|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 21, 2006 9:34:40 GMT -5
Wyane...
In regards to your posting about the timing of the settlement announcement..
I think you are taking this way too seriously and are over-analyzing it.
We're talking about council people here...not a Mayor..not a Governor..not a Freeholder...councilpeople. I really do not think someone of such a small role in the government would purposely do something like that.
Also, the timing of the settlement was left up to the judge. The judge announced the settlement, and I believe the council then took a vote on it.
If you want to now say that town council people influenced the judge to make a decision just to sway a vote, then so be it, but it's really a ridiculous argument.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 10:08:30 GMT -5
I also think the timing stinks. And, assuming the judge is the one who anounced the settlement, you are naive if you think that it was not suggested to the juge that the settlement would go over much better if it was after the election (without any squeaky wheels).
This is small town politics at its best. Last year, we had the timing of a council member leaving - darn, just out of time so that there could be no one on the ballot and it was the mayor's discretion to appoint someone. (No offense to Marc, but he was appointed then - not elected). Don't you think the leaving council member knew he was moving out of town well before then?
This year, the timing of the settlement - after the election, and timed the afternoon of a council vote on it.
If you do not think there is politicizing at teh local level, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 10:17:38 GMT -5
On the Vanessa Minenna topic. You are very bright, but you don't know everything. Perhaps, because you were not involved with the PEOPLE steering committee at the time? That's the way it went down. Others involved in PEOPLE, at the time, know this to be true - just ask Gail Trojan, Joan Kress, etc. This is NOT revisionist history, either.
Next, read Rich Kelsey's recent post advising us than it may not have made a difference anyway, since FAIR didn't have the legal team in place or much interest in helping towns fight these kind of suits, back then.
Finally read about Mamaroneck, in the news, today, and see how their million dollar legal fees produced an even worse outcome in the same exact case with the same exact players - Cesar Perales, Alan Levine, etc. The deck is tacked against us all in the courts. These judges all seem to think he same way...and the legal fees continue to mount.
My point in posting this little historical footnote was that the town was open to considering FAIR for legal council. No politicking here - no need to. Not only did she run away from Freehold Borough after the election, but Vanessa failed miserably as a council candidate. Her open hostility and overall negativity played a bit too heavy and was outclassed by a highly respected and well loved Kevin Coyne in that election. And, when Vanessa "gummed up the works" she was not, yet, running for office.
Wyanne, I find your comments about the timing and release of the settlement insulting and very characteristic of your cynical and, unfortunately, untrusting nature. Were terms of a possible settlement discussed at council meetings throughout the length of the lawsuit - absolutely they were. Litigation is regularly discussed in Executive sessions along with personnel and other such matters.
Council received periodic updates and agreed on certain terms we felt were basic for a potential settlement down the road. Our insurance attorneys (who do have a BIG say in what they eventually must pay out) and the plaintiff's attorneys were in ongoing mediation with the mediator judge, every day, - not the council nor even Joe Bellina.
No, the council had no prior knowledge of the actual settlement date and it was out of our control. Matter of fact, when Stan Organek and his friends, jumped the gun and released their statements - that is when we actually learned of the final settlement. Of course, the judge reprimanded the Plaintiffs for making the announcement ahead of his - because, he was to announce the settlement when HE was ready too.
FR is correct, the judge picked the day and time to announce the settlement, not the council. Timing is timing. Just as you believe the announcement of the settlement, ahead of the election, might have helped the Borough Republicans win, so too might the Mamaroneck decision have made our residents think again about continuing the suit or changing their votes. Of course, we didn't have control over that decision, either - as we might have liked to. In this NATIONAL legal battle, looking around us is just as important as knowing what was going on here.
In the end, we didn't spend $1 million dollars, like Mamaroneck did, to reach the same outcome. What a shame. Mamroneck is a very nice town, too.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 21, 2006 10:18:40 GMT -5
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the Settlement, but I do smell the rotting stench (no not of the Empire, ...but dear I say...and no offense please) of Washington style Politics with respect to the TIMING of the settlement. Simply the timing clearly was not genuine What isn't genuine is leveling accusations w/o any facts to back them up. If you are correct in your assumption the Borough Council knew the settlement details in advance of the election, and withheld that knowledge for political advantage... does it not follow, then, that the opposing side in the lawsuit also knew of the details? And would it not have been to their advantage to have released that information, to influence the vote regarding Mr LeVine and Mrs Schutzer? It seems unlikely that someone who earns a living as a professional advocate for illegal behavior would have any qualms about interfering in the integrity of our political process, if it suited their purposes. (Or did they perhaps remain silent in a secret Karl Rove-esque double bind "Washington Style Politics" agreement with our evil Mayor and his nefarious Council of Six?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 10:26:16 GMT -5
Wyanne added:
Well...it ought to be a great eventual battle between La Raza and Radical Islam. Both seek to inherit the earth at our own expense. One group seeks to deprive us of our land. The other wants to deprive us of our lives and liberty. All we have left is...our "pursuit of happiness." When I hear these things, I'm not laughing, though.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 10:28:15 GMT -5
"but it's really a ridiculous argument"
Just connecting dots....and this is just one picture that can be illustrated, sorry if this is a cynical depiction. This is settlement, not a direct court order, so the council must have voted, maybe I need to learn more about this process that lead to the councils decistion....
Again I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the settlement, sorry if you think a critical deduction is ridiculous, but again, this is a SETTELMENT, not a court ordered conclution to a legal action, or am I wrong, please help me understand...
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 10:50:36 GMT -5
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the Settlement, but I do smell the rotting stench (no not of the Empire, ...but dear I say...and no offense please) of Washington style Politics with respect to the TIMING of the settlement. Simply the timing clearly was not genuine What isn't genuine is leveling accusations w/o any facts to back them up. If you are correct in your assumption the Borough Council knew the settlement details in advance of the election, and withheld that knowledge for political advantage... does it not follow, then, that the opposing side in the lawsuit also knew of the details? And would it not have been to their advantage to have released that information, to influence the vote regarding Mr LeVine and Mrs Schutzer? It seems unlikely that someone who earns a living as a professional advocate for illegal behavior would have any qualms about interfering in the integrity of our political process, if it suited their purposes. (Or did they perhaps remain silent in a secret Karl Rove-esque double bind "Washington Style Politics" agreement with our evil Mayor and his nefarious Council of Six? ) Why would the opposition ruin the settlement by making waves? It would not suit their purposes. I fail to understand why some posters here do not question their government. I know you have eyes, can you not see? If you cannot admit some suspicion, there is no sense talking to you about it. The other putrid smell emanating from the settlement comes from the various apologists on this board. How many of you were at the democratic eleection night party? |
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 10:55:11 GMT -5
OK, so I am not that CLEVER, and have a complete miscomprehended of the the settlement process, and may stand to be corrected....
The settlement was reached between the Insurance Co. Attorneys and the plaintiffs attorneys mediated by the Judge.
OK, SO the council can not dispute or challenge to the Insurance Co. attorneys, or FB will stand to lose coverage by Insurance Co...Kinda like if I disagree with my Auto Insurance CO's settlement on my behalf, they will drop my coverage!?!?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 11:02:14 GMT -5
OK, so I am not that CLEVER, and have a complete miscomprehended of the the settlement process, and may stand to be corrected....
The settlement was reached between the Insurance Co. Attorneys and the plaintiffs attorneys mediated by the Judge.
OK, SO the council can not dispute or challenge to the Insurance Co. attorneys, or FB will stand to lose coverage by Insurance Co...Kinda like if I disagree with my Auto Insurance CO's settlement on my behalf, they will drop my coverage!?!?!? Uggh, your posts are good but your colors are annoying. Wyane, borough council attorney Kerry Higgins was an attorney involved in every step of the process. Money is coming directly from the borough (fine reimbursement). The settlement also includes non-monetary stipulations - like code enforcement, etc. So settlement was not just insurance company money. Don't believe that the insurance company was the only one aware. They knew. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 11:02:51 GMT -5
It takes, at least, two parties to "settle," anything. A mediator also factors heavily into helping the parties arrive at what he/she feels will be acceptable to the Federal Judge, who sits over the entire case. It is he/she who must ultimately approve the terms of the settlement, before going back to the courts.
To my knowledge, I'm not even sure that this part (Federal Judge's acceptance of the terms of the settlement) has happened, yet.
I say all of the above, but I preface it all by also saying, I'm not an attorney nor have I ever been involved in such cases. I only understand what I have observed, learned and researched along the way.
And.. before you even think that the judge gives a rat's A** about who wins (or loses) a council seat in Freehold Borough, think again about him holding back the release of a major settlement, with national implications, for anyone else's local interests.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyane on Nov 21, 2006 11:06:38 GMT -5
LS...."I fail to understand why some posters here do not question their government" Thank you!
Is there any reason that critical thinking, can lead to a productive amicable resolve!
And if a "Critical" thought lacks important facts, give him the facts, not attacks!
;D |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 11:12:56 GMT -5
The judge doesn't care, but he will accomodate the parties if it means settling a matter. And "major settlement" with "national implications" - give me a break. If that is true, then congratulations, you failed the country. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 11:30:59 GMT -5
Of course, we knew about most or even all of the non-monetary stipulations. You probably did, too. The new code enforcement protocols, for example, have been in place for 1 1/2 years. Police discretion and anti-loitering have been gone for almost three years. I can go on and on. As they things came out, they were reported in the Press. The unconstitutionality of some of these practices was decided early in the case. And, it was logical and anticipated that we would have to repay fines for laws deemed unconstitutional - if most of these people are even still around to claim the funds. I'm sure not all of them are still here. But, that's a side issue and supposition on my own part.
The judge even ordered the re-opening of the public portion of the muster zone soon after the lawsuit was filed. Everyone knew this. There is really nothing new to report about the eventual terms of the settlement. Even the Plaintiff's bragged that what they got was the right for day laborers to seek jobs on public property. Big deal.
From this particular case, did anyone think they would not be granted that freedom under the Bill of Rights? Come on folks. We haven't even been legally allowed to stop them from standing outside of 6-12, before the lawsuit (private property). So, what - other than some lawyers getting richer (but not as rich as the Mamaroneck lawyers) - what did the plaintiffs really get?
No, the insurance company was not the only one aware of the settlement. But, we are really talking, here, about the timing of the release, which the judge announced when HE was ready. HE made his very clear in HIS press release.
I think this topic has now been beat to death. Those of you who wish to do so will believe what you want to believe and you are certainly welcome to do so. Those of us, who really know the facts will sleep very well tonight and so will others who have a little more faith in human nature and in their neighbors, whom they elect for a role that is only locally important and that most people in town wouldn't even be interested in taking on. I see no lines forming around town for running for office. If this becomes a motivating factor - we all welcome it!
An Interlaken police officer I recently met at a friend's birthday party in Brick, recently congratulated me on doing a "thankless job" for my town. Fortunately, I do not agree with him - and that's fortunate for you, too.
This is not the White House we are all running for and there are no Karl Roves working for either party in Freehold Borough. Lighten up a little.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 11:46:52 GMT -5
Just so a public official does not have the last word on the "beaten" subject. Especially, as he has done on other topics - used a little subterfuge - "hey, if you don't like it, run for office" Or "hey, don't question it unless you are on a town committee" Don't let this be the end if you don't want it to be. Marc, if YOU don't want to comment any more, then don't and ignore these posts. It is YOUR right to do so.
And, as for the line to run for office, 2 things - (1) there was a candidate running for office. (2) given the demographics here, give me a break, there is only one party in town and there is one party boss here.
As for the rest...
Don't believe that the judge was not aware of the election, and do not believe that the judge was not willing to take the heat for the timing of the announcement - if it meant settling the matter, he'll do it. WHat is it to former Justice Daniel J. O'Hern to say - it's my timing. Nothing. No sweat, no heat on him. It' meant settling a 3 year old case lingering in his office.
Don't believe that small town politics does not involve back room deals. We certainly believe this about other Monmouth County towns. Why not here? (rhetorical question)
Reader, for your own sake, question a few things in your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 21, 2006 11:53:17 GMT -5
>Thank you!
>Is there any reason that critical thinking, can lead to a >productive amicable resolve!
>And if a "Critical" thought lacks important facts, give him the >facts, not attacks
Of all people, I understand that critical thinking and questioning authority is a valid point. As citizens, we all need to be aware that it is healthy for democracy. We NEED to question authority. In fact, there isn't enough of it going on.
Of all people on this board, I should know--I went to the Nader Rally at MSG in 2000 for christ's sake!!
But what you are doing is not questioning authority. You are hiding behind that loosely-defined term, and really, what you're doing is letting your complete cynicism taint your thinking to where you are coming up with conspiracry theories. To me, you just come off as a "button-pusher," and not a valid critic. There is a group of you who come off as that, because that's all you do is making negative and cynical observations about every single subject brought up on this board. Someone can bring up the fluffiest subject, and you would stick your pin and their balloon. And you seem to love doing that as well.
If anyone should understand questioning authority, I do. You are not questioning authority. You are just reinventing it.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 21, 2006 11:55:41 GMT -5
By the way, I meant "...all you do is make negative and cynical...." not making.
Also, it's 'in their balloon..." not "and their."
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 12:08:50 GMT -5
"...Kerry Higgins was an attorney involved in every step of the process. Money is coming directly from the borough (fine reimbursement). The settlement also includes non-monetary stipulations - like code enforcement, etc. So settlement was not just insurance company money. Don't believe that the insurance company was the only one aware. They knew....."
I understand that we're not just talking about money, QOL issues will be consecrated, but is it not in the insurance companies best interest to limit their liabilities too, IE... sloppy Code enforcement policies?
What is important, monies aside, the settlement benefits the both parties, by requiring due diligence, establishing a policy of just cause (which was there prior) and just making sure that we Dot our "i's" and Cross our "t's", and ensure QOL is enforced for all the right reasons, indisputable! That there are crisp definitions so that enforcement will COA, and plaintiffs agree that whom they represent are law bidding and in agreement to the same QOL standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 21, 2006 12:11:21 GMT -5
[quote author=Freehold Resident board=general thread=1163628658 post=1164127997Of all people, I understand that critical thinking and questioning authority is a valid point.
...
Of all people on this board, I should know--I went to the Nader Rally at MSG in 2000 for christ's sake!!
...
If anyone should understand questioning authority, I do.
...
F R [/quote]
No need for anyone to converse anymore. FR understands all, knows all. He is right, everyone else is wrong. He knows, more than anyone else.
Wyane, we have been dismissed through the ad hominem attacks by FR and others. They prefer it when everyone has the same opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 21, 2006 12:16:00 GMT -5
Ha! Don't even try to flip the argument on me.
In reality, you are the one that cannot take criticism. You can dish out all of the cynicism, but someone really critiques you, you can't take it.
I made a valid observation about your behavior, and instead you childishly turned it around to attack me.
That's all.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 12:28:06 GMT -5
If mine is subterfuge (I beg to differ) - then yours comes off as unquestionable indictment and more like a verdict of guilty until proven innocent. There is no room for compromise in your words, my good friend. You say them, so they must be unquestionably correct. We don't even know who you really are, do we? Might you even be an advocate trying to drive a wedge into our resolve? Are we sure?
As for your contentions...do you not have this right (running for office)? Do you not have an interest or anyone else? I have been more than gracious and have hung in there in more than just one topic. Much more than any of my colleagues or especially any stated representatives from the opposition party. I just can't stand to read falsehoods and untruths. Those who really know my character, know me better. These are the people with whom I share the most mutual respect.
Yes. There was a candidate and another one who dropped out before the election. Why did one not continue on, after both were write-ins?
The negative "demographics" you speak of allowed Carl Steinberg to win. It allowed a Republican, Mike Toubin to win. It got John Rosseel and I elected and re-elected in 1990 and 1994, the latter year in which I was the leading vote getter against, yes, a very Democratic icon family "McGackin"...and against a pretty good former councilman, Eddie Mack.
I also came closer to beating Crawford and DiBennedeto in 1999 than either of my other running mates, Jeff Jones and Pete DeFonzo. So, a Republican almost won. Don't forget that Richard Daesener also won a seat on council as a Republican, in recent years. Demographics are only as good as the candidates, who run for office. Republicans and even Independents (Don DeSanto almost did) can win in Freehold Borough - or come close. Cathy Caldwell and Jim Wishbow only lost by 50 votes in 1989.
And...who the heck is the one Party Boss for BOTH parties? I'd like to meet him or her.
I'm not even a judge and I rest my case on this far out stretch of imagination... LOL.
Uh Oh...Freeholdgate...Boroscam...Is it the large scale developer's money we are after or perhaps, its the threat of never being able to eve again attend the annual borough senior citizen's holiday party, if not re-elected. Give me a break. Yes, "it's garbage tome at the Carrier Dome." The topic has been beat to death, if were up to this kind of crap.
This is the only cogent quote in this ridiculous rant and rave. Question. And, I'll answer to the best of my ability. That i why I am here. I don't force anyone to agree with anything I say. I just share open and honestly. No one likes being called a liar or a cheat - especially when they aren't those types - so please forgive me for not sitting back and accepting those tags. No one can stand listening to people spurt untruths, when they know the real facts, either. Sure, the truths are not as sexy or sensational as the suspicions and innuendos - but we can't help that can help.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 12:33:53 GMT -5
"You are not questioning authority. You are just reinventing it" Can you explain that abstraction of a concept? REINVENTING? Now that IS a conspiracy theory!
So you attended a Nader Rally, Great! SO your a nonconformist Great! You oick the right country to live in, or maybe you didn;t pick, you are born here, concongradulations for sticking with us
Make that claim in Cuba!
Better enjoy that freedom while you have it, because the real opposition has fond that our Constitution and bill of rights is our weakness!
Please read on...The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question. The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights. www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm |
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 12:38:17 GMT -5
The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 21, 2006 13:17:32 GMT -5
The other putrid smell emanating from the settlement comes from the various apologists on this board. How many of you were at the democratic eleection night party? If this is directed at moi, I am no-one's apologist. And as for political parties, I don't join 'em and I don't attend 'em. Got anything else? |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 13:33:08 GMT -5
No. Both of you seek to hit below the belt more often than you seek to inform and engage in level debate. That is what FR is implying. Anything you disagree with becomes an indictment of the poster's character, rather than a discussion by equals.
This board has been back on line for several months and for quite awhile there were some very respectful and intelligent discussion. They was not always agreement on all things. Publius and Rich Kelsey were often very critical of posters and the town, but they were always respectful of the other posters.
I am a little disappointed at some of the recent back and forths between posters that involve topics that have no relevance to Freehold Borough and are hurtful to each other. All this will do is drive posters away and we will miss out on hearing the views of Gays, like FR...and others.
We need to get back on track. If you disagree with something - just say it, support your contentions with the facts you have, flavor your posts with your opinions and accept that others may hold different points of view and not everyone that disagrees with you is a scoundrel. After all, we are only debating opinions, here. There is no need to attack the individuals that share them.
This is a board to express opinions and to share ideas about Freehold Borough, not to create misplaced distrust or to bait or antagonize contributors.
I would hope this board would better reflect the goodhearted people of Freehold Borough better than this. If we lose our greatest strength, then we have truly lost everything.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 13:44:49 GMT -5
Fed Up:
Good for you! If you were such a political "enabler," as these folks are trying to make you out to be, you wouldn't have chosen the board moniker that you did. Though, after reading some of the recent posts on this board, I seriously thought about offering to buy out your patent and becoming....
FedUp2.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 13:50:32 GMT -5
ML..."the right of day laborers to seek work in public places," Marc, Again, and excellent, salient POINT! What is more a "Public Place" that to go look for a job, or seek out a laborer, than an NJ Department of Labor office[/u]? Owned and Operated By the Public, or is there some definition that prohibits the a NJ Dept of Labor office from being considered a public place! Would this same definition prohibit a Public School from be considered a Public Space, simply because it is a State sanctions Public Facility? By Definition are these Public Spaces not Public Spaces??? SO can the Boro request to have a Dpt. of Labor Satellite office, as it's open to the public, for one and all, Hiring Hall for legitimate employers and employees to "HOOK UP" Ohhh I forgot...you may need to supply a SS#, or the employer may need a TAX ID # to Register the off the Books/Under the Table, no benefit position... BTW...about the REAL ISSUE....How are these Illegals getting here, were is the outrage against the low-life human traffickers, from the Latino Community and their Advocates? Why is the fight against the low-life human traffickers less important than the impact on our QOL in Freehold Boro, as well as our greater community? Where is the is the UN, the US Government, god forbid the Mexican Government on the matter of low-life human traffickers, has the greed and profits earned, had a numbing effect on their outraged? Where is Dewey Ballantine on the real issue low-life human traffickers? So you see WE are not the problem, we did not cause the issue, we just have to accept it for something thats bigger than us, suck it up, buck it up, smile pretty, look the other way, and pay the price, what ever it turns out to be......I am open to suggestions! I'll bring up the Farm subsidies another day...I have a job to go to.  Ohuu the WEBs we weave... |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 14:00:37 GMT -5
Gosh...you are good. You nailed this one, perfectly. Brian should put a sticky on this one.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 21, 2006 14:20:43 GMT -5
IMHO -- news of the settlement breaking prior to the election would not have helped the GOP candidate. (I don't know the gentlemen, or anything about his campaign.)
Freehold is very difficult to win as a GOP candidate. It is not impossible, but it is very difficult. Wins tend to come with either very strong-rooted candidates, in off/low voter turnout years, and after hot-button issues. (Re-assessments last time netted some seats if I recall)
This issue is hot button -- but probably not enough to carry a single candidate, without much Freehold pedigree, running uphill against two strong dems, in a strong dem town, in a very strong dem year.
First -- let me clue you in -- it is very hard to run a campaign of one against two. Two campaigners campaign twice as much. Each person has their own constituency of independents, who will often vote for the other ticket mate too -- making single nominees from the other party at a disadvantage.
I don't know the mechanics of the settlement. I know this -- the general terms have to be accepted by the parties. Thus, the Borough knew that it intended to settle, and gave it's lawyers the conditional approval pending official Board action. (I don't know when that happened) I have wondered how that can happen in New Jersey -- without constituting a violation of the sunshine law -- but I suppose it is possible. (After all, the Council has to approve the settlement in principle in order to close the deal -- in doing so they have to meet and decide -- which arguably could require a meeting.) I am no expert in NJ municipality law, however, and I am sure that Kerry Higgins had that well covered.
My gripe with the settlement was that the decision to vote was made the evening that the announcement was made -- foreclosing public debate -- and outcry -- about the settlement. That was either a calculated political decision, or the d**n best luck I ever heard of.
One one of these threads I laid out exactly why the proposed settlement was a farce for the two publicly stated reasons -- so there really is no need to rehash my position on that.
The decision was made not to fight, not to endure, and to move on -- presumably in an effort to pretend the problem no longer exists, and to stop calling negative attention to the Borough.
Had the Council stated that as its reason -- it would have been more acceptable -- though still an incorrect decision. Maintaining that the Plaintiffs gained nothing, or that it was a decision based on saving money -- or reasons not defendable based on my prior analysis.
This is a great country though. Every year the people of Freehold get to decide what government it wants, and how it wants to be represented. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. Right now, the people are happy. They get the government for which they vote. That's how our system works.
If the settlement and the Borough's handling of this matter, together with its overall governance is a problem, people can vote next year for a new choice.
Better yet -- if you don't think these folks are doing a good job. Run for their job. Walk the streets, knock on the doors, raise the money, put your life on hold and your name on the line -- and take a shot at them. I did exactly that in 1986 -- at the age of 19.
Putting together vitriolic attacks on message boards under assumed names is easy -- putting your name on the ballot -- doing the work, answering the hard questions, and asking for the trust, and demonstrating that you deserve that trust -- that's where they separate the posers and posters from the non-pretenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 21, 2006 14:31:14 GMT -5
You are going to the job...I am here already and didn't get much of mine done, today...ouch... I played cyber-hookey.
See, you ARE capable of a great post, now and then. Here, you make some excellent points. It does stink that our government has hung us out to dry and our courts, which are supposed to be a check and balance for the other two branches, won't lift a finger to aid the towns suffering from illegal immigration. They won't even let the towns help themselves, in most cases. BUT, STILL, WE MUST FIGHT ON. WE HAVE TO.
This is why we call for your ideas on what else to do. Many heads are better than one. I shared my own ideas about improved code enforcement, increased home ownership incentives and business investment in the Borough.
And...it's fine to agree or disagree with me on some or all of what I have shared. After all, I am just a regular guy, who loves our town - enough to serve it - and who wants to make a difference. It's your alternate ideas that we all seek...and a few more "sets of hands" to help accomplish our goals.
Last night about 8 members of the Rental Property Advisory Committee met to produce an improved code enforcement plan. These are 8 people with their own knowledge base and flowing ideas that they will propose to council on that topic. They are only one of many such committees that advise the council.
There's Human Relations, Board of Health, Recreation, Historic Preservation, Shade Tree Commission, Planning Board, Zoning Board...and many more Taken together, there are dozens of volunteers, who contribute to our town in many ways. They are all of our advisors - and they are, mostly, our residents.
This PEOPLE board can and should serve the town in the same way. It should produce more ideas and it can birth even more involved residents to serve on committees or run for office. This is what it is intended for.
Can we PLEASE all work together and turn any anger we have toward the challenges we are facing to create workable solutions? More importantly, can we all PLEASE be a little more optimistic about our outcomes, even after considering some recent developments? We can all sit here and cry in our beer and attack each other because things haven't always gone our ways. What will this do for us? Or, we can build a better mousetrap and solve our problems together.
In the end, we will find a way to succeed - we can not afford, otherwise.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Nov 21, 2006 15:04:14 GMT -5
ML "See, you ARE capable of a great post, now and then. Here, you make some excellent points." Matter of getting off the "Cranky" pills, and sticking with the "Happy Constructive Brain" pills 
Suggestion...how about list all the committee's and committee chairs with email Addy, on the Boro's Great New Web site |
|
)
