61 Comments

1. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:16 am

   What do you know another pet project!
   Good on Cary for opposing this.
   If I read this correctly Bloomfield will be a string of Bike lockers.
   Stupid.
2. POSTED BY Nick Charles  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:16 am

   The Montclair Times wrote about this in this week’s edition. This is interesting:
   If this amendment had been in place when MHS was built, the school of about 1,900 students would have needed 190 bike spaces, 70 more than it currently has.
   Montclair’s parking decks would’ve also been required to have bike storage. The 430-space Crescent Deck would have needed 150 bicycle spaces, and the 262-space Bay Street Deck would have had to provide 92 bike spots.
   http://www.northjersey.com/news/80040782.html
3. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:19 am

   My god man. This guy needs to be recalled already! Does mayor bike boy ride a bike to the town council meetings or to his day job? This is absolutely pathetic. Not only are we taxing the middle and lower classes out of Montclair with projects that we don’t need, we are now taxing future business owners and landlords separately to support mayor frauds pet projects.
   Montclair, turning the town green by borrowing green!
4. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:22 am

   You know, just the other day I saw 262 people on bikes at the Bay Street Deck desperately looking for a bike rack.
   I think we’ve reached a tipping point where the mayor just doesn’t give a rat’s a** about the budget.
5. POSTED BY Charlie Spademan  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:23 am

   I am
   #1. In favor of financial responsibility and extremely conservative spending decisions.
   #2 Firmly in favor of this amendment.
6. POSTED BY jimmy229oz  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:25 am

   This isnt Mayberry Jerry, were $200 mil in the hole BEFORE the new school.
   Cary, thank you for at least pointing out what SHOULD BE the priorities in town.
7. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:32 am

   This is the land of liberty, ROC, so some citizens like cars, others like bikes. But you are right, this is the age of fiscal responsibility, and towns should not be installing bike racks. Furthermore, they should sell off parking spaces to the highest bidder. You’ll need to park your Hummer on private property – let the market determine the value of that land – your mantra, I believe.
8. POSTED BY NJGator  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:34 am

   I’m so glad the council is focusing their energies on the most pressing issues facing the town these days. Meanwhile in today’s listings received in my inbox there are 2 multi-family properties listed for sale for about 300k below their assessments. This town is careening towards financial disaster and no one is going to do anything to stop it.
   Get ready to bond 3 million to repay the next year’s tax appeals. But what’s another few million when we’re already so far in the hole, right?
   http://emailrpt.gsmls.com/public/show_public_report_rpt.do?report=clientfull&Id=50289774_6166
9. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:39 am

   Gator, nah…. The addition of 200 “class 1 bike lockers” will cause property values to shoot right up.
10. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:44 am

    With the Senior Center (community center), the new police parking lot, South Park refurb, complete street and bike ordinances, new school, and appointed BOE, my home should be worth at least 100% more than I paid for it. Why has it dropped in value 35% since the peak? Montclair is different. Right!
11. POSTED BY elnino  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:56 am

    So, will the Parking Authority have control over these lockers and racks? Will they install meters? How much will they charge? It’s only fair that bikers should pay like drivers pay even if they are more friendly to the environment. It is not as if we give Prius owners a break on parking. Maybe there should be an effort to make this budget neutral/self supporting given the current economic times.
12. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:57 am

    Just what the town needs more regulation. A cheap attempt to win 18 votes in the next election (the number of bike riders in town).
    Cary , I don’t know you but you seem to be the only person that has a grip on reality on that governing body.
13. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:59 am

    The real issue here is that the town council thinks nothing of bonding, which is a lot like borrowing on credit card. In the case of our town, an increase in bonding from 200 million to 300 million is a change in annual debt service from $11.2 million to only $16.8 million. We are talking about borrowing $100 million and only having to pay $5.6 million for it annually. And why should the town council care about excessive borrowing. They won’t be around in ten years to deal with the repercussions of it. This is what progressives town do. Perhaps the town website can put out some more PR about how the state of NJ is following our lead in borrowing like they did with complete streets. God bless America and God bless Montclair.
14. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:04 am

    Well to be fair, I doubt this particular issue involves bonding. It’s a regulation that will force private businesses to spring for the lockers. The township will too when/if it builds something new. (or changes purpose).
    The public cost will be in enforcement. And as with every unneeded regulation it makes the town just that much more business unfriendly.
15. POSTED BY Rubber Chix  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:07 am

    I am so glad that Mayor Fried is attuned to the pressing needs and urgent priorities of Montclair residents! For example, when I go to a neighborhood party, everyone talks about the terrible lack of bike parking in town. When someone asks me for a recommendation on moving to Montclair, bike parking’s the first question. No one’s really concerned about taxes, schools, or the zillion different fees (alarm, sewer) or reduced services (leaf pickup) the Town has implemented.
    Let’s face it, if you’re wealthy enough to live in Montclair, the lousy economy, layoffs, salary cuts and plummeting property values really aren’t a problem.
    Given the lack of high end bike parking in town it’s a wonder anyone chooses to live here.
    It’s all about bike parking, and Mayor Fried’s on the case! I feel so much better now.
16. POSTED BY mhs1987  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:17 am

    Montclair just isn’t the same town I moved to in 1973. Over the past 2 decades Montclair has moved so far to the left as to be almost uninhabitable for anyone who doesn’t pray at the altar of Al Gore and Michael Moore. It’s very sad to see the town I grew up in and loved turn into such a mess. Bike rack regulation, although completely asinine, is but a symptom of the many many problems this town has. Look for property values to rise in Verona, the Caldwells, Essex Fells etc….
17. POSTED BY mhs1987  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:18 am

    Montclair just isn’t the same town I moved to in 1973. Over the past 2 decades Montclair has moved so far to the left as to be almost uninhabitable for anyone who doesn’t pray at the altar of Al Gore and Michael Moore. It’s very sad to see the town I grew up in and loved turn into such a mess. Bike rack regulation, although completely asinine, is but a symptom of the many many problems this town has. Look for property values to rise in Verona, the Caldwells, Essex Fells etc….
18. POSTED BY mhs1987  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:19 am

    Montclair just isn’t the same town I moved to in 1973. Over the past 2 decades Montclair has moved so far to the left as to be almost uninhabitable for anyone who doesn’t pray at the altar of Al Gore and Michael Moore. It’s very sad to see the town I grew up in and loved turn into such a mess. Bike rack regulation, although completely asinine, is but a symptom of the many many problems this town has. Look for property values to rise in Verona, the Caldwells, Essex Fells etc….
19. POSTED BY mhs1987  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:22 am

    sorry, computer problems…
20. POSTED BY NJGator  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:22 am

    Thanks ROC. Better run to the realtor to get my house listed ASAP.
21. POSTED BY MellonBrush  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:35 am

    This is almost as entertaining as the articles about deer pestilence. Baristanet is mostly boring now, but I hang in there for threads like these.
    If more bicycle parking does become available, I would totally take advantage of it. I have an old Trek 830 that I wouldn’t be too worried about getting stolen or vandalized. My more expensive bikes will stay under my ass or in my garage.
    Anyway, everyone have a Merry Christmas!
22. POSTED BY Enough Already  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:36 am

    I can’t take this for one more minute. NOBODY CARES ABOUT BIKES. The Mayor is so completely out of touch. In 40 years I have never heard one person in Montclair complain about the lack of bike parking or that Montclair is not bike friendly. Not once. NEVER.
    Mr. Mayor – It is great that you love bikes. I have one too. But for God’s sake I implore to stop this insanity. You are embarrassing yourself, the office you hold, and the entire town of Montclair with this lunacy.
    Ride your bike and leave the rest of alone.
23. POSTED BY Chris Porter  |  December 24, 2009 @ 10:51 am

    I’m all for bikes and walking. But, this ordinance is just one more burden for local businesses and one more reason to not go into business in Montclair.
    Our Council needs to reduce burdens on business and the cost of Municipal government.
    Please don’t buy that Senior Center. I guess the Terry guy just wants to create some government jobs for his friends and family.
24. POSTED BY spork  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:01 am

    I actually walk bike or take public transit most places I go and I find it very hard to do all of those things. there is a lot of room for improvement. people in their minivans whiz past crosswalks and intersections, and they drive so fast that i sometimes feel scared riding my bike down the street. then when I get where i’m going I have to hunt down a safe place to tie up my bike that isn’t someone’s fence. what the mayor’s doing will actually do a lot of good for this town
25. POSTED BY Nellie  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:03 am

    Mayor Bike Boy strikes again! Does he expect Santa to come to his house on a bike?
26. POSTED BY cathar  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:06 am

    That the supposedly literate Mayor Fried uses a phrase like “pretty unanimous” is scary. He truly sounds completely out of touch with the quote of “…possibly with Cary Africk being the only one who voted against it.” Either Africk voted for or against it, Mayor, there is no “possibly.”
    And that this matter seems to be in the Mayor of Montclair’s eyes important is just amazing. It suggests some left-over hippie who is only waiting for the right moment to declare Montclair as a “People’s Democracy” which would gladly give sanctuary to Joanne Chesimard. What, no one now misses Ed Remsen (who sometimes even posted here in reply to this critics, unlike Fried)?
27. POSTED BY Mrs. Martta123  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:11 am

    “pretty unanimous…” Is that like being a “little bit pregnant?”
28. POSTED BY Opinionated  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    “… it was *pretty* unanimous, possibly with Cary Africk being the only one who voted against it.”
29. POSTED BY profwilliams  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:12 am

    Talk about addressing a non-existing need.
    Have I missed the groundswell of complaints about not enough bike “lockers”?
    And really, lockers??
    C’mon.
    Put up more functional bike racks (not the dumb, green things) and be done with this.
    What’s next, concierge service?
    Better yet, why not rent certain parking spaces so folks can choose what to do with them: get a bike locker, a bike rack or park their car– your choice all for $65 a month.
30. POSTED BY kyle41181  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:14 am

    This will cause business owners to raise prices on goods and services to pay for the Regulations.(In-direct tax on all who do business in Montclair) Continued assault on business owners and property owners in Montclair will drive revenues further down, consumers away from Mom&Pop stores in town, and drive property values down.
    Herb,
    “A cheap attempt to win 18 votes in the next election”
    CHEAP, nothing this Municipality does is cheap…..
    P.S. Mayor Fried, take your progressiveness and shove it up your ass!
    I agree with the poster who said it is time to inquire about a recall!
31. POSTED BY Chris Porter  |  December 24, 2009 @ 11:22 am

    Here’s the issue. Fried and his friends and family are riding around on $2,000.00 bikes. The gears, pedals, handlebars, brakes, seats, etc are expensive and these parts are easily stolen when the bike is chained to a rake.
    Fried just wants other people to pay for lockers so his friends, family and him have a nice dry safe place to secure their bikes.
    Just a bunch of rich parasites if you ask me.
32. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 24, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

    I truly think it is time!
    http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20091209/NEWS01/91209008/Voters-recall-Wildwood-mayor–commissioner
33. POSTED BY MellonBrush  |  December 24, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

    Chris,
    You are on the money.
    I just bought a $4,100 Madone on eBay for $2,500.
    I think I deserve a ‘locker’ to protect my valuable investment. I mean, shoot, people in Montclair are mostly upper middle class and rich. Why shouldn’t they shell out their money to protect my bike while I buy more bike stuff at the ‘Bikery’!
    I’m aghast at the short-sightedness of all you you nay-sayers! Come on, join the party!!
34. POSTED BY ed remsen  |  December 24, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

    It’s wonderful to be so missed. What we are seeing is the lack of a four-year plan, something that was promised; seven people who truly do not like or trust each other; the failure to have a monthly conference meeting where they can hash things out BEFORE they get to a public meeting;
    Jerry is pursuing an agenda he clearly espoused and frankly, every Mayor and everyone on the Council SHOULD have things he or she wants to get done that have personal meaning to them. Remember that he did NOT want to be Mayor but now that he is, the focus has to be broader. It might not get you all so ticked off if this Council looked like it was working as a team on the bigger issues. Seven people all serving for the first time, from different slates, with no plan, in a horrible economy, a focus on “global issues” and with the lack of communication and trust that exists is a recipie for disaster. God help the new manager. I hope he is as good as some of the Council members are advertising.
    Happy Holidays to all, including you Mrs. Marta.
35. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 24, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

    “Mayor and everyone on the Council SHOULD have things he or she wants to get done that have personal meaning to them.”
    All too often this means they have pet projects they want to spend money on.
    Pity we can have a Mayor who considers the “personal meaning” of fiscally responsible management and lower taxes.
36. POSTED BY softrider  |  December 24, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

    After reading the proposed ordnance I think it will have a positive affect on Montclair. There doesn’t appear to be an onerous fiscal burden to our town or to existing businesses. This only pertains to new construction. All new facilities already have to be approved by the planning board. The planning board would insure that the bike parking requirement is satisfied as part of their review and approval process. No additional enforcement is needed since the existing building inspectors are already responsible to insure that the building is constructed to code. Thus I don’t buy the argument that this will add to our fiscal deficit.
    Meanwhile existing businesses do not have to provide bike parking except on a voluntary basis. So there is no additional burden to their cost of doing business. However hopefully they will perceive that making their facility more bike friendly will attract more customers (perhaps those who could not find a parking space nearby for their car). According to the ordnance the definition of a bike space is 6 by 2 feet. A standard parking space is around 8 by 20 feet (unless you have a SUV). So a standard parking space can easily accommodate around 10 bikes. Just think of how many more people could shop downtown Montclair if we could convert some parking spaces to bike spaces during spring, summer, and fall. Now if only we could get some bike lanes so that we can safely get to these proposed bike spaces.
37. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 24, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

    I’m an amateur hunter. There is no place in Montclair for me to hunt for my sustenance. Elect me mayor and I’ll convert Mills Reservation into hunting grounds. If everyone learned to hunt for their own food (free range and organic I might add), then we could convert all of our supermarkets into much Greener spaces. Perhaps knock Lackawana Plaza down and turn it into cooperative gardens. Heck, we wouldn’t even need Popeye’s Chicken anymore. This town is N-U-T-S nuts!
38. POSTED BY AVoiceInTheWilderness  |  December 25, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

    any new multifamily housing (3 units or more) will BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BIKE LOCKER FOR EACH UNIT.
    None of the churches or manufacturing are required to have bike racks? Why not?
39. POSTED BY AVoiceInTheWilderness  |  December 25, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

    Stu,
    Mills is soon to be a hunting ground from what I hear. Contact JoeD and apply for a hunting license and you can be one of the empowered few to hunt bambi by shooting down on him/her from a stand in the trees. kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.
40. POSTED BY walleroo  |  December 25, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

    It’s not such a bad ordnance, but the timing is awful. You’re right to oppose it, Cary.
    Fried and his friends and family are riding around on $2,000.00 bikes.
    This is a very interesting perspective. I wonder if anybody knows what make and model the mayor rides, or if he’d care to tell us.
41. POSTED BY AVoiceInTheWilderness  |  December 25, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

    I have it on good authority that Jerry rides a Terra 7-Speed Electric Bike by Pacific E-Bike
    The Terra model comes with a 7speed drivetrain, front disc brake, front suspension, and 26″ wheels. The power comes from the rear 250watt hub motor and 36volt 10 amp hour lithium ion battery pack.
    Right Now Just $897.00!
    This E-Bike is the perfect choice for the person who wants a strong city commuter with the riding characteristics of a mountain bike. Low handlebars and a longer stem give the Terra model an aggressive riding position, and quick responsiveness.
    Consistent with all of our 36volt models (Terra, Cloud, Sunset) this E-Bike will give you about 20 miles of runtime at about 20mph. The batteries charge from empty in 4-6 hours and will go through 700-1000 charge cycles, thats about 3 years.
42. POSTED BY jerseygurl  |  December 26, 2009 @ 7:37 am

    Towns that are bike and pedestrian friendly do tend to have higher property values BUT if one has to worry about being shot or mugged in our main business district I think that might also have an impact on the overall desirability of the town. The money being spent on the senior center might be put to better use with an increased police presence around Bloomfield Avenue and some basic improvements and updates that would make the area more attractive and safer for pedestrians and bikers.
43. POSTED BY Cary Africk  |  December 26, 2009 @ 9:20 am

    Couple of items ….
    When one says “towns that are bike and pedestrian friendly do tend to have higher property values” I have no idea what that means. Correlation is not causation. What is “friendly?” “Higher than what?”
    I would hope that in our schools we would teach our children to examine statements like this and think about what it might mean, and how one would go about proving such a statment.
    As is, this is a meaningless statement.
    One no more puts in bike lanes, bike parking, and bike lockers and expects to see property values rise, then one decides, one day, to put up “creative class” work places and apartments and expect to see web designers, architects and other “creative class” flock to Montclair.
    It seems to me that some often compare Montclair to a Boulder, Colorado or Portland, Oregon, or as at one Council meeting, Chicago.
    We need to work from where we are, towards a goal, yes, but not with an expectation that Bloomfield Avenue is going to become the “Miracle Mile” in Chicago in a handful of years.
44. POSTED BY jerseygurl  |  December 26, 2009 @ 11:35 am

    Cary,
    Respectfully, please check out popular real estate sites. “Walkability” is a factor in assessing values whether comparing different areas within one town or comparing nearby towns. Yes, it’s just one factor used to rate overall desirability. And you’re right about Montclair not being Portland which is exactly why the town should focus on issues that impact citizens far more than lack of a senior center or bike lockers. Like high taxes and high crime and a downtown area that could use a plan.
45. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  December 26, 2009 @ 11:58 am

    We must surpress bike use wherever we can!
    It’s the wrong image for a world power!
    If too many weak-kneed, gullible fools take to bike riding, NJ may start looking like those liberal apologist pinko neighborhoods – you know, horrible places like Denmark, Holland or Seattle!
46. POSTED BY Cary Africk  |  December 26, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

    Thanks, Jersey!
    I agree with you. Having a “walkable” community or even a “walkable” area certainly adds to value and desirability. My only point is that by building bicycle lockers and painting bicycle lanes property values are not going to go up in Montclair.
    Best,
    Cary
47. POSTED BY Martin S  |  December 26, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

    I like Jerry, I voted for Jerry and I think he is genuinely a nice person. However I’m really getting tired about all the bicycle talk. I know how passionate he is about bicycles, but I really didn’t think he would go to such lengths to ram them down the throats of the rest of the Montclair citizens.
    We have so many pressing issues and problems in town and I had so hoped the new council would help move us in the right direction and be fiscally responsible. Cary Africk seems to be the only one that “gets it” how can this be?
    Jerry, the bicycle stuff has to stop for a while. Most of the the people in Montclair have no need for additional bike racks, bike lockers, bike lanes, bike paths, bike gumbo or whatever the next bicycle “need” you can come up with, and quite frankly we’re really getting tired of hearing about it while the more important things get zero attention.
48. POSTED BY Martin Schwartz  |  December 26, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    I did not post the above comment and someone named Martin S. is clearly trying to pretend that they are me.
49. POSTED BY Martin S  |  December 26, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

    I have never attempted to trick anyone into thinking I was anyone else, I don’t even know you. I’m apologize if you took it that way. I have used this ID for months on this blog and it was never a concern before. I’ll create a new ID if it bothers you so, it’s easy enough.
50. POSTED BY Martin Schwartz  |  December 27, 2009 @ 5:46 am

    Would apprteciate that Martin S. I have not commented here that much lately, but I have been very active in the past and I do frequently take political positions publicly.
    Sometimes they are used as story quotes either with Baristnet or in the Montclair Times. So I would prefer if there was no confusion as I use both my first and last name. Martin Golan and I use to have the same issue.
    I just had not seen your moniker used before.
    FYI…there have been and some feel still are — a few individuals who post under different names to say things that feel they can not say publicly – straight on.
51. POSTED BY AVoiceInTheWilderness  |  December 27, 2009 @ 7:57 am

    And so, how do you as a developer feel about “bike lockers” and the requirements, Mr Schwartz?
    How much will it add to the cost of developing small multifamily housing when you have to add a bike locker for each unit?
    Hmmmm how many bike lockers will the town of Montclair be required to place at the newly developing Senior Center?
    Shouldn’t Churches and manufacturing facilities be required to participate?
    How many bike racks will the High School be required to install?
    Rand?
    Nisuane?
    Northeast?
    Mt. Hebron?
    Hillside?
    Watchung?
    Bradford?
    Glenfield
    Renaissance?
    Edgemont?
    Pre-K?
    The YMCA?
    The new school?
    Does the Co-op school have to install any? MKA? Immaculate Conception School?
52. POSTED BY Cary Africk  |  December 27, 2009 @ 9:20 am

    Whether it’s a bike parking ordinance, or another type of ordinance, such as affordable housing, people in the development community seem not to be asked for their input. The assumption seems to be “well, they’re developers and they’re not going to like it so why ask them.”
    Many of the “social goods” that we as a community “want” come with a price tag. Someone has to pay for them.
    We have to find workable solutions to address a prioritized list of what the community needs and only after that discuss wants.
    And I do believe we could come up with a consensus.
    In the past year I’ve heard people come to Council meetings, and I’ve read statements to the effect that Montclair is a wealthy town and we can afford “everything.”
    We can’t.
    Be as angry as you want about “evil” developers, evil Wall Street or whatever. We can’t (not yet anyway) tell the investors and development community “You are limited to such and such a profit.”
    We have limited power to even tax ourselves. The state sets limits to our year to year increases under a rubric called a “tax cap.” It’s about 4%.
    But the town finds itself, each year, in a situation of rising expenses, most due to contracts. This year just taking into account those increases, and revenue shortfalls such as the parking authority, we’re already “in the hole” by close to $2MM.
    So when someone comes up with a “goody” that only costs $150,000 or many times more, one should also say “where am I going to get the money?”
    And if the best we can do is come up with a scheme to “tax the rich,” or “take it from the developer’s profit” I’m afraid this just isn’t going to happen that easily.
    There is no Santa Claus. Not all the things we want are equal.
    For me, first is a safe, affordable community. And then schools that enable every child to achieve their potential.
    Now that’something I think we’d all get behind.
    Cary Africk
53. POSTED BY Rubber Chix  |  December 27, 2009 @ 10:24 am

    Cary, yes I agree. Thanks.
54. POSTED BY Martin Schwartz  |  December 27, 2009 @ 10:45 am

    AVoiceInTheWilderness asked:
    And so, how do you as a developer feel about “bike lockers” and the requirements, Mr Schwartz?
    _____________________
    I do not develop multi-unit housing. We renovate and build quality single-family homes so I don’t have an opinion or full information yet on the fiscal impact. Further, my knowledge of bike related issues is really only general.
    That said, I think that bike transport should be encouraged and supported as a transportation mode throughout the town — and an appropriate amount of spaces and resources made available for them. However, I’ve never heard major resident complaints and indignation that we don’t have enough bike related resources. And I think that putting bike lanes on Grove was not a wise move given the size of that road for safety reasons. I saw a bike-car accident there the other day on Grove near watchung.
    A secondary north-south transverse with less traffic would have been a much wiser choice. Further, I understand that the high school has only 30 bike riders per day. So requiring public institutions to expand their bike holding services — may not really be necessary. Where are the demand statistics to support this ordiance requirements?
    Consequently, it seems to me that we do not need to spend the in-ordinarary amount amount of attention given to date on this one issue. More important — in my mind are supporting real estate values so that tax revenue collections hold constant without raising rates or requiring cut-backs; making sure that our schools are top knotch so that there is high demand for people who want to move here and finding more efficient ways to implement required services (inter-governmental shared services) – without constant budget increases.
    This is how you keep taxes from rising, provide for people’s core needs and still have a surplus to do some of the things that we want to undertake as a community — but can’t for budget reasons.
    So instead of prioritizing its legislative focus on passing supportive bike ordinances — our Planning Board should be more directed to deal with necessary land use and zoning changes that better protect our community from insensitive and over-development. That is a clear economic destabilizer and more important to our quality of life at the core.
    So yes to bikes…no to what appears to be an over-focus given our other needs and issues.
55. POSTED BY Right of Center™  |  December 27, 2009 @ 11:06 am

    Now you’re talking sense Cary!
    I hope people are happy with the costs imposed on development when we can’t find a developer to transform the car dealership for 10 years.
    We need sensible development constraints/incentives.
56. POSTED BY Opinionated  |  December 27, 2009 @ 11:10 am

    Good advertisement (from a bike shop?)!
57. POSTED BY walleroo  |  December 27, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

    Not all the things we want are equal.
    Amen, Cary. Now please just reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it.
58. POSTED BY mathilda  |  December 28, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

    The bicycle ordnance this town has put forth is good as it is, but it is only a start. Many other green behaviors also cry out for infrastructure, not the least of which is walking. Nothing could be greener, and yet our townfolk prefer cars. Why? Because the infrastructure to support walking does not yet exist. Every homeowner should be required to install a curbside bench where people can rest. Every third house should have a water fountain, and every tenth house should have a shower and a bathroom. Each block should be required to erect elevated walkways at every intersection so passengers can cross unimpeded no matter how much car traffic there is. (Crosswalks that consist merely of two painted lines are an affront to greenness.) Eventually every home, store, restaurant and school in the town will be linked by a network of walkways above street level, so people will never even have to look at cars. Stores and restaurants should be required right now to have entrances on their rooftops to accommodate these pedestrians of the future.
59. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  December 28, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

    This just in. I just heard from the mayor that he plans to unveil a new redesign of the town logo. This version truly reflects what Montclair is really about.
    http://tinyurl.com/Jerry-Logo
60. POSTED BY kyle41181  |  December 28, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

    Big ups to Stuw6,
    I think you should sell it(Logo) to the Mayor if he has the audacity to re-run in 2012
61. POSTED BY Peter Zorich  |  December 29, 2009 @ 9:43 am

    This inane bike ordinance is about ideology, not governance.
    The Mayor (and most of the council) is consumed with aggressively promoting a very progressive political agenda.
    Instead of always trying to punish developers, Montclair should be looking for ways to encourage sensible commercial development.
    It is a pretty basic concept – create incentive for a desired activity and you get more of it. Make that activity more expensive and you get less of it.
    All of the people I talk to are really concerned about two things – TAXES & SCHOOLS. I’m sorry but the phantom bike rack problem is not part of the discussion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.