It does not make any sense to consider whether students, as taxpayers, should get precedence over teachers because Ridgewood high school students aren't tax payers. Their parents are.

What makes sense is to ask parents, as tax payers, whether they really think that the most intelligent function of the school system is to treat their children like little princes and princesses with teachers understood to be their servants, butlers and nannies. Or whether it makes more better sense, as tax payers, that we support our teachers as dignified community leaders in order to help empower them to be as effective as possible at educating our children.

Personally, I couldn't care less if my boys get caviar and manicures when they attend school. I would prefer that they look up to their teachers as a means of improving themselves, and so that they can get the best possible education.

Well stated Ridgewood Mom

Gee Ridgewood Mom, you've never seen a teacher's entitlement that you didnt love..

I'm just thinking of the custodians and lunch staff Bill. :)

Truth be told, I couldn't care less about getting "entitlements" for teachers. But I do want my boys to get the best education possible at that place, and I see their teachers as my partner in that mission and not my/their enemy. I do think that it is essential, in order for education to be successful, that teachers maintain a certain limited position of dignity and respect in relation to their students. Whatever I can do to help them achieve that, and thus be as successful as possible in the classroom, is in the interests of my boys and myself.

That makes a lot more sense, to me, then fighting for a place for my kids to park and show off their new BMW.

Thanks Brian.

im not sure what a parking space has to do with getting the best education possible. But when you refer to our children disparagingly as "princes" and "princesses" eating "caviar" and driving "BMWs" and that they consider their teachers "servants, nannies, etc." i have to wonder where your sympathies are.

Bill,

The question is whether children should have identical access to parking as faculty, staff, etc. That sort of thing does effect quality of education Bill. I'm sorry for you, and your kids, if you don't see that.

But, more so, it is unfortunate that you work here, as per your usual pattern, to misquote me and play with my words in search of a zinger. I did not refer to our children disparagingly as "princes" and "princesses" eating "caviar" and driving "BMWs." An honest perusal will reveal that I said the specific opposite- that WE SHOULD NOT TREAT THEM AS SUCH. We should raise them to value and respect their teachers and, consequently, education. My criticism was of a mistaken adult viewpoint that the most loving thing that we can do for kids is give them stuff, like parking spaces, even if that means pitting them against their teachers in a contest to get that stuff.

Based on your offensive posturing on the matter, it sounds as if this may be your way of viewing things. But, based on so many of your other posts on the Patch, I suspect your real interests in attacking me here have more to do with your generalized anti-public sector philosophy.

i didnt misquote you, ur earlier post here "... show of their new BMW." . I've never heard a correlation between teachers' parking spaces and better education. Im sorry for you that you can consider that as a logical conclusion.

You have more regard for public sector workers than you do for Ridgewood's children.

as anybody can see in ur earlier post, u believe that teachers and students having equal access to parking as treating the children as "princes" and "princesses" and teachers as "servants, butlers and nannies". Am i misquoting you here?? Does the teacher's union pay you by the word?

Bill,
Referring critically to the way that some parents act is not a criticism of their children. If you seriously don't understand this, then please think about it a little harder.

Ridgewood Mom, regardless of the merits on either side of this situation, the demeaning way you refer to students and/or their parents is insulting and sad if you really are a parent. as far whether youre a paid blogger or an actual mom, well never know because you hide behind a screenname. but youre not worthy of serious and honest discussion.

I'm not here to stifle discussion. People can disagree all they want. But please refrain from saying things like, "Can you read??"

Yes, I can read. I was answering your "I don't know." Another clarification: the HS does not "decide" who gets the parking spots. It's first come, first served. Rest assured, the HS fulfills its limited obligation -- collecting names/checks and delivering to the church -- completely fairly and equally for all students who participate. Comparing a private property owner renting parking spaces (and whether families can "afford" to pay for this perk) with a public school providing access to sports under Title IX is beyond silly. Yes, I'm all for societal advances but I have a hard time seeing where this church parking issue is one of them.

Superintendent Dan Fishbein said there are 186 spots with 215 staff members. So we're talking about 30 teachers who can't park there, according to Fishbein. (Unless, of course, they got up early and beat the students to the Heermance spots.)

Sorry James, I skimmed over that part.

The Board discussed the request before Mr. Morgan was elected. This is a continuation/follow-up to that.

The topic may have been discussed, but was there ever a formal resolution adopted by the BOE during a public meeting, with an accompanying recommendation of action to be taken on the part of the Village Council?

Mr. Morgan was elected in April. It's now 7 months later. Does this mean that an initiative from 1999 can be taken up and brought before the council as if it were the sense of the entire board? Really seems like Sheila and Dan pulled a fast one here

Are there any other communities nearby that ban daytime parking during the school year on almost every street within a few blocks of their high school? That is, is what we are doing in Ridgewood the norm?

Yes Brian. Using public resources for our public schools is a public use.

Some, it seems, just hate anything "public" on principle.

The proposed plan that Dr. Fishbein and Ms. Brogan presented last night indicated that the spaces on Beverly and Heermance would be for faculty.

Thanks Anne.

So this isn't just about "the teachers" is it?

That seems unnecessary Paul. Laurie's participation is as important as yours or mine. Personally, I appreciate her informed inside perspective.

I stand corrected on that point. I forgot about the lottery. (Although I still think a lottery is fair -- even more fair than first come, first served.) And while I wish the church would just let kids park for free or for whatever the actual maintenance of the parking lot and insurance costs, I support their right to do what they want with their property. I also think that, where safe, some public streets around the school should be opened up for parking by anyone during school hours.

I agree Lisa. It is not more then about a thirty minute walk from any point in Ridgewood to the high school. Maybe forty minutes from Godwin avenue. By bicycle the trip shouldn't be more ten about ten minutes for anyone. I'm just not sure how to get some persons in this town, who think that their children NEED to drive a car to school, to change their "anything for my baby who comes first" thinking.

It also makes better sense to me, contrary to thinking that focuses on placing those closest to us higher on a pedestal, to give special parking priority to faculty members who live out of town and not near a train station. Given that there are a limited number of spaces, it makes sense to first offer them to persons who most actually need to use a car to get in. This is the sort of reason why we have such things as designated handicapped parking spots, for example.

I agree. Open up Brookside

not only that, but most towns have actual parking lots for students...Ridgewood is pathetic

Not sure how much residents of Brookside will appreciate that thought.

On the second thought, I am pretty sure how they will feel and I don't blame them.

It doesn't matter. The street in front of their house is not their property, it is the property of the town as a whole, and should be used for what benefits the people of the town.

It probably matters to them. :)

Why, again, do kids NEED to drive themselves to school? And if they must, why can't they park at Graydon?

There has been no parking on Beverly for at least 40 years for fairly obvious safety reasons due to the fact that it is a cul de sac

I stand by my statements. Feel free to disagree with them, or to offer reasoning to their contrary. But otherwise, from my perspective and the perspective of people who understand what I have written, your attempts at jabbing at my character only reveal you to be a person who doesn't understand what it is to really care about children.

It's for public reasons. Not private reasons.

Just as a point of fact, Ridgewood Mom is not a "paid blogger." We don't have any "paid bloggers," SK.

Also, there has been no approval. There has yet to be a public hearing on an ordinance to pass such a plan. As I wrote, the majority of the council agreed to move forward in granting the district's request. That said, approval would also be needed at the school board. This isn't a done deal by any means.

Right; by no means is this a done deal. Therefore, your headline and the first paragraph of your article are both somewhat misleading. The Council is considering the plan, but no agreement has yet been reached.

James, how do you know Ridgewood Mom isnt a blogger?

Thanks for making that clear James.

Bill and SK can correct me if I misunderstand them, but I gather that they are meaning to push the idea that I am paid by some sort of special interest group such as the NJEA or a Ridgewood teacher group.

This is, of course, a complete avoidance of the topic of parking, and my points about it in particular, and is quite obviously meant as an attack on my character, the intention being to paint me as insincere or disreputable. The idea is to push that I am a paid blogger again and again, regardless of my saying that it isn't so, hoping that by repeating it enough it will stick for readers.

A related ad hominem is Bill's pushing of the notion that I am disreputable for not using my full identity on the Patch. The idea, again, is to focus reader sympathies away from the question of whether or not what I say makes sense, and on to the idea that I should not be listened to regardless of whether or not I make sense because of who I am that is saying it. Bill has used similar criticisms of my relative anonymity to attack me countless times on the Patch as such.

Bill is also attempting to paint me as having a low opinion of "the kids of Ridgewood." Again, an attack on my character and not an address of my points about parking.

At any rate, I've gotten used to Bill's chauvinisms and to brushing them off. And I remain open to respond to any points of disagreement regarding RHS parking that he or anyone else may wish to discuss.

James, i didnt mean Ridgewood Mom was paid by the Patch. Her unwaving support for all things in the public union sector is what makes me suspect. There was someone on these blogs recently selling handbags, fortunately they appear to be gone. I would suggest the Patch require posters to use their actual names. An increasing number of pubs seem to be requiring this. I think it would increase the number of sincere and civilized postings.

Ridgewood Mom, again, people can read your posting and make their own determinations. Regardin your points on parking, they can determine the validity, and sincerity, of your assertion that preferential parking for school staff would increase the quality of education and if providing student parking is really a way for RHS students to "show off their BMWs".

Bill,
If "people can read" my "posting and make their own determinations" then why are you still talking about me?

Ridgewood Mom - because you continue to deny what you've posted and it's difficult to leave your smears of Ridgewood parent and children unchecked. But it is a waste of my time as folks who regularly read posts should understand what you're all about by now.

You are right that it is a waste of your time Bill. And everyone else's too. But you demonstrate, again here, an incessant need to have the last word regardless of whether you add anything or just repeat yourself. Let's see if you continue.

SK,

You have been arguing that Ridgewood's kids ought have something of an equal or greater footing, on the parking issue, with their teachers and school staff members. I have argued that parking, for students, is unnecessary and that the placement of young students and their teachers on these sorts of things undermines the sort of relationship that makes learning better possible for students. I don't think that you have the best interests of Ridgewood's kids in mind. Believe me, I find your position just as offensive regarding the interests of my children as you find my position. I'm just not focusing on you here.

You disagree with me, which is fine. But rather then focusing on me, why not just offer your alternative view and allow that to stand against mine? If you feel that something needs to be added, why not argue that a more egalitarian relationship between teachers and students is a better setup for the successful education of students? Perhaps critique my assignment of special dignities to teachers as unhelpful in the educational process. Or perhaps you could emphasize some reason why student parking is a very necessary thing, or why teacher parking isn't.

That would be sticking to the topic.

Thanks for the motherly support Map. Very nice.

i noted that the Bell Curve received negative attention, never did i say i agreed with it. I have never stated anything about choosing a woman's role. I've said that i think that housewives have a limited world view. You're projecting.

Others here have made rational arguments for and against preferential parking. They've done so without having to demonize the other side.

Again, i've never said anything related to race. You deny things you've posted and you've made things up about what others have posted.

1. Bill: "i noted that the Bell Curve received negative attention"

You spoke critically of the public's outcry over the book's racism.

2. Bill: "They've done so without having to demonize the other side."

Like suggesting that a person hates Ridgewood and its kids because that person doesn't think that it is always best to pamper those kids with stuff? Righty then. Sort of like claiming that a person hates America if they don't agree with the president, or recite the pledge of allegiance properly or whatever.

I was happy to let all of your trollish nonsense go Bill and just go on talking about parking. But you have been working very hard, as you often do, to demonize rather then engage. And now, as I have turned things away from myself and toward you for just a moment, you are the pot calling the kettle black. How quaint.

Moist Cake, i think Ridgewood Mom has tried to "degrade" the kids, and their parents, and others on this blog seem to think so too.

Since not some, or most, but all of your previous posts speak negatively of Ridgewood citizens - maybe you should find another place to live where you would be happy. It's a big world.

Bill,

Since it is clearly your M.O. to attack without regard for the topic, and with a tediousness in hoping that your nonsense will stick, I will continue to respond.

I think that you have a very low opinion, and deep lack of understanding about, education the nature of learning. You act based on an obsession with sticking it to workers that you regard as needed to be placed lower then others, simply because they work in what you define as the "public sector." This push for demanding a more degrading status in your needed tight social hierarchy undermines the succes of students with reference to a functional student - teacher relationship. You are politicking, as usual, and nothing more. And it is disgusting that you would seek to drag down Ridgewood's educational system to suit this agenda.

Besides having demonstrated yourself on the Patch to be a male chauvanist, who has no respect for the role of motherly participation in family, and being a biological deterministic racist bigot, you clearly do not have the better interests of Ridgewood's youth in mind.

Ridgewood Mom, and yet ur the one who does all the insulting and name calling. My very successful wife would find your chauvinist claim amusing.

and Ridgewood Mom, calling someone a racist, as you just me, is a serious claim. I do demand you show me how you can make that claim, either that or make an apology.

1. The male chauvanism is in that because you, as a man, claim to know best the proper roles of women in society base upon the idea that you know one of them (your wife). How about letting women choose their own roles, individually, and not trying to dictate them to them?

2. Your words:

"the book, 'The Bell Curve' which noted intelligence issues between races"

http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/more-questions-than-answers-in-youth-soccer-embezzlement-case

Ridgewood Mom, i only mentioned that the Bell Curve received negative attention, not that i believed it. and you know that - as you can read the post you yourself listeed. I never said that i as a man, or any other gender, that i decide women's roles.

You truly make up things.

Greg -

The teachers DO have parking where they work. If they arrive early, they can park in the lot that abuts the building. If they arrive a bit later, they can park in Graydon South, which is not a very long walk (and in fact is a much shorter distance than many employees walk to their jobs). Public streets should not have designated parking spots for employees of the BOE. I agree with you about opening the streets to parking, but NOT to designated parking for the BOE, and only where it makes sense in terms of safety (fire truck access, etc)

Greg, i agree that the streets should be open as they are everywhere else. Why the need to have no parking from 8-3 during school days?

Just to clarify for Mrs. Loving: even if ALL the teachers & school staff arrive early, there is not enough parking for them in the lot that abuts the building. That's the whole reason for the Heermance change request.

Unfortunately, driving is a necessity for some in order that they can get to work.

It is certainly, however, a privilege that we can live in Ridgewood.

You are correct, Ridgewoodboy, people all through the country carpool or take mass transit. If their commute is undesirable, they can get another job.

Yes James you are right.

I apologize for any degree to which I have allowed myself to be part of it.

Just one point about what is going on here.

http://www.teapartybloggers.com/mission-statement/

Again, James, i suggest that the Patch require people to use their real names. It will civilize the posts because people will feel more accountable for their words.

So much for RM's apology.

The Tea Party, really? A plot to undermine teachers by letting students park? And, ironically, you're the one who's made all the personal accusations..

Annnnnd we come full circle: they do not have ample parking. Hence the request to the village council. This thread has become so entertaining.