| Author |
Message |
    
Admin
| | Posted on Monday, October 22, 2001 - 10:18 pm: |     |
Questions for Marie from Fred Profeta:
1. What are your specific proposals for economic development in Maplewood?
2. If the race were only between David Huemer and Fred Profeta, whom would you vote for and why?
3. Can you name four votes of the Township Committee in 2000 or 2001 with which you disagree, explaining why? |
Marie
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 9:44 am: | |
I would do the following:
1) I would ask the MPD to reinstate more walking and bike patrols on and around Springfield Avenue and in the Parks.
2)I would encourage strict enforcement
of any and all housing and commercial violations on and around SA.
3)I would look into giving short term tax abatements to businesses that would take over the responsibility of cleaning up and maintaining contaminated sites.
4)Encourage the development of a middle to upper income - inium/coop units to help support commerce in and around the Springfield Avenue area.
5) Repeal the current Rent Control Ordinance.
6) Rework the current zoning restrictions to include businesses that would otherwise be exempt from the Avenue.
7) I would ask the residents of this town what kind of business they would support on the Avenue.
8) I would form an outreach group to work with Union and Irvington's Chamber of commerce to encourage a more proactive relationship with their municipal governments and encourage redevelopment on the areas on Springfield Avenue that border Maplewood.
9) I would personally reach out to business to help attract meaningful commerce to SA. |
Marie
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 11:53 am: | |
I will refrain from answering this question as it would be a flagrant show of disloyalty to my constituents of which I respect and honor. Perhaps, Dave would allow you another more constructive question? |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 12:32 pm: | |
Marie, it's always OK in my opinion to disregard a hypothetical question (no.2). This isn't a hypothetical election. I hereby give you a 'pass' on question 2. 
Question 3? |
Marie
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 - 2:59 pm: | |
Dave,
Question 3 to be answered this evening - stay tuned... |
Dave
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 1:30 pm: | |
Marie,
So far, you're the only one with answers |
Fredprofeta
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 2:33 pm: | |
Dave:
I ask you to reconsider your ruling that Marie Stratechuk is not required to answer my second question to her on the grounds that it is hypothetical. Equally hypothetical is David Huemer's question to both Marie and myself which begins with "If you had been a member of the Board of School Estimate . . .[in the spring]." So was my return question to David on the same sujbect.
I did not find anything in your rules about hypothetical questions. These questions are a standard debate technique for isolating central issues from irrelevant background so as to focus the answer. The intent of my question no. 2 was to request Marie to evaluate the proposals of David and myself across the board. So far, she has attacked individual positions, but has refrained from commenting on many of our central proposals.
In my opinion, we should not spend much time on semantics or provide opportunites for candidates to avoid legitimate inquiries. If you think it would be more appropriate, the purpose of question no. 2 might be served by requiring Marie to answer an alternative question: "How do you evaluate the relative merits of the platforms of Fred Profeta and David Huemer?"
Fred Profeta |
Dave
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 2:44 pm: | |
That's probably a better way to phrase the question.
--
Question from Fred to Marie
Q.2: "How do you evaluate the relative merits of the platforms of Fred Profeta and David Huemer?" |
Marie
| | Posted on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 11:28 am: | |
To answer Fred's question on "the relative merits of the platforms of Fred Profeta and David Huemer?", I would have to reply that I am not able to find much substance in either of their platforms.
Saying you are for more senior housing is a no-brainer, but how will we pay for it ? Fred says he's for "providing opportunities for talented, non-political leaders to serve" but he has worked awfully hard to try to persuade me to bow out of this election.
Another example is when David says that he would "Support direct citizen vote on the school budget" (I have yet to hear or read anything from Fred on the issue of education).
David's position is now squarely in agreement with my stated goal (and a Republican ideal I may add) of bringing local government closer to the people. Allowing citizens to vote on our school budget has been a platform position of mine since day one and I'm glad to hear that David has come around on this issue.
However, David knows as well as I do that, changing how Maplewood approves of it's school budget can only be done on the state legislative level. So the real question is - What immediate steps can we take until such a change has been made in the State law?
I believe we must approach these types of issues, as I have proposed with the issue of crime and the revitalization of Springfield Ave., in a common sense and creative manner.
Here's what I would specifically do to give the people a say on the issue of our school budget. I would ask the Board of School Estimate to withhold their vote on the school budget until after the Board of Education election has been held. I would then add a non-binding referendum on the school budget to the BOE ballot thus allowing the voice of the people to be heard on this issue. Yes, for now and until the NJS law is changed, it must be a non-binding resolution but we can and should at least let the BSE hear the voice of the citizens and taxpayers of Maplewood before they make this decision for us. |
|