| Author |
Message |
    
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5578
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:12 pm: |     |
Hard to fathom that the same person posted the following..
Quote:Usually, messages like these are sent by frustrated little people who are lonely and lead insignificant lives - but who find an audience for their cowardice behind the electronic message. In the real world where spoken words have direct consequences I doubt they would have any teeth left if they delivered the same message to someone they didn't know
and
Quote:Chrismas is what it is-
the first seems to condratict the implicit generosity of spirit and celebration of the second.
Alberto, you seem to have turned a corner and are now hiding behind the "electronic anonymity" which, apparently allows you to post the following.
Quote:New to the message board, I find that some who use it get "personal" in their writing. These messgaes are meant to communicate, but not to incite personal attacks.
Im confused. But that is nothing new nor germaine to the thread.
G'night. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3953
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:14 pm: | |
It may be wealth transfer, but Deluca didn't cook up the scheme. He merely performed his duty as mayor by following property tax laws of the State of NJ.
With regard to property tax, I don't know of anybody who likes the system, but nobody has changed it because the alternatives are none too attractive (i.e. higher income taxes). |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 80
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:17 pm: | |
tjohn:
I agree with you. But the "valuation" method speaks nothing of the service user. Perhaps an average tax should apply on all - |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 81
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:31 pm: | |
Duncan,
Which Alberto are your referencing?
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4957
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:33 pm: | |
Put me in the "not convinced" category.
My original request still stands. |
stefano
Citizen
Username: Stefano
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:33 pm: | |
The Alberto listening to "Dancing Queen" I think. |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 82
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:49 pm: | |
Didn't know you danced.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10288
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 5:31 am: | |
The 42 neighborhoods, called VCSs in tax talk, existed long before the 2000 revaluation. A very good arguement can be made that they should have been reviewed and revised prior to the reval, which probably would have been done if the process had not been so rushed. The lawyer hired by the TC said as much during his testimony before the TC.
Since the reval certain neighborhoods have appreciated in value much more quickly than others. The neighborhoods with the highest appreciation are the neighborhoods where taxes decreased. If this is a function of a flawed reval or just the fact higher taxes retarded appreciation is an open question. Personally I think it is a combination of both.
|
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 6:46 am: | |
If one neighbour hood (VCS)has appreciated more than another - no problem with this. Everyone should see their values increase and be rewarded for the "risk" of investing in their homes, making them better, making the community better. But why now target that area for havng apreciated faster or more, and transfer "wealth" to another?
Let the market determine the "market value". Let the number of taxpayers vs. taxation burden determine the property tax amount. Its about funding community government and services- equally funded and equally used.
Its also about the process, and that is another matter altogether.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3954
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 7:18 am: | |
Alberto,
All of your observations and questions stem from the letter of the property tax law. If you don't like it, campaign to have it changed. But don't blame Vic Deluca. He didn't write the law and he can't change it.
|
oots
Citizen
Username: Oots
Post Number: 341
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 11:01 am: | |
well said tjohn.
oots |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 85
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 6:26 pm: | |
THE KING, LOOKING TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION (TO SAY THE LEAST), OPTED TO FORCE THIS REVALUATION (WEALTH TRANSFER) AT A TIME WHEN THE TOWNSHIP WAS ALREADY WELL PAST ITS DATE, AND AT A TIME WHEN OTHER MUCH LARGER TOWNS DECIDED, CORRECTLY, TO WAIT A FEW MORE YEARS TO WORK IT OUT.
PERHAPS THE KING LOOKED TO ROBIN HOOD AND LIKED WHAT HE SAW.
AGAIN, HOW ABOUT AN AVERAGE TOWNSHIP TAX?
|
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 1964
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 6:37 pm: | |
AGAIN, how about not yelling and stop directing comments mistakenly at me Alberto. I really think you don't have a clue. I'm looking to make an impression here, mind you. You can call me Maid Marian. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 6:50 pm: | |
Wendy, my friend,
I began composing a post to respond to Alberto a few minutes ago, then realized that the last post before his was 7 hours before and decided it was better to not respond and perhaps put an end to the nonsense.
So sorry to see that you gave in to the temptation. |
wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 1965
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 6:55 pm: | |
anon, my timekeeping friend. You, as always, are the better person. Call me pisha, but temptation, I always thought, was there for the giving in of. (does that make any sense at all???) |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 7:04 pm: | |
The property tax law, which is part of STATE tax law, Alberto, determines how the taxes are assessed. Mr. DeLuca and the rest of the township committee of the time were doing what was required by state law. Just because their predecessors had (cowardly?) dodged the issue doesn't make what happened wrong. You probably still don't get it that many of us were paying way more than our fair share, under state law, until that reval was completed. People in my neighborhood lost money on their homes when they tried to sell them because who wants to pay the same high taxes for a house that clearly is worth less than the houses a few blocks away that have been improved? The house I bought had sat on the market for a year. When they dropped the price another 20K we went after it. How much did the value of your home drop in those years?
After the reval my taxes initially dipped. With the reval a number of years behind us, my property has FINALLY begun to appreciate and people in my neighborhood can make some profit when they sell.
Try reading the NJ tax code, Alberto. Maybe you'll sleep better at night. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3957
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 7:14 pm: | |
Well, Alberto, assuming Deluca acted for political reasons, I can only say it will be a happy day when all politicians seek to get ahead by following the law. |
bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj
Post Number: 579
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 7:56 pm: | |
Aok, I see you mentioned the top five towns, then our two towns when you started this thread.
Did the article mention which place our towns came in within the state? |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 8:47 pm: | |
DeLuca and others initiated the tax reval, which was long overdue.
However, DeLuca's handling of the reval process and the fall out from it was pathetic. Total lack of relevant communication with the tax base. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2501
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 9:19 pm: | |
Call me pisha, but temptation, I always thought, was there for the giving in of. (does that make any sense at all???) 
You make perfect sense, as usual. |
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 7:40 am: | |
The fact that you purchased a home where you did was because you decided to do so/ You could have opted for investing twice as much and moving to another area where you would not have had this problem. Now, if what you are saying is that you required a "transfer of wealth" a la Robin Hood within the township to bring your home to an acceptable level - based on the tax rate - proves my point. And this, dear CB, is quite the way the law works. Now, would you agree to pay an average tax- every home that uses services in Maplewood wouuld pay the same tax?
I seriously doubt it- prove me wrong.
|
Alberto
Citizen
Username: Buckwheat
Post Number: 87
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 7:42 am: | |
And, CB- try reading: "lA HISTORIA ME ABSOLVERA" -
Fidel validates your very argument. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10303
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:03 am: | |
A couple of housekeeping comments:
1. We did the reval voluntarily. Most towns, see South Orange, don't do them no matter how bad the COD is until ordered by the county tax board. If this was done out of fairness or for political gain is open to question.
2. a COD of 15 is usually the point where assessments are considered unfair. Our CD did not reach that point until the year we did the reval. Many towns (SO and Montclair) have been over that number for years and are only doing revaluations because of the tax board intervention. |
Aok
Citizen
Username: Aok
Post Number: 172
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:59 am: | |
Wow, sorry I asked -- was trying to have a constructive conversation not a spitting match. Property taxes are Corzine's top reform issue (well hopefully top 1,2 or 3) and they need to be resolved and now is the time to consider methods to resolve the issue and what you want to advocate for.
Brklyntonj: The Star Ledger listed every single town alphabetically by county but not from high to low -- simply too lazy to figure out all the town's inbetween but you are pretty high up there.....
My question was do you think our representatives would arrive at a tighter budget if they knew it had to recieve a majority vote from residents to pass as the school budget does? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:18 am: | |
someone please explain to me how everyone paying the "average" property tax would be "fair?" how would it be "fair" for someone in a small two bedroom hometo pay the same property tax as someone with a seven bedroom million-dollar home near the reservation or someone who owns a two million dollar commercial property?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10306
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:23 am: | |
A per house property tax would be very regressive and goes far behond even the proposals for a flat tax or a consumption tax. |
bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj
Post Number: 580
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:28 am: | |
Ok, thanks for the feedback Aok.
I'm sure we're in the top 20 in the state. Something everyone who moved here within the last five years should've known...
I don't think they'll arrive at a tighter budget and while I don't like to "give away" money, Dave's right, without much industrialization in our area, high taxes are inevitable. But with all the drama going on in our schools and bordering areas, it makes you wonder if our tax dollars are being well spent. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:30 am: | |
the dirty secret - a lot of us paying $20K or more in property taxes would probably pay even more if school funding was switched to a more progressive system. that's another reason nothing ever changes. Joe Mansiononthehill is probably making a large enough salary that the property tax he's paying is a relatively small percentage of his gross. Switching to reliance on income tax or any other progressive tax would mean Joe pays even more. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2262
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 10:25 am: | |
Dr. that is no secret at all. The real dirty little secret is that people like me, who are absolutely going to get socked with a much larger tax bill if the shift to an income based approach is adopted, are willing to pay the higher amount if it can be shown that we aren't just pissing the money away. (See the school construction fiasco as a colassal waste of money)
I also wouldn't mind paying so much if there were a real constitutional convention to abolish the "home rule" issue here in NJ. But that ain't gonna happen so people like me will continue to b*tch about paying high taxes while we watch as the government flushes our money down the toilet with one hand while reaching into my pocket with the other. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 11:17 am: | |
you're probably right about it not being a "secret," but I don't think too many property tax payers give a lot of thought to the fact that for most of NJ's movers and shakers, property tax is actually a bargain, relative to the alternatives. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4220
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 11:48 am: | |
Alberto is ignoring the fact that the tax burden on a home is an intrinsic part of its purchase price. The vast majority of people cannot simply "invest twice as much," because they've saved for years to put together the down payment they've got, and in this market by the time they've saved twice as much, however long that takes, the purchase prices have risen accordingly so they're in the same place they were.
The people who write the mortgages are looking at what the total monthly payment is going to be, and people max out on that. The taxes and escrow are going to be a significant part of that.
P&I + taxes = monthly payment
Your monthly payment is going to be the most you can afford. If the taxes are higher, the P&I has to be less. You can't invest twice as much, you're already investing everything you've got.
Values in some parts of town had risen far more than in others, and that P&I was rising in some cases, falling in others. The answer was to do a reval.
Now the areas where the taxes fell have shown more growth relative to the other areas. This is to be expected, because the reval law doesn't allow for taxes to be set on estimations of future increases or calculations involving current tax rates, only actual current values.
The answer is -- another reval. And this one is going to send the scale tipping too far in the other direction, so after that ANOTHER reval will be necessary, and so on until some kind of equilibrium is reached.
Of course, the "fair tax" people made such a stink and caused so much damage that another reval would be political suicide. So congratulations, you've made your bed and now you've got to lie in it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4221
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 11:49 am: | |
What would the effect of abolishing "home rule" be on communities like Maplewood? I wonder if it wouldn't move even more power to the big population centers like Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Camden? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 12:40 pm: | |
tom - you may be right and if that's the case I can hear the sucking sound getting louder and louder.
However, I'm still convinced that the only way to really make any progress towards the tax issue (and by that I mean all taxes) is to address spending. All too often we take the easy way out and raise taxes without really addressing the core problem. |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2398
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 1:03 pm: | |
Alberto is ignoring the fact that the tax burden on a home is an intrinsic part of its purchase price...
Yes, Tom, you got it exactly right throughout this post. We got the best home we could afford after deciding it was wrong to keep tossing our money to landlords. We looked at literally 50 properties in Maplewood before making our decision. However, as new homeowners we knew nothing about taxes and revaluations. We probably would have taken a house in slightly worse shape or with slightly smaller rooms closer to the middle of town had we had any idea. And our home would now be worth close to 200K over our present property. For the same initial price! So if I sound aggravated about the way people like Alberto spin the data, it's because I am. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11961
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 2:48 pm: | |
sportsnut, I don't mean to say you're wrong, sportsnut, because you're not, but how do we know if we're spending unwisely? I think it's interesting to ponder why taxes are rising faster than inflation. I bet there are lots of reasons, some good and some bad. One good reason is special education. We're recognizing that everyone has a right to a thorough and effective education, which makes it more expensive to serve the kids with disabilities. And we're discovering and classifying more disabilities these days. That's good and bad. It's good that they are better served now, and it's bad because it costs more than before.
Sometimes doing a good job just costs more. And sometimes, costs rise because bloat becomes a way of life, and we should aim to control this.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:09 pm: | |
Tom you'll get no argument from me about whether or not we should understand where the money is going. But that is the problem, we can't definitively say that we are spending the money wisely. I again point to the school construction debacle. That is just one small example of how our money is being wasted. Generally where there is one hole in the dike there are more.
I'm sure that costs are up across the board, but when costs go up we have to take a harder look at where the money goes and do a better job of controlling those costs that can be controlled and do a much better job of eliminating those costs that can be eliminated. I think we have a duty to do that first before asking people to pony up even more of their hard earned money than they already do. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11963
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:14 pm: | |
I agree we government has a duty to scrutinize costs before asking for more money. How do we know if they have or haven't? When your tax bill goes up, is your reflex to assume they haven't asked if it's necessary?
There's a citizen's budget advisory committee in Maplewood. We're lucky that we have such an avenue to 1. learn how it works and 2. provide input to the government. Given that opportunity, combined with other opportunities to learn how the town works, we have a responsibility to learn how things work before assuming they're doing the wrong thing.
I certainly would like similar institutions at the county, state and federal level, though I'm sure how to structure them is a puzzle.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:51 pm: | |
Yes, Tom that is my reflex. I know how budgets work. They never go down unless someone calls you on them. They never voluntarily go down.
You ask how I know that our money is not being spent wisely?
This taken from Corzine's website:
Enacting tough accountability measures for all education spending In February, Corzine outlined his plan to create an independent, elected State Comptroller - and the disgraceful Schools Construction Corporation (SCC) cost overruns and mismanagement make the position even more important. In addition, Corzine will hire independent, outside auditors to investigate the SCC's failure and hold the responsible parties accountable for their misdeeds. Corzine will also raise penalties for contractors and government employees who profit at the expense of our children.
see also:
http://enlightennj.blogspot.com/2005/06/new-jerseys-schools-construction-corp.ht ml
There seems to be little accountability on many state run projects. How do you expect me to have faith in our state government when they allow things like this to happen? |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:43 pm: | |
I'm probably in the group that would come out paying at least as much, if not more (probably more) if we switched to an income based tax for school/municipal service funding. However, when I retire or am disabled or otherwise unemployed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, I would still be able to afford to pay those taxes (i.e. to continue to live here) under an income-based system. That may not be the case under the current property value based system. Also, in these times of greatly increased property values, there are many people who simply don't have the cash flow to pay those taxes. You can't just peel off a few bricks and send them to the tax collector. Income, on the other hand, is a ready source of the cash needed for the tax payments.
So, even if it is a bigger percentage right now, I don't get why people think income taxes are such a terrible thing, since there should always be sufficient money to pay those taxes (or at least moreso than with property-based taxes.) |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:48 pm: | |
i always enjoy all of your complaints about property taxes, especially since you all voted for an increase at the last election. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11967
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:52 pm: | |
Libertarian, you are right. Why approve an increase and then complain about it?
I'm not complaining.
sportsnut, I'm not asking you to have faith. I think giving the benefit of the doubt is as foolish as giving the detriment of the doubt, if there is such a thing.
sac's argument is very good. The value of your property is a poor indicator of your ability to pay.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2400
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:54 pm: | |
Yes, GT, but who will judge when I accidentally hit a pedestrian walking in the street before full light because the sidewalks aren't shoveled? My beef is with people like MBJ who say, in effect, "I don't give a sh*t. Walk around it!" |
Aok
Citizen
Username: Aok
Post Number: 173
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:39 pm: | |
Think SAC has a valid point -- and I agree there are services that are worthy and that should be paid for -- just curious why no-one wants the right to vote Yes/No on the state budget? I've always found it odd that the school budgets are the only ones voters are able to vote down -- |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11969
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:43 pm: | |
Aok, good point. It is inconsistent. But I don't really want uninformed masses of people voting on a complex budget. I'd sooner take away the power to vote on school budgets than to give the power to vote on state budgets.
I elect people to represent me, which means more than just to understand my goals and points of view. I want them to do the homework and push the numbers and make the decisions.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 940
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:59 pm: | |
Aok,
What has voting on the State budget to do with our property taxes?
As an aside, we don't vote on the School District's budget in this School District.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11971
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 6:20 pm: | |
TomR, I'm pretty sure Aok is pointing out that we don't get to vote on state budgets but people in most NJ towns (not SOM) get to vote on their school budgets. It's inconsistent. I think he'd like the ability to vote on both. I'd like neither. People tend to say no to taxes, without understanding the effect of that vote. Then again, people tend to say yes without understanding that effect, too.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:36 pm: | |
Hmm, I wondered where my last post about snow removal had gone to. Guess it just slip-slided away with all the ice. Sorry folks for the misplacement.
cb |
Lester Jacobs
Citizen
Username: Lester
Post Number: 75
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 10:35 pm: | |
Going back to the original list at the begining of the thread, the 5 towns mentioned are not really comparable to M/SO. Those towns have homes worth much more than here, and much better school districts. A more accurate comparison would be with poorer/more diverse downs with school districts that are more like M/SO such as union, west orange, or the plainfields. Then you can really see how much we are being ripped off. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10316
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 7:30 am: | |
The issue is the effective tax rate which is the market value divided by taxes paid. You can use the equalized value table published by the state and the actual tax revenue to come up with a number.
Me, I am to lazy to do this. 
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4364
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:48 am: | |
You want the state to cut back on spending? Here are a few ways:
The states costs for new HIV treatment are $400 million annually. If we had a clean needle program, we could significantly lower those costs.
NJ spends $15 to $18 million annually on Hepatitis C infections. This could be reduced with a sterile needle program. This problem currently grows $10 million per year.
Also, the state spends approx $266 million (conservative estimate) per year on direct costs to maintain it's drug prisoner population. Much of this population is for non-violent offenses. It would be much more viable to taxpayers to go to a treatment system vs a prison system for these offenders.
It shall be noted that with more sentencing, the state does not experience less drug offenses.
Hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved with reformed drug laws. Please see www.drugpolicyalliance.com for more info.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14431
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 10:05 pm: | |
.ww. |
bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj
Post Number: 584
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 4:50 pm: | |
Wow Lester, you put us in the same category as Union & the Plainfields?
I wouldn't go that far. |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 3:20 pm: | |
LJ, your Plainfield comment merely confirms my prior suspicions that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to schools in particular and MSO in general. I've had relatives, clients and colleagues who lived and worked in Plainfield over the past 30 years. In my line of work you hear just about everything that goes on in a town. For example, on just one day this week I got to hear the intimate details of two separate murders. (Yes, I find my work stressful at times, especially when the person relating the details is under 12.)
About the only similarities between Maplewood and Plainfield (may it make a real recovery some day) are the beautiful housing stock from the early teens and twenties of the last century and a growing gay population. In fact, those two factors together may someday be the reasons Plainfield begins to recover from its steady decline of the past half century. The first wave of gay residents there were childless people who had no intention of utilizing the school system. The next wave has mostly used private and parochial schools to avoid the heavy gang and drug situations endemic to the town and schools. Hopefully they will stay long enough to help stabilize the community and begin to effect meaningful improvements outside of their home renovation successes. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page