| Author |
Message |
    
The Dub
Citizen
Username: Hill_16
Post Number: 11
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:37 pm: | 
|
Maplewood merged with South Orange. Think of the possibilities (and tax reductions) and we will also get to say we have a Tony Smith sculpture
Tom please don't tell me I'm wrong |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5503
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
noone is likely to come up with a name that everyone would agree on. |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
The two towns could share one crime problem. Genius! |
max weisenfeld
Citizen
Username: Max_weisenfeld
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Hank,
East Millburn?
 |
HOMMELL
Citizen
Username: Hommell
Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
West Newark |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 206
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
South Mountain |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13777
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
We wouldn't have to choose one name. Lots of town names aren't towns but are just zip codes. Short Hills is a zip code in Millburn. So whatever the official name is, 07079 can still call itself South Orange and 07040 could still call itself Maplewood.
The Dub, did you know we were once one town? We split less than a hundred years ago.
|
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
What tax reductions?
We're already on a path to share services, already share the schools and S.O. is due
for a re-val.
-Also, until S.O. cleans up S.O. Avenue, fuh-get-ta-bout-it. |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Steel,
Good thing we don't have any redundancies at all, huh? |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:33 pm: |
|
John,
-Not sure what you mean. Shared services has been looked at, -is being looked at
and I think with not quite the realization of any savings that might have been hoped for.
Ya still need a certain amount of cops, fireman, DPW guys etc for a certain amount of population.
-Both towns have high taxes. Taxes would remain high whether it was one town with one name or two towns as is now. Sadly, 1+1 would still = screwed.
The only difference would be is that you would have one body of government to try and deal with twice what each can barely handle now, thus the one body of government would by necessity then grow to twice the size and then what have you accomplished? -only bureaucracy, and in my opinion citizens would then have even less ability or hope of personal influence and still no tax savings.
The only real hope for tax savings, (besides Trenton?) is for attractive growth and with all due respect to S.O. -the Shoprite and Beifus ain't (so far) it. (although a nice big sculpture could be "just the ticket"!)
Carry on. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13786
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:53 am: |
|
Where would we save? The township committe and board of trustees are not paid.
We'd save the salary of a police chief and positions like that.
What else?
And if the savings wouldn't really be great, why did McGreevy say that too many small towns was the state's problem?
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4666
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:08 am: |
|
We are already ahead of the game compared to all the small towns by virtue of our shared school system. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5507
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
the shared services reports for the combining of recreation and health departments is in the final presentation stages...Ive read the recreation report, and although it is much better in theory than reality in the version I saw, it is still a good report and a project that can make sense, although a number of things need to be done to get it to that point, that I and others think makes it not currently feasible. The real test I think will be once it gets to both governing bodies (that alone could be amusing to watch!)...how that is handled at that step will be a good glimpse into the reality of a larger sharing of services. There is financial incentive for merging services in the form of grants from the state too...not a ton of money, but not an insignificant amount as I understand it. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11278
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hank, interesting. In the past there was a difference in philosophy between MW and SO. MW tried to keep the cost of participation as low as possible so that all kids in town could participate. SO, I think, didn't have this as their prime priority. I wonder how this one is going to work out?
One of the issues with major consolidations of services such as police and fire is that there are different pay scales, union agreements, seniority rules, etc. in SO and MW. Another issue is who is going to lose their job, or at least be reduced in rank and, presumably salary. I don't think the Rec Departments have a lot of union employees. However, will Roger or Andy be in charge?
|
oots
Citizen
Username: Oots
Post Number: 382
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
Tom
the township committee in Maplewood is paid(although a nominal amount)they are all covered with full health benefits as well.(unless something has changed?)
oots |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5508
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:41 am: |
|
Bob,
Id say participation costs in both towns are now similar...especially since so many programs are really "marketed" to both towns. And although rates have been raised (and not that recently..I know your kids are older..but in the past couple of years theyve been raised after program rates were surveyed and studied from different towns), "scholarships" are available and no child is ever turned away because of financial need.
I dont want to conjecture or comment on the management structure since the report I saw was not a final report, and the final report is only a report with recommendations for both town governing bodies to consider (beyond the staff and committees who have had a chance to review early drafts and give their feedback which will be integrated into a final draft). Im many mergers, staffing is kept intact usually for some time period before operations can be analyzed and the dust can settle. I would imagine there would be something along those lines, but again, my personal opinion is alot of factors have to be considered and changes made before sharing services can be seen as feasible and workable. But again, although this is being seriously considered and really thoroughly studied and seems to have some strong positives to it, to say its now a done deal or about to happen imminently would be pretty far from the truth as I see it. If you consider the time and details and issues surrounding merging two departments that represent a very small percentage of their respective town budgets, imagine what a project it would be to merge larger departments or towns themselves. |
Prescott Perez-Fox
Citizen
Username: Scottperezfox
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Some logic would say we should call the new town Southwood, or Maple Orange (although that sounds too food-ish). We could simply combine the names like MaplewoodSouthOrange, the way Buda and Pest became Budapest.
Or we could do like they do in England and call it Orange-upon-East Branch Rahway River.
or S.O.M. Village.
If the two towns merged, what would happen to services like sanitation and cable tv. I believe the two towns use different services because of some bizarre redlining in Trenton. And of course Maplewood would have to spend a lot of money to build gaslamps on every street. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13804
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Maybe we would call it Som.
Please don't mention gas lights. Wasn't that the basis for the split?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7289
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:00 pm: |
|
No. The basis for the split was that South Orange was more urban and Maplewood was more rural. That distinction has pretty much been eliminated.
I agree with Steel that a merger of Maplewood and South Orange, which did not include any additional neighboring towns, would not be much of a money saver and would be likely to lead to increased municipal costs since the easiest thing to do would be to create a new layer of government over the two existing layers.
To reach the kind of savings that McGreevy may have been refering to in Tom's quote we would need something closer in size to the Township of Suburban Essex. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 193
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
I'd vote for it.
S.O. has so many more interesting things to complain about. They get to fill their board every day with stuff. All we get to complain about is dogs running loose and malfunctioning recycling day.
Sign me up. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Perhaps we could call it "Tautown" .
There is already a symbol on the way.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 610
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hank-
How does one get a copy of the report on the merging of the rec depts., even if its just a draft? |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
The greater point is that NJ is full of tiny little towns that have a large number of redundancies that cost us an arm and a leg. Some states (like MD, IIRC) have no gov't below the county level. NJ has slightly more people than NYC, but nearly 600 separate local gov'ts. Think of what the state has to do to deal with all these localities, or the number of town halls that are kept running, varying business rules that have to be dealt with, etc etc.
I don't know how much SOM would save over SO and M, but surely it's not $0.
I used to live in Madison. They were forced to close their courtroom because it was inadequate. So what to do? They could have shared a facility with next-door Chatham, but instead decided to spend $1M to build themselves a new one (or so went the plan; I moved to M before it happened). That's the kind of thing that happens. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
John writes that; "Think of what the state has to do to deal with all these localities". I would ask, "Think how would the state deal with all these localities if local people where not directly involved with a direct interest?"
Local town halls are "kept running" to deal with the municipal business of the people. They are presently run by people who are your neighbors. Varying business rules are adopted to be responsive to local needs by local people who use those businesses and rely on their taxes for the good of all.
Personally I like local government. It's not only a question of money, (and certainly anecdotally, large governments are not known for their efficiencies, -quite the opposite), it is a question of local attention and control for precisely the reasons of efficiency.
To follow the argument that a government over a larger domain is more efficient, we would have to conclude that Trenton would be better suited to determining our local parking ordinances. How would they do that? -They'd hire people, (out of your state tax dollars) to do precisely what our local officials do, (listen, study, decide) for free because they care because they live here.
Additionally there seems to be an odd wishful thinking presumption by some that if, (for example), two police forces of 50 officers each are needed to take care of two towns then perhaps only 70 police officers in total would be needed to take care of the same number of citizens. -Why? Are we saying that the two forces separately are somehow bloated? The safety needs of the people would remain the same, the equipment would remain the same, the number of streets would remain the same.
If any service, (such as a courthouse) in either town is underused and could be shared I'm sure that our officials would love to hear about it and we could all talk about it as a specific proposal, but until then...
I think that some persons are hoping for a magic tax bullet that does not exist and would be unwisely willing to trade off real local involvement with the result that, in the end services would be worse and taxes no better, -perhaps also worse. |
The Dub
Citizen
Username: Hill_16
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Tom I did not realize that SO and Maplewood were once one town - where did it all go wrong.
I think John makes a valid point as does Steel - maybe we should just get rid of the Essex County Government. I mean how many levels of inept government do we need.
As I am only living two years here I do plead ignorance on many NJ matters but surely there is something wrong when you have state, county and local government and still nothing is open after 5 except one night every two weeks if you are lucky. While the municipal govt isnt perfect I think it is better than the County level. However the fact that the employees are neighbors isnt a great argument for another level of bureacracy.
Also I dont think the Mayor et al are doing the job out of the goodness of their hearts - I mean the amount they spent on the last election alone tells you what it means to them - the dirty campaign and viciousness reminded me of the last Booker-James Newark race.
Yes I know Joe and the County boys got us those lights at Valley and Oakview but what else?
Lets eliminate the Essex County Freeholders - I am willing to listen if anyone can tell me what a freeloader I mean Freeholder does.
Also can anyone tell me if Maplewood (Essex Municipality in general) employees are at will employees or employees for life? Just curious
By the way I love Maplewood and am delighted I moved here
|
The Dub
Citizen
Username: Hill_16
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Also wouldnt it be great if the Maplewood Township Election was a non partisan affair - i.e. no Democrat or Republican but simply Maplewoodian - let the best Woodite win
Pass the kool Aid |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Steel,
To take one of your points:
To follow the argument that a government over a larger domain is more efficient, we would have to conclude that Trenton would be better suited to determining our local parking ordinances. How would they do that? -They'd hire people, (out of your state tax dollars) to do precisely what our local officials do, (listen, study, decide) for free because they care because they live here.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that most other states manage to do just fine without anything like the extent of homerule in NJ. So, however they handle local parking ordinances, they do. (I suspect they don't have "local" parking ordinances at all, just county or state-wide ones.)
SOM and Madison-Chatham are two places I know fairly well that strike me as absurdly separate. Chatham even has Chatham township. Or consider New Providence and Berkeley Heights.
Another question: What's the average number of students per superintendent in NJ vs, say, MN or CT? |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Since the opening subject of this thread is about Maplewood and South Orange we would need to hear specific convincing arguments, (anything in one town that is underutilized etc), as to why these two towns should merge. Frankly, it is a waste of time to consider what Chatham, Madison, Newark or Minnesota does with their courthouses or anything else if the condition does not exist here.
By example:
As to our local officials motives for service;
Maplewood is entirely different from the Newark Mayoral election where there is a huge issue of corruption involved which is not remotely the case here. Some South Orange residents may have their own theories about South Orange but I can't speak to that and if they do indeed suspect as much for any reason then they should vote them out, -it's not like there is a big machine as in Newark which is precisely my point. -A small local government is easily changed if it does not perform well as long as opposition can rise. In that regard opposition is a good thing.
-Which leads me to, -Yes there has been here, (in Maplewood) some animosity between various persons who wish to be in charge but that is only because each side cares enough about the town to fight for their sense of what is best, (with a certain degree of ego thrown in). That fact that animosity exists between persons, in no way discounts the existence of "goodness of heart" for the town. Anyone who knows these persons knows that to be true, (even if some are occasionally "sneaky" in how they deal with each other).
As to parking:
Of course there are locally determined parking ordinances everywhere. There are no state agencies that can uniformly determine a narrow specific, (for example) " No parking between 1-3 pm in front of Joe's market". Such needs and scrutiny can only be made well with local understanding and input. Such local understanding extends well to other issues as well. I merely use parking as the most obvious example.
As to superintendents:
We already have only one superintendent office for a large number of students in S.O and Maplewood and it has been frequently suggested that such a person is "out-of-touch" so what is being suggested by the inquiry of number of students elsewhere?
Carry on. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
PS: Dub,
South Orange has non-partisan elections and if you read the "South Orange Specific" section of this web site you will see a helluva lot more complaints over there then in Maplewood about, well, EVERYTHING. -So what would "be great" exactly? -To who's aid and why?
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5526
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
jayjay,
I think a final report is almost completed. The Rec Advisory Committees in both towns were asked to review a second draft (after town officials and Rec directors reviewed the first draft and a second draft was written taking into account their feedback)...we met with the consultant and he was going to integrate all the feedback into a final report to be presented formally to both town's governing bodies. So I am not sure if a draft would even be good to see since there may be significant changes in what I saw and and what will be presented as final (from what I was told, feedback from the directors, advisory committees and officials reviewing the report was fairly consistent). I guess you can call Town or Village Hall, depending on where you live, but I think at this juncture, waiting for the final report would provide the most accurate and updated info. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7354
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Maple Orange |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Steel wrote:
As to parking:
Of course there are locally determined parking ordinances everywhere. There are no state agencies that can uniformly determine a narrow specific, (for example) " No parking between 1-3 pm in front of Joe's market". Such needs and scrutiny can only be made well with local understanding and input. Such local understanding extends well to other issues as well. I merely use parking as the most obvious example.
And an example that makes a point against your argument. Most parts of the country do just fine without local gov't to the extent that NJ has, yet you don't hear about massive problems with parking ordinances, so obviously there's another way (or many) to do it that doesn't involve our kind of home-rule.
As to superintendents:
We already have only one superintendent office for a large number of students in S.O and Maplewood and it has been frequently suggested that such a person is "out-of-touch" so what is being suggested by the inquiry of number of students elsewhere?
Again, other places do just fine without such small-scale school districts that have their own superintendents. That one particular superintendent is, according to some, out of touch, says nothing about the advisability of having larger school districts, or having more students per superintendent. That said, I don't know what the average number of students per superintendent is across the nation, but some districts have more students than there are people in SOM. ("Large" in this context is a relative term. Even combined, MOS is much smaller than many cities that have one superintendent.)
(The Madison-Chatham example was cited as an example of the kind of wastefulness involved in such small-scale gov't as we have.) |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
I thought Maplewood was going to be annexed to Millburn. We will need a lovely residential area like Maplewood when the ambitious Millburn downtown development plan goes through. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page