Tuesday, September 1, 2015
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.