Tuesday, September 1, 2015

QUESTIONS,QUESTIONS!




Why have I not posted a report on Monday’s night Special meeting? I think it was covered in such detail by Bernice in her blog that no repetitive account could do justice to the meeting and its implications.

To pass an Ordinance requires a majority of the Council not of the quorum. There are several ways to reject a proposed Ordinance besides voting against it. That includes not attending the meeting which by not being a potential yes vote is in fact a no vote. Likewise, abstaining is in fact a vote against.

Indeed I will continue to maintain that any Council member that cats a negative  vote or abstains MUST explain their reasoning.


It was obvious at 7pm Monday with only 5 Council members present that there would not be the 4 yes votes. Rivers’ dictatorial rulings including not permitting Starch (or the Developer) to make a statement because it was not on the “printed agenda” confirmed my gut feeling that Plainfield’s interests would not be a consideration.

Obviously the present Council is not desirous for any improvement in Plainfield. Lip service is given but the truth seems to be that the status quo is beneficial for them and those they listen to.

After all it was Taylor at the previous meeting who said that she (and her colleagues) knew “how to play the game”; and also “Count the votes”.

The inference had to be that unless something was given, nothing would be done. One could extrapolate that there was an exercise in blackmail, although her remarks about “under the table” did not necessarily apply.

Yes Mayor Mapp did suggest that the opposition to this PILOT was in retribution for administration’s resistance to a vague Housing Authority deal involving the turning over of the downtown city owned lots between Central and Madison Aves for an apartment complex supported by Dunn. Could that have been the truth?

Could this disaster be the product of a power struggle between Assemblyman and County Party President Green and Mayor Mapp?

How many Council members themselves or their relatives have positions in government or related authorities and feel free of outside pressure?

How can a Council which has had members that have been delinquent in their own taxes or do not pay taxes honestly position itself as being concerned with the source of income from a developer? Apparently not objectively.

How can Councilors who would turn a meeting into a third world melee show the maturity to be responsible/

These are questions that I can only ponder, but have no answers perhaps the readers do.

20 comments:

  1. Doc I was there and I think you are being very unfair. This administration is useless and I applaud the council for not approving a 30 year tax abatement.

    As the majority of the speakers opposed to the same.

    I have children in the Plainfield School district and yes I did my research on this and a 30 year tax abatement is a disaster to the Plainfield residents.

    The council made it very clear that they would not support a 30 year tax abatement they did not say that they would not support the project.

    I inform all the readers of the blogs to watch the tape oh ueah I forgot the administration will probably not play the tape.

    Renee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Renee, Sorry that you feel that I am unfair. I was critical of the 30 year PILOT from the beginning and had so told Riv ers when before the first hearing was held at a time when her only objection was not being informed. I am not sure that all the Councillors had read the "agreement". Some of their commenmts suggested that they had not. Yes most of those who spoke were in opposition to the PILOT, many not because of the terms but wanting more low cost housing in Plainfield. Plainfield has been the dumping ground for area low cost housing that other towns should have spared. There seems to be almost a racial fear of gentrification which upper scale apartments may bring about. No one takes into consideration that a more affluent population will bring in better business that will hire locals. The best we can do is a Family Dollar Store, not a magnet for the so called "wallets".

      Council could have accepted on a first reading vote the plan and still had a month to try to amend or clarify the items in question. It chose to reject outright any chance to improve the city. Those that did so have not given one substantial reason why they were against. If you can quote them please do.

      Delete
    2. Renee - "a 30 year tax abatement is a disaster to the Plainfield residents." I don't think you read as much as you think - or you just have a high propensity for drama. This wouldn't have been a disaster in any way to the school system. And by the way - the majority of speakers (by your estimate) being against the PILOT is proof of one thing - that the majority of the people that spoke at the council meeting were against the PILOT. It has no reflection on feelings of the city as a whole or the others in attendance who chose not to speak.

      Delete
  2. JG wins again, this was not a vote against the PILOT, it was a "stop Mapp vote" once again
    Also, Toliver needs anger management counseling!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Doc. Your comments do compliment what Bernice said. I know that Rivers, Greaves, Taylor, and Toliver will not be in the Democratic line on the ballot when they come up for re-election. I am on the Democratic City Committee and know how the majority of my colleagues fee. Their feelings are obvious and may portend bad things for Assemblyman Green. Without him they would not be on the City Council or most of them would not have jobs. I hope in November and at next year's primary the people of Plainfield remember this rejection of what is good for Plainfield.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doc your blog Is all wrong today. You will never put the truth where it lies and that's with this administration. Just like they are getting rid of the entire planning department that's only to get to one person. Shame on them. What a disaster

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much did you get paid to say this. You are wrong. I guess you liked Sharon a lot and want Plainfield to remain the public housing capital of Union County.

      Delete
  5. The Mapp Administration should take a course on how to win friends and influence neighbors, but the Council for the most part is just plain derelict. They've got no clue oftentimes what they are voting for, and show little inclination to read and learn. Although in some instances their opposition is warranted, it is a rarity indeed if it is accompanied by insightful and probing questions, or supported by much in the way of facts or figures. That's why you only hear whining about 'not being told', being 'disrespected', or warnings that they too know how to play the game, and you have to 'learn to count to four'. When it's always the know-it-alls vs.the know-nothings, the big loser is the entire city. There were good arguments pro and con at last night's meeting, but all of them should have been addressed every step of the way for over a year. It never should have dragged on this long without consensus, or it should have been stopped cold months ago. Unfortunately, our municipal public officials are operating in a vacuum. I have no idea who they speak with, whose advice they solicit, or what the real basis is for their decision making. Although citizens may take sides, I'm sure very few have any confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. anon 11:40 this absolutely nothing to do with JG people wake up this administration is worst than the last administration. I know the late great Albert T. McWilliams is turning in his grave.

    The new dems starting under his great leadership and Mayor Mapp is destroying his legacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for attacking the "Plainfield Democratic Organization". You make me proud to be a member and to vote against people like Rivers, Toliver, Greaves, and Taylor. They will be out of office soon enough and maybe then Plainfield can move forward. I hope they paid you enough to write this. I have two volunteer jobs for Plainfield and get paid nothing. I want to live in a growing and prospering city as we all should.

      Delete
  7. For all of you who do not know thebuilder is related to Dick Codey. JG is very upset with the council so get your facts straight.

    JG need this project to go more than the mayor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's true, JG should be encouraging "his" people on the council to support it--but that hasn't happened. Hope it will!

      Delete
    2. Well if JG is so powerless that he can't convince Rivers (who got her union county job from JG), Toliver et all to support this PILOT than he is beyond weak politically and should resign from the Assembly and County party.

      Delete
  8. Bob you probably was not in attendance last night. The residents of Plainfield showed up and showed out last night. the majority of the speakers were not in favor of the pilot. When you have the SID President to speak against the pilot you have to know there is something wrong with the project. Even if the Mapps's administration was not listening to the people the council member's were. I applauded them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANON 3:46 - I have been in the city hall library many times and was not aware that it can hold the entire population of Plainfield. Your evidence of any majority being against the PILOT is not evidence at all.

      Delete
    2. Anon 3:46- what special council meeting did you attend. Donna Albanese spoke very eloquently FOR the project.

      @Bob- I totally agree with you. Greaves will be GONE at the end of this year, but unfortunately she continues to do damage up to the end of this year. Taylor and Brown will be GONE by the end of following year . . . And then Hallelujah. . . No more Rivers. Unfortunately lots of DAMAGE til then. Tsk Tsk tsk.

      Delete
    3. I had an very important meeting at my church and hoped to be finished in time to attend at least part of the meeting. I got out of my church council meeting at 9 p.m. I wish I had been there.

      Delete
  9. Plainfield politics=nepotism. As long as the same names and faces never change there will be no progress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our ex-mayor, Rivers and Toliver can thank Jerry for jobs. I guess they owe him lot.

      Delete
  10. I think the council persons who voted against this are looking for a "Jerry Green" style quid pro quo which is morally wrong and probably illegal. I say get them out of office, they do not deserve to be there. There actions and speech was offensive to many in the room. That is not the way public servants should speak. Remember, they work for we the people. But, they did learn from the best, Jerry!

    ReplyDelete