| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15552 Registered: 10-2001  |
(Um YEAH!) But what do I know, I didn't go to Law School. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2958 Registered: 5-2001 |
S, I assume (normal non-lawyering assume) that the referendum is going to be constrained to use that language. I didn't do the research but I believe that is what my fellow barrister is trying to tell me. Here's my problem and why I said thanks to S for posting the text. The thread began by touting the benefits of joint services NOT the consolidation of our two governments and gave that as the reason to support the referendum (at least that's how I was reading the OPs). That was not quite true. Joint services is merely an "in the alternative" choice. As has been posted before, I would rather see our elected officials take on the task of looking to consolidate services with many towns and I don't think a referendum is necessary. If it should prove necessary for one town to start to look seriously at this issue, perhaps we should look at other towns whose governments are not as dysfunctional as South Orange's seems to be. And yes Fred, I am for property tax reform but against a constitutional convention. I don't trust the majority who will in all likelihood get their information from sound bites and do not want to think past their own present economic welfare as opposed to the long-term welfare of the state. Cody blew it as far as I'm concerned. Fred, you bring up very specific points about things, most of which I disagree with. Neither my problems with the "Mayor's Ball" nor this referendum are directed towards you. I am not taking this personally nor should you. I'll be happy to discuss this with you in person. Oh but I will say “for the record” that I don't think this grass roots effort is because you want to change our form of government. I didn't say it before and I'm merely reemphasizing that. Oh and the anti-liberal stuff posted by Kathleen is ridiculous imo. Unlike her, I believe that people can support things I’m against but still be liberal. The corollary is also true as is evidenced by Bush and Israel. But perhaps one has to be Jewish or a believer in a Jewish state to appreciate that. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2979 Registered: 6-2002 |
I went back to the web site, clicked on the petition and opened it. The language in the petition is exactly what sbenois posted. I do not understand Fred's response to Wendy. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 378 Registered: 11-2003  |
This petition drive is all about merging the two towns. Nothing more, nothing less. FF | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15553 Registered: 10-2001 |
The Official List of What's Important to Maplewoodians: 1) Taxes 2) Schools 3) Seniors 4) Services . . . 8) Parking 9) Cameras in town 10) Raccoons sitting on top of garages 11) The Yankees not making the playoffs 12) The types of cookies served during TC meetings 20) Carrying your Kings card when Yogurt is sale 48) 1% or No fat milk 143) Are my string beans growing? 1,294) Trattoria or Roman Gourmet? 7,849,430) How does the News-record stay in business? 7,849,431) Why can't we vote for our own Mayor? 7,849,432) Should we merge with South Orange and disrupt everything we know of in this town in order to save $94.12 on our taxes? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2959 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, I'll bite. What's 5, 6 and 7? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15554 Registered: 10-2001 |
You may fill them in yourself. 5) are green apples better than red ones? 6) Charmin? 7) Why does South Orange have so many holes in the ground? | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 127 Registered: 10-2001 |
Wendy: Thank you for taking the personal aspect out of this. That was nice of you, and I appreciate it; especially your separating yourself from Kathleen. With respect to the language of the question, we can't help it if the legislature mentioned joint services as an "in the alternative" choice. It is in fact a choice as available as any other, and we must use the language as stated in the statute. Personally, I have no bias for or against total consolidation so as to form a single municipality. The savings would be the greatest, and the ease of managing joint services would be enhanced. One governing body functions better than several joint committees to run merged departments. There are certainly disadvantages to a single municipality, but all of this needs to be studied carefully. Too many factors to be discussed here at the moment. John McKeon of West Orange has told me that, in his view, the most efficient size for a municipality is ~45,000 (about the size of a combined M and SO). After that, it is necessary to start hiring twice as many supervisors at various administrative levels. And a single municipality certainly eliminates your concerns about the so-called "dysfunctional" SO government. S - calm down. The comment about your "standard of care" was a joke - one that you would certainly have gotten on the ball field. We'll discuss it tomorrow at the game. I was not claiming that you quoted the language from the statute incorrectly; my point was that the language is mandatory, and you would not be expected to know that unless you had read the entire section. OK? Friends again? Anon - I think this answers your point also. If not, let me know. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15555 Registered: 10-2001 |
Love ya man. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15556 Registered: 10-2001 |
(But it's still what my mamma would call a cockamamie idea) and you wouldn't want to disagree with my mamma would ya? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2980 Registered: 6-2002 |
Fred: It does answer my question about the referendum language. Thank you. I'm still not sure why you jumped on Wendy but I'm happy to see that you and she are friends again. especially your separating yourself from Kathleen. How could she (or anyone else) not? I am still seriously hoping that Joan Crystal runs for the commission as suggested by Jennifer Crohn, and if she does and if other serious independent people (Wendy, Sbenois?) also run I will probably vote "Yes". | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2960 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred, that 45,000 figure may in fact be true but here's the real deal as you yourself know. The vast majority of our local property taxes goes to support our schools. AND WE ALREADY HAVE A COMBINED SCHOOL DISTRICT! Anything less than combining our governments would likely save about that $94 that S figures. Clearly this referendum's language and the state's pushing for this (as evidenced by its economic support of it) seems to be looking at getting smaller towns like ours to consolidate for the purposes of its schools. Personally I think an even larger school district would be great (there was some talk of this on the Millburn thread a while back) but of course raises many logistical if not philosophical concerns. I will not vote for any referendum to give strength to elected officials' power to look to consolidate services. They have the power; they need to work harder at it. I do not think merging our two towns will get rid of dysfunctionality. I think it's contagious to tell the truth. Frankly, some of my closest friends live in South Orange, and I can't for the life of me figure out how they got the government they got. Perhaps its the non-partisan elections which are nastier than ours. Perhaps it is their form of government. No one person in a local government should be stronger than the parts imo. That's divisive and not productive. And I suppose that's enough rambling for now. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2981 Registered: 6-2002 |
Frankly, some of my closest friends live in South Orange But would you want your sister to marry one? Seriously, no one has responded to Oots's suggestion that the only way to realize significant savings is by merging fire and police. That seems to make sense to me. What does everyone else think, and why couldn't that be accomplished by the TC and BOT? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2961 Registered: 5-2001 |
It can be done by them. I think it was mentioned in another thread that we each have different hiring structure, i.e, civil service. It would require a will and that's where the referendum would come into play to make up for the lack of will of the elected officials, particularly in SO. I see we cross-posted above anon. Thanks for your kind words. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8035 Registered: 5-2001 |
Merging the police and fire departments would be cost saving for Maplewood if it eliminated the need for us to build a new police station, reduced our need to order new fire fighting and police vehicles, enabled us to reduce overtime substantially, enabled us to merge first aid squads so as to reduce our dependance on uniformed fire fighters to provide EMS services, made service in a combined police auxiliary and a combined fire auxiliary more attractive, lead to our civilianizing our crossing guard staff, etc. A study would be needed to see how much of this would be the case. We would not need a referendum to consider such a possibility. The merger of the Fire Departments, as Fred pointed out, was considered under Jerry Ryan's administration. Does anyone know why the proposal was dropped? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2985 Registered: 6-2002 |
Joan: Please run for the commission! Or else run for the TC. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5718 Registered: 10-1999  |
I had commented on another thread discussing this issue, in the South Orange section. I was going to comment here, but then I read Sbenois' comment above at 6:17 p.m., and I realized that there was nothing more to say. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4559 Registered: 5-2001  |
S - I am glad to see you are now supporting this effort.  It is all about our taxes! The current effort is simply to put a referendum on the ballot to decide if we should have a study. Why not have a study & THEN decide if it makes sense or not to share services using hard data, instead of just assuming it won't work? Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. But, let's give the people a chance to decide if we should do the proper thorough anaylsis with a study & make an informed decision. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2966 Registered: 5-2001 |
But MHD, with all due respect, why can't our elected officials do that study with thorough analysis and make an informed decision? Is it because your elected officials in SO can't even reduce one hole in the ground? I don't trust studies which are sponsored by the state for the purpose of further shifting the cost of education including unfunded mandates on our backs regardless of whether we're consolidated or not. Shared services is something that has been happening and should be happening even more among more towns and even counties. (In fact, where's the referendum regarding limiting or eliminating or perhaps consolidating county government? Too hot a potato I suppose.) Read some of the things Joan has said even in regards to merging fire and police. I believe this study and the state's support is their small way of trying to reduce costs without tackling for themselves the larger issues of pension costs, school funding and tax raising. I'm happy Corzine is our governor but I don't buy everything he has to say or believes. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2119 Registered: 5-2001 |
What MHD said. Why not do the scientific analysis and see if it makes sense? At the very worst we'll probably break even. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4561 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wendy, Interesting points. You are absolutely right that a study will not happen in South Orange unless the issue is forced because people like Calabrese fear losing control. As I understand, there was an agreement last year between Maplewood & South Orange to go forward with a study, but Calabrese (& possibly Taylor) squashed it. Why? What are they hiding? You are right that costs should be reduced through a whole host of mechanisms. In my opinion, this Study should not be mutually exclusive from other potential ways of cost cutting, as well. Let's explore a variety of options and this referendum lets the people decide if one option (a STUDY of the 2 towns) should be explored. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 457 Registered: 8-2003 |
Several posters have noted that we already have a combined school district, and cited that fact to downplay the importance of potential consolidation. To me, however, this is the most profound aspect of potentially merging the two towns. If the two towns merged, we could legally get rid of the Board of School Estimate and put the school budget on the ballot, just as most districts in New Jersey do. I’m not saying I’m in favor; in fact, I have mixed feelings. But it would be a dramatic change both for local politics and taxation. I’m surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2994 Registered: 6-2002 |
You are absolutely right that a study will not happen in South Orange unless the issue is forced because people like Calabrese fear losing control. So why not just get rid of him? He's subject to the same electoral process as the referendum and election of commissioners. If your elected officials are unresponsive to the concerns of the citizens get rid of them in the next election. If on the other hand the folks in SO support Calabrese, et. al. why are they going to support a referendum to do something that he opposes? South Orange politics certainly are bizarre. Which is in part why Maplewoodians like Wendy Joan, Sbenois and I are so skeptical of anything approaching merger. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15558 Registered: 10-2001 |
MHD, I've just read the entire statute and I now understand the wording of the referendum, but what I can't fathom is why the people in Maplewood ought to buy into this methodology as a means to circumvent your town government's lack of willingness to take on the shared services question. It seems to me that a more appropriate method for doing that is for you to vote your guys out and then come back to discuss services at the happy table with Fred and Co. So how about getting your own house in order and then we'll talk? Of course, if yabbadabbadoo is correct, and this is really about merging the towns, then it's DOA in my book. And it will be opposed very vigorously. I'd say that any TC who would support such a notion would win exactly zero elections and would be recalled swiftly. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15559 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sheesh. I should have called you first. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2996 Registered: 6-2002 |
Great minds think alike. Good Night. | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2006 |
By definition, Maplewood residents lose, monetarily, in a merger as school funding shifts from assessed value based (SO's is higher and therefore it bears the greater school funding obligation under the current system) to what is effectively a pro-rated population based system. For this reason, among others, I predict S.O. says yea and Maplewood says nay. | ||
| James Citizen Username: Gymtagart Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2005 |
I just love this web site! ANd this thread is just icing. Where else could you fine such carefully considered opinions. Things like - "Ask as many questions as you want, pontificate all you want, just sign the petition folks." "I'm printing out the petition as we speak." "I am mailing my petition in tomorrow" "Thanks for printing that portion of the proposed referendum S. I didn't realize it was worded that way." "The thread began by touting the benefits of joint services NOT the consolidation of our two governments" But hold it, it gets better. The FIRST words of the thread are - "Fellow taxpayers, There has been a grass roots effort by a group of South Orange and Maplewood taxpayers seeking to have a study commission formed that will look at the advisability of sharing services between South Orange and Maplewood or the consolidation of the two towns. She tells to sign the petition, but hasn't bothered to read the dam thing. She prints it, still doesn't read it, but is all set to mail it later that day. Three days later (and after the petition has been mailed?) she finally gets a clue that a petition authorized under a law named the "municipal Consolidation Act" might, just maybe, perhaps, be about consolidation of municipalitys. Lawyers! You can't live with 'em. You can't kill 'em. would killing a Lawyer in New Jersey be a felony or a disorderly conduct offense? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2981 Registered: 5-2001 |
James, that she is me. God knows who you are. I at least can admit that I've changed my mind based on things I've learned. Wouldn't you like a lawyer who can do that? Have you ever changed your mind? (And no, I hadn't yet mailed in the petition. But thanks for guessing.) And what do you do for a living James? Parole officer? No, let me guess. Investment banker. Wendy Lauter | ||
| James Citizen Username: Gymtagart Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wendy I already knew that. I didn't single you out by name, because I saw no reason to single you out by name. I did not intend to mock you, onlt the paradox presented in certain of your posts. As for what God knows? She knows who i am, and She hasn't been pissed at me in a while. (But She's really mad at S for that comment about the Yankees) You say you changed your mind based upon what you learned. That's fair. But I do wonder what you had learned when you said people were pontificating and were urging other people to sign the petition. What did you learn in the time between urging people to sign and your printing of the petition? What did you learn in the ninety minutes between printing the petition and announcing you were mailing it in? (It wasn't a guess. I believed you) But wait theres more. "Thanks for printing that portion of the proposed referendum S. I didn't realize it was worded that way." your first post in the thread was a cut and paste from the web page which got this all started. You know the one. The page with the BIG bold statement: “Shall a joint municipal consolidation study commission be formed to study the feasibility of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed, and to make recommendations thereon; or, in the alternative, to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services?” Bbut you didn't realize it was worded that way. OK. Its not you being mocked, its the absurd postings on MOL, Yours just presented a convenient target of opportunity As for what i do for a living. I am the scion of a great railroad family, to which I have dedicated all my efforts to insure the destruction of the railroad for the betterment of all men. My sister doesn't like it much, but she doesn't follow the crowd like we do. She has this bad habit of thinking for herself. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8038 Registered: 5-2001 |
James: I think you have pointed out a strength of this thread rather than a weakness. The thread began with the request that readers sign a petition in favor of a referendum which its supporters want to place on the November ballot. To encourage signatures, the "Tax Reduction" motivation was used. The Maplewoodians on this thread then asked a few questions such as: What does the petition say? What would happen if the petition drive were to gain enough signatures and the resolution were to be passed by the electorate? Would the cost in time, money and energy of the signature drive plus the election plus the study equal the best case savings if the resolution were to be passed and a study convened? What would be the advantage to Maplewood tax payers if a consolidation with South Orange were to take place? Why can't the proposed resolution include authorization of a study to consider possible consolidation with municipalities other than or in addition to South Orange? Why do we need a study at all when possible sharing of municipal services has been on the table for sometime and South Orange's government has refused to move on serious consideration of any of them? Wouldn't the issue of municipal consolidation be better served with a central study at the State level to determine which municipalities might best be combined to advantage of the State's residents rather than launching a municipality popularity contest and a duplication of effort which could result in the convening of over 500 independent studies of what is essentially the same issue? It is unfortunate that the posters in favor of this resolution have not answered most of these questions in such a way as to encourage all of us to support it but that does not mean that this thread isn't serving a valuable purpose for Maplewood and South Orange residents who read it and hopefully chose to participate in this discussion. | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 19 Registered: 7-2006  |
Who pays for the commission? Is the state handing out cash for these "studies" so everyone is trying to get a piece while the getting is good? Or will the "cost savings" found in the commission's study be chipped away by the actual cost of "consultants" for the study? | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 128 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tea Kettle: Under the present rules of the Department of Community Affairs, 50% of the cost of the study is assumed by the State. The other 50% would be split by the towns. As I said in an earlier post, the best estimate I have received thus far from a consultant is that the cost would be approx. $60,000. If you want to be conservative, assume $100,000. Based upon public pronouncements, Governor Corzine has reserved at least $250 million from the increased sale tax to incentivize consolidation efforts. That is about $235,000,000 more than is needed to pick up 50% of the cost of consolidation studies for each municipality in New Jersey (566/2), unless my math is horribly off. So one must assume that the Governor is thinking of creative ways to throw some real money at consolidation efforts. Perhaps he is earmarking some for implementation costs. In any event, there is more potential here for "rewards" than actual costs to towns. This is obviously a factor that the Consolidation Study Commission would explore, and one which might play a large role in any ultimate recommendation. | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2006 |
This stinks of the scheme for financing the rebuilding of schools. Give it out to whatever township would like some, without any oversight or decision making. Crumbling roofs and desired perks treated the same. Mplwd and SO already share a school district, the #1 township expense statewide. The "need" is not as great as say Teterboro getting rid of an entire school board as they are a sending district. I hate to be skeptical, but the clamoring and strong pleas to sign a petition appear to be driven by the desire for some cash flow for "consultants" and "nominal fees" to commission members. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 637 Registered: 2-2006 |
F. Profeta wrote, "John McKeon of West Orange has told me that, in his view, the most efficient size for a municipality is ~45,000 (about the size of a combined M and SO)." This is not really an answer to why W. Orange could not be included in a study with MPLWD & SO. W. Orange presently is considering shared services and consolidation with Montclair and Orange (or E. Orange). The combined municpality would be significantly greater than 45,000, no? Also, what criteria of efficiency? Certainly not ones of economies of scale. And does Mplwd really have 28,000 people in it? SO has roughly 17,000; isn't the combined population of the towns much less than 45,000? | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 987 Registered: 8-2001  |
It seems like the State wants consolidation to happen. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S1000/864_I1.PDF | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 310 Registered: 9-2003 |
Ah, we know things have decended into frivolity when ol' Aquaman weighs in. | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 988 Registered: 8-2001 |
Fruitcake, Grown-ups are having a discussion here. Please check your ad hominem attacks at the door. Try to stay on the topic. If you can't, please try another thread to keep you busy. Like Word Association or virtual pub. Thankey | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12392 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since West Orange has a population of around 45,000, I wonder if John McKeon's comments might be viewed as a little self serving.  Still, comparing costs between West Orange and the combined costs for Maplewood/South Orange might be interesting since the three towns have a lot in common. When checking the WO population on their website I noticed that they have 115 police officers. Isn't that almost exactly twice as many as MW and SO combined? Any savings there? Combining fire services and things such as health departments and code enforcement would seem the most likely to show some savings and maybe better service. I believe that MW uses a sub contractor for a lot of building inspections, especially plumbing? A combined SO/MW would probably have enough work for an inhouse plumbing inspector, although I admit this is a WAG. Combined fire operations might allow having, say a HazMat unit and not having to wait for Nutley to send theirs when we have an emergency. In general, and I suspect some of the firemen I know wouldn't agree, fire services aren't quite as personal as police services. Having regional police isn't necessarily good. I have friends on Long Island who view the Suffolk and Nassau County police forces more as an army of occupation than someone you call when you need help. Personally, I have problems envisioning major savings, especially short term. But I have been wrong before, the last time was in 1995. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6886 Registered: 12-2001  |
Well, as a non lawyer with a sub par intelligence, after reading the three pages of mostly mumbo jumbo there doesn't seem to be a legitimate need for this "study". Lets pretend to have the study and then spend the money on things that need addressing. I.E. the holes in the roads in SO. The "temporary trailers" that serve as the third grade at Clinton. Etc. Obviously I engage in a bit of hyperbole. But unless this "study" is done by people with the authority to enforce the findings then what is the point?? What would we learn that isn't already available to the Town through its own previous studies, or the State via its desire to consolidate? My taxes are awful, just like everyone elses. But I am in total agreement with the idea that after all this money is spent and change implemented and I get a tax bill for 100 bucks less than last year I will not be thinking THANK GOD WE DID THAT STUDY. And if we do consolidate services I guess the SOPD would move into the new MPD building on the ave, or is it early enough to, using the existing foundation, build something else there that a business might find attractive and then occupy and then get to the real root of the tax problem here. Don't know. Despite three pages of posts. And what really bothers me on more levels than you can imagine is that I feel like I have wasted my time reading every post and following every link. I'll meet ya in the virtual pub for a soda water and lime. |
