation of the local safety code. I suppose Garrett could sue for damages, but the town could move to enforce its codes much more efficiently (and, no doubt, quickly and costlessly). Some problems are better solved through the executive branch rather than through the expensive and slow legal system.
And I believe the mayor should try to get his organization to solve town-related problems on behalf of its citizens. Even yours. That's why he's the executive, he manages the town machinery on behalf of its residents. Why is it a bad idea to ask him to do his job?
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 2:37:11 PM
Just to be clear, I am not saying the town should fix his garage (I don't know their involvement), just that if the mayor asked his buildings/safety department to pick up the phone and tell the developer that they are not in compliance and to fix the problem or lose their permits, the developer (who seems to be responsible for the damage) would hop to it.
Posted by: Lex | Feb 1, 2005 2:39:49 PM
