| Author | Message | ||
     pseudonymous Citizen Username: Berry_festival Post Number: 228 Registered: 9-2003 |
"Fred put the question of where to put the new police headquarters to a distinguished committee of local community volunteers and opened the debate to the general public. The decision for the Bette White site was the result of that committee and that process. He showed the courage to vote for it, and the wisdom to alter it in the face of severe public outcry against it… The final result is an example of his ability to turn a frog into a Prince… " ajc, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this summary of events. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4723 Registered: 9-2001  |
You're talking to the wrong guy if you think I will agree to disagee on anything I've put forward on this matter... Not so fast pal..... I have video's of the Township Committee meetings, copies of all site study plans, hand written notes, and the minutes of all the meetings on the matter. I invite you to put your interpetation on the board and lets see who has the better memory of the events... and don't take all month to do it!  | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 445 Registered: 3-2005 |
Some honest history is in order (Google is a marvelous thing): If you look at the Spring 2003 issue of the town newsletter (the "Mapleleaf") you'll find that that the TC, with Vic as mayor, had concluded the Dunnell police station was no longer usable. At David Huemer's initiative, the township was exploring the possibility of purchasing the Verizon building on Burnett Ave. (off Springfield Ave.) and renovating it to use both as a new police station and a youth center (as well as other municipal needs). Vic was mayor, Jerry Ryan vice mayor, David was on the TC. Fred and Ian had just recently been elected. Fred fought even exploring this option, going so far as to vote against the use of state grant to do so. In a campaign letter he sent to voters on behalf of then-TC-candidates Ken and Kathy he derided David Huemer as "reckless" for suggesting pursuing the purchase of the Verizon site because Fred believed it was "prudent" to renovate the existing police station on Dunnell. So Vic, Jerry and David, who understood that the police needed a new station, were for moving the police closer to Sprinfield Ave., plus getting a youth center in the bargain. Fred, in a campaign letter urging voters to elect Ken and Kathy, denounced it. After Ken and Kathy were elected and Vic and Jerry were defeated, Fred announced his intention to spearhead "Hilton Village," a large retail/residential development project that would include the Verizon site. (Nothing ever came of this, as we all know.) Later, Fred announced that the TC would seize by eminent domain the Bette White site on SA to build a new police station. Art Christiansen loudly opposed the Mayor's new proposal. Ken Pettis also opposed seizing the Bette White site. David Huemer continued to argue that using the Verizon site was a better long term idea. Fred Profeta continued to block it. After a townwide uproar ensued, Fred Profeta, using $1,000 dollars of public money, took a "scientific poll" that he claimed indicated that the majority of people in Maplewood were opposed to using the Bette White site. The idea was abandoned in August 2004. Plans were made to acquire another property and work out parking arrangements for the police with the Mormon Church. (The Verizon site had plenty of parking.) During the year Fred was all over the place on this issue, it was fully known by every person on the TC that the cost of both steel and energy were going up (and they continue to go up). What was once estimated to be $9 to $12 million cost for a new police station is, the last time I looked, topping $17 million. In a recent campaign for re-election, Fred Profeta told voters he deserved re-election because of his record of improving policing in town, despite the fact no police station has been built. A few weeks after his election, Fred called an emergency town meeting to reveal that crime has been increasing in alarming ways. Fred Profeta additionally expressed concern that known gang members had increased during the time he was mayor, and suggested youth programs would need to be part of the solution. David Huemer has suggested using the old police building on Dunnell for a new youth center. Fred doesn't want to work with him to do so. The point is, we could have had all this a long time ago for a lot less money by following David Huemer's lead, instead of letting Fred do cartwheels over several cliffs. The same-old, same-olds on MOL are constantly trying to do a snow job that misrepresents the record of the TC when Vic, Jerry and David were in the majority. Crime went down. The need for a new police station with SA in mind was put on a fast track. After-school programs for at-risk youth were a priority. Timely investment could have prevented many of the problems we now have acquired in the 3 years of mismanagement of town resources. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 947 Registered: 2-2002 |
Dear Art, You seem to have curiously convenient characterizations, (I love alliteration) of how events unfolded and who's rights should be recognized depending on which projects you have preference for or which politicians you, (this week) wish to support. ie: "...they screwed it up by dropping the ball and allowing a handful of NIMBY’s talk them out of it." -That was your characterization when you happened to have a developer interested in tearing down a library to replace it with a "beautiful" Walgreens, (-that's funny BTW). -also you write... "We elect so called leaders to make thoughtful decisions, and then they change their mind when confronted by a little resistance." and yet I see you write on another matter; "showed the courage to vote for it, and the wisdom to alter it in the face of severe public outcry against it…" ___________________________________ Naturally the three, (was it three or four or five?) households of "troublemaking" neighbors that came to the last TC meeting to speak against an otherwise useful B&B ordinance were NIMBYs. and all the people against the cell tower were NIMBYs. Of course further in the "World According to Art" the people who want surveillance cameras in their neighborhood have every right and expectation to control THEIR environment and the people living on Boyden have every right to demand that buses cease to run on THEIR street, yet curiously the churchgoers on Parker should seem to have total authority over the parking there despite the concerns of the immediate neighbors who wished for Sunday-safety for themselves to prevent parked cars from creating blind intersections. It's all so terribly confusing, (or IS it?) -Exactly what is it that governs in your mind the rights or denial of rights of a person to have a valid and influencing authority over what immediately affects their neighborhood? I'm curious because frankly it seems to have no rhyme or reason except perhaps to rest solely on whatever project personally appeals to you on any given day. In that regard you may, (sadly) be little different from most people yet I await your answer. Perhaps it always, as John McCain likes to say; "depends on who's ox is being gored". and I would add, -"or fattened". Shalom. And to all, -may your eruv be a peaceful one. | ||
| Lawman Citizen Username: Lawman Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2005 |
This is how this thread began: I was eating breakfast at Conway's Deli this morning and while reading the News Record was dismayed to find yet another front page article regarding a violent crime on SA. It seems that two people, a man and woman, hijacked a taxi at gunpoint and held the driver hostage for about 18 hours as they made him drive them around to various locations in East Orange and Newark. Then the comment: The most important link between this incident and Maplewood and Springfield Avenue IS where it began. Getting car jacked and kidnapped should not be an acceptable risk for spending time on Springfield Avenue. The cab driver refused the fare and that's when the gun was pulled, in broad daylight, on a Sunday in an area that's being promoted for families. Rumour has it that you will all be quite surprised at the recent development in this story. | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 237 Registered: 12-2002  |
Lawman, you have my curiosity peaked! How and when might this info be disclosed? | ||
| softparade Citizen Username: Softparade Post Number: 99 Registered: 8-2002 |
Well, Steel you may be rethinking the 'world of Art' - after all- how many business owners are getting their very own private ordinance written? I can't think of one other in town.. I know that the shameless lobbying works on other levels- but persistance and politics pays off. At least the KFC never opened, the Cell Tower isn't built yet- the library was saved- Bette White escaped public domain- and a home business that magically opened in 1998 is given a free pass by the Township Committee- | ||
| Haight-Strawbury Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6693 Registered: 10-2001  |
So what Kathleen is saying is that David had the right idea all along. Sadly, he receives little if no respect from his fellow TC members and this is the end result. I think David needs to do a better job communicating his thoughts to others. So far, he lacks greatly in this regard as Kathleen alludes to above. Libs are morons. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4729 Registered: 9-2001 |
Who pulled your chain Steel? I was wondering why you’ve been hiding out on this one... Straw, don't buy into Kathleen's story about David. Trust me, nothing is ever easy or convenient about dealing with political matters of this nature. I don’t play favorites, and my support doesn’t come easy. Recent public statements printed in the News Record indicate that we have entered the mating season again. Listen, we all know that politicians are fair game, especially when they’re in heat, like they are now... Steel, it appears you picked your weapon. I’m disappointed to see you shooting the cheap shots. I thought playing the over-used and under-rated neighbor distraction game would have been beneath you. I guess I had you figured all wrong. I wouldn’t waste much time there; anyone with a nursery school education knows by now how bad my neighbors really are... As for the other none related issues you mention, I’d give them up too and stick to the topic. You really need to get a life pal... FWIW, you and Kathleen are wasting your time with all your rhetoric about who said this, or who did that. It’s nothing but a lot of political spin and BS. You both should be ashamed of yourselves. Do you really believe this crap you guys posted? I’m certainly not buying into any of your distortions and distractions, and I doubt many others will either. Everybody knows who was in charge of the Township Committee in 2003, and it wasn’t Fred and Ian. As the senior committeemen, Vic, David, and Jerry had the power and responsibility to identify the problem, choose the direction to take, and decide the location for the police headquarters. The responsibility was on their watch and they failed to take timely and appropriate action, thus costing the citizens of Maplewood millions of dollars, lots of time, money, and unnecessary public debate. Be honest for God’s sake, they blew it, and all your weak explanations for their failure to act in 2002/2003 is just more meaningless rhetoric. As Kathleen pointed out, it was in the Spring of 2003 when Vic as mayor, had concluded the Dunnell police station was no longer usable. The truth is the police headquarters problems were well documented as far back as when Jerry first served on the committee. One Democratic administration after the other kept ignoring the problems there. Ask anyone, the relations had never been worst then when Vic and Jerry were in control of the Township Committee. Meanwhile, in the Spring of 2003 both Fred and Ian were brand new on the committee, and IMHO, still wet behind the ears... And now you guys expect everyone to believe this police issue was their fault? LOL!!! FWIW, “Nothing is obvious to the uninformed!” Allow me to clue you in. For years now I’m either at, watch, or tape every TC meeting. And, not like our two previous Mayors, I pay attention to what is going on, rather than writing and passing rude and immature notes back and forth about the residents speaking before them. Give us a break… The fact is we elect our leaders to make careful and thoughtful decisions for us. If and when they do, and then keep changing their minds when confronted by a little resistance, what does tell you about their leadership? IMHO, not very much! As for trying to shift any responsibility for the in-action of 2003 to Fred, it won’t fly. For the record, yes, Fred and the committee showed courage to vote for the Bette White site, and yes I was opposed to it, and yes they had the wisdom to alter it in the face of severe public outcry against it… But that’s all there is to it. They picked up the pieces left behind by their predecessors and got the job done... You guys can’t rewrite history, and you can’t explain away the fact that if the township committee had taken appropriate action in 2003, this matter would be mute today and the town would be a lot better off, especially financially. BTW, after overhearing the former Mayor complementing you recently for your posts on line, I have to wonder what’s in all this for you anyway. Are you looking for an appointment to something, or are you just bored burning metal and think I’d be more fun to heat up? Bring it on Steel! | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 949 Registered: 2-2002 |
Funny stuff Art. -Thanks for responding. -I'm afraid that I must point out however that you have spend a great deal of verbiage above in not responding to my question other than to dismiss it, which of course is your prerogative, (and one to which I believe many readers have become dully accustomed). -In what will probably be an exercise in futility, (much like republicans running for office here), I shall attempt it in a shorter format. I'm simply curious about finding a bit of consistency in your view as to what makes a project worthy of overriding neighbor's concerns versus a neighbor's concerns being sacrosanct. In recalling your various determinations in that regard, I suppose I need not have mentioned in my post above the dreaded "B" & [B] word, (as it always sends you into a dither), and as there where numerous other examples of your determinations since you are never short of opinions as to every proposal, (which I suppose is to your civic credit). I ask this not so much because I am curious about your personal opinions, (no offense), but because you seem to be a sort of steroid-example of the natural reflex citizen that becomes outraged and wields the club of "neighborhood/personal rights" when a town proposes one thing and then drops that club and picks up the club of "this is the best thing for the town as whole" when a different project is proposed. You have, (for example) above again called our TC "screwed up" in backing away from opposition to tearing down a library and yet conversely "wise" and "courageous" for backing away from the opposition of tearing down a dance studio. This is the sort-of difficult public opinion conundrum that a government faces on many an issue and thus we the people seek your wise and patient consul. PS: For the record: There is no "you guys" here. Speaking for myself, (it seems my nature to be a committee of one) -I am less concerned with the history of how we got to the present police station situation or even why a cabby was carjacked, (or whatever mystery the "Lawman" is to reveal), and more concerned with what value guidance system a town adopts in viewing their growth and prosperity. This seems particularly relevant in regards to the present and future development of Springfield Ave which of course was Jerry's original concern of this thread. (OK, I guess I couldn't ask that in a short format). -Cheers | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4733 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I'm simply curious about finding a bit of consistency in your view as to what makes a project worthy of overriding neighbor's concerns versus a neighbor's concerns being sacrosanct." Funny? I’m not sure I see any Huemer in my stuff Steel – But thanks for the credit anyway. ;-) I will answer your question, and try to provide the wise and patient consul people have come to expect from me. I will expect the same from you in return! Consistency, at least when it comes to the mystery of public opinion in government, is an oxymoron. Let me explain the paradox. On the face of it, an oxymoron may contradict itself or simply seem absurd, but in the end will often turn out to make good sense. This is often the case in government... In cases like the B&B, Cell Tower, and of course the Hilton Library, it’s not that we shouldn’t consider the rights of the minority, however, we can not ignore the majority to their detriment either. Lets consider the operative word here as COMPROMISE! Take B&B and neighbor compromise. In my case this is an oxymoron. My neighbors will never agree to ANY compromise. In turn, the Township Committee voted in favor of an ordinance to permit B&B’s, but with certain restrictions to protect the rights of all neighbors. That’s called compromise Steel, not as you suggest, “overriding neighbor’s concerns”. I can go on with examples on every one of your points, but I’m sure you get the point and understand how reasonable people can disagree, but without compromise we have war. For government to be effective for the benefit of the majority, it almost goes without saying that there will be some disappointments for the minority. In the long term, the minority can adjust, and usually does. Which brings me back to the point you seem to refuse to address. The Hilton Library site vs. the Bette White site. Using our own town property vs. taking private property, IMHO, is a no-brainer and there are no worthy comparisons. OK, for the record, if you say there is no "you guys" here, would you mind terribly to address the point I have continued to make? Namely, that in 2003, Vic, David, and Jerry failed to recognize the importance of making the decision to resolve the police headquarters issue on their watch. They made an honest and well thought-out decision to go with the library site, but allowed a hand full of neighbors, a few representatives of the Friends of the Library, and their own political ambitions to change their minds. IMHO, the result of their failure to act in 2003 has cost the Township Committee and our community years of wasted debate and haggling, and millions of dollars of our precious tax dollars. Do you agree or not? It's your turn now Steel. This is a real test of your metal. Light your torch, stand up straight, throw your shoulders back, take a deep breath, and please answer the question! Cheers to you too pal... | ||
| kmk Supporter Username: Kmk Post Number: 938 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wow! Did you read today's News Record! | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 375 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm not the kind of guy that spends a lot of time saying, "I told you so", but ... I did pose the question, didn’t I? . (See my post of January 21, above.) Obviously I had no way to know for sure that this dude's story was a hoax. But from the very beginning it certainly smelled like 3-day old fish. Ok, enough about the alleged carjacking and my brilliant intuition. The rest of you can now go back to arguing about the history of selecting a location for the police station. In fact, you could all go over to Conway's Deli and argue about it over a cup of coffee. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2534 Registered: 6-2002 |
Art: I understand this: Which brings me back to the point you seem to refuse to address. The Hilton Library site vs. the Bette White site. Using our own town property vs. taking private property, IMHO, is a no-brainer and there are no worthy comparisons. But I thought the issue was this: We elect so called leaders to make thoughtful decisions, and then they change their mind when confronted by a little resistance. IMHO, if this is all they stand for, we might as well get rid of all the politicians and govern by referendum... | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2535 Registered: 6-2002 |
In fact, you could all go over to Conway's Deli and argue about it over a cup of coffee. Just don't hail a cab to get there.  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 950 Registered: 2-2002 |
I just don't feel safe with all these hoaxes going on. Meanwhile, back to our regularly scheduled arguing, (I mean lofty discussions): ______________________________________________________________ Dear wise and patient consul, I knew that you could a provide framework of guiding principle, (ie: "compromise") beyond the oft appearance of capricious vagaries or more darkly suspected self-serving motivations if pressed. Some would argue that some things are never subject to compromise and that all must be defended around such bedrock but that is a larger subject for a different day. Meanwhile I personally have "no dog in the fight", (and frankly at this point see no useful need for a fight), as to who bears the greater responsibility as to why there is not as yet, (quite started) a shiny new police station in Maplewood, (the direction to which you have veered this particular thread). However, just for the sake of historical lessons; Some sites that where considered were ultimately rejected not because of community "opposition" but more for LACK of support in the face of greater support for others. David's early preference for the Verizon building or Ken's initial preference for the Dunnell site are two such examples perhaps simply because those sites never really seemed on the precipice of happening and so no real opposition emerged. (I personally was leaning towards the Dunnell site and thought that the Verizon site was fraught with potentially bureaucratic nightmarish and expensive structural requirement changes as well as putting the town potentially in the potentially awkward position of becoming a landlord to other tenants in the building etc.) Anyway, the library site and the Bette White site were both rejected largely because of community opposition each in it's turn and for different reasons. I see no reason to characterize one rejection as "screwed-up" and the other "courageous". That was the learning journey that was taken and what the town ended up with was a "compromise". Could the project have been less expensive and difficult had the present site been arrived at early? (like 1920) -Of course. Could I have been a very rich man if I had married for money, (or at least gotten it up-front) instead of love? Of course, -but some things are not up for compromise. As to Jerry's initial concern here and whether the police station presence will help relieve that perceived ill remains very much in the future and is also subject to doubt by many as to it's wisdom in preference to other measures. Carry on. PS: "bottomline", -what are your latest stock tips? | ||
| juju's petals Citizen Username: Jujus_petals Post Number: 228 Registered: 5-2003  |
Wait, so the cab driver made it all up? Funny, that's not on the News Record website. Shouldn't the follow-up story make into the website to accompany the scary and apparently completely fictional front page article that's still there? | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 260 Registered: 9-2003 |
Juju, You're making the mistake of comparing the News-Record with journalism. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4734 Registered: 9-2001 |
Anon, thanks for at least paying some attention to what I’m saying. That's a lot more than I can say for some of the rest of the folks on MOL... Bottomline, thanks for the little respite from my history class and bringing some insight into your brilliant intuition. BTW, can you tell us who's going to win the Super Bowl? Steel, thanks for nothing, well nothing more than the usual old liberal side step. I must admit you’re quite the dancer. FWIW, I did manage to find some interesting irony in your reply. The issues with my neighbors were based in part around my dead dog… You know the one I mean, the one you don’t have in the fight. The end result is, I saved a lot of money on my Geico Homeowners Insurance... ;-) Meanwhile, I’m sticking to my story and hope that the silent majority has at least learned something of historical significance from me, which is: “Compromise” is good, rejection of using public land for public uses is "screwed-up”, and not taking private land is "courageous."  | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2537 Registered: 6-2002 |
Steel, thanks for nothing, well nothing more than the usual old liberal side step. I must admit you’re quite the dancer. And he learned it all at Bette White. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 446 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tom, You were right the story that started this hysteria thread was a hoax! I missed it in the News Record until just now. (I spent two hours trying to figure out why fringe's letter had the headline Stonewall's Birthday, 2006.) Hope everybody had a good time dancing for 40 posts about nothing. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 448 Registered: 3-2005 |
Next week's News Record headline: "Hilton Village Elects Its Own Mayor" | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4997 Registered: 10-1999  |
Just to give some due to the News Record - They did place the article about the hoax, at the top of the front page today - the same placement they gave the original story last week. And - they accompanied it with another, really positive story at the top of the page, about new businesses on Springfield Avenue, especially those being started by women. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 449 Registered: 3-2005 |
Do you mean Hilton Village is NOT going to elect its own mayor? Or that it's NOT ever getting built? Gee. To join in the defense of the N-R.: Philip Sean Curran is improving the paper (by not always running positive puff pieces, for one, and asking questions) and it wasn't their fault the livery guy lied. And for all I know, maybe fringe's letter did have something to do with Stonewall. Maybe they're the first to actually decode him. | ||
| marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1395 Registered: 6-2001 |
Does anyone know when the TC plans to break ground on the police station? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 12105 Registered: 1-2003  |
I'm very relieved to hear it was a hoax. A week ago today, a really scary thing happened to me on Springfield Ave. It was about three miles east of Maplewood in Newark. The taxi hijacking story -- which I thought was true then -- added to the scariness of what happened to me. | ||
| growler Citizen Username: Growler Post Number: 892 Registered: 11-2001  |
Holy huge amount of thread drifts Batman! | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 376 Registered: 8-2003 |
Nohero, You are correct about the placement of the positive article in this week's paper. On the other hand, the headline about the hoax was much smaller than last week's that announced the crime. My objection to the News-Record’s performance goes much deeper. I feel they were wrong to give such prominent placement to an unverified account, taking their lead story solely from the police blotter. They basically just regurgitated what the driver had told the cops. I’ll bet if the reporter had dug deeper into the police investigation, he would have learned that the driver was among the suspects in the case. The police were clearly skeptical (in the professional sense) from the outset. But where was the journalistic skepticism? How can the editor and reporter be taken seriously by us readers if they don’t bring rigor and discipline to their work? I know the News-Record is just a little local weekly paper, but they could still do a lot better, even with the resources they have. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1273 Registered: 5-2001 |
bottomline, I think you're being a bit harsh. This isn't exactly Judith Miller-level stuff. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4741 Registered: 9-2001 |
...Bottomline I luv you pal, and again you're on the money!!! (you see, pal can also be used in a good way too...) What you said about people regurgitating what someone else says, without first digging a little deeper is so true! This basic principle applies to many areas of daily life. False accusations, exaggerations, and lies can cause others great harm and unnecessary upset. How can the editor and reporter be taken seriously by us readers if they don’t bring rigor and discipline to their work? Well said. It’s unfortunate, but in today’s world, we’re better off believing half of what we see, and nothing of what we hear... “DEWY WINS!” , “BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD” , “AJC IS A PARTY ANIMAL”... | ||
| juju's petals Citizen Username: Jujus_petals Post Number: 229 Registered: 5-2003 |
Glad to hear the update on this hoax was still front page news. Now back to the wesbite, which will be available for reading much longer than this week's paper issue. Instead of displaying the follow-up story which identifies the first one as a hoax, the NR website displays articles about a South Orange artist and the call for security cameras. Fine, so I hate the idea of the fake carjaking article living on for PR purposes but can't the paper at least display the follow-up article too? That's just common sense. And, okay, then I'd be able to read follow-up the article right now instead of asking all of you . . .does the cabdriver get charged with filing a false report? Something about a lie going around the world twice while the truth is putting on its shoes. | ||
| commonsense Citizen Username: Commonsense Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2001 |
Actually it's DEWEY. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4745 Registered: 9-2001 |
Thanks. I'm glad there's at least someone out here that still remembers who he was... | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2540 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ther's lots of us out here who still remember who he was, but you're the only one out here who actually voted for him. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4746 Registered: 9-2001 |
That's a good one Anon, I'm going to give it a lot of thought while I'm on the beach for the next two weeks... | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 242 Registered: 12-2002 |
Guess I have to weigh in here since I started this mess. I am sorry if my posting caused unnecessary concern. It was well intentioned but obviously misguided. I am glad that this incident was not real. That does not mean that we can let our guard down relative to safety and security on Springfield Ave but it does mean that I ought to do more investigation before I open my trap and stir up the crap! | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10550 Registered: 5-2001 |
The most telling thing about the hoax is that every poster assumed the story to be true. Again perception vs. reality. Perception wins everytime imho. | ||
| harold Citizen Username: Harold Post Number: 345 Registered: 5-2001 |
JerryC, one thing that isn't a hoax is the rash of broken storefront windows within the last 2 weeks......how come no one is commenting on that? | ||
| JerryC Citizen Username: Jerryc Post Number: 243 Registered: 12-2002 |
Have not heard anything about this. Any more info on where? | ||
| harold Citizen Username: Harold Post Number: 346 Registered: 5-2001 |
Netnomads, Mr.Gus, the cleaners and a few others. How could you shop the Ave. and not see the windows being replaced? |
