Tuesday, August 16, 2016


Perhaps it was the present heatwave or I might have fallen into that rabbit hole but I left my house last night with the intention of attending a non-controversial Council meeting.

The only potential matter was a to be introduced new resolution  regarding the proposed renovations of Cedar Brook Park by the County .

Much to my surprise I was back in OZ at a gathering of a gaggle of fustian ninnies. How else could I explain that I had to agree with Gloria Taylor despite her rambling disconnected thoughts felt that action on this resolution should be postponed until September in order that the Plainfield Council could have time to study it.

Apparently the first knowledge the Council had was on Friday when the agenda was posted. I am sure that none had read or understood its “Whereases” or the impact of the wording “Be It Resolved that the Plainfield City Council wholeheartedly and unequivocally supports the County’s renovation of its existing soccer fields at Cedar Brook Park.

Council President Storch proposed amending the resolution deleting all but the first and last two whereases and deleting unequivocally from the resolution. He would add conditional phrase indicating compliance with the Planning Board’s conditions and the Historic Commissions agreements.

The Amendment was defeated with only Storch and Taylor voting yes.

Rivers then moved that the Resolution be adopted “as is” and it was adopted with only Storch and Taylor voting no.

Although this plan has been on the docket for several years there has been objections especially to the light poles by the neighboring residents. No notice was given in sufficient time for concerned citizens to come and speak.

I agree with Taylor, the County had succeeded in an “end run”.


  1. Did people object when tennis courts were added to the park?

    It's a park and should adapt.

    1. Whether they did or didn’t is irrelevant. For the sake of argument, If they didn’t object then does that mean they can’t object now? Are you saying the residents surrounding the park shouldn’t have a say? They should just adept? When do you say enough? Will the entire park become one big sports complex for only those who indulge in sports while the rest of the city will have to find somewhere else to have picnics and a quite stroll through the park? Should every open space of the park have these 8 foot lights? Do Rivers, Toliver and Brown even know what they’re voting for or are they just willing to go along with whatever Mapp throws their way thinking he’ll give them the line come election time. I agree with Storch and Taylor on this one. And yes it’s a park, not a sports park.

  2. I cannot remember but I played on the tennis courts in the 1930s. Of course they were clay courts then. I do not recall when they were paved over. Yes tennis is parert of a park complex.

  3. The park does not belong to the residents surrounding it. It belongs to the residents of Plainfield. My taxes are being used to support this park and I have never set foot in it. If the surrounding residents want to make decisions about this park, feel free to pay my portion of taxes going to it.

    1. 6:31 your sentiments are right. However, the park does not belong to the residents of Plainfield but to those of Union County who owns the park. The county has to be bound by Planning Board decisions.

    2. Actually, Olddoc, the Planning Board had only advisory power in this one, nothing binding, although they did a terrific job trying to improve various aspects of the plan, such as the lighting and drainage. Primary jurisdiction on this matter lies with the Historic Preservation Commission, and in a somewhat different context, the State Historic Sites Council. The Assistant County Counsel who handled this matter denied that there was any local or state jurisdiction at all, which is why fireworks developed between me and him. The County will have to come back to the HPC, kicking and screaming, whence a plan everyone can live with will probably emerge.