Parking Ordinance on Colgate Road

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2002 - 1:54 pm:        To any of the township officials who can answer this question: Recently, signs have been erected on Colgate Road stating that all commercial and omnibus vehicles w/the exception of service vehicles to pickup/dropoff materials cannot park on Colgate Road. Within the last several months, a huge church van has been parked on Colgate Road (close to Springfield Ave.) since early in the morning until the evening, M-F. The driver of that vehicle parks the van and then proceeds to the World Tire parking lot and drives off every morning with one of the school buses that are parked there overnight. My question is this: Is the church van that is parked there all day taking up several spaces in front on people's homes, allowed to park on Colgate Road based upon the current town ordinance? Again, the only reason the driver of this vehicle parks there is because he is then proceeding to his job vehicle at World Tire. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.   Vicdeluca Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2002 - 4:15 pm:        You are asking a legal question that I do not have an answer for at this point. My lay person's opinion is that it probably is okay under the new ordinance. I will have it checked out.   Rangers Posted on Friday, February 15, 2002 - 9:03 am:        Thank you for your input Mr. Mayor. When you do get an answer for the above question, please let me know. Thanks again   Vicdeluca Posted on Friday, February 15, 2002 - 4:51 pm:        I spoke to the town attorney and the van will be considered a commercial vehicle. I will speak to the police chief about having it ticketed.   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 8:56 am:        Perhaps a warning first and help in making other transportation/parking arrangements would be better? I hate to think that the school bus driver doesn't have a way of getting to the school bus, and the van is his only option. If so, where should he park?   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:14 am:        To Njjoseph: The problem regarding the above has been ongoing for two (2) years. Finally, through Mayor Deluca, an ordinance was put into place after persistent warnings to the many offenders who took advantage of space that should have been mainly utilized by homeowners instead. The drivers of these commercial vehicles took a "I could care less" attitude and left the homeowners of Colgate Rd. feeling violated. If the owner of the van has a problem w/parking, he should contact his employer to fix his problem. His job is not the residents problem. Just because he has an inconvenience doesn't mean the residents have to suffer the consequences. Its his employers responsibility in seeing that the van driver can get to his job w/out taking up much needed space in front of residents home's. This is why Colgate Rd. is a residential street not a commercial zone,ie. no commercial vehicals.   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:16 am:        Thank You Mr. Mayor for your swift action. Your expediated actions are greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work!   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:06 am:        Rangers, I wasn't attacking you, so you don't need to defend yourself or your position. I do not know the whole history (you never explained it), and I don't know what school bus he drives (you never said so, but I had assumed it was for the SOMA school system). I just don't want to see ticketed a township employee who takes responsibility for our children; let's offer a warning, first. If you disagree because you've been down this road a million times before, I'm sorry. However, I'm not sure if you have been, as Vic himself didn't know if the van was parked illegally.   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:25 am:        To: Njjoseph, I explictedly stated that the van I was talking about was a "church van." This van is from the City of Newark because it states on the side of the van, what church its from and where the church is. This is the same van that parks every morning in front of someone's house and then proceeds to the World Tire where the school mini-bus are parked. The school mini-bus that I'm talking about, travels down Springfield Avenue towards Newark every morning. How do I know this? Because I travel the same way to work and sometimes see them traveling down that way. If you read my first comments, I was very specific as to what the problem was and the question I needed answered. Please read my first comments carefully and then get back to me.   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:47 am:        Rangers, I read your posting about 3 times, and also did a search on this thread for "Newark." The first occurrence of "Newark" is in your last posting. I could not have assumed that the church van was from Newark (do you equate church vans with Newark?), nor could I have assumed that the school bus would be travelling there every day, either. Because your posting did not state otherwise, I incorrectly assumed that the school bus was for Maplewood. I understand your situation, and I agree with you, as I've already stated. However, your posting lacked some information, so I erred on the side of being courteous to someone who is responsible for Maplewood's children. Mea culpa.   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 12:44 pm:        To: Njjoseph, I didn't think I had rehash everything that I had stated to the township officials in every little detail. The point of the original posting was for "town officials" to answer not local residents who don't know the history of the ongoing problem. The town officials are well aware of the situation and as I had said before, the situation has been ongoing for the last two (2) years. Another matter is, I really don't appreciate the fact that you are questioning/implying if I associate church vans w/Newark. All I did was state a fact. What you are suggesting is very imflammatory in nature. Since you do not know me, I suggest that you don't pass judgment on a person you do not know. Another suggestion is this: only comment about something if you have most the facts at your disposal. Since the question was not directed to anyone other than town officials, you didn't need to know all the facts. Therefore, your comments are moot. P.S. If your going to do a mea culpa, don't use imflammatory dialogue that would set a tone for something otherwise.   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 1:04 pm:        Rangers, if you wanted to engage in a dialogue only with the two town officials that post here, you should have called them directly. Posting here opens your posts to response from all posters. In addition, if the problem was ongoing, why did you NOW decide to post here, when you could have called either on the phone or emailed directly? If my comments were so moot, why did you even take the moment to respond to them? I DID ask you for facts. I did NOT judge you. You seem to have missed that I AGREE WITH YOU about your posting. I'm on YOUR side. I express concern about some of our townspeople and our children, and I'm the villain. Again. That's MOL for you. End of post.   Tracks Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 1:12 pm:        NJ Joseph - Some people just can't take yes for an answer. You are right, if he wanted a converstaion with the village officials only then why didn't he call them. Rangers wants to have his cake and eat it too.   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 2:03 pm:        Tracks: I didn't want a conversation w/a town official, I simply asked a question. There was absolutely nothing to discuss. As the Mayor responded to me, what I asked (a question)he considered a legal question (their it goes again). This is why he checked with the township attorney and got a legal answer so he could answer me in a correct way. I'm not looking for sympathy or resident approval. I wanted to know what the rights of Colgate Rd. residents were pertaining to the above issue, that's it! Of course I know that the web site is an open forum, however, I addressed a specific problem that specific people knew about,ie. town officials. Therefore, to explain to town residents the whole history would be ridiculous. Besides, the town had already taken steps to eradicate the problem (as I said, they erected no parking signs). The reason I responded to Nj joseph in the first place was because he was misinformed about a specific occurrence. That and that alone is why I responded to nj joseph. Do you both know how many complaints that Colgate Rd residents have made to the town? Countless! We even signed a petition. And how does anyone know if I haven't used this web site to complain about the situation before? Assumption, assumption, assumption. Does anyone possibly believe that a problem would exist for two (2) years and first complaint about it now. After two (2) years, they wouldn't have a right to complain. That obviously is not the case here. And last but not least, the reason I wrote township officials was for a fact of law, not an opinion. If I wanted an opinion, I could have gone around to the residents of Colgate Rd and asked them what they thought of the situation. What would that have accomplished? That's right, absolutely nothing. I went to a source of soultion and I got it.   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 2:39 pm:        But none of us knew by reading your first post that this was going on for 2 years or that you had brought this to the TC's attention before. You didn't mention it until your 10:14 A.M. post today, which is 5 days after your original post. I've been reading this board for almost 2 years, yet this is the first I remember reading of your situation. That's not to say it hasn't been discussed before. If it had been, it's been awhile, and a refresher wouldn't hurt. I was misinformed, and information is only as good as its source -- in this case, you! And how do you know I'm not one of your new neighbors? The fact that Vic didn't seem to know about it (the parking of this particular church van) might indicate the situation is new. You should also notice that I didn't challenge you on any fact, nor did I make any judgments as to what was legal and what was not. I gave my opinion, and only afterward did you give enough information to show that my opinion is "moot." If you don't want responses from the general public, why would you have posted on a "public" (yet private) forum? Yet, I wonder why you are so against my posting. If the driver were a Maplewoodian who was busing your child to school, YOU might be inconvenienced if the driver were to receive a ticket. Wouldn't you have preferred I speak up? Since Tracks posted, I can see that I'm not the only one who could have misunderstood your intentions. Without your explanation, you appear very differently than you would with it. BTW, please note that the software used on this board capitalizes only the first letter of the handle. If you insist on putting a space between NJ and Joseph, please have the courtesy to capitalize correctly.   Rangers Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 3:07 pm:        If you were my neighbor, you obviously would know exactly what I'm talking about. Since of course I know being your being sarcastic... The obvious ending to this whole diatrab is that we agree about the problem on Colgate Rd, we just don't agree on the method in relaying the problem. I have my philosophy and you have yours. BTW, if you were crictical of me spacing your name, why don't you relay it to Tracks? That's where I saw it done.   Njjoseph Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 3:29 pm:        I don't have a problem with you putting a space in my name. Please reread my post.   Sbenois Posted on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 10:54 pm:        Dear Nj JoSePh, May I share with you my complete disgust over the way that this entire issue was communicated. It is a shame that we only get 25% of the story regarding the church bus that was unduly banned from Colgate Road. Ah well, my friend, I guess religion and motor vehicles cannot coexist without conflict. What a shame.   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:56 am:        To Sbenois: I have a perfect scenario for you. If you were standing out on busy sidewalk full of people and you were having a conversation w/someone, how would feel if a complete stranger interceded into your conversation after hearing a tid bit of it and made an observation and/or conclusion based upon what little he/she heard? First you would think its none of that person's business and second, you most likely would say to that person, you weren't talking to them. The reason I am giving this scenario is simple. Njjoseph said that MOL is a public forum. Fine. If you are standing on the sidewalk talking to someone, isn't that a public place where anyone can listen? Of course. However, if you are addressing a certain someone or certain individuals regarding a subject that you and you alone want to know about, wouldn't that person or people be the one's to tell the whole scenario to? Your'e not going to get out a bullhorn and shout it out to the crowd and ask for opinions right? In my first posting, I addressed it to "any township officials." That means them not the public. Being that they know the whole story and can respond to me based upon that knowledge, its not my obligation to put the whole scenario out there for the public. If I was asking for an opinion as to handle the problem, then and only then would I put alot more detail in my posting for the public to give me the best advice it could give based upon the details I would lay out. Since that is not and never was the case, I did not do so. So to be disgusted about something that was never adresses to anyone but "any town offials", is misguided.   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:10 pm:        Rangers, once you put the question in a public forum, it IS public, and it IS your obligation to put out the whole story. You DID bring out the bullhorn, so to speak. If you don't want NJJoseph posting a response to you, then don't post. Remember, NJJoseph didn't give advice on your issue. You only asked the legality of the parking; you did NOT ask for them to do something about it, at least not in your posting here. Also, if you noticed, my response followed VIC's posting, and although I didn't specifically address it to Vic, you should have realized that I was asking HIM to do the talking -- I have no idea who you are, but I doubt you are in the position to enforce the law and give the ticket.   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 1:08 pm:        Njoseph: we obviously disagree what is public and what is not. I really don't agree w/the other things that you are saying but I can respect the passion that you do put into your argument. I guess that's what makes America great right? Your'e probably a hit at cocktail parties.   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 1:17 pm:        I suppose we do disagree. But say you overhear two people on the train discussing your spouse's salary. That's private, isn't it? Or is it public? It's actually irrelevant, because a private discussion in a public place isn't quite appropriate, is it? It's not hard to justify that posting a message on this board makes it public. IMHO, I think it's more difficult to say that the message is private. In fact, if you do 'new messages,' you'll be reading the message before you even know it's addressed to someone else. There's a reason Dave set up PrivateLine. Try it next time you don't want a response from someone other than Vic or Jerry. I'm sure it will work!   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 1:22 pm:        Oh, and you never seemed to realize that my first posting would have been my last. After all, it was a suggestion to Vic, not to you. HIS response is public, btw, as he is acting in his official capacity as mayor. I don't know how you can get around that.   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 1:54 pm:        To Njjosph: Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't realize their was a private line until you told me and also looked over to my left. Happy posting   Sbenois Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 1:54 pm:        Dear NjJoSEpH, I am continuing to wholeheartedly agree with your stance on this 22% disclosure issue. This story is becoming more bizarre on a minute by minute basis. Have you noticed that there is still no explanation for the removal of the church bus? How are the residents of Colgate Road supposed to get to their house of worship now? On their hands and knees?   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 2:09 pm:        To Sbenois: What the heck is the 22% disclosure issue? And btw, all of us Colgate Rd residents are not religious. Wer'e all athiests didn't you know?   Sbenois Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 2:28 pm:        Dear Nj JOsepH: Interesting how there is now an admission that only 22% of the information was disclosed, eh? And how about those atheists on Colgate Road going to the township committee to restrict the free practice of religion and transpotation in the area? Shameful.   Sbenois Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 2:35 pm:        Dear Rangers: In case you didn't notice, this discussion is between njJOSEPh and Sbenois. I addressed NjjOSEPh directly in my post. Why did you intervene in my discussion with NJJOSeph? If you wanted to ask me a private question, why didn't you use the PrivateLine function? NJ JOSePH, have you ever seen anything like this?   Rangers Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 2:56 pm:        Gee Sbenois, I thought this was a public forum? And the reason why I "interceded" is because it was from an issue I raised in the first place. As far as adressing Njjoseph in your post. If YOU want a private conversation, it is YOU who should have used the PrivateLine not me. Me and Njjoseph were already through this dicussion as to what is public and what is private. We agreed to disagree; fair enough. In this case though, I have to agree (I thought I would never say this) with Njjoseph. I didn't realize their was a PrivateLine until Njjoseph pointed it out to me. Therefore, what YOU are saying on this posting section is public. Thanks to the advice of Njjoseph, if I want a private conversation as YOU so want, I can go to the PrivateLine. P.S. For your info. the churh van was not being used for any church function whatsoever everyday. It had absolutely nothing to do w/religion whatsoever. The guy who used it just parked there and left it there everyday 6:30-7am until 5-6pm. I'm sure if it was parked in front of your house parked illegally per the ordinance, you wouldn't be happy about it either. And since I'm sure you don't live on Colgate Rd, don't you have anything else to worry about?   Sbenois Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 3:01 pm:        Dear Rangers: Are you sure this has nothing to do with religion? And I do not recall inviting you to address me as Gee Sbenois, on these boards, the software clearly shows that my name is Sbenois, not Gee Sbenois. I think you are mixed up. And how do you know that the bus is not parked in front of my house right now? It could be.   Sbenois Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 6:29 pm:        Dear Rangers: One last thing, remember that you and the other residents on Colgate Road should not prevent ANYONE from practicing their religion. This is an issue that apparently goes well beyond the jurisdiction of the Township Committee. Shame on you.   Rangers Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:08 am:        Sbenois: you have such tunnel vision. The only vision you see is your own. Again, everything above has NOTHING to do w/religion. And before you start bad mouthing people, have the courtesy to try and know them before you pass judgment, especially when your judgment is the furthest thing from the truth in the first place. The people who live on Colgate Rd are wonderful, hard working, family oriented people. Enough is enough. Please make this the last posting on this and lets move on. Perhaps we can talk about yesterday's News Record in which their was an article about how the borders that were painted on Springfield Ave. were painted in the wrong town! They were supposed to be painted in the town of Springfield. The article also said that before work was commence, the contractors called the Springfield Police Dept. to let them know about the job. You would have thought that the Springfield Police Dept. would have called the Maplewood PD about what was supposed to happen. Actually though, now that think about it, it didn't occur to the Springfield PD that they don't have a Springfield Ave. in their town? They could have had the contractors avoid the whole mess in the first place by telling them to recheck their work order. What a mess.   Sbenois Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:16 am:        Dear Rangers, Maybe it was a disgruntled chuch bus driver driven to insanity because his constitutional rights were abridged   Dave Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:19 am:        Even the insane should have rights.   Rangers Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 11:21 am:        Sbenois: you radical liberals never give up. Its bad enough that your views are far out of the spectrum, but when you talk about something as an authoritian, get real! It is typical liberal rhetoric that takes a situation and makes it into something that fits their agenda in order to bring attention to themselves. So basically you slant truths and make up things along the way. What are you part of the Clinton spin machine or something? Another typical liberal trait is not letting something go. As per my last posting, I tried to move onto another subject that I thought mayyybeeee would interest you. However, because you have an agenda, you won't let it go until you hear what you want to hear and in your own mind, are shown that you are right. Guess what? I'm not going for it so over and out.   Dave Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 11:34 am:        See?   Sbenois Posted on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:01 pm:        Dear Rangers, my friend and current holder of the distinction as Maplewood's leading advocate for denying poor chuch bus drivers their constitutional right to pray on Colgate Road, Shame on you. Shame on you four times with cherries on top. All I suggested is that perhaps you and the rest of your Bill of Rights denying cronies should perhaps think twice about forcing these people to the point where they must retaliate, insanely, by painting our streets, our homes, our friends, and our time honored institutions. But take solace in the fact that if our Chiefest Executive approves my plan for retaliating against the perps, you will be my first call to form the militia.