| Author |
Message |
    
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 119
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:24 pm: | 
|
Tom R.,
Seems to me all this fear of the current SO gov't is very short-sighted. Who would be around in 10 or 20 or even 50 years?
I'm for merging because the entire home-rule business in NJ is ridiculous. We live in a town less populous than the neighborhood I grew up in in Brooklyn, with less to distinguish it from contiguous neighboring towns than people would like to think. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5598
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:05 pm: |
|
It's not so much fear as contempt. And there's some large element of the SO body politic that keeps these jokers in office, and presumably they'd continue voting in the future. |
Maplewoody
Citizen
Username: Maplewoody
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
For it.
South Mountain |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8135
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 7:42 am: |
|
I get the impression from reading some of the posts on proposed consolidation made by South Orange residents that the primary reason they favor consolidation with Maplewood is so they can get an outside body of voters to vote and/or legislate the existing BOT out of office.
There are a lot of reasons which could be set forward to support a consolidation but this is not one one them and it is certainly not an argument which is going to win support for consolidation among Maplewood voters.
If you really favor a Maplewood/South Orange consolidation, try pointing out the strengths South Orange would be bringing to such a consolidation rather than the weaknesses such a consolidation would inherit.
|
Foxhound
Citizen
Username: Foxhound
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
Well said, Joan. However, I think that that would be a very short discussion. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Against, until I hear some much stronger arguments, backed up by more than hope. I have serious doubts that the savings are worth the major changes (but remain open to incremental sharing of services where appropriate).
I also don't think that it merits discussion until we in South Orange get our political acts in gear and fix some of our governmental problems ourselves. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15613
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Quote:I also don't think that it merits discussion until we in South Orange get our political acts in gear and fix some of our governmental problems ourselves.
EGG-FREAKING-ZACTLY |
Mrs. Esterhouse
Citizen
Username: Robert_g
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |
|
AGAINST!
How 'bout showing a little pride in our town instead of selling out to some made up town called South Mountain Village, or whatever it's supposed to be called.
|
jeffl
Supporter
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
I'm for one Rec Department, based in South Orange with a satellite in Maplewood. It won't save a ton of money but it will improve services in Maplewood. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3750
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
IF South Orange purges its BOT and gets itself into better shape, then I would consider the merge, but the name of the combined towns must use all the letters of their former names.
Welcome to...
Hoodlum Weapon Storage
Tupelo Agenda Showroom
South Open Romano Wedge
Good Warehouseman Plot
Somehow Tornado Plague
Almond Goat Powerhouse
Loathsome Guano Powder
Nude Gloom Seaport, Whoa
|
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
With two train stations, I doubt there could be a consolidated name change unless you tag the word "Upper" to the beginning of one to distinguish it from the other (e.g., Montclair and Upper Montclair).
(But I like your proposed names notehead!) |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 531
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 5:57 pm: |
|
SO has managed to have two train stations within its borders for some time now with no adverse affects.
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 459
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
The Town of Millburn has two train stations within its borders, too. A station can always be named after a neighborhood or community. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8149
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 6:44 pm: |
|
If we consoldiated with NJT, would we get better train and bus service? |
Shanabana
Citizen
Username: Shanabana
Post Number: 985
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
There are 3 train stations. Mountain station is in South Orange.
First of all I don't see what Maplewood has up and above of South Orange. (Except attitude: many Maplewoodies think they've got it way better, though I see little difference, really...). Governmentally, there are problems, but that is not insurmountable. Many other places have troubled local govs, inept mayors, beleaguered services etc. They still consider themselves nice places.
This is about money and related services. I don't just see it as a bandaid for SO's govermnental problems. There are some who post on this board who ONLY post about SO's governmental woes. Really, there's more to this place than what they suggest. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8153
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
Shanabana:
The primary problem with a Maplewood/South Orange consolidation which did not include other municipalities is that no one on any of the threads in this forum or in other forms of public discussion has been able to demonstrate how residents of either municipality would benefit financially from such a consolidation.
If anyone does have such information, I wish they would share it publically. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5443
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 12:21 pm: |
|
"If anyone does have such information, I wish they would share it publicly."
I'll give it to you in a nut shell Joan.... No Guts, no glory!!!
All forms of public discussion thus far have been unwilling to tell it like it is. The truth is, government really doesn’t want to share power, and the public doesn't have the guts to allow them to bring fiscal control to government spending...
We could all benefit financially from any consolidation that was willing to cut expenses and unnecessary duplication of services, but no guts, no glory, just excuses and reasons about how it won’t ever work...
because everybody has their own personal needs!!!
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15435
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:15 pm: |
|
ajc, Joan asked what the benefits would be, and your answer, basically, was, "there would be benefits." But you didn't answer her question. It wasn't a yes-or-no question, "Will there be benefits?" It is the question, "WHAT will the benefits be?" I think it's a good question. It would involve listing the jobs that we would eliminate, the property we would sell, and the price reductions we would reap from higher-volume buying.
I agree that giving up local control might be worthwhile, but we need an equation, not just faith. How much money will we save? If we can't answer that question, we can't claim the savings WILL or WILL NOT justify the loss of local control.
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6124
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Noone can guarantee that service sharing will save money because it very likely wont, unless the powers that be advocate for and follow through by making significant changes. The shared services report for Recreation advocated keeping all staffing intact for two years before then taking up the issue of future staffing needs. No immediate financial savings there for arguably at least three years (Im being generous with my estimate), which is why the sharing of Rec services was billed as creating efficiencies not as a fiscal savings (and to claim "service efficiencies" isnt a given either). In order to reach the "beneficial" stage, any service sharing or town merging would probably require political leaders to make some very unpopular and unpalatable decisions, which potentially would not be politically expedient or advantageous. That will be the true deal killer, long before the debate on the new name would have killed any deal.
By the way, noone in support of the referendum has commented on A51, and Id be curious why they believe the referendum is better than the alernatives that will be written into law very likely before the end of the year. Is it because the less that is said about A51, the better the chance of the referendum route? Or did noone supporting the referendum know about A51? (Im going to guess my latter question isnt likely.) |
Shanabana
Citizen
Username: Shanabana
Post Number: 987
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Joan, right. I was wondering if there were numbers crunchers out there. I'd kinda assumed that the governor had people demonstrating that consolidation was cost efficient. Also, seems like the school system would be a case in point, right? |
Flameretardant
Citizen
Username: Flameretardant
Post Number: 33
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Mwood and SO are already two of the MOST consolidated municipalities in an otherwise unconsolidated mish-mash of them. For chrissake, they USED to be part of the same town! As a Maplewoodian (AND a former South Orange citizen) ... WHY would I want to be joined again with an entity that only defines itself by its geographic proximity to another has-been town???
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8158
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Shanabana:
Consolidation could work if it was done properly and if as Hank points out the newly consolidated government were willing to make some tough decisions regarding the layoff of duplicative staff and the selling of duplicative municipal property and equipment.
What the State has not done to the best of my knowledge is to provide any sort of blueprint suggesting which towns could benefit each other most through consolidation. Just any two municipalities joining forces for the sake of joining won't bring any real savings.
I'm not sure what you mean by the school district being a case in point. South Orange and Maplewood already share a school district. No mention is being made in these discussions of consolidating school districts or coming up with a study to determine benefits to school districts of sharing services, an area in which there could be some real cost savings.
Flameretardant:
Maplewood and South Orange split at a time when Maplewood was mostly rural and Sotuh Orange had more of a town structure. That distinction had changed by the late 1920s when most of Maplewood's farms were turned into residential housing developments.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15618
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Dearest Joan,
Please don't forget that there is still a vibrant farming community inhabiting the 42 acres just to the north of Sbenois Lake.
I am very surprised at you.
 |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6128
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:12 pm: |
|
S- the western slopes would be ideal for a vineyard. Hows the fishing been lately? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15620
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Fishing has been good. As you know, the boys at Sbenois HydroSaline were able to come up with a water treatment plan that allows both freshwater and saltwater fish to live in the Lake.
So this little advantage allowed me to catch a largemouth bass and a tuna within two minutes of each other last week. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6129
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
well, its nice to hear a true fish story around town, for a change. By the way, does Freeman's catch those tilapia finger fish that they serve at the Maplewood Pool in Sbenois Lake? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15621
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Yes. But here's a little secret. Those aren't fingers. The tilapia in my Lake have toes thanks to some terrific genetic engineering that we've perfected.
But the thought of tilapia toe fish didn't go over well I guess... |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6130
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Has a date been set for the Mayor's Bass Masters Tournament on Sbenois Lake? And if the towns merge some day, will it still be called the Mayor's Bass Masters Tournament (to keep my comments relevant to this thread)? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15622
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:32 pm: |
|
I think we're going to call it the Village President's Bass Fishing Tournament. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6131
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
maybe the two towns can do a trial run by merging the services of both towns' Game and Wildlife Divisions! The Bass Tournament can then have shared sponsorship...that may not save much in the overall cost of the tournament but you'd get double the people showing up. It'll look better on Channel 35 and OLN. |
Barbara
Citizen
Username: Blh
Post Number: 677
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 5:21 am: |
|
Wow, I have lakefront property!
(or am I in the lake?)
|
Shanabana
Citizen
Username: Shanabana
Post Number: 990
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Flameretardant: Re your statement: "WHY would I want to be joined again with an entity that only defines itself by its geographic proximity to another has-been town???"
Please explain! |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 541
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Merging more services without merging the governing bodies is an invitation for constant political chaos and strife, each merged service having to serve two masters. Does our shared school district benefit from this arrangement today?
If we're going to eliminate jobs here for the love of all that's holy let's eliminate some politician jobs. I'd rather lose a BOT member than a police officer any day.
|
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 973
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Shanabana,
I think Flameretardant was refering to South Orange being named in relation to Orange (south of Orange). Very lame. |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 974
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
I'm for it, and agree with John that 'the entire home-rule business in NJ is ridiculous'.
But that's just 'gut'. I would like to see what the number crunchers have to say. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8170
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
WMB:
Sharing services (as opposed to consolidating municipalities) need not result in each department having to face a number of masters equivalent to the number of municipalities entering into a shared services agreement if it is agreed that one (specified) municipality will be responsible for providing the service (need not be an entire municipal department, a specified set of tasks will do) and the other municipalities pay their fair share for the service provided. In such a situation, the governing body of each participating municipality would be responsible for seeing that an equitable arrangement was negotiated and that the needs of its constituents were being met by the arrangement but day-to-day oversight should be the responsibility of the municipality providing the shared service. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 543
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Joan,
Sounds like a bowl of spaghetti to me. If a municipality does not "own" the responsibility for providing the service, then what is its recourse if there are problems with that service within in its jurisdiction. Just what we need, greater ability for local politicians to point the finger elsewhere and say "it's not my problem to solve" just like they do with the BOE now.
I am neither for nor against merging, I still feel there is not enough information to make a determination. However, I'm feeling only two options are truly viable: either do no additional consolidation, or do a complete consolidation including local government.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8172
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 3:53 pm: |
|
It seems we disagree on this one. I think shared services will be a much easier sell and present a greater cost savings in the short term than consolidating municipalities. Once the municipalities in our State have more experience working together to provide services, consolidation should be an easier sell. What we can't afford to do economically on either the municipal or the school district level is allow things to continue as they are. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15450
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
wnb wrote (sarcastically): Just what we need, greater ability for local politicians to point the finger elsewhere and say "it's not my problem to solve" just like they do with the BOE now.
For whatever it's worth, I believe separation between the town and the school district is normal. SOM isn't the only place. I lived in Edison for several years, and the town was not responsible for the BOE there, either. Separate hierarchy and separate budget, too. The town collected the school taxes for the schools and that was it.
|
yabbadabbadoo
Citizen
Username: Yabbadabbadoo
Post Number: 392
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 9:10 pm: |
|
"By the way, noone in support of the referendum has commented on A51, and Id be curious why they believe the referendum is better than the alernatives that will be written into law very likely before the end of the year. Is it because the less that is said about A51, the better the chance of the referendum route? Or did noone supporting the referendum know about A51?"
What did happen to the supporters of the referendum? Did they decide that the proverbial jig is up? Will the Maplewood contingent be in the village again tomorrow collecting signatures? And what about the Oranginos?
FF |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 460
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Yabba, come on. You're an old MOL hand. Don't you feel that posting the same thing on two threads is for amateurs? We all read both threads. Really. |
Trent_Daddy
Citizen
Username: Tcedwards
Post Number: 203
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Maplewood and South Orange - Merge?
What about a new town for Milburn and Summit - Merge?
What about Irivigton and Hillside - Merge?
What about Newark and Elizabeth - Merge?
Many of these townships were once under the City of Newark.
Don't merge services get the politicans to reduce the number of offices (Form larger towns and cities). Have the larger towns share some services. The cities would be on there own.
Plan the reformed towns and cities relative the hub which is New York City. This will make sure there is balance.
*****
Many of the existing towns were formed from citizens wanting more control over their environments. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8193
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Trent Daddy:
I am having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make here.
If you are suggesting that there are other consolidations to be considered than just South Orange and Maplewood, you are correct. Assuming that our referendum makes it on the ballot for Nevember, I doubt our's will be the only one. Several of your proposed combinations are interesting because they include townships which are in different counties and in one case the merger of two county seats. I'm not sure how that would work at this time since it would require considerable reshuffling of county as well as municipal definitions and a scramble to provide county services to the county which does not end up with the resulting merged municipality.
Merged services do not necessarily reduce the number of offices providing services. If a merger results in a large enough entity, there may be need for more offices than previously to provide services for defined districts within the new entity or to provide added services the smaller entities were unable to provide.
When it comes down to a question of home rule vs economy, it is just possible that economy will win out if the savings can be shown to be significant enough. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page