| Author | Message | ||
     Joel Janney Citizen Username: Joel_janney Post Number: 77 Registered: 6-2004 |
Duncan, you should be happy to get a tax bill for 100 bucks more than last year. Our property taxes are doubling every 10 years. Our incomes are not. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 311 Registered: 9-2003 |
Hey, Aquaman, are you going to be campaign manager again? You really hit a homerun with the Adams-Powder campaign last spring. Now maybe you can “help” this effort to merge the two towns. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6896 Registered: 12-2001  |
we have been here 1o years and out taxes have not doubled. Just FYI. They fluctuate between a low of about 5.75K right after the reval to a little under 9 two years ago. But never over ten and never doubled. And I assume when you say "our" you are referring to some statistical data regarding the mean taxes and incomes in Maplewood/South Orange. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8053 Registered: 5-2001 |
Duncan: Depending upon where you lived and what your taxes were pre-reval, your real property taxes could easily have doubled over the past 10 years in Maplewood. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6898 Registered: 12-2001 |
Joan, I realize that. I lost my cousins to the reval as their taxes went up 10K in one day. My point was that spread across the whole of the town I think it is irresponsible to say, without statistical proof, that "Our property taxes are doubling every 10 years." | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1248 Registered: 6-2001 |
FWIW. At the time of the reval, my home was just slightly higher than the townwide average, and mean, in both assessed value and tax levy. My tax levy was a bit more than double in '04 than it was in '95. TomR | ||
| dytunck Supporter Username: Dytunck Post Number: 290 Registered: 3-2001 |
Taxes would double every ten years if the total tax increase for schools, county and township was 7.18% each year. Without a revaluation. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 644 Registered: 3-2005 |
Fred, If you couldn't tell me and Wendy apart before this you've got more screws loose than I thought. Whom did you recruit to run? Is it a secret? Why not an open process? If you think this is a good idea for the town, why didn't you come out and invite people in town to run for the study commission? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 645 Registered: 3-2005 |
Wendy, What the heck does this mean: "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." I'm a supporter of the state of Israel and I stil have no idea what are you trying to say. Are you trying to say Fred and Jennifer Crohn have a liberal vision for their respective towns and school boards? If so, what evidence of that can you cite? (I think we can write off the "green" police station as a family thing, no?) And what is the analogy to Bush and Israel? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 646 Registered: 3-2005 |
anon, Why have you not asked Fred to please answer your question about who he recruited? Because I asked it too? You should get off MOL sometime and find out what the real world thinks of the people who form such a cozy mutual admiration society here. Not everybody's so eager to give a pass to endless flim-flim and downright lying so long as somebody flatters their ego. Why don't you ask Fred when he's going to separate himself from Henry Hamil? Never mind, anon. I'd really rather you talk to somebody else anyway. What you admire doens't appeal to me. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 647 Registered: 3-2005 |
Never mind, Wendy. I just saw your 'calling all liberals' thread. I'll just assume you've since stopped spinning yourself like an incoherent corkscrew into the ground. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 649 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Nobody is going to vote for this "study" if they perceive it is being packed with ideologues who aren't goint to "study" anything but instead steer the "study" toward a pre-determined conclusion. It is not clear who drafted the referendum. It is not clear why there was not an open process of inviting anybody who would like to study this issue to run for a commission slot. It is not clear why Fred Profeta is recruiting people and why he won't say who they are. I will not support a "study" that is really being steered behind the scenes by a core group of people who aren't being upfront about it, whose "findings" will then be waved in the face of people as "objective." It sounds like another one of Fred's "polls". When Fred wants something, he does it under the cover of something else that sounds a lot more civic and innocuous. Now six people will come along and tell you I'm a horrible person, but you might want to read the fine print anyway and push for a re-draft of a referendum and for REAL ANSWERS about WHO might be a STEALTH SLATE. Or people who know the answers could post them here. I like surprsises. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8063 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen: It is my understanding that elections for Commissioner slots will be non-partisan which means that an independant who is otherwise qualified to run for elected office in our town (Perhaps someone could post the qualifications) can obtain a petition to have their name appear on the ballot as running for commissioner and seek to gather the requisite number of signatures by the deadline. There is no requirement that all names be determined by a single nominating body. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 651 Registered: 3-2005 |
Joan, My question is different: Whom did Fred recruit? He said he's recruited people to run. Why these people? Why didn't he put up a post announcing what you just posted? Why is he recruting people? Who drafted the referendum? A lot of people don't like it. Can there be more than one referendum? I note there is also an organization called "SOMact" that is pushing this particular referendum. Is SOMact willing to amend this one -- or are they pushing a particular version of merging ONLY SO/M and no other towns? Is SOMact backing certain candidates or financing them? Is Fred going to campaign for some people and not others? Is there some reason these questions can't be answered honestly? I'm sure they do have answers. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4571 Registered: 5-2001  |
Kathleen, Joan is correct. 40:43-66.43 Qualifications of candidates of consolidation commission. 9. a. The candidates from each participating municipality for a consolidation commission formed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection a. of section 7 of P.L.1977, c.435 (C.40:43-66.41) shall be registered voters of that municipality. They may be nominated by petitions signed by the registered and qualified voters of the municipality in a number at least equal to one percent of the total votes cast in the municipality at the last preceding general election at which members of the General Assembly were elected, or by 25 registered and qualified voters of the municipality, whichever is less, and filed with the municipal clerk not less than 40 days prior to the date of the election. b.Each nominating petition shall set forth the names, places of residence, and post-office addresses of the person or persons therein nominated, and a statement that the nomination is for the office of commission member and that the petitioners are registered voters of the municipality. Every voter signing a nominating petition shall, in addition to the voter's signature, give the voter's place of residence, post-office address and street number, if any. c.Before being filed with the municipal clerk, each nominating petition shall have fixed or appended thereto, or, if the same person or persons are named in more than one petition, fixed or appended to one of such petitions, a written acceptance of such nomination signed by the person or persons nominated therein. Such acceptance shall certify that the nominee is a registered voter of the municipality, that the nominee consents to stand as a candidate at the election and that, if elected, the nominee agrees to take office and serve. d.Each nominating petition shall be verified by an oath or affirmation of one or more of the signers thereof, taken and subscribed before a person qualified under the laws of New Jersey to administer an oath, to the effect that the petition was signed by each of the signers thereof in each signer's proper handwriting, that the signers are, to the best knowledge and belief of the affiant, registered voters of the municipality, and that the petition is prepared and filed in good faith for the sole purpose of endorsing the person or persons named therein for election as stated in the petition. e.If any nominating petition, or any oath, affirmation or written statement attached thereto, is defective, the person designated in the petition for such purpose may cause such petition or oath, affirmation or written statement to be amended in the manner prescribed for the amendment of defective petitions for nominating candidates for general elections in R.S.19:13-13. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1250 Registered: 6-2001 |
40:43-66.43 Qualifications of candidates of consolidation commission. 9. a. The candidates from each participating municipality for a consolidation commission formed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection a. of section 7 of P.L.1977, c.435 (C.40:43-66.41) shall be registered voters of that municipality. They may be nominated by petitions signed by the registered and qualified voters of the municipality in a number at least equal to one percent of the total votes cast in the municipality at the last preceding general election at which members of the General Assembly were elected, or by 25 registered and qualified voters of the municipality, whichever is less, and filed with the municipal clerk not less than 40 days prior to the date of the election. b.Each nominating petition shall set forth the names, places of residence, and post-office addresses of the person or persons therein nominated, and a statement that the nomination is for the office of commission member and that the petitioners are registered voters of the municipality. Every voter signing a nominating petition shall, in addition to the voter's signature, give the voter's place of residence, post-office address and street number, if any. c.Before being filed with the municipal clerk, each nominating petition shall have fixed or appended thereto, or, if the same person or persons are named in more than one petition, fixed or appended to one of such petitions, a written acceptance of such nomination signed by the person or persons nominated therein. Such acceptance shall certify that the nominee is a registered voter of the municipality, that the nominee consents to stand as a candidate at the election and that, if elected, the nominee agrees to take office and serve. d.Each nominating petition shall be verified by an oath or affirmation of one or more of the signers thereof, taken and subscribed before a person qualified under the laws of New Jersey to administer an oath, to the effect that the petition was signed by each of the signers thereof in each signer's proper handwriting, that the signers are, to the best knowledge and belief of the affiant, registered voters of the municipality, and that the petition is prepared and filed in good faith for the sole purpose of endorsing the person or persons named therein for election as stated in the petition. e.If any nominating petition, or any oath, affirmation or written statement attached thereto, is defective, the person designated in the petition for such purpose may cause such petition or oath, affirmation or written statement to be amended in the manner prescribed for the amendment of defective petitions for nominating candidates for general elections in R.S.19:13-13. L.1977,c.435,s.9; amended 1999, c.58, s.3 | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1251 Registered: 6-2001 |
Symbolic, The language of the referendum is mandated bt the statute. The choice of the towns in the referendum? You'd have to ask one of the Committee members. Its their petition. TomR | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8067 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: Does this mean we could theoretically have more than one consolidation referendum on the ballot in November? If yes, if two conflicting petitions were to circulate (I'm not suggesting anyone do this), who would determine which of the two questions appeared on the ballot if sufficient signatures were gathered for each? If both questions were to appear on the ballot could the electorate thenvote to authorize more than one study, with potentially more than one slate of Commissioners? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1252 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan, I don't know. Sections 7, and 27, (§§ 40:43-66.41 and 40:43-66.61) of the statute may address the issue you raise. Interesting question. I merely tried to respond to your request, and answer such of Symbolic's questions as I could. TomR | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 653 Registered: 3-2005 |
Folks, Does anyone know whom Fred recruited to run for these slots? That is what I'm asking. That is also what Anon asked. Fred is one of the Committee members. So is Henry Hamel. Both of them are posting in this thread. I certainly don't mind others answering questions but I will point out that I am already asking the committee members these questions. Right here. Publicly. But maybe Fred or Henry will respond to Anon's question instead of my question, and then Anon can repeat it and continue to pretend to speak for others of MOL. (I point this out because a lot of people on-line and off-line actually do like my MOL posts and me pesonally. Quite a bit. Anon and Wendy speak for nobody but their own insecure and quite petty selves. End of story.) | ||
| Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 996 Registered: 8-2001  |
You can't make this stuff up. Kathleen supports peace and restraint internationally. That's cool, me too. Neighbors and MOLers? Not so much. "Anon and Wendy speak for nobody but their own insecure and quite petty selves." I like Anon, Kathleen and Wendy's posts most of the time. Kathleen seems to have taken a wild turn today from her usually well-reasoned and intelligent contributions to MOL | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1253 Registered: 6-2001 |
When did Mr. Hamel Post in this thread? TomR | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3007 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually this is what you can't make up:
And from the same post: [emphasis supplied] Can anyone say projection? Signed "incoherent corkscrew" | ||
| James Citizen Username: Gymtagart Post Number: 29 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dear incoherent corkscrew, ""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"" And your going to mock her point of view? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3008 Registered: 5-2001 |
Go away James, you're bothering me as well as stalking me. And if you're going to stalk me you might as well answer my question on the other thread. You can't however because you're clueless about these issues and only have an anonymous axe to grind. Well ta ta forever. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 3009 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh one last thing James before I don't address you since you seem a bit off balanced to say the least. You may think I'm not a clear reader but I'm an excellent proofreader. Can you find the error in this nonsensical question of yours - nonsensical since there was no mocking - only pointing out some inconsistencies at the least and insults at the most. "And your going to mock her point of view?" Hint: look at the word Your. | ||
| Joel Janney Citizen Username: Joel_janney Post Number: 78 Registered: 6-2004 |
Duncan, I was basing my statement on the present run rate over the past three to four years (see dytunck's point). And the scary thing is we've had these increases despite the township's using one-time revenues to mask some of the spending increases during this period. By our incomes, I was referring to us as citizens of New Jersey, not specifically M/SO. While not exactly apples to apples, the point has been correctly made that this is a statewide problem, not just a M/SO problem. | ||
| James Citizen Username: Gymtagart Post Number: 31 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dear incoherent corkscrew, ""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"" And I didn't have to make any of that up! | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8068 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: Thanks so much for your reply to my question. I would also like to know who is running for the Commission slots. What happens if fewer than five candidates express interest? | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 312 Registered: 9-2003 |
TomR, You asked when Henry Hamel had posted on this thread. The answer: he posts anonymously under the name Kathleen. In doing so, he often refers to his real name in a negative way to try to disguise himself. And it worked, didn’t it? All this time, you thought Kathleen was someone else. That Henry is a clever boy. Henry, Sorry to out you, buddy, but I feel this debate is too important to allow for anonymity. Regards, - Jay Berwocky | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4574 Registered: 5-2001 |
Editorial in today's News Record Two Town merger, anyone? For the last two years, it has been well- publicized that officials in Maplewood and South Orange have been mulling over the possibility of merging services. Now, a grassroots coalition wants to help propel that effort by gaining enough support from residents to create a ballot question for the November election. If this group collects at least 540 signatures in South Orange and 734 in Maplewood, the question will land on the Nov. 7 ballot in both towns. The question posed will be whether voters support creating a 10- member commission to study the possibility of a consolidation. If the ballot question is approved, that commission would include equal representation from each of the towns, with five members from Maplewood and five from South Orange. Each member of the commission would be elected at the same time the voters are deciding on the ballot question. Should the commission be realized, members of this group would begin a study of shared services that is projected to take six months. If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because the idea of a commission was tossed around last autumn, shortly after the towns received a $ 20,000 state grant to study the possibility of merging. That sum was supplemented by $ 10,000 from each municipality and went toward hiring Government Management Services to create the study. The first step was to create a commission to investigate a shared arrangement between the recreation and health departments. A decision to form that commission was supposed to take place last November, but that never came to fruition. Still, merging has remained part of the community dialog, and now that Gov. Jon Corzine has vocalized his support for consolidating municipalities, and wants to offer incentives for towns that do so, there’s a growing interest in setting plans to motion. The impetus for the study has always been fiscally motivated. Before Corzine’s announcement, some residents and officials saw the merger as a way to provide cost savings for the towns, since combining services would help curb administrative and building costs. Some proponents also believe a merger would be a positive step toward curtailing property taxes. But beyond the financial benefits, the latest effort to get the ball rolling seems to take on a more democratic flavor, with proponents of the merger working in the community to first gauge support from residents. If that support is hefty enough to warrant a ballot question, the commission could be created and the study will move forward. This is a smart approach to investigating the viability of the proposition. As it stands, in order for the towns to merge, residents from both Maplewood and South Orange would have to approve of the merger with a majority vote. The process of creating a ballot question will be a great way to first see if this idea resonates among residents before resources and time are spent on something that may garner very little support. That said, it would seem wiser to gather more than just 5 percent of each town’s population, so proponents of the study and merger would know where voters stood before the investigation commences. What’s interesting is that these towns used to be one community. They split in 1904, when South Orange broke away. It’s interesting that now, more than 102 years later, the possibility of a merger has been thrust back into the spotlight. We wish the coalition luck in their pursuit to make this a ballot question, so that residents will have a chance to weigh in on whether or not they see this as the future for this community. The coalition has until next month to gather the signatures and submit them to the Essex County Clerk’s office, in the effort to have the question make the election ballot. We applaud their democratic approach to the idea and we’re glad they want citizen input on the prospect, as these are the folks who would be affected. And as the coalition moves forward, we’d like to remind residents to keep an open mind as they consider the idea and whether it would be a good fit for our residents. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5739 Registered: 10-1999  |
Reading the editorial, I have some questions - If one wants the towns to study shared services, but is uncertain or even agnostic on the issue of consolidation, should one sign the petition? If there is a referendum, will a vote in favor of a study commission be interpreted as a vote in favor of looking at consolidation, or just a vote in favor of looking at shared services? And, how to distinguish the two? If the goal is just to look at shared services, then why go down the referendum road, which is only needed if consolidation is going to be seriously considered? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4576 Registered: 5-2001 |
YES. All signing the petition does it put it on the ballot. You still have the opportunity to VOTE in November.
My understanding is that the commission will LOOK at both and come up with the appropriate recommedations.
In my opinion, because otherwise NOTHING will happen. The politicians in South Orange have sat idle on this for ages & done nothing. (I do not know enough about Maplewood politics to comment on their committment to this, other than what I have seen of Fred's support) Approving the referendum will create an independent commission outside the control of the politicians. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 655 Registered: 3-2005 |
James,  Right. Credibility. Speaking of credibility, I do think the credibility of the people running for the commission slots and whether they as individuals have a history of producing or waving about "studies" that are honestly studies is a legitimate issue for voters to look at. We've had several unfortunate incidents in Maplewood and South Orange, with school issues as well, of people trying to pass off as "scientific" and "objective" documents and reports that were really nothing of the sort. I'm not talking about the kind of innocent mistakes ordinary citizens will make when they tackle a complcated issue. I'm talking about the deliberate attempt to use what is being touted as "community process" to exclude certan points of view and place a veneer of objectivity that disguises a political agenda and in some cases genuine prejudice. Wendy, I stand by what I wrote. I certainly don't expect the "good people" of MOL to like me. That's OK with me. If Anon thinks Jennifer Crohn and Sbenois are to be taken seriously after how they've behaved on MOL, that's on a par with supporting Jamie Ross for the TC. Still a big booster of that idea, Wendy, or has it gone the way of your support for the petition? You people really do have a credibility and incivility problem, and yet you all seem to think others should be looking up to you as civic leaders. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 659 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, Do you have any evidence that "Approving the referendum will create an independent commission outside the control of the politicians?" Isn't Jeff Dubowy somebody who recently ran for office in South Orange and lost? Isn't Fred Profeta a politician? Aren't he and Jeff responsible for the draft referendum? According to what Fred Profeta posted in this thread, Jeff Dubowy formed the SOMACT petition drive after the BOT didn't vote to create a Consolodidation Study Commission during a joint meeting about sharing Heath and Recreation services on June 19. Fred wrote: "Some SO citizens, led by Jeff Dubowy, could see from the results of the 6/19 meeting that the governing bodies would not be able to muster the political will to authorize a full study. I made contact with them." Fred also wrote: "I have been providing my input to SOMACT since it first coalesced in South Orange. I have also been instrumental in broadening its membership to Maplewood. And I have helped to recruit several persons who will be running for the 5 Maplewood commissioner seats." Fred added: "My view is that political will on the [South Orange] BOT will follow a grass roots expression of support. That's the way it works." So here we are, less than a month later, being given the bum's rush by one politician who lost an election to the current incumbents on the BOT of South Orange and a Maplewood politician who has inserted himself big-time into the process to pressure the governing body of a neighboring town into a Cosolidation Study. MHD, unless I'm missing something, this looks to be already a highly politicized process that is the creature of local politicians with agendas. I see no brakes in place to guarantee that it will not continue to be so, and I don't like the phony deadline. If I'm reading everything thus far posted correctly, it appears to me that a Study Commission does not have to be created by privately drawn petition at all. It can be created in an open-meeting process by the elected TC and the elected BOT with public input. If you feel South Orange can only accomplish this by petition, then fine. Apparently -- if I'm correct -- Maplewood's TC can pass its own resolution. We don't need a petition here. I would like to have public meetings about this and hear what the other members of the TC have to say. Most people are away during August. I think Maplewood residents, and most especially Fred, should drop this petition thing and conduct public hearings. Let people in South Orange decide for themselves if they want to pressure their officials by petition. They don't need Maplewood residents pressuring them into a consolidation process. It's unseemly. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4578 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathleen, A couple key points: There is no "phony deadline". The statute states that petitions must be submitted to the County 60 days prior to the General Election. If the petitions are not completed this month, the referendum will need to wait at least 1 year to the next General Election. Why lose a whole year? Technically, South Orange COULD do this by petition and Maplewood COULD simply pass a resolution (ordinance?) creating the commission. However, there was agreement that the process should be consistent between the two towns. I urge you to watch the Youtube clips I posted in the South Orange thread to see why this needs to be put in the hands of the citizens of South Orange and not the hands of the South Orange BOT. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 660 Registered: 3-2005 |
Nohero, It seems the larger question is: Why is Maplewood being rushed to place a referendum on the November ballot -- during a month when most people are away -- when the TC itself could pass a resolution endorsing a Study Commission? We could have open hearings to answer your questions. As to how you're vote will be interpreted, I am reminded of the TC meeting where Fred Pettis kept telling Ken Pettis that if Ken voted a certain way, Fred would interpret his vote in a certain way, and Ken kept telling Fred that the interpretation was wrong and Fred didn't seem to care. It is possible I am missing something in this discussion, but it looks like some people in South Orange feel they want a Consolidation Study Commission and this petition drive is to force their eleted body to it. I don't see that problem in Maplewood. I see a greater problem with efforts to bypass the process of open meetings and Fred's ability to work with the diversity of viewpoints on the governing body. The process of creating a Consolidation Study Committee should first be put before the elected TC during open public meetings, not a petition drive in August. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 661 Registered: 3-2005 |
MHD, I haven't any quarrel whatsoever with citizens of South Orange doing whatever they want to or with their BOT. I have a problem with Fred Profeta going out of his way to get Maplewood citizens to meddle in the politics and governance of South Orange. The "phony deadline" to which I am referring is the notion that MAPLEWOOD residents need to get cracking and sign this petition or WE will lose a whole year. The Maplewood TC can pass a resolution creating a Consolidation Study Committe the next time it meets if our elected officials think it is a good idea. What would prevent the Maplewood TC from adopting the SOMact language? Uhhhhh, how about: Maybe the language is inadequate and not in the best interests of Maplewood? You wrote: "There was agreement that the process should be consistent between the two towns." Oh? Agreement between whom? If the answer is: Between the elected BOT and the elected TC, then it appears there is interest on both sides in having a study. If the answer is: Agreement between Jeff and Fred, that and $4 buys you a latte at Starbucks. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1103 Registered: 2-2002 |
Here is some math which by my thinking requires little "study": The more the guy over you runs, -the less important you are, -not more. Personally I don't think that any possible-maybe-could-be-initial-slight-small-not-much reduction in the operations budget (and no one is suggesting a lot of savings when spread out over two towns) would be worth the arrival of the darker cloud of decreased accountability and responsibility on the part of whatever lords would be running the two towns as one. I do not mean this as an indictment of present potential good-willed persons (Fred, et al) but as a safeguard for future. -By that I mean that if an elected official is "in charge" of a municipality of 45,000 vs 25,000 that means that YOU (dear humble homeowner) are LESS important by the shear diminishing weight of your vote and your own humble influence. Unless of course we all had a guarantee of saintly beneficent rulers who cared about every lily of the field from now until the end of our daze. But alas no such guarantee can or will ever exist. Even if such persons could be found and elected, -would they then stay such persons? How many of you really have the time, interest or access to knowing all of the BS that goes on or could go on in running a town, particularly a town rife with "development", -the complexities, -the angles? -By that I do not mean solely to raise the specter of true corruption but further of what poor decisions for the greater population can be made in the dark corridors of what is "legal", or can be made "legal" to accommodate who? -and deprive who else? -possibly those who do not even know of what that they are being deprived? I know from my own humble experience of running for Democratic district leader here in my little corner of Maplewood that most citizens could not name even three of the present five intrepid leaders of our governing body much less the goings on of said government. Do we want to give these busy people more to not know by widening the area of influence of those who govern them? Do we want to give them less ability of redress once they feel emboldened to inquire? I would not say the we necessarily need to give presently good-serving officials LESS power than they hold but a VERY healthy wariness and skepticism should be given to de-facto giving up your own power as a citizen by granting officials more power over a wider dirt field. It is a proposition that would need to be approached with a great deal of caution and certainly with the wider promise than the carrot of a small savings (firing a fire chief?) while engendering the forever prospect of a royal screwing by persons unknown in the future. -Witness already dear South Orange residents (in particular) your difficulties with your present government in filling holes and killing public art. Doth thou think it would be easier if such persons held sway over more citizens? Methinks not. Meanwhile, enjoy the sun and keep your officials in the light. | ||
| Foxhound Citizen Username: Foxhound Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2006 |
Neither governing body has the votes to create the study commission. Thus the petition drive. |
