| Author | Message | ||
     Daniel I. Goldberg Citizen Username: Dig Post Number: 121 Registered: 8-2004 |
Nicely done, again, MHD. | ||
| singlemalt Supporter Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 1041 Registered: 12-2001  |
I am in agreement on almost all of the non-election issues raised by Shelly (SOAR), John, Howard, Bets, Dan, Dave, Sheena, etc. and anyone else who publicly came out and supported the ADE ticket. I think all of you would agree by my history of posts that I am all about getting positive change for the village and I am just as frustrated with what is happening as you. However, in my opinion what transpired this past election was nothing more than “pure hatred” for the existing BOT disguised as “political stupidity” and “blind ambition”. I’ll explain why/how I feel this way about all three: First, my best example (there are many more) of “pure hatred” against the existing BOT was when the SOAR endorsement came out. Jeff and David are on record as having the same intentions as the ADE team on redevelopment yet SOAR endorsed two candidates who would be unable to participate or vote on many important redevelopment projects in town. They took a MOL posting from Dan Goldberg (who I have the highest respect for) and used it as the basis of their endorsement. They ignored Eric’s own webpage and opinion from his personal attorney in favor of Dan’s posting. Why? Because they thought ADE has the best opportunity to win and that was more important than actually endorsing candidates who would have the ability to make the positive change the village needed if we won 3 seats. Even if SOAR got their wish, Bill would still have the needed votes on a number of very important issues that SOAR has raised concerns on in the past. Next, let me discuss “political stupidity”. There were already good alternatives to Line C in the race. Jeff, David, Howard and Eric had already publicly announced their intentions to run. I was thinking, “How do we get one of the four to sit this election out”? The ADE folks thought the complete opposite and invited an additional candidate into the field at the last minute. Instead of “4 –v- 3” they made it “5 –v- 3”. That’s what I call “political stupidity” since we watered down the vote against Line C even more. Why didn’t Eric and Howard have a sit-down with Jeff and David before inviting John into the fold? Finally, let me touch on “blind ambition”. How can anyone who has watched redevelopment in this town for the past 8 years not think that issues with Beifus, New Market, the Rug Store, SOPAC or any other project would never come before the board for a variety of issues? Everyone knew that John and Eric would not be able to participate yet they continued their campaigns and left 5 candidates out there to split the votes. Even if John and Eric had won, they would not be able to participate on any of the topics I previously mentioned or many others that will be coming. This has already been proven by not allowing Eric to be present when Beifus was discussed in closed session. In my opinion, this is one more reason why Eric and John should have stepped aside. Ok – this will be my final post on this subject unless I get follow-up questions. I know it is time to move on. Before I get slammed for this posting, I hope it is clear to everyone that while we disagree on how the election was handled this year we must learn from this mistake, get organized early, and make sure we have a slate of candidates who are able to win in two years. It will be here before we know it. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1563 Registered: 6-2001  |
Singlemalt, that's a completely defensible argument, but may I point out that it works both ways: DeVaris, Levison, and Pogany had an obviously cohesive campaign together, and Dubowy and Belasco could also have bowed out gracefully. It doesn't matter which horse is last to the post, after all. I don't know (honestly) what dialogue there may have been between DeVaris/Levison and Dubowy/Belasco prior to Pogany's petition submission. But we do know what More-Ahbrams pulled and I believe DeVaris/Levison/Pogany had the best shot at winning without the distractions of Dubowy/Belasco. My final thoughts too, unless there are valid questions about my statement. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 647 Registered: 3-2002 |
I'm with everything singlemalt said. The SOAR mailing was d__n strange, there were too many non-line C candidates, with too much potential for conflict of interest exclusions. Let's hope we can get this right next time around. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1566 Registered: 6-2001 |
Susan, In my opinion, the only way to do that is to keep all of the issues in the forefront, including the fact that this is the third straight election campaign in which the Board of Trustees outright lied to the citizens. I propose that we submit a petition that would bar the BOT from voting on anything pertaining to redevelopment in the 4-week period leading up to the next election, in May 2007. Anyone who cries "blockade to progress!" or "roadblock to redevelopment" can stick this keyboard where the sun don't shine (specifically, in the closed session chambers in Village Hall). Those last minute "Coming Soon" waltzes prior to Election Day have to be stopped. Maybe if we start now, we can have the entire town signed up by Feb. 2007. | ||
| talk-it-up Citizen Username: Talkitup Post Number: 153 Registered: 3-2004 |
hQuestions: If Terri-Ann works for the County aren't there conflicts of interest there? If Stacy has a husband in the middle school, near the proposed development, isn't there a conflict of interest there? Wait a minute! how could anything be a conflict of interest? A former trustee has a relationship with our administrator/CFO and that is not a conflict of interest. Our village attorney does not seem to identify conflicts of interest or comment on possible conflicts of interest to protect the villagers. Why should Devaris not be acceptable. The parking deck does not belong in the Transit Lot the parking should be in a less offensive position in the side of the hill at the rescue squad site. Located there it is also not a conflict of interest for anyone. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1099 Registered: 5-2004  |
TIU, It is possible that Terri-ann will have conflicts, but until an issue comes up that might be one, it's tough to define. Stacy's husband working at the middle school has no bearing on downtown redevelopment. I don't see how it could. Theroux' conflict of interest was well known. If she did not recuse herself, or if the attorney or other trustees did not insist she recuse herself on obvious conflicting issues,shame on them. Devaris is acceptable, but the conflict of interest should be obvious to anyone who has ever been downtown. Personally, I would bet that Eric would vote the right way, regardless of his interest. But these laws are often to prevent the appearance of conflict. As for the parking deck, there is no acceptable place. We all want more parking (or at least a spot for ourselves), but no more parking lots, nor a deck where it would be convenient. Bets, I think you miss singlemalt's point about having Trustees that are able to vote on specific issues downtown. If Eric, John and Howard had won, Calabrese still would have had Howard and Mark vs Allan and Arthur. And he'd be the tie breaker. Of course, it's possible that Allan is leaning toward Calabrese to remain relevant. With three votes in his pocket (assuming you believe that Terri-ann, Stacy and Arthur will always vote as a block), the remaining Trustees might as well be Democrats in the House. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1570 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro, I think you missed my point that yes, there'd be a tie-breaker vote on almost every issue regarding those specific developments, but at least there'd be a goddanm fight. That's how Eric and John would've contributed to Beifus, SOSAD, and (what's the other one??). On all other issues, I think the village could've made serious progress with the ADE slate. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1571 Registered: 6-2001 |
And (are you enjoying this buzzsaw, if you're reading?), please do not come back with "it's over, let's move on, improve village, yada yada yada yada yada" and expect me to take you seriously. You take me seriously, instead, please. Thanks. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1572 Registered: 6-2001 |
and (  ) that last was not directed to Rastro, per se, but SOS:MOL at large. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1100 Registered: 5-2004 |
bets, But I think you're missing my point. Eric and John could NOT have put up a fight, since they would not be able to participate in the discussions, let alone the votes. I'd never tell someone to move on here. It's just too easy to ignore a thread to tell someone that they shouldn't voice their opinion. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1576 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro, they could've participated in the enforcement of the agreement that Beifus get the permits within 10 days or the land turns over to SO. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1101 Registered: 5-2004 |
Possibly. But not definitely. Besides, would you rather the town has the land and uses it as a parking lot, or Beifus actually gets off his ••• and does something with the property? | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1578 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro, it's going to be a parking lot, paid for by the town for the town, taxes paid by the town, what part are you missing? | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1579 Registered: 6-2001 |
No edits to previous post. South Orange will pay for the preparation and construction of a parking lot on the Beifus site. They will pay his taxes for 2 years. The (how can I use alleged when it was a downright fukcing lie?) stipulation that he have a developer's agreement before the BOTs within 10 days of May 9. What the hell will it take for you to have clarity? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1102 Registered: 5-2004 |
"What the hell will it take for you to have clarity?" Excuse me? It's perfectly clear to me what has happened. You are the one who said "they could've participated in the enforcement of the agreement that Beifus get the permits within 10 days or the land turns over to SO." Given that the time frame Beifus had expired prior to the election, I don't see what John and Howard could have done with respect to Beifus. Bottom line, what would be different wrt Beifus? | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1581 Registered: 6-2001 |
Okay! I give! Everything's fine and dandy in the Township of South Orange Village. Now I know you'll disagree with that statement as well, so I guess I'll just STFU myself. Over & out! | ||
| Daniel I. Goldberg Citizen Username: Dig Post Number: 122 Registered: 8-2004 |
Singlemalt: I agree that 5 “challengers” fighting for three spots was a losing proposition, and we can't and won't let that happen again, but you are oversimplifying the manner in which this situation came about, and the reasons many continued to support candidates with alleged conflicts. I cannot comment upon SOAR's support of the ADE team, but I suppose they, like many others, were looking at the election from a practical standpoint. I agree that all five "challengers" had far more in common with one another than they had in common with Line C. However, regardless of how great Belascoe might have looked on paper, he just did not have the recognition to fetch enough votes to win. Don’t get me wrong, I like what I know about him, and given the circumstances he did quite well with votes, but even with a SOAR endorsement, I don’t think it would have made a difference. Jeff is the more difficult issue. He had a very strong broad base of support in the Upper Wyoming area. Indeed, if you drove around the Newstead area pre-election, you would have thought that Jeff had locked up a seat. (Just goes to show how diverse the opinion is in this Village is, and how Newstead is not a barometer for the Village as a whole). On a personal level, I wanted to do whatever I could in this election to help the “challengers.” I worked with Howard and Eric – but also supported John and Jeff. My feeling was that I wanted to be able to go to my friends and family and say: Here are four great choices – pick three. I think it would have been presumptuous and ineffective for me to strictly endorse the ADE team, when I knew many of the people to whom I would be reaching out had already agreed to support Jeff, or were likely to do so. I figured that if we could get our “challenger” votes out there, we could beat Line C. I knew the “challengers” had an uphill battle, but in terms of the “conflict” issue I was hoping that there would be enough votes to elect Howard and Jeff, and then either Eric or John. If we had accomplished that, and elected three “challengers” – one of which had a conflict, we still would have had a majority on the Board. In terms my comments on the conflict issue, at the time I was so lost in the MOL world, that I didn’t realize the fact that other than us nebbishes on MOL – this was not an election issue. Nevertheless, the more I read on MOL, the more frustrated and concerned I became. Frankly, I thought the issue was spinning out of control, and I just wanted to stop the spin. In terms of SOAR’s support for Eric, despite his own indication that he would not be able to participate on the Beifus and SOPAC issues (but would be able to participate on the Shop-Rite issues), I think that Eric jumped the gun in taking a position on this, and perhaps SOAR believed as much as well. In Eric’s attempt to be honest and forthright, I think that he may have unnecessarily compromised his position on the issue. The fact is that his alleged “conflict” was nothing more than a hypothetical until it he had do to deal with it. Moreover, perhaps SOAR figured that, once the alleged “conflict” became a reality, Eric could challenge the Ethics Board’s position on the issue. Administrative agencies and the courts are constantly interpreting the law – it is always developing. And, while I do not know exactly what the Patrick Joyce decision said, the facts in this case are different from the facts in that case. But regardless, I think the decision in the Patrick Joyce matter went way too far. There is absolutely no reason to bar a trustee from participating in a public discussion of an issue with which he or she may have a conflict. The basis for preventing a trustee from voting on, or discussing with another trustee in private an issue with which he or she has a conflict is an entirely different matter. Simply to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, there is a basis for prohibiting a trustee from engaging in such conduct. In terms of the creation of the ADE team, there is no point in talking about should haves, or could haves. If Jeff would have been willing to run with Howard and Eric, that certainly would have made for an interesting ticket. But, if Jeff had done that, I don’t think he would have received the support that he did from Mark. (I am just guessing here). Of course, while I like Mark, both as a person, and a Trustee, I don’t know the extent to which Mark really created any forward momentum for Jeff. In defense of Eric and the “conflicts” issue, there are a number of redevelopment issues on which he can and will work. While Ed would have us believe that Eric has a conflict on Beifus and SOPAC, and possibly the Rahway River Project – he is free on all other issues, such as: NJ Transit parking lot deck, the rug store property, Church Street redevelopment, Valley Street redevelopment, Irvington Avenue redevelopment, the Midas/Town Hall property, the abandoned Gulf station at the corner of Third and Valley, various parking lots, the JAC property and public land used by the Department of Public Works, and other properties. So, yes, Eric may have to sit out on some of the important projects, but certainly not all of them. In the end, Singlemalt, we all agree that we can’t let the mistakes of this election ever be repeated. I don’t know if this is comforting, or just adds to the frustration, but let us not forget that the “challengers” did get the majority of the vote. Line C was the beneficiary of a strange and fortuitous set of circumstances that shall, hopefully, never be repeated. I don’t have all the answers, but in talking with others I know that there are a lot of good ideas out there to assure a more effective campaign, and better election results. There will be many opportunities over the next 2 years to get involved and work towards improving the Village in the near term, and elect a more responsible Board in 2007. Let’s all try and exercise every opportunity we get to make this happen. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1587 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just want to point out that Eric will also have a say and a vote on personnel issues and the budget as well. His effectiveness against the stone wall already in place is what is frustrating. Daniel, please let me know what I can do to contribute to the effort for 2007. Even if the answer is STFU  . From you, I will honor that advice (to the best of my ability). | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1590 Registered: 6-2001 |
And Rastro, I'm sorry. |
