“O” Zone Plan Goes Back To Drawing Board

Thursday, Sep 24, 2009 1:17pm | COMMENTS (19)

“Maybe we’ll just leave the whole thing a complete mess.”
That statement, made by Montclair councilor Nick Lewis, pretty much sums up the mood at Tuesday night’s hearing on overnight parking in Montclair. The Star Ledger reports that after residents living in the proposed “O” zone of 27 downtown streets realized anyone could park overnight on their street with a permit, they protested vocally, fearing crime, noise and added traffic/congestion. After hearing residents’ concerns, the council rejected Lewis’ plan in a 6-1 vote.
Another defeated item — The Complete Streets policy — was voted down by council, 4-3. Here’s how the councilors voted:
Africk – N, Baskerville – N, Fried – Y, Lewis – Y, Murnick – N, Terry – N, Weller – Y.

No Related Posts Found

19 Comments

POSTED BY dv2 | September 24, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Because you never know what kind of crimes folks who park overnight in front of their homes that don’t have driveways after duly getting their permits might commit.
And this shouting down at town meetings thing – straight out of that Saturday Night Live sketch with the wanking zombies.
Lame.
POSTED BY jimmy229oz | September 24, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
The meeting was less than civil. People at the podium ignored the timer, the brew in the back hooted and hollered like they were at a strip bar.
Im sure these residents are unhappy. Some made well thought arguements. For the most part, the peanut gallery was very childish and aggressive though.
Like it or not, this is a town council meeting and not the local racetrack. Grow up!
POSTED BY G | September 24, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
That overnight parking leads to crime is a laughable canard. But it’s all the members of the council needed to vote to keep something so unfair in place. Funny that Baskerville correctly identified the system as a complete mess yet voted to keep it in place.
Lewis should be applauded for his efforts. The rest of them are a forgettable bunch easily swayed by visions of streets with cars on them and the people with parking places who hate them. Thanks guys.
Lame is right. It’s racket. But its Montclair’s racket.
Oh, that silly $5 scratch off permit system to park overnight is still in place right? Great.
POSTED BY jerseygurl | September 24, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
I guess all those criminals won’t be rushing to get parking permits now.
POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas | September 24, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to Renee, Cary, Roger and Rich for bravely shooting down the Complete Streets initiative. That additional 20% added to every street improvement is simply not a smart spend at a time when so many of us are struggling. Keep up the excellent work. Your constituents appreciate it.
POSTED BY mtc_maven | September 24, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
I’m pretty sure no one was advocating for spending 20% more on every street! The wording was even changed to allow for Council to say yes or no to ANY additional spending. They voted no because of their unwillingness to even CONSIDER improving streets for anyone not in a car. I’d say jeers are in order.
POSTED BY Right of Center™ | September 24, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
now’s not the time to “improve” anything. In fact we should let some things go…
POSTED BY mtc_maven | September 24, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
now’s not the time to “improve” anything. In fact we should let some things go…
Yes, I’m sure the tax bill is forcing you to let the family manse go too. Come on ROC; your boiler is old and inefficient and you’re just going to keep throwing money at it? At some point, don’t you upgrade to the new, clean technology and save a few bucks on fuel? I don’t see how this is that different.
Current streets – some not so ped/bike friendly. When it’s time to rebuild them – make them better.
POSTED BY kyle41181 | September 24, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Today is a good day. Complete Streets is now but a thought in the back of the mind of our Council. The 17K per mile add-on to the already ridiculous 770K per mile cost of Curbing and paving our streets is not going to burden the Tax Payers of Montclair.
I congratulate my Ward 2 rep Cary and Ms Baskerville, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Murnick for voting to halt unnecessary spending.
I hope Rich and Renee(along with the Mayor) who sit on the School of Board Estimates can use this experience to build on and continue to reign in Municipal Spending!
Nick Lewis, another condescending politico!
I’m scrap booking his mindless quotes since the start of 2009.
POSTED BY kyle41181 | September 24, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Side Comment,
Councilwomen Weller has little to no regard for what control is when spending and planning to spend municipal funds.
All she is looking for is Votes.
POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas | September 24, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
mtc_maven: We have spent 35 million on a school that we have not even decided what it will be used for. Just spent $25,000 on a fancy playground entrance when a $200 sign would have sufficed. Does it ever end? I do not want to pay for your frivolous desires. If you want it, then you can pay for it. It’s about time the town made a small step in the right direction. Of course mayor spend-all-day is so often on the opposite side of this argument. I’m guessing both of you can easily afford to pay for all of these absolute non-necessities.
Let me ask you a question….What good is a replacement furnace if you can’t afford to pay for heat?
POSTED BY PAZ | September 24, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Stuw6,
I thought you were moving to GR?
It is good to prohibit overnight parking on streets.It gives a clearer view of the sidewalks and houses for the police cruising by without obstructing their vision so perps have a harder time hiding or ducking behind cars. I lived in Montclair for many years and once turned down buying a house on Midland because it didn’t have a driveway.
POSTED BY Amandala | September 25, 2009 @ 8:27 am
“It is good to prohibit overnight parking on streets.It gives a clearer view of the sidewalks and houses for the police cruising by without obstructing their vision so perps have a harder time hiding or ducking behind cars.”
Great logic, PAZ,
So I trust you’ll be petitioning the council to force everyone to tear out any hedges, bushes or trees in their front gardens?
POSTED BY mtc_maven | September 25, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Gee Stu, I would not have thought the idea of people safely walking or riding bicycles on our streets as a “frivolous desire”. That we are already spending almost 3/4 of a million dollars on reconstructing streets for cars (and of course the owners of the houses who all can’t seem to get those belgium block curbs soon enough) should give everyone pause. My point is that while we’re already spending this amount of money, we should at least consider the very small additional cost to provide accomodations for everyone who uses the street.
POSTED BY PAZ | September 25, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Amandala….Definitely! Montclair should be nothing but asphalt….get rid of the trees and bushes AND they should start with your house….pave your little bit of paradise…Just think of all the parking spaces you could rent out…Cha-ching!
POSTED BY Amandala | September 25, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Too late for that, PAZ.
POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas | September 25, 2009 @ 11:17 am
PAZ,
We have already put in a few offers for homes in Glen Ridge. Probably won’t be until the Spring housing supply increases that we actually pull the trigger.
mtc_maven,
I am not completely unreasonable, but 20% automatic is outrageous. Do you know what it costs to resurface a road? 20% is not a very small additional cost. My fear is that a bike lane will turn into the same debacle that the red crosswalks became. There will be water fountains at each major intersection, designated traffic signals for bikers, etc. A much better spend would be for the same 20% to be spent on hiring police officers whose sole job is to enforce traffic violations.
I grew up in East Brunswick, NJ. Milltown, which jutted through a portion of our town, was notoriously known for ticketing speeders on their residential roads. Low and behold, no one drove even 1 mph over the speed limit in Milltown. We don’t need traffic calming, we need traffic enforcement. Spending millions of dollars on bike lines will not stop people from driving 50mph down Grove Street.
POSTED BY dv2 | September 25, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
I saw a perp the other day. It had the head of a lion and the body of an eagle and was three thirds shadow. It was hiding behind a SUV and had Gimme Jimmy cookie crumbs in its mane. I said “begone perp!” But the perp remained there in the shadows, plotting.
POSTED BY mtc_maven | September 25, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
“There will be water fountains at each major intersection…”
and that’s just silly. Enforcement is not a bad idea but do you know how much it will cost to enforce speed laws on 80+ miles of road, with several through County roads that seem to be most of the problem. I’d question the economics of that scenario too.

Baristanet Comment Policy:

Baristanet has specific guidelines for commenting. To avoid having your comment deleted -- or your commenting privileges revoked -- read this before you comment. Violators will be banned from commenting.

Report a comment that violates the guidelines to comments@baristanet.com. For trouble with registration or commenting, write to comments@baristanet.com.

Commenters on Baristanet.com are responsible for all legal consequences arising from their comments, including libel, infringement of copyright or actions that threaten a third party. By submitting a comment, you agree to indemnify Baristanet LLC, its partners and employees from any legal action arising from your comments.

In order to comment on the new system, you need to register a new Baristanet account. To get your own avatar next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com

You must be logged in to post a comment.