| Author |
Message |
    
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 2:52 pm: |     |
Jfburch,
There is on going discussion regarding Garfield, and hopefully the Boyden Ave traffic issues will soon be added to them.
Can anyone speak out on the idea of having no right turns traveling east on Irvington Avenue on Essex, Union, Hudson, Coolidge, and Boyden Avenue?
This would be like driving east past the Top on South Orange Avenue past Harding Drive S., Lenox, and West End Road, where you can't make a right turn going down, or a left turn coming up.
When you begin to think about all the possibilities, it really comes down to the importance the neighborhood places on reserving their streets for just local traffic, or being a little unconvinced when coming and/or going from their homes.
Listen, I don’t believe all these city folk are moving to Maplewood to be hassled by thousands of buses and cars pounding up and down our streets, polluting, speeding, cluttering, and cutting through our quiet residential neighborhoods. The Hillcrest neighborhood has eliminated all the cut through traffic, why can’t the rest of town do the same?
Truthfully, I don’t want to hear all the crap from the state and the county about where and how their roads need to cut through the roads, in our town.
Listen, Maplewood is our town. We already pay a ton of our money to the state and the county. If they want to repair our roads, police them, and pay some of the taxes we have to pay to live in our residential neighborhoods, then fine, let them tell us whatever they want. Otherwise, don't tell us how to direct our local traffic patterns, and stay the hell out of our business... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
You know if the traffic-light patterns on Irvington made more sense then people wouldn't NEED to cut through our streets. But as it is you can be sure of getting stuck at one or all of the lights near the Boyden intersection, PLUS the light at the bottom of the hill, PLUS the light at Irvington/Parker/Clinton. Like you said, traffic takes the path of least resistance, and there's entirely too much resistance on Irvington. Now wonder people like me take shortcuts through the local streets  .
But I'd certainly be willing to go the long way if it made a difference -- that is to say, if everyone else had to also.
Maybe the next protest should involve putting up barricades at the intersections, only allowing passenger cars through. But before we do that -- how'd the Monday evening court sessions go? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
It went as expected for their first appearance. A court date was set for later in the month.
In the mean time we're hoping for a chance to sit down with the police, NJ Transit, maybe Vic DeLuca, and a mediator. There was never any intent to break the law; the whole idea was just to get the buses not to turn down Boyden Avenue anymore. Seeing that we now better understand the limitations of a public protest, hopefully they will agree to drop the charges, if we agree not to stop the buses anymore.
That sounds fair to me, what do you think? BTW, blocking traffic at an intersection is a no no...
|
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
There was never any intent to break the law...
This is pretty disingenuous. How can anyone claim they didn't know that stopping traffic is illegal?
If you're going to engage in civil disobedience (their words) you ought to be willing to take the punishment for it, or you're just another criminal trying to beat the rap. Where's the courage in that? |
Copihue
Citizen
Username: Cop
Post Number: 200
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
The mothers of students in Tuscan School block the traffic every day, they do so to chat with their friends, not have to work an additional few steps, and they have been doing so for several generations with impunity. So why are we making it an issue if protesters block the traffic? both are engaged in civil disobedience. Why is a gaggle of women OK, but residents who are frustrated with the buses going through their street not OK. Why does one group have more rights than the other?
Pack your own chute. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Larry,
At the meeting we had at town hall prior to our protest, there was never any intent to break the law...
Look, I respect you as a pretty levelheaded guy. So would you be willing to explain to us how we went wrong?
Prior to the protest, we all had a meeting with the Mayor and NJ Transit at town hall. We advised NJ Transit that we would publicly defy them to bring attention to our cause. I believe everyone understood that as long as we kept moving back and forth, we would be within our rights. Yes, we were going to engage in civil disobedience, but there was never any intent to break the law.
You ask us, “How can anyone claim they didn't know that stopping traffic is illegal?” Well, I’ll tell you. The way we understood the law, pedestrians always have the right of way. We believed as long as we kept moving within the pedestrian crosswalks, we would be within our legal right to protest.
Do you really think this is being pretty disingenuous? Do you believe we are just a bunch of criminals trying to beat the rap? Can’t we be defiant without breaking the law? And if you want to talk about where the courage is in walking back and forth in the cold in front of dozens of buses, I will be happy to engage you in debate in another thread about how courageous all these women were coming out with their children while their husbands were home watching the television set.
Right now this thread is about asking people to: “Help Us Protest NJ Transit's Use of Boyden Avenue.”
Let me say it again, “There was never any intent to break the law...” I view this matter with NJ Transit as being about “Fairness in Dealing.” So Larry, please sit in judgment and tell us were we went wrong….
BTW, didn’t I see someone with a name similar to yours being appointed to some Board in town? |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
I don't think I have to analyze very deeply here. The very definition of civil disobedience is breaking the law to make a point, and clearly that was the intention of the Boyden Gang. It's not a courageous protest if you don't face the consequences.
>>BTW, didn’t I see someone with a name similar to yours being appointed to some Board in town?
I'm on the zoning board. |
Copihue
Citizen
Username: Cop
Post Number: 204
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Congratulations.
Pack your own chute. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
“I don't think I have to analyze very deeply here.”
I think if you are dealing with Maplewood residents with issues and problems pertaining to their property values, and you’re going to be making decisions on the Zoning Board, also with residents with issues and problems regarding their property, maybe you should be thinking more deeply and analyzing things more carefully.
I find this exchange of opinions some what difficult knowing I will soon have to stand before you in judgment with issues of my bed and breakfast. I guess we will have to cross that bridge when we get there. In the mean time, I hope you understand I must stand strong for the residents who so unselfishly gave of themselves for what I see as a fair and honorable cause.
Nonetheless, as I said to you earlier on, “I respect you as a pretty levelheaded guy.” For this reason I’m going to request again that you re-analyze this issue one more time.
Please keep in mind Larry, you have pre-judged these residents as being a bunch of criminals, and have accused them of intentionally breaking the law. They are in fact not criminals, and should it be proven in a court of law that any law was broken, I insist to you that they did NOT break it intentionally.
As I have stated repeatedly, I don’t believe anyone engaged in this protest intended to deliberately break the law. We were honestly of the belief that as pedestrians on the sidewalks, or in the crosswalks, we would be within our rights to protest, as long as we continued to keep moving. When the arrests were made, some residents were walking in the crosswalk and others were engaged in conversation with the bus driver, requesting that he honor our picket line.
If you agree to reconsider, I have defined some of the language used in your statement. Everything you said, is in all fairness, subject to interpretation. FWIW, I was unable to find anywhere that Civil Disobedience only meant that the parties were breaking the law.
“The very definition of civil disobedience is breaking the law to make a point, and clearly that was the intention of the Boyden Gang.”
Civil = Social, public, civic, polite, courteous, well mannered.
Disobedience = defiance, misbehavior, acting up.
Clearly = Plainly, visibly, without a doubt.
Intention = Objective, meaning, intent.
Gang = Bunch of criminals.
“It's not a courageous protest if you don't face the consequences.”
Courageous = Brave, bold, daring.
Protest = Demonstration, picket, strike, civil action.
Consequences = Penalty, cost.
Larry, it would be a great moral victory for all of us living in town if you would apologize for your earlier comments, acknowledge the courage of these women, and give them the benefit of doubt as to what their intentions were.
I respectfully await your reply... Art. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 908
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
"Civil Disobedience" is purposely breaking the law in order to protest government policy and often to protest the very law being broken. Consult "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau or study the life and works of Mahatma Ghandi and M.L. King.
Peacefull, legal protest is not civil disobedience. If you do not intend to break the law, you are not engaging in civil disobedience. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2302
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 10:52 pm: | |
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist
Anon,
If Civil Disobedience is purposely breaking the law, then what we were doing was engaging in a peaceful legal protest. Our intention was not to break any laws.
Demonstrations have played an important part of this country's history. While the tradition of protest is supported by the constitution, I agree the law also says that the police have the right to regulate demonstrations to maintain public order.
However, due to the conflicting rights of a demonstrator and the police, it is not always clear what is legal and what is not legal.
My issue with Larry's position is that, right or wrong, he has judged these women as common criminals without the benefit of knowing their intentions, or a fair trial. Plus I feel he is being unnecessarily harsh. |
lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
That does it, I'm off MOL. Good bye. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4254
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
From listening to the "Boyden Two" at the TC meeting a couple of weeks ago I don't think they were trying to get arrested and, indeed, seemed surprised when they were. I think Art is correct in that the line between free speech and illegality is a very fine one. I believe the Boyden Two were arrested for talking to a bus driver, who apparently didn't feel at all frigtened by a couple of soccer mom types. I am curious if the arrests were done by NJT or Maplewood officers.
I am a child of the 60s, when getting arrested for civil disobedience was a badge of honor. I think the 60s taught us that civil disobedience works.
My personal opinion is that NJT isn't going to make major changes in their routing until the embarrased into it.
Sorry to sound so stuffy, sometime I will post about how I got arrested for being pro-war an how the ACLU, usually blasted by conservatives, got our cases dismissed. The best part was the young lawyer who represented us who kept mumbling, "I don't believe I am doing this.".  |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2307
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Do what you must, but the least you could do is give us the courtesy of a reply.
My intention is not to make you wrong Larry; it's just to try to solicit support for this unfortunate incident with these two women. You and I have been back and forth with each other over the years, and I see no reason to stop now. If I offended you, I apologize. I hope you reconsider and do the same...
|
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
To be honest, It's been a slow morning for me so I've finally read this post from the top to kill time. I have to say Larry is 100% correct. These women were arrested for breaking the law. The old saying, play with fire and you'll get burned.
Next time, I hope you protesters avoid creating a scene. There are other ways to make a point.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6103
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
I agree with LSeltzer's assessment. It was obviously illegal and being a society based on Rule of Law they need to face the music. What would be the message if it were otherwise? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. What if an ambulance, police or fire truck had to get through for an emergency? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
what, into the bus garage? I imagine they'd have stepped out of the way.
I haven't read anything on this thread that would let me conclude that they were breaking a law. If so, what law? Loitering? Repeatedly crossing the same street? Speaking to the bus driver?
And, whatever the law is, is it uniformly enforced? If I did the same thing at, say, Garfield and Essex, would I be hauled in as well? |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
If there was even more traffic on Boyden Avenue and if it moved so slowly that the "five minute advantage" was lost, NJT bus drivers would be less likely to use Boyden Avenue as a short cut to the NJT bus garage.
Instead of having a demonstration where pedestrians attempt to interfere with moving vehicular traffic, why not adapt a tactic used by taxi drivers during a NYC traffic strike many years ago.
Temporarily increase the traffic along the offending stretch of Boyden Avenue. Have drivers of participating vehicles move at the slowest safe speed possible. Include drivers who stop to make left and/or right hand turns onto/off Boyden Avenue at every intersection if possible. Really tie up traffic but without blocking the box. No laws will be broken and NJT will get the hint. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Cool idea. It'd have to be at one of the prime time hours, when they're all rocketing through. I imagine if we all drove around our respective blocks at 10 mph, counterclockwise so that we'd always be making left turns, it would be quite a spectacle. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 159
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
I think the suggested no right turn signs could be limited to vehicles over a certain weight (to cover trucks and busses). This would provide the least amount of trouble to most residential traffic, and accomplish the objective. It may also provide a source of revenue to the town if the cops enforce it. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6104
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
I like Joan's idea. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Joan,
The bus drivers have nothing to say about using Boyden Avenue. They are only doing as they are told.
NJ Transit instructs the drivers to use Boyden Avenue to allegedly save time and money for the rest of the state at Maplewood's expense.
Doesn't anyone understand what's going on here?
NJ Transit uses 10+ acres of our town property, they use our roads to dead head 1,000 buses a week, and they abuse our neighborhoods and depreciate the property all along the way. All these infringements of our rights in the name of saving some money for the rest of the state.... What is Maplewood, chop liver?
As far back as I can remember, no one has ever been able to find a way to stop the buses from using Boyden Avenue as a short cut. Well, that was up until 4PM on Monday, December 29, 2003, when a small group of courageous women stepped up to the plate for the rest of the town, and for a few hours achieved a small measure of success by diverting dozens of buses from turning down their street.
In the interim as we work to resolve this, I’m disappointed that some people on this thread chose to criticize, rather than recognize the efforts of these women. In place of encouragement and support, they ridicule and belittle. Laws don’t always have to be black and white, more times than not they are gray. These women were not trying to break any laws, they were only responding in the spirit of a law that permits then to engage in peaceful protest of what they believe is an injustice.
The system in this case is wrong, NJ Transit is wrong, and IMHO, the law that permits the state to abuse a minority, while alleging to benefit the majority is also wrong. Anyone who doesn’t think so, had better wake up and smell the roses.
In the light of the daily injustice being dished out to the residents of this town by NJ Transit, I find it disappointing and upsetting that, some of you have expressed such a harsh attitude, and in a sense taken the side of the enemy. How unfair; Do the Crime, Pay the Time!
These women are not defiant and belligerent lawbreakers. They’re not harden criminals who did some horrible crime, and now must pay fines and do some time. All they did was bravely stand in support of over 200 of their fellow residents who signed the petition against the buses, and in a way for the entire town that continues to lose the benefit of over a hundred thousand dollars in lost ratables every year for the past several decades.
This shouldn’t be a matter to take lightly, or to criticize and accuse your neighbors of being criminals. There’s still time to reverse your position and show support for the cause, and for these women. I’m not asking anyone to protest the injustice of these issues, or to pick up a poster and march. However, some on-line words of encouragement, a letter or call of support to the town would go along way to help get these charges dropped.
If some of you hard asses still can’t find it within yourselves to do that, then at least show the courage Larry did, and move on, or just sign off the thread without any further comment. |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2348
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Art:
I understand that the drivers are using Boyden Avenue under direction of their dispatchers. However, if the bus drivers are consistently late in returning to the garage because of increased traffic on Boyden Avenue and/or the bus drivers frequently radio their dispatchers that they can't get through on Boyden Avenue because of the heavy traffic conditions, NJT could be persuaded to change their policy.
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 918
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Larry, Dave, Straw, the "Boyden Two" are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone accused of breaking the law. On the other hand, Art, they are not Rosa Parks! Annoying bus traffic on Boyden Avenue is not racial segregation on buses! |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2311
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 7:30 pm: | |
Thank you for your suggestions and support Joan.
FYI, on the first night of the protest, with the help of the women and by using my van, I was successful in blocking every bus from turning onto Boyden Avenue. After a couple hours of this, the police finally caught up with me. They made it perfectly clear that there was no way they would allow me to continue to detain, slow, or obstruct traffic in any way.
They advised me if I didn't stop immediately, or I continued anytime in the future, they would arrest me, tow my vehicle, issue me a MV ticket costing me points, and an additional criminal citation on top of everything else.
Now, that being said, the idea of getting a sufficient number of vehicles to be even partially effective is highly unlikely. Given the fact that the last time out, we were never able to get more than six protesters at one time. Then there's the impossible task of slowing down the buses 24/7. In case you're interested, that breaks down to 10-12 buses an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Believe me when I tell you, I’m willing to try almost anything, but we have no intentions of breaking the law...
What do you think now Joan? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2312
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
“Art, they are not Rosa Parks! Annoying bus traffic on Boyden Avenue is not racial segregation on buses!”
Anon, I just noticed your last comment. It reads like a racial slur. I don't see where Rosa Parks and racial segregation on buses has anything to do with this thread.
Would you mind clarifying what it is you’re trying to say? And while you’re at, please make me wrong... |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2349
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Art:
The point would be to prove to NJT and the town that Boyden Avenue does not exist for the sole purpose of providing a short cut for NJT’s deadheading buses. Given all the bus traffic on Boyden Avenue, it is likely that local residents have been avoiding Boyden Avenue because of the competition which the buses offer. Encouraging local residents to take back Boyden Avenue by driving on it more often, even if that means a delay in their arriving at their destination, could be very effective.
The key here is to make legitimate trips on each driver’s own schedule; not, to have a staged media event. If the residents of Boyden Avenue and surrounding streets feel that a mass expression of their disgust is needed, it would be best to justify the additional traffic by creating a legitimate mass destination such as a special event on Springfield Avenue or at Boyden School.
Obviously, more than six vehicles would have to participate. It is also obvious that such an approach would not tie up traffic on Boyden Avenue all the time. As Tom pointed out, focusing on peak bus traffic times, when residents might also be most likely to be driving on their own local streets would have the best chance of success.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2313
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Thanks again Joan...
We’ll talk about it with the group, but as you can imagine, it will be very difficult getting people to coordinate such a demonstration.
There has to be an easier way??? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Well, at least the News Record thought it was important enough to put it on the front page...
How many of you out here would be in favor of the charges being dropped against these two women? |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 328
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
ajc,
It would be a lot easier to support your position if you were honest.
Your insistance that you and the two women in question didn't know a law was being broken ranks right up there with my little girls assertion she didnt know she couldn't have candy before dinner.
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
According to the article, the township is powerless to make NJT change its ways. So, are they going to support the residents, or NJT? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page