| Author | Message | ||
     johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1621 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anybody get the flyer about Ken parking for free all year at Town Hall while voting for increases in parking and jitney fees? Ouch. Politics reaching new lows in Maplewood. | ||
| KRNL Citizen Username: Krnl Post Number: 66 Registered: 9-2005 |
Really low. By parking at the TH he freed up a parking space for one of his constituents. Kidding aside, the amount of their time that the members of the TC spend on Maplewood matters is incredible. I wonder how many evenings he goes directly from the train station to some kind of business at Town Hall. Kudus to the members of the Town Council for all of the work they do for us. If they want to park there, walk to the train and then come back for meetings--good for them and good for us. | ||
| pcs81632 Citizen Username: Pcs81632 Post Number: 35 Registered: 6-2002 |
I've heard of "Swift-Boating". Is this "Swift-Parking"? (Double entendre intended). | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 920 Registered: 8-2001  |
Ken Pettis weaves around the ordinances he voted for. The hoi polloi follows da rules and pays da fines. Pettis parks for free. On one hand he parks for free, on the other hand he wags his finger at the scofflaws who don't play by the rules that he skirts. | ||
| MeAndTheBoys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 3871 Registered: 12-2004  |
Just plain stupid. Seems the competition is really reaching if that's all the "dirt" they can come up with. Consider the free parking part of the total compensation package (which I'm sure ain't much) and move on! | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5222 Registered: 1-2004  |
Were these fliers left on parked cars? Who has taken credit for the fliers? What proof do the people responsible for the fliers have? Maybe the space at Town Hall is one of the perks of his position? Sounds like dirty politics to me... | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 9689 Registered: 4-1997  |
I think - It was mailed - The candidates who sent it have their names on it - There are photos offered as proof - Not sure about the perk thing The intended point is not the parking in the lot by itself; it's the alleged free parking while at the same time voting to increase parking fees for everyone else. The question then becomes: is this important enough an issue to most people? We'll see next Tuesday, I guess. I like Ken. He deserves to be viewed in a wider context. On the other ticket, Nancy has solid experience with redevelopment issues. I think a lot of people may split their votes. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15093 Registered: 10-2001  |
It is incredibly weak when the best that the challengers can come up with when going after a guy who has served this community with great distinction for over a decade - recording thousands of hours of essentially free consulting time on our behalf - is a flyer discussing whether he parks in a lot for free. Lame. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15094 Registered: 10-2001 |
KOA, Crossed post there so let me say that on a very superficial level it's about saying one thing and doing another. But on a much deeper level it brings two points to the head of the election pimple: 1) The campaign of the challengers is toast. They could have gone after Ken on his votes over the last three years, or his decisions while on the Zoning Board, or on half a dozen other things. But the best thing that they could come up with (until Saturday's upcoming flyer about Republicans running for Democratic DL slots ) is his (alleged)penchant for parking behind town hall. That's a sure sign that their campaign is DOA. No ideas being explored equals candidates who don't deserve our votes. 2) The fact that they chose to go after the stronger of the two incumbents tells me that the higher ups in the campaign have seen the writing on the wall and are actively working to clear the path for stronger independents in the ranks to run in November. I don't think that this mailer and the obvious reaction it would bring is so, um, unexpected. Nothing like selling out your own candidates without them knowing it. I guess we'll know the answers on Tuesday night. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9691 Registered: 4-1997 |
I bet the campaign's consultant talked them into going with the simplest possible message and one with images that make the point seemingly irrefutable. "He said X, but did Y". It may seem like a mistake to some, but in a larger, less connected group (those who don't pay attention to local issues all the time) it could be very effective. | ||
| Monster© Supporter Username: Monster Post Number: 3415 Registered: 7-2002  |
I laughed when I saw it in the mail, thought it seemed kind of petty, and tossed it in the recycling bag. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5159 Registered: 9-2001  |
"I bet the campaign's consultant talked them into going with the simplest possible message and one with images that make the point seemingly irrefutable." "The fact that they chose to go after the stronger of the two incumbents tells me that the higher ups in the campaign have seen the writing on the wall..." What's the problem guys? Don't we all who the "Campaign's Consultant’s", or the "Higher Ups" are? Do you have a problem saying Vic, Jerry, and David's name? This parking issue with Ken is ridiculous! FWIW, I don't believe for a second that Nancy and Lester had a clue about any of this until told by the “Higher Ups”... The idea that the “Lower Downs” would stoop this low is disgusting, but about what I'd expect from them. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11697 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wonder how much the Humerites spent on private detectives to follow Ken and Kathy around? If this is all they could come up with it is pretty sad. This is a dirty campaign on both sides. To much was made of David taking out Fred's gate and while probably somewhat relevant, the posting here about Lewis-Powder's organization was sort of a low blow. Heck, I hear the next mailing is going to be about Kathy's postcard collection (posted here on MOL) and will allege that some of the pictures are counterfeit. LOL | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7317 Registered: 10-2001  |
Art writes: "This parking issue with Ken is ridiculous! FWIW, I don't believe for a second that Nancy and Lester had a clue about any of this until told by the “Higher Ups”... The idea that the “Lower Downs” would stoop this low is disgusting, but about what I'd expect from them." Very true. All 4 candidates are looking like typical democrats. From b.s endorsements to b.s. parkinggate drama. Imagine if we had a few Republicans in the mix? We'd be talking about ratables on SI, New Police stations and lower taxes.. Instead we have this mess. Gotta feel for Fred. Smart guy who wants to make a difference and this is the crew he has to work with... | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 298 Registered: 9-2003 |
Straw, Will you be voting in the Democratic primary on Tuesday? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 509 Registered: 3-2005 |
So suddenly people don't like surveillance cameras? Hooray! I think the flier was crude and ill-advised, but I also think Ken, who voted for surveillance cameras in undisclosed locations, was hoisted by his own petard. Why is it OK to have secret surveillance cameras trained on other people's cars, but dirty pool when it cames to catching your own in someplace where anybody else would get a ticket or towed? | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6412 Registered: 12-2001  |
Kathleen that is some twisted logic. One has nothing to do with the other. And if you can't see that then there is no explaining it. The ad was ridiculous. I would have known if there were spies on the hunt for Kathy...she lives next door. The only thing I ever saw constantly was a red van from a computer consulting company. But I think he/she either teaches at Clinton or has a kid there.  Straw.. for once I AGREE WITH YOU. This town is so heavily weighted to the democrats that we all have to wade through this crap of a primary and pray that there will be intelligent debate on exactly the things you mentioned in Nov. On another point...I Volunteer to film the next debate...I tried to watch but the sound was so bad and the "auto-zoom) sucked so much it was unwatchable. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 7890 Registered: 5-2001  |
"Election Pimple"  I love it. Sums the process up so nicely. | ||
| jem Citizen Username: Jem Post Number: 1553 Registered: 5-2001 |
Duncan, I've got to ask: how many minutes of the debate did you watch? I recall that it starts abruptly and there's some obvious fiddling with focus on the moderator at the beginning, but the sound was absolutely fine for all of the candidates answers. The camera may have zoomed oddly a few times but over all, it's watchable enough, and I think it's worth another try. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6419 Registered: 12-2001 |
about 15 minutes. The sound in horrible. You have to crank the sound on the TV or theater up to 100 to make it hearable. And the focus issue happened every time the camera moved. Which in the time I watched was 3 or 4 times. I find that impossibly distracting, but I will give it another go. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4737 Registered: 5-2001  |
kathleen thinks the ad is ill-advised, but then swallows the parking bs | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3402 Registered: 9-2001  |
Tammany Hall, I tell ya'. Maplewood Township is becoming Tammany Hall! Oh, the humanity! | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3403 Registered: 9-2001 |
Should we expect Ken to give a Checkers (cab) Speech? Man, talk about much ado about nothing--I am with Straw and Duncan on this one. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 510 Registered: 3-2005 |
ffof, What is the parking "bs"? I'm just asking. I don't like the ad, but as far as I can tell reading the other threads, it's not "bs" when it comes to seeing Ken's car parked illegally. Or did I miss an explanation? Duncan, I think you if you tried to explain "the difference," you actually couldn't -- unless you want to try to sell me on the "difference" being that it is OK when the government has camera surveillance of us ordinary citizens, but it's not OK when citizens use cameras to keep track of whether their elected officials follow the law. Why did Ken Pettis vote for secret surveillance cameras if he didn't want them used to for precisely things like "quality of life" issues? Would you be objecting if pictures had been recorded by a secret police surveillance camera and Ken was presented with a ticket and fines? I don't think this is such a big deal either. But Ken should either stop parking there all day if it's illegal to do so or, if he thinks he needs the perk in order to do town business, then make the case to the TC to pass a resolution with a open vote to let him park their all day. But if it is illegal to park there all day while you're not in the building, I hope nobody is trying to justify the police not ticketing the violators just because they are poltiical supporters of the police or TC members with authority over their promotions and paychecks. Is it illegal to park all day in town hall if you're not in the building? Or is the answer that Ken didn't park their all day? | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 7895 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think that that is a fabulous idea. Let's devote TC meeting time to debating a resolution and a vote on where TC members can and cannot park. And don't forget to schedule it over the course of several meetings so that there is plenty of time for public input. And legal or not, political support has nothing to do with parking rule violators not getting tickets. Ask the business owners and employees in the stores in town. | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 924 Registered: 8-2001 |
Kathleen: Right about Ken. Right about the surveillance camera issue. Right about Kathy. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1915 Registered: 5-2001 |
This entire campaign has been characterized by some really deep-down nastiness, and over-zealousness on both sides to completely tear down the other "side" Jeez - they're all Democrats, and all Maplewoodians. TC election aside, everyone is going to cross paths with each other on boards, committees or just sitting in the Mapleleaf on a Saturday morning. In order for the town to run smoothly, the most important issue facing our town is some serious fence-mending. It's time to stop this puerile "he did, she did" nonsense and focus on governing Maplewood. | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 925 Registered: 8-2001 |
Greene, Kathleen's point plus yours, I take to mean that Ken really shouldn't park there. I'd like to see him take it a step further. He should pay the $160 for 2006 and pay for 2005 and 2004 if he hasn't already done so. By the way, they would debate an ordinance on first passage. Then they would debate an ordinance on final passage. Then they would debate a resolution. They're master debaters. | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 926 Registered: 8-2001 |
Lydia, And people shouldn't litter, either. Thankey | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1076 Registered: 2-2002 |
For the record: Pettis already has every right to park behind the Town Hall all day as does every member of the TC if they avail themselves of the current municipal permit there as he has. If that is to be considered a "perk" then so be it. It is a well-deserved perk weighed against all the time that these people put in. The most shameful part of the badly considered opposition mailer is that they would have been fully aware of that simple fact before devising such a thing over this truly trivial matter that is actually presented as a reason not to vote for him. wow. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4738 Registered: 5-2001 |
thank you steel, for giving the answer to kathleen. Turns out, the flier's a reason not to vote for Powder or Adams. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 514 Registered: 3-2005 |
Greentree, They spend whole meetings discussing where you should and shouldn't park, as well as business merchants, and some advocate using cameras to capture license plates for outstanding parking warrants, etc., Why not have a discussion how they themselves should follow the rules. (They're not Congress!) I have been unable to find a parking space there on more than one occasion when I went there to do town business, and I am sure I am not alone. Governing the town is *our* business in a self-governing democracy. (Why is that so hard to get across in civics education?) Not something to be demanded of other people. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 515 Registered: 3-2005 |
I got a phone call from Ken Pettis who has been reading this thread, and I will try to relate the gist of what he said with brevity and without prejudice. He says that TC members are municipal employees and all have parking permits that give them permission to park at any municipal parking lot in Maplewood. I asked Ken if he parked in the Town Hall lot just to go to work in Manhattan, and he said yes, but it wasn't illegal. I replied I didn't believe that was why he had been given a parking permit. He told me that was just my opinion. Yep. The opinion of just one of his bosses. The current TC has spent time long into the night discussing things far more trivial than whether or not citizens have convenient access to their own Town Hall every day. However, it shouldn't take a town meeting for Mr. Pettis to figure out we're all happy to have him take up a parking space at Maplewood Town Hall when he's working on town business there. If he's going to be working all day in Manhattan, take the jitney or get a ride. Or park somewhere else and walk like all us other Manhattan-bound travelers do. As for surveillance cameras, I really detest them just because they are and always be used politically. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive. If people don't like surveillance cameras tracking them or their friends, they shouldn't endorse their use anywhere. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 516 Registered: 3-2005 |
steel, Our posts crossed. "Right" doesn't make right. I disagree, rather vehemently, that TC members should be given the "perk" of using the Town Hall parking lot as a commuter lot. I think it is an abuse of a privilege, and I told Ken so when I spoke to him. I don't like the mailer either, but it's not an occasion to go around suddenly inventing "perks" and excuses for clogging up the Town Hall lot with parked cars either. It really is a small lot where spaces are at a premium and there are other lots where Ken has the "right" to park his car and walk to the train. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6434 Registered: 12-2001 |
Kathleen, why do you disagree so vehemently? It is not an invented perk, it is a fact he is a municipal employee and as such can park where such employees are allowed. Leaving aside the camera issue, which you obviously have made up your mind about, given the hours put in by members of the TC, the fact that many meetings run well into the night, and the fact that they are not compensated enough to not have a "regular" job (whatever that is) why is this sticking in your craw so? Yes it is your opinion that he is in the wrong by parking there on days he doesn't have town business, but like you said it is just one of "his employers" opinions. And good for you Ken for calling her. Man I had forgotten what it was like to try to talk to Kathleen.  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1077 Registered: 2-2002 |
Kathleen, I agree with Duncan and have to say that I find that a rather begrudging point-of view. I mean, the guy works all day at his "real" job in the city and then many many nights a week goes over to Town Hall for some meeting or another, -in the service of Maplewood, -and not just the Tuesday TC meetings, and yet you would actually begrudge him that simple convenience which breaks no rules yet you wish to call "an abuse of privilege". The difference between Ken and other commuters who you wish him to emulate in this regard is that the other commuters, when they arrive at the train station at the end of their day, -go home. Ken goes to work for Maplewood. -and this is the thanks he gets? -"No you can't park there" even though it is well within "the rules"? Who is inventing things if you decide that the municipal permits are not intended for such use but only as you presumed. A more worthwhile point-of-view for you to champion with your always impressive verbal acumen might be to consider further the wisdom if not the character of such persons that you otherwise are endorsing to replace Ken in light of their spending the time, money and effort to print such a mailer so lacking in integrity and worth and at the forfeiture of presenting ideas that might actually matter for the future of Maplewood. Respectfully, Steel. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 7901 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with the person who said that, considering the amount of work and grief that our TC members go thru, it's amazing that anyone wants to serve. So they get to park. Big whoppee. I've never had a parking problem at TC. Except on Greenhouse Day. I happen to like the things on Lester's resume. I wish that their website had something of substance on what they would do to bring similar programs to Maplewood. Aren't people always worried about how our kids spend their time? I'd love to hear a solid plan from someone with his background. That is more important to me than where anyone parks. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 519 Registered: 3-2005 |
Duncan, You seem more upset by this stuff then I am. I don't see why Ken can't park some place else. The parking lot at Town Hall is not intended to be an all-day commuter parking lot. It is there so people can find parking when they need to go to Town Hall to do town business. (Otherwise we could sell it to offset the cost of $12 million dollars in overruns on the new police building on Ken and Kathy's watch.) Until shown otherwise, my opinion is that when us taxpayers agreed (no doubt a long time ago) to give free parking permits to municipal employees, the intent of that privilege was to facilitate TOWN business. I don't think municipal employees were given the permits to facilitate their personal commute to Manhattan. If TC work is so onerous and unrewarding, why not toss in free lawn mowing from the Parks Department? How about a ride to and from the station in a police car for the whole TC? If we got surveillance pictures of that happening at Vic's house, would people be justifying that ex post facto on the grounds Vic puts in so many hours on the TC -- surely just as many if not more than Ken. (Which reminds me: I forgot to ask Ken if it was true he doesn't have office hours. Maybe he'll call me back.) One of the reasons I'm voting for Nancy and Lester is that they seem to relish non-profit, public service. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4741 Registered: 5-2001 |
But Nancy bailed in SO when things weren't going her way. And what about the raiding of the pool funds? Now that's worth getting upset over. Parking spot? I'm glad he has it. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 522 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ffof, Steel made a similar (but more civil) remark on an adjacent thread, so I'll just repost Dave's comment (he lives in South Orange): Steel, That was incredibly ignorant comment, so I'm glad you made it so I may correct it for our readers. Those holes in the ground post-date Nancy's departure (also note that Main Street does not have direct control over these things the way the Trustees do). We in South Orange know precisely where the blame lies for ineptitude and it wasn't and isn't with Main Street or Nancy. But thanks for playing. |
