I get very worried when people start talking about an overarching downtown redevelop plan because the last one - push primarily by Democrats Baer and Suell - was a truly awful monster that thankfully died a quick death. I certainly do not want to see dense blocks of 5 story building ever purposed again.

But it is unfortunate that all 4 candidates seem to support the deck on lot 2, when to me there are many other steps that could be taken before that expense is taken on.

How many people were in the crowd last night? How was this publicized? How many people knew about it? When will the debate be televised? Where can citizens access all of the candidates platforms? Is it me or does it seem that it's pulling teeth to access information? We as a township continue to turn our low numbers to the polls for these elections but where is the information about our candidates? I'm still very surprise to see only a handful of election promotional signs throughout town.

And not sure if anyone's clicked on the banner ads for Stephen & Seth but those currently link to: http://www.test.com/. not sure if it's a patch ad-serving issue or they don't have their site up yet.

Really People: Let me try to answer your questions....not sure how many people knew about last night's meeting (not a debate), but there were perhaps 15 people in attendance. Not great, perhaps, not as many as I would have liked, certainly, but I'll take what I can get. As for publicity, I'm honestly not sure, but I know that we posted an announcement on Patch. As for our ads appearing on Patch: if there's a problem, I'm annoyed, as the campaign has paid to post ads on Patch (I'll check into this). Seth and I filmed a debate this morning with our Republican opponents and it will be aired on Thursday night on TV36 (and will be broadcast at other times and available on On Demand). As for information and platform, I'm sorry you've found it difficult to get info. Not sure this is the best or proper forum, but I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you'd like to discuss....

MarkDS -- I happen to agree with you on valet and have said as much at Township Committee meetings when certain members of the committee have stated that 'we have nothing to show for valet' (or some such line of argument). Nonsense: the people who use valet have a lot to show for it, e.g., a place to park. To take your love of valet one step further, why has it not been extended to Short Hills? Seems like a fairly straightforward response to what many say is a need ...

And while we're likely in agreement in some respects, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that parking should take precedence over flooding as an issue confronting the town. If, as the consultant hired by the town in the wake of Irene said, our sewer infrastructure is antiquated and in need of upgrading (which would lessen the likelihood that residents in South Mountain will find human waste on their front lawns), said improvements will cost taxpayers. And while a deck on Lot 2 will be paid for by those who use it, some of those who use a deck probably live in South Mountain, meaning not only will they be asked to cough up cash for a structure, they'll likely see their tax bills increase. (cont)

(Continued) In closing, please know I'm not trying to be alarmist. For all I know, the town's expert is wrong and we have a perfectly adequate and doggone lovely sewer system (of course, a recent report issued via the Rockefeller Foundation says categorically that NJ is this country's worst when it comes to maintaining infrastructure). Perhaps we won't need to do or spend anything on vital infrastructure. However, I think we should probably find that out before we ask one slice of our constituency to pay for a parking deck.

Those who say 'we have nothing to show for the valet parking'-how about the hundreds of dollars per commuter saved/year vs what it will cost them to park in an unsafe concrete box in the middle of downtown?

Can anyone on the TC, or running for the TC, comment on how many commuter spaces would be saved if the commuter lots were restricted for business permit parking? Why would a business permit parker need to park in the commuter lot anyway (hint-maybe they're using them to commute and don't deserve a business parking permit??).

Query: Who foots the $250,000 annual fee for valet service?

The commuter parking permit holders pay for it. Which is why building a deck which will greatly increase the permit price over the current price, which includes the valet is crazy.

Once the deck is built, valet service should be terminated or offered as a premium.

OK...I now understand. Build the deck ASAP and get rid of valet service. That will save $250,000/year which will go toward financing the deck.

I do understand and want to deck built...always have. Property values have decreased far less here than other towns, in part, due to the attractiveness of our town as an NYC commuter town. Therefore, to raise the annual fee by $0.50/day is a no-brainer. Commuters need to give back as they are getting better property values.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all - adding an additional 64 to 70 spaces (and eliminating the valet parking) for 8 million dollars is ridiculous in my opinion. How is an extra 70 spaces going to make a difference in our property values? Meanwhile, we will have the ongoing maintenance and safety issues that the parking garage will bring. I agree, it is lunacy.....

What is so hard to understand? NO STUDY has been made to see how many business permit parkers daily occupy spots which should be reserved for train commuters. Anecdotally I have seen dozens parked at Short Hills and the downtown lots. Who, in their right mind, would commit our commuters (and you know the town will be on the hook as a back up for financing-anyone here read ANYTHING about SOPAC in South Orange?) to the deck when so much is unclear?

What happens if we start deck construction (alongside the river) then find out things need to be changed mid construction to ameliorate the flooding issues further down the river? What's more important-figuring out the flooding, or rushing through an unneeded downtown concrete box?

Damian--Though I agree with a great deal of what you've said, I think I might frame the debate a bit differently. I'll try to explain myself ....

I've been up, down, and around this debate from what feels like most every angle. I've reached the conclusion that if we as a community are committed to doing SOMEthing for what seems to me to be a less-than-vibrant downtown business district, then we must begin by doing SOMEthing to help the business community. In short, for as long as I've been here, the business community has complained that the downtown area does not have enough parking to appease its customer base.

Now, it's possible one might dismiss that thesis out of hand. I don't. And given that I accept it, I'm willing to combine the business community's needs/desires with what some people say is a shortage of commuter parking (we can debate that one for a loooong time). Enter a deck on Lot 2. (cont)

(cont) However, though I believe that Lot 2 makes the most sense for any structure at this stage of the game, I remain confused that we as a community are proceeding with anything in the downtown area without giving some thought to redevelopment/revitalization.

Finally, I agree that Irene changed the dynamics of the game, if not a lot, then at least somewhat. That is, we darn well better figure out what are dealing with in that arena before we pull the trigger on what is estimated to be an $8 million project on Lot 2.

And to your point about people abusing permits: I can tell you that that question has been posed to the committee and various parking task forces over the years and, unless I'm mistaken, no one has actually been detailed to investigate, as best as possible, who is using what permits to park where...if I'm wrong, I'd love to see the results of said audit....

OMG. I can't believe I am seeing reasonable comments by a candidate here Mr. Stephen V. Thomas -- a Democrat, no less. If only your running mate had not committed to a deck using crazy reasoning. Anyway, keep it up and you'll get my vote for sure. The short of the matter is that there has been no study of who is actually parking and it is my belief that a great number of people are coming from out of town to park here in our lots. It is not only abuse of the business parking permit holder privileges at the commuter lots, although if you walk around and do your own "study" at the SH lot you'll see 20% are indeed business permit holders (meanwhile, many of the spots reserved for business holders only stay empty all day long).

Just a footnote to my last note - by referencing SH commuter lots I include all of the perimeter commuter "permit-only" parking on the streets very close to the station. This is where I've seen a great number of business permits. The business permits don't jump out at the casual looker - they are quite similar. Like Damian, I see no reason why business parkers need have access to all of the commuter spaces, while keeping the business spaces reserved only for business holders.

Uploaded a copy of the business permit application. You can see how easy it is to get a super business permit, including a transferable permit freely available for FIVE cars, at a cost of only $300. What is a "business," anyway? We're registered - we pay business taxes. Should home hobbyists qualify? Who's an employee? Should a babysitter qualify? There is no requirement that the cars registered actually be used for the business.

I think we really need to take a close look at those business permits and parkers. The business owners have always complained about lack of shopper parking--yet the OWNER of The House parks her pink Lexus in the best parking spot (at a meter) outside her store EVERY DAY. Why would a business owner take the best spot away from a shopper? Why does she not have a permit and park in the business permit lot next to the recycling yard, which anytime I've driven by is not even half full (to be fair, I work all day and don't drive by often...but when I have on weekdays, it's practically empty). Why can't we move business permit parkers farther from the middle of town (if they care about their business, they won't gripe about the walk) and free up space for commuters and parkers. Why not turn the Rimbach building eventually into a business-only lot. While it did cost us a lot, it would still be cheaper than paying for an $8 deck.

As to the last comment - the certification is that "the permit will be used only for the vehicles and employees listed above and in accordance with the [liberal rules]." Thus, there is no requirement that the vehicles be used in the business.

As to Damian's comments above about parking in Short Hills--amen! There has been studies done about increased surface parking there and nothing gets done. Dare you say you may cut a tree down on Chatham Road (and I'm not saying cutting trees is the way to go), the whole community goes crazy, yet we are happy to erect a big concrete box! I too have looked longingly at that empty lot next to the post office and thought what a nice little spot for shoppers or commuters. every little bit helps. has any member of the existing TC looked into that? Perhaps Stephen Thomas can do so...and surely earn my vote, even if the answer is it's not feasible.

Damian--You won't get a strenuous argument from me about downtown parking and people's willingness to walk. As an aside, I'll tell you that when, in 1994, the task force I was a member of discussed the possibility of decking over Lot 1, the sister lot to Lot 2 at the corner of Essex and Main, the response from the mayor at the time was, and this is a quote, 'people won't walk that far.' To which I responded, A) they will if they have no choice and B) if people won't walk that far, we better get in touch with the Mall at Short Hills because that place will certainly go out of business what with the fact that people have to walk a lot there (specifically, from their cars to the stores).

And a gorilla in the room? I'll politely disagree that it exists because at least a few of us have been pointing to that gorilla for almost 20 years and asking why it is none of the many, many, many suggestions for restriping or other modest alterations that would result in increased parking ever gets acted upon ... still another reason why I decided to run: Tired of being told suggestions will be looked into and then nothing happens.

Sounds great Stephen. There are three fundamental economic/enforcement points coming from the funding issue that I would add. One, if a committed decision is made to build the garage based solely upon the number of parkers, including fraudsters and others not intended to be benefited, the incentive to crack down is transformed into an incentive to overlook and even encourage additional fraud and loose regulation. This is because the funding will rely upon the cash generated by the unintended beneficiaries. Point two: since the town intends to increase the rates rather substantially fewer permits will be sold. There has been no study of the effect that this reduction may have on overall proceeds. Three: if one can stem demand by raising the prices, one should consider whether that, plus rearrranging existing lots/etc. can solve the problem completely.

Good stuff Stephen. I guess I would add that as cheap as the residential permits may now be, in comparison to surrounding communities, the super-business parking permits (allowing parking at any lot, including commuter lots) are even considerably cheaper. They should be raised as well. Why should the town provide all this parking at heavily subsidized rates?

(cont) Moreover, given the gnashing of teeth vis a vis parking this township has experienced ever since I moved into it, and given that there is at least some sense that abuse of permits is rampant, wouldn't it be logical to take steps that might limit that abuse? Raising fees independent of deck construction anywhere might be a reasonable first step -- if the exact same number of permits are sold, we're a good bit closer to an answer about parking needs. If, say, 100 fewer permits are sold, do we need to do anything?

I would be very reluctant to making commuter parking a revenue source above and beyond the cost of providing it. And, that would just make abuse of business permits that more attractive,

But ordinances should be revised to clarify that business permits can only park in designated business spots, not designated commuter spots and then violators should be ticketed. Also the business permit proceess should be tightened to require proof of a business need and then tracked.

It is amazing to me that through this whole process no steps in this direction have been taken.

Exactly. Even if "abuse" is not in fact rampant, a reduction of just 10% of cars parked in the commuter spots would have a solid impact. The rules are loose; there is no need to consider anyone technically following the loose requirements and providing permits to their friends and relatives in, say Randolph or Parsippany, an abuser. And, of course, it doesn't take much to consider a sitter an employee (as a sitter really is) and get a permit which can then be given back.

Another point is that the police seem to be too flexible about allowing call-ins for substitute cars. What is striking is a high percentage of cars in the commuter lots which do not show any permit at all. I thought that was just for when the permitted car is in for repair. And speaking of police, one of those non-permitted parked commuter cars has displayed a police cap on the back shelf.

To Stephen, we may well have lower priced commuter parking compared to other towns. That said, our property taxes are the highest in the state. We should view commuter parking as a non profit area for the town, not something to raise just to get into line with other towns-after all, they don't raise their taxes to match ours!

Damian--a legitimate point. Not positive I think the two are entirely analogous, but I'm willing to consider the point as I go about my day. I guess in the near term, I'd like to know parking rates as a percentage of property taxes; in other words, in neighboring towns, what are parking fees in relation to property taxes? If our ratio is considerably lower (and I admit, I don't know right this second), should it/could it be brought into line?

Ultimately, I see your point, but I'm still not convinced we don't provide too great a subsidy to residents when it comes to parking. Full disclosure: I live VERY close to the train, so it's academic for me. Of course, one of the primary reasons my wife and I bought the house we did was because ... it was VERY close to the train and, therefore, we wouldn't need to buy a second car on what were then modest publishing salaries...

Full disclosure here as well - we purchase one ticket because although it is a ten minute walk and many people in our neighborhood and somewhat beyond walk to the train, my wife likes to drive. If the price goes up, we'll probably stop buying the permit. We also have a cheap Vespa scooter which can be parked without a permit at the bicycle stand. I've seen many of those scooters parked at other town stations and I would suspect we could see more here if the price goes up.

Here's the smoking gun - News from NorthJersey.com - SPRINGFIELD resident reports theft of his SUV from Short Hills Chatham Rd. Lot - parked 7:30 a.m., returns 6:30 -definitely parking for the commute. Patch could be interested:

Millburn police: missing SUV towed from lot?
NorthJersey.com
Reports of an auto theft around 6:25 pm May 9 drew Millburn police to the municipal parking lot on Chatham Road. A Springfield resident told police he ...