| Author | Message | ||
     Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 959 Registered: 10-2005  |
http://www.localsource.com/articles/2006/08/18/news_-_record/news/opinion/doc44e 3c741c584f664961228.txt Maybe this has come up elsewhere and I missed it, but herrrrre goes: I'm for it. I think. | ||
| ken (the other one) Citizen Username: Ken Post Number: 438 Registered: 5-2001  |
Against | ||
| Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 961 Registered: 10-2005 |
Ok, why? | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 418 Registered: 4-2006  |
Both towns have serious issues. For example, Maplewood PD has officers that are very unhappy, with a high turnover rate. South Orange has a BOT that just makes me cringe. Somehow, I feel that if the two towns are merged, instead of solving any problems, we'd all end up with the worst of both worlds. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 5200 Registered: 5-2005  |
For | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6114 Registered: 3-2002  |
for those in favor...what should the consolidated town be called? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15601 Registered: 10-2001  |
All I know is that NO ONE is going to change the name of Sbenois Lake. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6115 Registered: 3-2002 |
Sbenois Lake...pristine, scenic, one of the finest water recreation facilities anywhere, and right here close to all of us (and maybe the funniest post I ever read on MOL) | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15602 Registered: 10-2001 |
I'm sitting here praying that we come back in this game. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6116 Registered: 3-2002 |
Timlin...what a dirtbag, hitting the AL MVP after the AL MVP cleared the bases against him two nights ago with a double. Im against the big leap of a merger when we cant even work out baby steps between the two towns, by the way. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15603 Registered: 10-2001 |
Gotta love the fact that the new police station is going to be 48 miles from the former South Orange when we merge Racer X. I'm sure that won't be a problem. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6117 Registered: 3-2002 |
they'll have to pony up for a satellite station in what was formerly known as South Orange...there goes the financial savings! | ||
| Michaela Citizen Username: Mayquene Post Number: 250 Registered: 1-2004  |
Can they be merged and still maintain some degree of sovereignty -- for example in town planning, building zoning rules, etc.? Perhaps that approach would maintain the town's individual identities while consolodating those services that would save significant money. | ||
| Lucy Supporter Username: Lucy Post Number: 5206 Registered: 5-2005 |
How about The Village=Maplewood/South Orange? | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 275 Registered: 3-2006  |
That would make us all members of The Village People. | ||
| fiche Citizen Username: Fiche Post Number: 240 Registered: 3-2002 |
South Wood - oh wait that's the name of a prison. Maple Orange? | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 3085 Registered: 9-2003  |
I know this is just in fun, but one needn't change the name of towns just to merge services, right? And you can choose which services? I'd like to see the school district's grounds and maybe physical plant merged with the two towns' comparable departments. The towns clearly have a better handle on these things. Everytime I admire the landscaping etc. associated with Maplewood municipal buildings, I contrast with that of the schools, unfavorably. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8114 Registered: 5-2001 |
For a serious discussion of this topic, see the threads in Mostly Maplewood and South Orange Specific, each of which contains some valuable information including links to the current and proposed legislation and discussion of issues to take into consideration as part of a possible consolidation/shared services study. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8115 Registered: 5-2001 |
Shanabana: To answer your question, I am strongly in favor of shared services and willing to seriously consider consolidation with other municipalities in the region but I think that a consolidation comprised only of South Orange and Maplewood would not benefit either town sufficiently to offset the cost of such consolidation. I would like to see a much broader approach taken to this issue. My thoughts may be found on each of the above cited threads. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 313 Registered: 9-2003 |
Trying to agree on a new name will kill the deal, if it ever gets that far in the first place. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 6118 Registered: 3-2002 |
it will be like the peace talks where they couldnt decide on the shape of the negotiating table before starting negotiations. | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 5228 Registered: 7-2001  |
As a person who has lived through several corporate mergers my only requirement is that the unification of Maplewood and South Orange be labeled as a "Merger of Equals". | ||
| Kibbegirl Citizen Username: Kibbegirl Post Number: 717 Registered: 5-2003 |
I was under the impression from what I've read thus far that services would be joined in an effort to reduce costs, property taxes, etc., and not the merging of the two towns. I'm not for the two towns merging. Each has its own unique style and plesantness. I would like for some of our services to be merged if at all possible, in the most beneficial way to workers and homeowners. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8118 Registered: 5-2001 |
Except it wouldn't be perceived that way. Either each town would be looking to the other as a source of its own salvation or each town would think they were bringing the greater value to the bargaining table. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater  Post Number: 2509 Registered: 10-2004 |
My gut reaction: Conceptually I like it. In reality I suspect I'd hate it. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 3089 Registered: 9-2003 |
Why couldn't merger of selected services be free-ish of politics? Not to be simplistic, but if it were grounds related, I guess I don't see why analyzing the current costs/services of each handled independently v merged wouldn't be relatively straightforward? We have two towns but one school district. Why would some other services be so different? | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 519 Registered: 8-2001 |
Not enough info to decide yet. | ||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 1736 Registered: 4-2004  |
Against. Joan hit it on the head. Sharing services is one thing, but a merger ends each town as it currently exists. I like South Orange and I don't want to be part of Maplewood. If I lived in Maplewood I'd feel the same way about South Orange. What you would lose in the merger is the essence of what you love about your own town; its individual character and charm. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1944 Registered: 10-2004  |
can we merge with Brooklyn? | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 5231 Registered: 7-2001 |
Hoops, Great idea!!!. We can have the Beastie Boys perform a benefit concert to rally people around the cause. Their final encore will of course be "No Sleep Till Brokklyn" | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5813 Registered: 8-2003 |
I don't think the town will cease because of a change in government structure. I'm for it, and think we ought to next go after the county government bloat. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8123 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cynicalgirl: Even something as neutral sounding as public works carries with it a certain desire on the part of some people to maintain control over the function. Let's say for the sake of argument that Maplewood and South Orange agreed to share snow removal services, purchased snow removal equipment, salt, sanders, etc. that would be used by both towns; agreed on a single garage facility to house the equipment and supplies and each paid a proportionate amount of the cost based number of miles of roads to be cleared and significant problems such as steep hills and the like. Who would get their streets cleared first? Mayoral elections in NYC have been lost over this seemingly insignificant issue. Agreeing to share services is fine but the municipalities sharing the services will each feel, at least initially, that they are going to lose control over the shared function with the key policy decisions being made by the other town(s) and to the other town's advantage. If it weren't for the "loss of control" factor we would have entered into shared services agreements with our neighbors on all sorts of municipal services long before now. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 3091 Registered: 9-2003 |
I'm hearing you, Joan. Part of me thinks that if the present day removal priorities were out in the open, and neither town lost it's priorities, the facts would speak for themselves. I'm guessing that any cost savings could come from possible discounts in purchase of materials and equipment (bargaining power), and possibly supervisory role consolidation. That's also why I am interested in in whether it is possible to bring the school district physical plant functions into the mix. If there were savings to be had, that actually appeared in the form of tax savings to residents and businesses, I would think that would help, too. I don't think it's dissimilar to what I work with where centralizing certain functions definitely leads to cost savings without reduction in service. You can't necessarily expect, though, management who might be affected to examine such things openly. They're "disincented" as it were. So much discussion in NJ about loss of control yet I see very little real control on money and priorities. Seems kind of illusory. | ||
| Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 962 Registered: 10-2005 |
Change is good. Hard: gettting people to give up their jobs. Joan, what other municipalities are you suggesting that either/both of our towns unite with instead? That thought really scares me. I'm sure there is a reasonable way to zone snow clearing, etc...There's always the option of subbing such work out, as well. SO Disposal is a private company, right? (hmm--I may be wrong on that one) Why not just call it Two Towns? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15386 Registered: 1-2003  |
The name is really not an issue, unless we want it to be. Look at how some towns have several address names. For instance, if you live in the 08873 zip code of Franklin Township, your address is Somerset. There is no town of Somerset! It's just a zip code in Franklin. We could maintain the Maplewood and South Orange zip codes of the new town, whatever it is called. Our addresses would stay the same, and we could claim we're in whichever town we want to claim. Of course everyone likes the IDEA of local control, and no one likes the idea of giving up some of that. But I'd like to let the study go ahead. We need to make an informed decision. We need to know just how much local control costs us. We may decide it's worth it, and we may not. But if we don't know the cost, it's not a good decision to say flatly that we should not (or we should) merge partially or fully. And interestingly, if the study finds that merging wouldn't save us much money, we owe it to the governor (and ourselves) to tell him that he's wrong about what makes our property taxes so high. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8129 Registered: 5-2001 |
Shanabana: At least for starters I would favor shared services over an outright consolidation. It would be easier for Maplewood and South Orange to swing such an arrangement since we would not be asking additional municipalities to assume our tax stress and everyone could benefit from the savings. I would like to see each municipality involved become a regional expert in one or more distinct areas and provide that service(s) to the other towns as a central resource with each participating town providing a separate set of services to the member communities. Each town could charge the others for their piece of the municipal pie, based on prorating of actual cost, so that there would be less opportunity for towns to claim the distribution of assumed services wasn't equitable. Some examples of services which could be considered initially under such a plan are motor vehicle maintenance and repair, tree care, training, emergency service dispatch, computer networking, real property assessment, public health education, procurement, insurance, road repair, and engineering to name just a few. The nice thing about this type of arrangement is that municipalities would not have to be contiguous to participate and relationships could be built over time which would enable municipalities in the region to take a better look at consolidation as they become more familiar with each other's potential contribution to a merger of towns. | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 711 Registered: 6-2003 |
If sharing services means we can finally DUMP Calabrese, Gross and the bulk of the BOT then I'm all for it. Call the town what ever you want. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5595 Registered: 5-2001 |
As a Maplewoodian I'm against it because it might give some of the SO BOT influence over Maplewood. From the quarry development, to the "gourmet market coming soon," the Beifus and whatever else, I want nothing to do with the guys that made these decisions. Economic development needs to be about more than giving handouts to developers. | ||
| Shanabana Citizen Username: Shanabana Post Number: 964 Registered: 10-2005 |
Precisely, but with Maplewoodians like yourself going to the voting booth, and assuming this would be a DEMOCRACY still, those guys would be outtahere! | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15403 Registered: 1-2003 |
It would be a democracy, but South Orange already is and hasn't managed to vote those guys out yet. Why do you suppose that is, and why do you expect it to change after a merger? |
