| Author |
Message |
    
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 12:54 pm: |     |
Njjoseph:
What I said was that not all streets in the very large "neighborhood" outlined in my earlier post are viewed the same by purchasers. The streets on the north end and especially the south end of the area are not considered as desirable as those in the Roosevelt Park area, yet were included in the same neighborhood by CVI even though similar houses on these streets sell for less ($50k to $100k) than on the more "desirable" streets.
As an example, take a ride on Clinton Ave. and then Durand Rd. Which street would you prefer to live on? Which street would you lay out $550k to live on? For the record, the average assessment on these two streets is almost identical ($494K for Clinton and $500k for Durand).
Since the TC, CVI, the assessor and the consultants never saw fit to take this into account the only avenue left open is through the review process and then through appeal to the Tax Board.
For the record, I support the reval. Many of the assessments on the westside were ridiculously low in 1981 (see my previous posts on this subject) and the increase in values in the last year make the reval the morally correct thing to do. However, as someone once said, "the devil is in the details".
About fifteen years ago I traded my crystal ball in for a VCR so I no longer have any way to predict the future. I don't know what the next six months will bring as far as sale prices in any area of Maplewood. However, common sense would indicate that prices will decline because of the higher taxes and the slowing economy. Probably the lower taxes in those areas where taxes declined will stabilize prices.
Since the TC walked into the proverbial buzzsaw with the reval, I don't think major adjustments will be made in the assessed values anytime in the near future regardless of the sales data, database or not. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 12:56 pm: | |
Sycophant? How about dishonest? You asked a question, you got an answer you didn't like, you cried conspiracy. Obviously your question wasn't very sincere. |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:00 pm: | |
Not being obnoxious, but just because I was lost:
sycophant (n): a servile, self-seeking flatterer.
Now, as for the rest of it, I resubmit my "apathy and complacency" theory. Even now, in the midst of the biggest crisis in the history of Maplewood, it seems that we are more interested in how much money is left in our own pockets rather than the policies designed to take it out. One only needs to look at the attendance of last week's two meetings to see that.
As for the alleged "requirement to run for office" mentioned above, some of us have been very involved in local campaigns. Two years ago, the Republicans highlighted the pending revaluation in their '99 campaign. When Celia King said a few weeks ago that she "had NO IDEA what this would cause," that was funny, because the Republicans did.
Yes, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. The candidates may have been less than inspiring. The message muddled. Whatever the reason, that message wasn't delivered. The town didn't perk up until they got clonked with a sledge hammer, and then was turned away by those in power at every crucial moment.
But, the information was available, and the decisions that led up to the revaluation were made at meetings like Tuesday night's, where 3 people were in attendance. Perhaps the TC feels it has a mandate. They do, as long as there is no one there to question them.
Where we are now is not in "satisfied-and-move-on" phase. The fact is that most remain unsatisfied with the results, but what can we do? We are unsatisfied, but we have to live with it.
Another definition, in closing:
serf (n): a member of a servile feudal class bound to the soil and subject to the will of his lord.
One party rule, complacency, and apathy. The perfect formula for a false mandate that is anything but inclusionary. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 2:52 pm: | |
One party rule is inherently bad. There is no "loyal opposition" to keep the "rulers" in line and question their decisions.
Maplewood seems to have had this problem for many years. The Republicans led by Robert Grassmere and Bob Kline held power for a long time. To the best of my memory the TC was all one party until Ellen Davenport won election. I may be wrong about this in the details, but the trend is correct.
I have a problem with the Republican and Democrat labels in local politics. The major issues of our times ranging from fiscal policy, to abortion rights and military policy have nothing to do with the realities of local government.
I think the way the reval was handled is a pretty good example of one party rule at its worst. No one on the TC made any real criticism of the process in public although I suspect some of the members had some issues if not with the concept at least with the process. Many citizens brought up good and valid points at the TC meetings and were essentially ignored. The TC hired a consultant who did nothing to question the process but simply validated the TC point of view with the statement that CVI did "an excellent job".
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" |
Beach
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 4:33 pm: | |
It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with uninspiring candidates or bad campaigns, it is just simply a numbers game and Republicans will never win in this town. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 4:53 pm: | |
I do not think the problems with the TC is whether they are democrats or republicans. The bigger problem is that we have volunteers with a limited time schedule running the town and the job over the years has evolved into something much more complex than was imagined many years ago. It is time to reevaluate the whole system and not worry about party affiliation. The town could go to a non-partisan TC which is done in many other towns. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 5:40 pm: | |
Thank you, Tracks, for a little perspective on the situation.
Dytunck: you tend to throw a lot of dirt and innuendo at the TC. I question your motive in this since, as with the example of "unanimous voting" it seems baseless to me (obviously just MY opinion, here.) And usually, when adults engage in this kind of behavior toward politicians, there is a POLITICAL motive. Hence my question to you and some others who appear to be using similar tactics. Like Lseltzer, I question your sincerity. I don't know Lseltzer and I have never met any of the TC members. My "defense" of them is from a more general perspective, not unlike Tracks' analysis. As far as I can tell, they're just regular folks trying to do what has become a very difficult job under very trying circumstances. No, they're not perfect. I don't need them to be. But I am still trying to figure out your motive here. It just doesn't seem all that civic-minded to me.
Bacata |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 5:41 pm: | |
I recall a man named Michael DeCicco who was the first democrat on the TC, breaking something like a 60 year all GOP run. This was probably in the early 80s. He was reelected at least once. I think the TC had two party representation through the 80s and into the 90s. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 6:54 pm: | |
FYI, some history:
Michael DiCicco was the first Democrat ever elected to Township Committee, back in the 70s. I believe he served three terms (9 years) and was defeated by Tom Keene, a Republican. He was off the TC by the time I moved to town in 1985
Theo Buklad was the second Democrat ever elected, (and the first woman ever elected) in 1988. She was elected to fill the unexpired term of Ed Borrone, who had resigned from the Township Committee to become Municipal Judge. The TC had appointed Bill French to fill that seat, and Theo defeated Bill in the 1988 election. Her term ran from November of 1988 through 1990, then she decided not to run again.
Ellen Davenport was the third Democrat ever elected, back in 1989; she ended up being the first woman mayor.
I was the fourth democrat ever elected, and still the youngest person ever elected to TC, in 1991.
Susanna Gibbons and Burt Liebman were elected in 1992.
In 1994 Mickey Stern was elected.
In 1995 Susanna Gibbons got relocated out of state; Celia King was appointed to fill her unexpired term (6 months or so) and was elected along with Burt Liebman that November.
In 1997 Vic DeLuca was elected for the first time.
I'm stayin' out of the rest of this donnybrook.... |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:14 pm: | |
Bacata,
I have to say it was refreshing to see a posting by you that wasn't dripping with sarcasm. Not that that's not a right of yours, mind you, but your tone seemed to be at least IMHO more conciliatory.
I admit that I have on occasion "stirred the pot" a bit, but I don't think it's anything worse than you'd hear on the left bank in a smoky coffee house. And please, "baseless accusations"??? An accusation is a charging of some crime or error. Honestly, all I asked was a pseudo-rhetorical question. It seems to me like there have been a lot of votes that go something like this: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Keep in mind that this message is on a thread called ONE PARTY RULE, so it is an observation from a citizen commenting on the singularity of our current political makeup.
Larry's "homework", as you put it, shows the extent to which some will go to try to squash the voice of the people. He didn't know about this vote until he called his buddy. NO ONE would have known this without asking the TC personally. I was the only person at the Tuesday meeting when the gavel came down. I did pay attention to the votes of the TC. Am I supposed to attend every back-office post-meeting session? Well, I think you know what my point was. Was I baselessly accusing anyone of anything? According to the editor of this privately-held website, I must have been, because he felt the need to editorialize my comment... something I have seen on very rare occasion. (BTW, please refrain from this)
Bacata, I never used the word conspiracy, either. Disagreement is fine, but let's not jump overboard with the insults and histrionics. |
Dave
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:24 pm: | |
Dytunck,
You can make your case without providing innacurate information. You know that.
And, yes, I will try to refrain.  Let me know if you think I'm wrong.
Dave |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 12:41 am: | |
Dytunck: You say "NO ONE would have known this without asking the TC personally". In truth, anyone, yourself included, could have known it if you'd stayed for the workshop meeting. It was not a closed meeting, and the press was there. So were the several other budget workshops. It wasn't a "back-office post-meeting session", it was an announced meeting of the TC, advertised in accordance with the law and discussed by Mayor DeLuca on this board.
In addition, to leap to the defense of Larry for a moment, he was AT the meeting with the 3-2 vote on the parking on Parker and Burroughs and the 4-1 vote on rent control renewal; he was advocating for one side of the parking issue, as was his spouse, on behalf of their neighborhood association. The only place he had to research to answer your question was his own memory. :-) As for the factoid about votes at last Tuesday's meeting, I told him about it in some email when I saw his posting -- he didn't "call his buddy", not that there'd be anything wrong with that.
There are 5-0 votes, 4-1 votes, and 3-2 votes. All the time. There's also a lot of public give and take amongst the members of the TC on formulating ordinances and resolutions.
And while I am not sure that anyone will believe this, there were no pre-determined questions that would be asked and answered last Wednesday... and I for one had no idea what the vote would be until it was counted.
jerry ryan |
Konigen
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 9:37 am: | |
It is wrong to editorialize the commentary of a poster based on perception of innacuracy. Half, if not more, of the statements on these boards are innacurate; it's not fair to single out one poster. Removing posts for profanity or abuse is justifiable, but modifying or appending them is using editorial power to tamper with free speech. Dave, your commentary should have been included in the thread as a separate message. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 9:50 am: | |
Konigen,
Obviously the laws are still being written in this area...but my understanding is that this space is private space, akin to Dave's living room. Dave might be protected by the 1st amendment, but i don't know if his guests are protected from his editorial control.
There are several areas where this distinction becomes seriously important, like copyright. If a poster printed an article under copyright, in it's entirety, in violation of the copyright laws...my understanding is that it would be dave that would be responsible, not the poster. |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:48 am: | |
Konigen,
I don't think a newspaper would publish an editorial they knew contained factual innacuracies.
However, i do agree in terms of singling one post out of hundreds. I can't pretend that I read all the posts made, so I will refrain from editorializing posts.
I also hope people can get basic facts correct before lobbing attacks around. Spin them however you like, just be accurate about what is factual. |
Konigen
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:51 am: | |
Melidere,
I'm not really talking about the legality or illegality of editorializing messages in this space (although an interesting issue). When people post in a forum such as this, there is an assumed trust that their commentary will not be tampered with, if they abide by the rules set forth on the site (such as, like you said, copyright, avoiding profanity, not attacking other posters, etc.). Accuracy of content is not, and should not be, one of these rules, for obvious reasons. When an editor makes commentary on the content of a poster's message, then that trust breaks down. In this case it has the added appearance of being directed at the poster, since Dave doesn't check all posted content for accuracy, and doesn't typically append posts.
Neutrality is a very important quality of an editor on message boards such as these. If he is going to, by implication, join the argument, it should be in context of "poster" (which he frequently does)not "editor."
Don't get me wrong, I really like what Dave has done here, and I believe that he manages the board extremely well -- he has an especially good feel for how far an uncomfortable thread should go. However, in this particular case, his role was of "poster" not "editor", since none of the aformentioned rules were broken.
I'm not sure of the legal implications here in terms of "privacy of space", but at least on a functional level, this is not Dave's living room. Rather he has graciously set this site up as a kind of public living room. Therefore, he needs to respect the commentary provided by those that access the site, whether he finds it accurate or not, particularly in light of all the innaccuracies on these boards. |
Konigen
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
Dave, let me say again that I think you do a first-rate job with these boards. It's not an easy task to manage this site, particularly in light of all recent controversy. :-)
Posting here is a little different from posting to a newspaper -- a bit more intimate. Dealing with print media, myself, I find that there is a lot of variance -- some are more hands on; some are more hands off. With a website, my opinion is that hands-off is the better route.
I do feel you run these boards with a sense of integrity that I and others appreciate. My only concern was that the trust be maintained, since the quality of what you've created here is so good.
Konigen |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:17 am: | |
I know when I'm licked. "Uncle!" I hereby officially retract my comment about the unanimous votes. Larry, thanks for pointing out the instances of split votes. I hear you're really a nice guy and we'd get along just great. Jerry, thanks for your explanations. I'm sorry if there were negative undertones. Bacata, you really should make a point of introducing yourself to the TC members. They are nice people. Dave, this is your board. Obviously you are justified in editorializing as you see fit. - Dytuck |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:19 am: | |
I couldn't fit all you folks in my livingroom anyway. :-) |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
Sometimes it just "seems" that the people that do get edited are the ones going against the grain. In the past I have read posters who said other posters heads were up someone's backsides (I am being nice here)without any problem or apology and untrue things said about the pool fund too. I guess it just depends on who your friends are. BTW- I did watch Burt vote against the others on the rent control issue. |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 12:00 pm: | |
Dave,
Since we're on the subject of site-management, how 'bout a link to a dictionary?
donnybrook (n): free for all; brawl. (named after Donnybrook Fair, an annual Irish event known for its brawls.) // a public quarrel or dispute.
Us Italians simply call that "dinner."
(by the way, politics and policies aside, personal kudos to Mr. Ryan for sharing thoughts, especially in this particular forum.) |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 12:31 pm: | |
Dytunck: I'm sorry for anything nasty I said. I'm sure we'd get along great.
I've run several message boards myself over the years, mostly focusing on technology issues. People can get heated beyond belief when they talk about operating systems. I've been through this before and I ought to know by now that it never pays to get angry online. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page