| Author |
Message |
    
Interalia
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 9:03 pm: |     |
Since all reval. interested parties are planning to attend or listen to a meeting tomorrow night (2/21/01) why did Ellen Davenport choose tonight to propose to have Trenton come in to review the Maplewood budget in 2002; and why did the TC pass that resolution tonight? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 10:37 pm: | |
omigod.
they couldn't be, ummmm, ermmm...responding to the will of the community, could they?
how...(gasp)
political.
and them being politicians and all.
disgraceful. that kind of behavior would never go down in Chicago, dontcha know, where the pols know who is boss and the party still has some control.
that is pretty much the last straw. these guys have to go.
(i'm so sorry...just couldn't resist. But seriously, what are you implying? It's been the topic of this board for weeks with good arguments on both sides.) |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:01 pm: | |
mel, the funniest thing I've seen in days. |
Interalia
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 9:37 am: | |
Melidere: You apparently were so busy composing your sarcastic message that you missed my point (or chose not to get it)! The community and the TC are aware that tonight is the scheduled meeting dealing with the reval matter. It would seem more appropriate for this resolution to be presented tonight, as opposed to last night, so that interested parties could speak on the subject...specifically because the resolution calls for a review of the 2002 budget and not the present budget. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 9:53 am: | |
Interalia, I think it's been mentioned here before that last nite's meeting was for one set of business not relating to the reval, and tonite's is for the reval only. Announcements and agendas were posted last week.
I see the review as not having anything to do with the reval. Taxes, yes. Reval, no. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:05 am: | |
Interalia, I think you're looking for a conspiracy here. Are you interested in running for TC? Many of your recent posts seem to be trying to find ways to tear down the TC. Just my impression (and no, I'm not married to or sleeping with a TC member, either.)
Meli: I loved your post.
Townie, your explanation is just too obvious. Why try to confuse things with facts?
Bacata |
Sac
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:06 am: | |
I'm not absolutely sure, but if tonight's meeting was called explicitly to discuss the reval, it might not be "legal" to add other agenda items. Maybe a TC member or other "expert" on the Rules of Order could confirm or correct this point. |
Interalia
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:29 am: | |
Sac: Your point is well taken...perhaps according to the Rules of Order the budget review matter cannot be addressed tonight.
Njjoseph and Nakaille: I didn't think questioning a governing body was grounds for conspiracy in this country. If Sac is correct about the Rules of Order, that, in itself, could be the explanation as to why the matter was introduced last night. Otherwise, proposing it tonight would have given more people the opportunity to voice an opinion with respect to putting it off until next year. I think the reval. and tax issues are intertwined.
However, the resolution is certainly a step in the right direction. |
Mem
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:36 am: | |
How does one go about marrying and/or sleeping with a TC member? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:48 am: | |
Interalia, I don't think there's any conspiracy here, but if you want to question it, so be it. I gave you my opinion on it, and it's mine only. And since the TC also live in Maplewood, any conspiracy would ultimately themselves as well, in more ways than one.
However, even though tax issues and the reval are intertwined, this review is not a reval issue. The review can occur at any time regardless of the reval, and vice-versa.
Another point you mentioned is that more people would attend Wednesday's meeting than Tuesday's, so it would be more appropriate on Wednesday. How sad. As townsmen, we should be more involved in all aspects of this town, not just the reval. Unfortunately, this lack of attendance at the general meetings is exactly what got us into the reval mess -- not enough people attending and getting the appropriate information. Keep in mind that outside of the property card workshop, little new information was dispersed since December. It's only been the last 6 or 8 weeks since it's hit our pocket books that attention was being paid. Up until then, only a handful or two attended the meetings with any regularity.
Also, tonite's meeting is for the explicit purpose of hearing what the independent auditors have to say regarding the reval. It should not be clouded with other issues, whether it's legal to do so or not. |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:51 am: | |
The way the agendas for the two meetings were set up, it seemed to me that tonite's meeting is specifically for the revaluation. The LGBR, to me anyway, seemed to be a separate matter, dealing more with the overall budget and general TC policy.
I was at the meeting last night ready to read a statement again asking the TC to consider the LGBR, but they beat me to the punch.
Which brings one more observation...other than myself and the person I was with, there was ONE other person there for the meeting last night. That's it. A total of THREE PEOPLE. Pretty shameful...a far cry from the hundreds that were there to talk about their own pocketbooks.
Just an observation, open to response of course, but it seems to me that people in Maplewood are pretty apathetic when it comes to local government. Voter turnout at elections is dismal, turnout at TC meetings is MORE dismal, unless of course we're talking what affects us directly- our money. I guarantee there will be more than three people at the meeting tonite.
I'm as guilty as anyone- last night was only the second TC meeting I've attended in 18 months. But I wonder, for argument's sake, if they limited admission at tonite's meeting to those who voted in the last two elections, how many people would be in the room.
Makes the folks here look a little shallow, yes?
The two biggest problems in this town aren't the revaluation and the budget. They are apathy and complacency. |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:54 am: | |
njj- bingo. (you posted while I was posting)
Mem- don't even wanna go there. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:00 pm: | |
Thanks to you, too, John -- you expressed it so much better than I could! |
Ken
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:06 pm: | |
Careful Mem, CV may raise your assessment! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:09 pm: | |
Mem- There is not enough Cabernet in the world...... |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:10 pm: | |
I am aware of tonight's meeting, but I cannot recall seeing a public notice anywhere. Did I miss it? I worry about the great unwashed who do not frequent this board being left in the dark. Hope I'm wrong. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:13 pm: | |
There were flyers at the train station today. However, they weren't there yesterday morning. And they were dated February 15. If it weren't for this board, I might never have known about tonight's meeting. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 12:36 pm: | |
If it helps - I reminded the FairTax e-mail list twice about this special TC meeting. I agree that people are often apathetic, but there is something to be said for trusting your elected committees and not immersing yourself in every TC agenda. Hopefully when the reval dust has settled, people will look at the bigger issue of the property tax system in NJ and how certain counties, Essex, Hudson and Camden particularly, get hit the hardest. If just 10 people can continue to put the energy and committment they demonstrated with the reval here towards changing things in Trenton that would in the long run accomplish real long term benefits for all of us. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 1:06 pm: | |
Mem, if you need instructions I'm not sure you're old enough to pay property taxes. 
Bacata |
Mem
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 1:25 pm: | |
Ken,
Thanks for the "flattery", I was trying to lower my assessment!
Nil,
Finding cab a little heavy these days, I am now into the lighter reds: merlot and pinot noir.
Bacata,
No, I'm not an alcoholic (I think)! Sometimes I'm just driven to drink!
Ken,
But not when I'm driving! |
|