|
Post by admin on Nov 7, 2007 17:38:01 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1107/Editorials/035.htmlMayor's missteps over years have hurt Freehold Borough Guest Column RICHARD KELSEY When Freehold Borough Mayor Jack McGackin died in 1985, Mike Wilson was called on to fill very big shoes. Mayor Wilson never grew into those shoes and after 22 years it is time to step down. When announcing this year, the mayor stated that " ome of the friends I grew up with here in Freehold moved away a long time ago, looking in other places or what seemed to them better things. I didn't. I stayed and I tried to make things better here." History can be the only fair judge of his complete record and I suspect she will not be impressed.
Mayor Wilson presided over the decision to legitimize illegal immigration in the borough by working to create a muster zone. That decision was a disaster. I wrote numerous op-ed pieces taking the borough to task for setting up a magnet for illegal labor. When the borough finally realized several years ago that this decision had brought unforeseen problems to the borough, it attempted to change course.
I publicly pushed the borough to take aggressive legal, political and public relations positions to reverse a tide that was destined to sink the town. The mayor was unable or unwilling to take that aggressive action. Instead, the borough found itself on the defensive, under the microscope of an unfriendly, partisan federal judge, and the target for national open borders activists.
The mayor made fiery speeches, but took no real action. Like many elected officials, he waited, hoping that some other elected official would walk the tough path and solve the problems of the town - problems he helped to exacerbate. That never happened.
Last year Mayor Wilson stunned the residents of Freehold again by accepting a settlement in a lawsuit by open borders activists.
The settlement placed the borough under the watchful eye of the court and it handed activists a bogus public relations claim that the borough was violating civil rights, and that the borough was a disgraced town practicing discrimination. The practical result of the settlement was to tie the hands of law enforcement in dealing with illegal immigration.
As recently as July, a "swarming incident" found a borough resident helpless to an onslaught of day laborers who jumped in her pick-up truck, assuming that she was just another contractor looking to exploit laborers and beat the tax man. The police were apologetic, but unwilling to take action due to the settlement. This is the legacy of Mayor Wilson.
In August, Mayor Wilson again threw his lawful residents overboard to drown in the rising tide of illegal immigration.
The previously tough-talking mayor sent a letter to Gov. Corzine - begging to be a member of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission set up to help the "immigrant community."
In his letter the mayor began to praise the positive effects of the illegal invasion of Freehold, deliberately attempting to merge the concepts of immigrant and illegal immigrant.
Mayor Wilson wrote, "The positive advantages are obvious and they are welcome. The influx of immigrants has enriched our town's culture with a group of individuals who have a profound work ethic, strong family and religious values, and have even added new, vibrant businesses to our downtown."
In September, Mayor Wilson apparently appointed an active member of CASA Freehold to the town's Human Relations Commission.
The News Transcript said of this organization, "Casa Freehold, by virtue of its actions, comments and apparent support of illegal immigration, will never have, and does not deserve, the trust, respect and cooperation of borough officials." Mayor Wilson just gave CASA Freehold the respect it does not deserve. After an inquiry about the residency of town committee appointees on a Freehold blog site, it was suggested that the CASA Freehold appointee is neither a lawful resident of Freehold nor the United States of America.
Since that allegation, which admittedly is not substantiated, Mayor Wilson and his regime have gone silent, except to attack the site. The mayor then canceled the mid- October public Borough Council meeting, and his council ticket-mates refuse to debate - recently calling (a) school PTO not a "legitimate" forum. The lawful residents of Freehold have the right to know if the tough-talking mayor of the borough has appointed an illegal alien to a policy making committee.
When seeking his re-election bid to serve out 26 years, Mayor Wilson said, "I want to keep following through on that decision I made a long time ago - that decision to stay, to try to make things better here in our hometown."
His decision to seek re-election is far more likely to be rooted in his political appointment as a paid consultant to the Turnpike Authority than it is in some lofty notion of service to the borough. Let's hope he does not do for the Turnpike Authority what he has done for the borough of Freehold.
The lawful residents of Freehold can ill-afford four more years like the last 22. The shoes were always too big for you to fill Mr. Mayor, even if you found them comfortable.
Richard K. Kelsey, a native of Freehold Borough, now resides in Reston, Va.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 7, 2007 17:39:46 GMT -5
I re posted this to a more appropriate location. This letter should stand on it's own and not get lost in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 7, 2007 18:35:38 GMT -5
Marc Wrote:
I must be completely honest. I personally feel this letter is in poor taste. It definitely hurts the image of the Borough, its governing body and many residents, who support it. Bad timing too - after the electorate has spoken.
Such a negative letter also makes it that much more difficult for the new CIC committee to promote the Borough as a great place to live and work. Despite Rich's long distance interest in the Borough, he is no longer a town resident and he only hurts the town, from afar, by sending this article to the local press. Why would one do this to a town they say they really care about?
There is much more than Rich's letter hurting the image of the Borough. Just talk to a real estate agent and ask them how easy it is to sell here because of the schools. If anything is wrong here is that this letter had to come from someone who does not live in our town. Rich makes some very valid points that many who do live here agree with. He also raises questions that we all know we will never get good answers for.
As far as the timing, I will hazard a guess and say that Rich tried to get this letter in before election day for the purpose of getting people to think. He is not wrong for that.
The CIC has it's role, but that does not mean that the hard ball topics should be swept under the rug. We could argue that Rich is an outside agitator. Don't we have one sitting on one of our committees now? You know who I mean, one of the radicals that the council is caught in the middle of. Why not give Rich an appointment? If Rich were to get an appointment, at least you know he really does want to work with the town instead of against it like the group that other guy associates with.
I ask readers to ask themselves - with the election decided, what good purpose does this letter serve?
Marc
The good purpose is that issues that have not been answered have now made their way into a legitimate news forum. The impact would be even greater if the letter made it;s way to the APP, or even better, sparked some good articles to get us real answers.
Just because the election is over does not mean that people should remain quiet and stop petitioning the elected leaders who are supposed to look out for us and answer to us.
In other words, this letter does have a good purpose.
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Nov 7, 2007 19:44:09 GMT -5
I totally agree and feel that this town is in dire need of change. Residents that don't bother to vote, in my opinion should keep their mouths shut.It is quite obvious that are vast majority of residents that are allowed to vote, don't.This council needs to wake up and realize that residents are tired of the same old mantra of "Revitalize downtown", it wll never be back to where it once was. Half the stores downtown require you to speak spanish and cater to the illegal population of this town.The police need to be given everything they require to clean this town up, not required to waste our money providing private security for downtown like it was in the 70's and 80's, the residents deserve the protection.
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Nov 13, 2007 22:35:02 GMT -5
Critic should direct his anger at federal government, not Freehold It was with a great deal of dismay that I read Richard Kelsey's latest diatribe published in the News Transcript on Nov. 7. Although I like Rich Kelsey and I respect him for voicing his opinions, I vehemently disagree with the vitriol expressed in his guest column. It probably should also be said that I think Freehold Borough Mayor Mike Wilson needs no defending, but as a borough councilwoman I absolutely must respond. I sat on the Borough Council which decided to create the infamous muster zone. Because of a myriad of resident complaints about the neighborhood disruptions caused by the day laborers, we called in the INS (now known as ICE). It was their suggestion that we create a pick-up zone outside of the residential sections of town. In our ever-present quest to maintain, protect and improve the quality of life for our residents, we did exactly that. When this area became a problem, we notified Conrail about the use of its property and we were directed to shut the area down. As far as the "settlement" is concerned, we as representatives of the borough acted in its best interest in amicably resolving what was guaranteed to be a protracted and costly litigation. We feel that we did not compromise our integrity or the rights of borough citizens in doing so. Apparently, Mr. Kelsey thinks we should have told "...an unfriendly, partisan federal judge..." to go scratch her "...unfriendly, partisan..." behind! When Mr. Kelsey said, "I publicly pushed the borough to take aggressive legal, political and public relations position to reverse a tide that was destined to sink the town," he simply neglected to mention that his presentation was given during an executive session when he and another attorney from his firm in Washington wanted us to hire them to sue the American government and, possibly, the Mexican government. This would have cost our borough taxpayers, by his own estimation, millions of dollars with absolutely no guarantee of legal success. Consequently, the council, not the mayor, made the decision that we could not afford to take that chance. So, his, "...aggressive legal..." plan was not accepted and he was not hired. If he has such strong feelings about the town and if he is so desperate to make a name for himself, instead of constantly denigrating us, he should volunteer to use his legal expertise and his energy in directing his ire at the federal government, which continues to be the source of the problem. Sharon C. Shutzer Councilwoman Freehold Borough newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1114/Letters/024.html
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Nov 13, 2007 22:36:15 GMT -5
Freehold's mayor has created his own successful legacy
First, where do I begin? It was only a short time ago that I received a call on a Friday night to serve on the Borough Council. I finally decided to do so and with that I am glad I did. The gentleman who called me that night is a fine person. He is a person who I hold a great deal of respect for, a person who has, in my short time on council, helped me to grow and mature in my young political career. A person who in my eyes has led this town into prosperous growth. So to read a recent (Your Turn guest column) which said that this same person has never filled the shoes of a former mayor, you're right. Freehold Borough Mayor Michael Wilson has filled his own shoes.
Mayor Wilson, in my opinion, will go down in history as one of the great mayors of this town. Sure, just like every other council person who sits on the current governing body, not everyone will agree with the decisions we make, but it angers me for an arrogant and bitter out-of-town person to continue to take shots at our mayor.
In [his guest column] Richard Kelsey criticized the mayor for some of the decisions the town made regarding immigration. You stated and I quote, "I publicly pushed the borough to take aggressive legal, political and public relations positions to reverse a tide that was destined to sink the town."
That might be your opinion. Are you just bitter and jealous that Freehold Borough would not hire your services and cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in legal fees?
In closing, I do not know you, Mr. Kelsey, nor do I want to know you, but there is one thing I do want you to know from me. This town has a fine mayor who will be here for four more years. This governing body will continue to do what is best for this town. Finally, as far as filling shoes: Mayor Wilson has filled his own shoes, and there will never, ever be any type of shoe for you to fill here.
Jaye S. Sims
Councilman Freehold Borough
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Nov 13, 2007 22:38:44 GMT -5
Freehold has taken action to address immigration issue Guest Column MICHAEL WILSON The recent attack on me in this space ("Mayor's Missteps Over Years Have Hurt Freehold Borough," Your Turn, News Transcript, Nov. 7, 2007) came from 200 miles away, from a disgruntled former resident who, though he left our hometown many years ago, continues to meddle in its affairs from afar to advance the cause of his larger political agenda. But it was so personal and so wrongheaded that I felt it required a response. All of Richard Kelsey's criticisms of me as mayor seem to center around the one issue that has plagued our town more than any other over the last decade: the impact of illegal immigration. We all agree that our town has borne an unfair share of the burden of this national problem. Where we disagree is on what we can do about it. Illegal immigration is a national problem that the federal government has shamefully ignored, leaving local governments like ours to wrestle with the consequences. We here in Freehold Borough have learned some very hard lessons about what we can and cannot do about it. We can, and we have: • enacted strict rental property ordinances. • increased fines for code violations. • commenced systematic annual inspections of every rental unit in the borough. • purchased software to track rental properties and code violations. We cannot: • deny an education to children who are here illegally, or whose parents are here illegally. • arrest someone for loitering or soliciting work. • arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants and turn them over for deportation. All of those actions are against the law. Mr. Kelsey is an attorney and I would think he would be aware of the laws of the United States and of New Jersey. I would like to pose to him a question that anti-immigration activists often ask: What part of "illegal" don't you understand? His argument is with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. president, not with the governing body of the borough of Freehold. Continuing rhetoric like his shows that he is willing to do precisely what the outside pro-immigrant forces have also long done: use our town to advance a larger political agenda. He and his law firm met with the governing body and encouraged the borough to pursue an impractical lawsuit against the federal government that would bankrupt us, but would assure his own personal publicity as a national voice on the immigration issue. And since he was quick to bring up my job with the Turnpike Authority, for which I am eminently qualified and which I took several years ago after working in the real estate industry for decades, let me remind him of the political patronage jobs he held with the Republican-run county government. He points out that the shoes I inherited 22 years ago when I became mayor were very big ones, and I agree. My predecessors, Jack McGackin and Roger Kane, were great mayors. Like everyone else, Mr. Kelsey is certainly entitled to his opinion about how well I've filled those shoes. But at least I stepped into them, and have done my best to do the right thing for our hometown, a place I love, have never left, and will always fight for. I didn't walk away from those shoes, and our town, the way he did. And I never will. Michael Wilson is the mayor of Freehold Borough. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1114/Editorials/025.html
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Nov 14, 2007 8:22:16 GMT -5
Wow, It appears that a few people are on the defensive. Excuses are just that, Excuses. Right or wrong, people are judged by accomplishments not excuses. Thanks for all your time Rich, you’re a true American.
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 14, 2007 9:34:14 GMT -5
There is a lot to digest in these letters by Mayor Mike for Life and his henchpeople. There is enough stuff for 5-10 Casual Corner columns. I have to say that for the first time in almost five years (since I moved here) I agree with the mayor on something. I like the way he explained what can and cannot be done regarding immigration and immigrants. I think he has spent way too much time bashing what amounts to almost half of his population. His remarks are a good sign. Also, revealing was the way they went after our very own Kelso dude. The most serious issue raised by all three letters was the allegation that Kelso (the second best moderator of this board) wanted to profit financially and in terms of fame by the misfortunes of our misunderstood borough. He offered his legal services to the borough and was rejected and walked away like an angry lover. They also claimed Kelso was a political flunky for the Republicans when he lived in Monmouth County. How does Senor Kelso Dude respond to these points? Casually Inquiring
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 14, 2007 9:56:09 GMT -5
There is a lot to digest in these letters by Mayor Mike for Life and his henchpeople. There is enough stuff for 5-10 Casual Corner columns. I have to say that for the first time in almost five years (since I moved here) I agree with the mayor on something. I like the way he explained what can and cannot be done regarding immigration and immigrants. I think he has spent way too much time bashing what amounts to almost half of his population. His remarks are a good sign. Also, revealing was the way they went after our very own Kelso dude. The most serious issue raised by all three letters was the allegation that Kelso (the second best moderator of this board) wanted to profit financially and in terms of fame by the misfortunes of our misunderstood borough. He offered his legal services to the borough and was rejected and walked away like an angry lover. They also claimed Kelso was a political flunky for the Republicans when he lived in Monmouth County. How does Senor Kelso Dude respond to these points? Casually Inquiring I saw this stuff this morning. I am shocked -- LOL! The good news is Freehold finally got a debate, the bad news is it happened after the election and still has nothing to do with the issues raised -- as predicated. I have already drafted my response -- which I desperately hope will be published. If it is not -- it will be set forth on these pages. I will say this -- however. I have NEVER charged, collected, or made a dime on my work related to illegal immigration. And, in fact, the last group I helped, I helped to find pro bono counsel to help them. And finally, this is critically important, on these very pages I offered to do the same thing for the Borough of Freehold. That Casual, the Mayor, and Tom Baldwin are all in agreement on the immigration issue in Freehold -- should make people very nervous. ;D It is interesting and curious that the Borough would choose to disclose our meeting -- and contents thereof. Of course, they neglected to share some very key facts and information.
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Nov 14, 2007 11:27:03 GMT -5
There seems to be a common misconception that Mr Kelsey is some "lone gunman" spewing jealous hatred at his former hometown from 200 miles away, and that he is single handedly doing large amounts of damage to Freehold Boro's PR
Uh......I don't think so.
If the Mayor, Ms Shutzer, Mr Sims, Mr Levine, or anyone else for that matter think that Mr Kelsey is alone with his thoughts, they are more detached from the people they are governing than I feared.
While I am sure Mr Kelsey is more than capable of defending himself (as he will be doing with his forthcoming letter), perhaps it's time for another voice...one that's here in town...to get a guest piece in the Transcript...stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Nov 14, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8SP0AJG5.htmMayor Lou Barletta Easily Wins Re-election in Hazleton. Mayor targeting immigration re-elected Business Week November 7, 2007 Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in this small city, has easily won re-election to a third term. He defeated a Libertarian candidate, John Medashefski, a coffee shop owner who had argued the city should drop its costly effort to push through a law targeting illegal immigrants.Q Unofficial returns Tuesday showed Barletta winning with 3,530 votes, or 90 percent, to Medashefski’s 405 votes, or 10 percent. In the primary, Barletta also won the Democratic nomination as a write-in candidate, easily defeating a comeback bid by a former mayor and leaving himself with no Democrat to face in the general election. Last year, Barletta pushed through a law that targeted landlords who rented to illegal immigrants and businesses that employed them in this city of 30,000. The law, emulated by dozens of towns around the nation, was struck down by a federal judge as unconstitutional. The judge said states and municipalities cannot regulate immigration. The city has since appealed. At his victory party at an Elks Club, Barletta talked about fighting drugs and violence in the city and about the issue of illegal immigrants. “We’ve seen what illegal immigration has done to our small town quality of life and we have said, ‘No! We will not let this happen,’” he said. “We will fight!”The city’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. Medashefski had said the city should drop its legal appeal because it is too costly.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 14, 2007 17:26:25 GMT -5
Today's APP had a letter from a Kelsey who complimented the mayor. Any relation? www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/OPINION/711140355/1032Deny funding to "sanctuaries" Twelve million illegals have invaded our country, imposing hardships on legal residents. These hardships far outweigh any contributions the illegals claim to have made. Marie Cocco's Nov. 6 commentary, "Illegal immigrants becoming the Willie Horton of '08," is disturbing. Is she suggesting that should the lawbreakers become a large enough number, we change laws to accommodate them? The problem of illegals is not partisan. It is a problem all legal residents share. I applaud Mayor Michael Wilson of Freehold for his efforts to get a grip on the invasion by illegals in my hometown. Misguided religious entities are leaning toward outright forgiveness of lawbreakers. The most frightening aspect of illegal immigration is the failure of county, state and federal governments to address this grave problem. The federal government uses as its excuse for inaction the ridiculous, worn-out phrase, "They're doing the work Americans won't do." The state of New York proposed the issuance of driver's licenses to illegals, ignoring the definition of right and wrong. A law should be passed to deny federal funds to any state or territory that provides sanctuary to illegals within the confines of their domain. The reasons for illegal immigration are legion, none of which are acceptable. W.J. Eugene Kelsey FREEHOLD
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Nov 14, 2007 19:14:45 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1107/Editorials/035.htmlMayor's missteps over years have hurt Freehold Borough Guest Column RICHARD KELSEY When Freehold Borough Mayor Jack McGackin died in 1985, Mike Wilson was called on to fill very big shoes. Mayor Wilson never grew into those shoes and after 22 years it is time to step down. When announcing this year, the mayor stated that " ome of the friends I grew up with here in Freehold moved away a long time ago, looking in other places or what seemed to them better things. I didn't. I stayed and I tried to make things better here." History can be the only fair judge of his complete record and I suspect she will not be impressed.
Mayor Wilson presided over the decision to legitimize illegal immigration in the borough by working to create a muster zone. That decision was a disaster. I wrote numerous op-ed pieces taking the borough to task for setting up a magnet for illegal labor. When the borough finally realized several years ago that this decision had brought unforeseen problems to the borough, it attempted to change course.
I publicly pushed the borough to take aggressive legal, political and public relations positions to reverse a tide that was destined to sink the town. The mayor was unable or unwilling to take that aggressive action. Instead, the borough found itself on the defensive, under the microscope of an unfriendly, partisan federal judge, and the target for national open borders activists.
The mayor made fiery speeches, but took no real action. Like many elected officials, he waited, hoping that some other elected official would walk the tough path and solve the problems of the town - problems he helped to exacerbate. That never happened.
Last year Mayor Wilson stunned the residents of Freehold again by accepting a settlement in a lawsuit by open borders activists.
The settlement placed the borough under the watchful eye of the court and it handed activists a bogus public relations claim that the borough was violating civil rights, and that the borough was a disgraced town practicing discrimination. The practical result of the settlement was to tie the hands of law enforcement in dealing with illegal immigration.
As recently as July, a "swarming incident" found a borough resident helpless to an onslaught of day laborers who jumped in her pick-up truck, assuming that she was just another contractor looking to exploit laborers and beat the tax man. The police were apologetic, but unwilling to take action due to the settlement. This is the legacy of Mayor Wilson.
In August, Mayor Wilson again threw his lawful residents overboard to drown in the rising tide of illegal immigration.
The previously tough-talking mayor sent a letter to Gov. Corzine - begging to be a member of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission set up to help the "immigrant community."
In his letter the mayor began to praise the positive effects of the illegal invasion of Freehold, deliberately attempting to merge the concepts of immigrant and illegal immigrant.
Mayor Wilson wrote, "The positive advantages are obvious and they are welcome. The influx of immigrants has enriched our town's culture with a group of individuals who have a profound work ethic, strong family and religious values, and have even added new, vibrant businesses to our downtown."
In September, Mayor Wilson apparently appointed an active member of CASA Freehold to the town's Human Relations Commission.
The News Transcript said of this organization, "Casa Freehold, by virtue of its actions, comments and apparent support of illegal immigration, will never have, and does not deserve, the trust, respect and cooperation of borough officials." Mayor Wilson just gave CASA Freehold the respect it does not deserve. After an inquiry about the residency of town committee appointees on a Freehold blog site, it was suggested that the CASA Freehold appointee is neither a lawful resident of Freehold nor the United States of America.
Since that allegation, which admittedly is not substantiated, Mayor Wilson and his regime have gone silent, except to attack the site. The mayor then canceled the mid- October public Borough Council meeting, and his council ticket-mates refuse to debate - recently calling (a) school PTO not a "legitimate" forum. The lawful residents of Freehold have the right to know if the tough-talking mayor of the borough has appointed an illegal alien to a policy making committee.
When seeking his re-election bid to serve out 26 years, Mayor Wilson said, "I want to keep following through on that decision I made a long time ago - that decision to stay, to try to make things better here in our hometown."
His decision to seek re-election is far more likely to be rooted in his political appointment as a paid consultant to the Turnpike Authority than it is in some lofty notion of service to the borough. Let's hope he does not do for the Turnpike Authority what he has done for the borough of Freehold.
The lawful residents of Freehold can ill-afford four more years like the last 22. The shoes were always too big for you to fill Mr. Mayor, even if you found them comfortable.
Richard K. Kelsey, a native of Freehold Borough, now resides in Reston, Va.
I noticed no answer to the points made in red above. Ms. Schutzer, blame it on the feds. <yawn> Mr. Sims pointed out that we shouldn't listen to a bitter out-of-town. Well, Mr. Sims, why do you listen to pro-illegal immigration out-of-towners? I will admit that the mayor's letter was the best and he pointed out things that council are doing. But he lost me right after that, especially when about the legal expense when the mayor himself told them to "bring it on." I thought he was ready for the fight. Let's go back in time... What triggered this lawsuit? Answer: the muster zone. The mayor announced the closing of the muster zone in September. By the end of that month, the council became aware that Rev. MaGuire's Church would act as a muster zone. Also Cecelia Reynolds told the mayor that the 6-12 would let people muster on its property. So, the mayor knew at that point, closing the muster zone would just lead to people mustering elsewhere. Go back even further in history... Why was the muster zone opened in the first place? Because illegals were mustering all throughout town. Was the mayor able to stop this before the muster zone? No, he couldn't and so the muster zone was created. Now fast forward to the lawsuit being filed. The mayor and council are aware a lawsuit is about to be filed. They know the illegals will muster anywhere, and indeed know specific spots where they would muster. What do they do? The mayor said, "Bring it on." (By the way, weren't they aware at that time that people could stand on public property as long as there was no criminal acts being performed?) So, the mayor says, bring it on - at least to the public and to the papers... But back to reality, behind closed doors and days into the lawsuit, the council voluntarily revoked the officer discretion charge. Within a month to month-and-one-half, the council voluntarily agreed to reopen the muster zone. So, you have to think at that point we lost, and was this trip really necessary? At this stage of the litigation, the papers aren't even dry and there was only a prelimiinary conference with the federal judge (beginning of February, the 5th or so). So what had happened was that January 1, the muster zone closed. February 5, a decision was made to re-open the muster zone. You'd think that the suit was over, right. Guess again... Even though the suit was brought because fo teh muster zone, the 2 federal lawsuits filed threw in everything including the kitchen sink. The mayor conceded the main reason for the lawsuit within 45 days of the suit, yet now we are in it for the long haul. By the end of the year, council voluntarily agreed to re-vamp its inspections. Part of that was to get rid of cops as part of inpsections, and tell the people up front - before anything else - you don't have to let us in for code inspections. (Guess what happens, when you start off by telling someone that - you don't get in!) If memory serves, this was done before the mediator stepped into the picture. So the litigation went on for 2 years after that code enforcement deal. Why? And how much did this lawsuit cost at the end of the day? We first heard insurance covered most of it. Obviously today, it was a very expensive lawsuit. The truth is that closing the muster zone sounded great at the time, but it was really naive. What did we think would happen? The illegals would just get up and leave? Move to Colts Neck or Millstone?
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 15, 2007 7:50:13 GMT -5
Kelso Dude: I do not mean to be indelicate but what about the issue Mayor Mike for Life raises about your past employment with the county? Were you a political flunkie as he suggests? As a reader I was also wondering about the issue of the mayor's Turnpike job -- is there anything dubious about it? Any conflict that we should know about? Casually Asking the Tough Questions
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 15, 2007 11:50:12 GMT -5
Today's APP had a letter from a Kelsey who complimented the mayor. Any relation? www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/OPINION/711140355/1032Deny funding to "sanctuaries" Twelve million illegals have invaded our country, imposing hardships on legal residents. These hardships far outweigh any contributions the illegals claim to have made. Marie Cocco's Nov. 6 commentary, "Illegal immigrants becoming the Willie Horton of '08," is disturbing. Is she suggesting that should the lawbreakers become a large enough number, we change laws to accommodate them? The problem of illegals is not partisan. It is a problem all legal residents share. I applaud Mayor Michael Wilson of Freehold for his efforts to get a grip on the invasion by illegals in my hometown. Misguided religious entities are leaning toward outright forgiveness of lawbreakers. The most frightening aspect of illegal immigration is the failure of county, state and federal governments to address this grave problem. The federal government uses as its excuse for inaction the ridiculous, worn-out phrase, "They're doing the work Americans won't do." The state of New York proposed the issuance of driver's licenses to illegals, ignoring the definition of right and wrong. A law should be passed to deny federal funds to any state or territory that provides sanctuary to illegals within the confines of their domain. The reasons for illegal immigration are legion, none of which are acceptable. W.J. Eugene Kelsey FREEHOLD That's my dad. Let's just say that his letter went out before learning the full measure of what's been going on in Freehold.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2007 6:33:10 GMT -5
From Marc in the NT:newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/1121/Letters/019.htmlMayor is taking action to aid Freehold Borough residents Iwas very disappointed to read the Nov. 7 Your Turn guest column, "Mayor's Missteps Over Years Have Hurt Freehold Borough" by Virginia resident Richard Kelsey. This is a cold slap in the face of the voters of Freehold Borough, who only one day before reelected Mayor Michael Wilson and councilmen Kevin Kane and Jaye Sims to brand new terms. The meddling piece comes from someone who regularly complains about our town and its mayor from several hundred miles away via Internet blogs and the local news media. Rich Kelsey may have roots here, but this is no longer his town and he cannot effectively address its concerns. His angry words can do more damage than good, though, and they are more often than not misdirected and undeserved. People like Rich Kelsey and another frequent contributor, Freehold resident Tom Baldwin, represent completely opposite sides of the illegal immigration issue, but they share the common bond of dividing our town and disrespecting our residents and governing body. When Councilman Kane was recently quoted as saying "the governing body is caught in the middle," he was absolutely right. What he neglected to mention is that the "middle" advocates a common sense approach to this issue. The governing body of Freehold Borough is doing everything it can legally do to address illegal immigration and is doing even more to address its devastating effects through new and enhanced borough ordinances and increased enforcement. Our ongoing efforts may seem a bit too lax for Mr. Kelsey and too extreme for Mr. Baldwin, but they are right for Freehold Borough and its residents. Fortunately, Mayor Wilson presides over common sense and responsibility. We should expect no less from a municipal leader. I question the personal and political agendas of those who would hurt a town they claim to love by publicly branding it as lawless or hate-filled, depending on whose view you agree with. With respect to my point, nether Mr. Kelsey nor Mr. Baldwin really "get it." The real issue for Freehold Borough is not about open borders or police states. Locally, it's all about respect for our laws and a better quality of life for our residents. How is a mayor that advocates such virtues so often criticized and deemed a scoundrel - by either side? Marc Le Vine Councilman Freehold Borough
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 20, 2007 8:15:29 GMT -5
Well -- the Transcript is sure hanging me out to dry -- LOL. I know for fact they have several letters agreeing with me, so I am not sure why they are holding them. (If I had to be -- they are either coming next week in a group, or the Transcript is being lobbied heavily not to print them -- pressure I am sure they will resist)
Marc is entitled to his opinion, of course.
His attack on me does make me regret, profoundly, the support I gave him when he embarrassed himself and this site last February.
He knows -- as do I -- that we pulled his bacon out of the fire a second time this fall.
It is telling that the only residents standing up for the Mayor are his Council colleagues. In fact, 2 of the 3 letter-writing supporters were appointed to the Council by him.
Opinions are what they are -- and Marc is entitled to his opinion and his right to throw a friend overboard.
But -- his letter is wrong and demonstrably false when he says the Borough is doing all that it legally can do.
Legally, the Borough could enact the 287(g) program specifically enacted to empower communities like Freehold. By 2008, over 150 Towns, Counties, and States will be enrolled in the program. The Borough of Freehold will not be one of them.
Under 8 USC 1324, the Borough is expressly empowered to enforce and investigate, through its law enforcement, violations of the anti-harboring provisions of that Federal statute. While the state cannot prosecute those investigations, the Federal authorities can.
Thus, the Borough could set up a task force to investigate criminal violations where individuals or entities induce an illegal alien to enter or stay in the United states. This includes entities who knowingly, or in conscious disregard of the facts, hire illegal aliens.
Just to set the record straight -- again -- Marc is entitled to his new found view that I am harming Freehold and that I am on par with Tom Baldwin. He is not entitled, however, to falsely represent that the Borough is doing all that it legally can do to combat illegal aliens. It is not.
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 20, 2007 8:36:31 GMT -5
Kelso dude:
Of course you saved his "bacon" earlier this year when you and Brian dude removed all of Councilman Levine dude's postings on the lack of contributions made by Mexican-Americans to World War II.
At the time I questioned whether that was a legitimate role for a moderator. You eliminated entire threads to save his "bacon."
I said it then and I will say it again that cheapens the legitimacy of this message board.
Councilman Levine dude, although I respect him greatly, exerted enormous pressure over the content on this board. With him gone it may actually become a voice for dissent and debate.
Casually Declaring Liberty
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 20, 2007 8:43:15 GMT -5
Kelso dude:
One final point with regards to the letters.
It must be obvious that I am no fan of Mayor Mike for Life, but he and his running mates did win the election by a pretty solid margin. So obviously, many many people think for one reason or another that the Wilson team is doing a good to fair job.
I join you in dissent -- for completely different reasons -- But let us be honest there are a lot of people who are in that sort of middle position described by Councilman Levine dude.
Casually Observing
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2007 8:58:44 GMT -5
Kelso dude: Of course you saved his "bacon" earlier this year when you and Brian dude removed all of Councilman Levine dude's postings on the lack of contributions made by Mexican-Americans to World War II. At the time I questioned whether that was a legitimate role for a moderator. You eliminated entire threads to save his "bacon." I said it then and I will say it again that cheapens the legitimacy of this message board. Councilman Levine dude, although I respect him greatly, exerted enormous pressure over the content on this board. With him gone it may actually become a voice for dissent and debate. Casually Declaring Liberty CR, I have to set the record straight here. I removed that thread for reasons not related to Marc. That thread being removed had nothing to do with saving his bacon.
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 20, 2007 9:03:08 GMT -5
Thank you for the clarification.
So can you explain how it was that you and Kelso dude saved his bacon?
Casually Thankful for You as a Moderator
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2007 9:07:02 GMT -5
Thank you for the clarification. So can you explain how it was that you and Kelso dude saved his bacon? Casually Thankful for You as a Moderator I apologize for keeping you in suspense, but some coversations do not belong on this web site. I will not participate in that one.
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Nov 20, 2007 9:43:22 GMT -5
Brian dude: Then there was the time you removed many of his posts regarding his plan to bring in the Gay community to force out Hispanics. ;D Those were the good old days. Still there is no one I would rather have as moderator. Casually Giving Thanks that You are the Moderator
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2007 9:46:10 GMT -5
Brian dude: Then there was the time you removed many of his posts regarding his plan to bring in the Gay community to force out Hispanics. ;D Those were the good old days. Still there is no one I would rather have as moderator. Casually Giving Thanks that You are the Moderator You are putting words into people's mouths, CR. I do not recall removing posts that indicated bringing in gays to replace "hispanics". I do not believe that conversation took place and certainly not from Marc.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2007 9:49:32 GMT -5
I have to admit that this letter exchange in the NT has been interesting, to say the least. IMO, Rich's letter was harsh. If I were on the receiving end I would certainly come out swinging too. Either way, Rich did put in some valid points that were directed at action and lack of action by the Mayor over the years. Those actions are certainly subject to scrutiny and opinion by any who share an interest in our town. As much as I may have criticized in the past, I also realize that, as I have written before, our town has faced things we should not have. There is no manual in handling illegal immigration at the municipal level. It is for that reason I have been forgiving. I have no doubt that every one of the council members and Mayor are people who care and want the best for our town. The unfortunate part, and not directed at them, good intentions do not always get the results desired.
All three of the council members who had letters published are the ones I am most familiar with and I do respect and like all three of them. I will individually pick apart each letter. With Marc's rotten letter, I may even draft my own letter to the News Transcript. He really blew it.
Stay tooned.....
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 20, 2007 10:48:20 GMT -5
Kelso dude: One final point with regards to the letters. It must be obvious that I am no fan of Mayor Mike for Life, but he and his running mates did win the election by a pretty solid margin. So obviously, many many people think for one reason or another that the Wilson team is doing a good to fair job. I join you in dissent -- for completely different reasons -- But let us be honest there are a lot of people who are in that sort of middle position described by Councilman Levine dude. Casually Observing I agree. I only raise the issues for consideration -- it is up to the people to decide how they prefer to proceed. How many times can I write it --- you get the government you deserve, good bad or indifferent.
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Nov 20, 2007 21:18:24 GMT -5
(1) marc did not address the issue raised in rich's letter, and neither did the other 3 letters.
(2) Marc started an organization called "pressing elected officials..." and now that he is on council, he is not for pressing elected officials.
(3) Rich, I believe that an individal could enforce federal law under a qui tam proceeding, is that correct? If so, how could that be applied under the instant circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 21, 2007 7:31:18 GMT -5
(1) marc did not address the issue raised in rich's letter, and neither did the other 3 letters. (2) Marc started an organization called "pressing elected officials..." and now that he is on council, he is not for pressing elected officials. (3) Rich, I believe that an individual could enforce federal law under a qui tam proceeding, is that correct? If so, how could that be applied under the instant circumstances? Qui tam is used to encourage whistle-blowing when a person has information regarding specific acts of fraud committed against the government. (Most actions now involve government contracting and government services) Wikipedia is not my favorite resource for things legal -- as it is often wrong, or simply too simple to make a real explanation. In this case, however, I think it does a good job. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 27, 2007 8:38:41 GMT -5
Emphasis added! I bumped this today because -- lest anyone think I am a profiteer trying to exploit the Borough -- they can look at my public post from December 2006. I was in the Borough this weekend for a 50th birthday and, sadly, a memorial service. I did slip out and have dinner Saturday night at the new place on Main Street. (it was excellent Della Solla I think) I had dinner with some old friends, and they were quite interested in the Freehold dispute/debate. In the course of the conversation -- one of them said to me, "they tried to paint you as a bitter lawyer who was just looking to score big money off of Freehold." A conversation of truth ensued, not that it was needed, and it reminded me that I had previously offered on this site to find Freehold pro bono counsel. While this fact, of course, ruins a good story line they were floating -- I thought it only fair to bump and remind. BTW -- I had a great but short visit -- and I was happy not to be arrested or harrassed by the machine. (I was even more happy for the numerous words of support I picked-up in some old Freehold haunts.) freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=unlawfull&action=display&thread=1151670659&page=2Rich wrote the above in another thread. That thread was a good reminder as to why Rich participates here as well as pays attention to his home town. I highlighted what Rich wrote about attacks on him. It is all predictable. The governing body wants to believe that they are on the right path and having anyone tell them otherwise is not likely to be welcome. Going after the messenger is much easier than admitting to mistakes.
I figured it was good to jump back into this topic today because the News Transcript will be delivered tonight and we will get to see if there is any further reaction to Rich's letter. I am very interested to see if any CITIZENS get letters in the paper. Either for or against Rich.
So far we have only seen the responses from friends of the Mayor and more specific, sitting members of the governing body. All of the responses have been more knee jerk, emotionally charged responses, more so than factual ones. Even Marc who is usually articulate and well reasoned in his writings dropped the ball and succumbed to emotional drivel. That is understandable considering how hard hitting Rich's letter was. As I mentioned, if I were on the receiving end of something like that, I would come out swinging too. I will give the mayor credit. Out of all of the letters to date, his was the best response.
|
|