While most of us were celebrating the beginning of summer this past weekend, new plants at Anderson Park were ripped out and ripped off by vandals. Scott Kevelson, of Friends of Anderson Park (FAP), who’s been keeping us updated on the park’s renovation, told us about the recent thefts.
“Over the past two weeks vandals have stolen about 15 bushes from the park. At first they only took bushes by the back of the (new) bathroom. They then moved to the front of the bathroom. I thought that once the lights come on they would be deterred. But over the last two nights (Saturday and Sunday) they started to take bushes by the new entrance at Bellevue Ave. So far in that area 7 bushes have been taken.”
The shrubs are gone, and won’t be replaced anytime soon, Kevelson said. FAP volunteers continue to pitch in with watering of the 200+ new plants. Their job may get easier once the County installs drip irrigation line for all of the plants by the railroad.
The county told Kevelson they’ll be coordinating park security with Montclair Police, who patrol the park regularly. Kevelson is wondering if surveillance cameras are an option.. Meanwhile, if you have any ideas on how to prevent this vandalism, share them here.
That is crap. What jerks. The same thing happened at the school on Forest Street. They planted some nice flowers and bushesh and ppl were stealing them and ripping them out. God forbid you try to make things look nicer. What idiots! They should replant the bushes and put poison sumac in with all of them (unless there is something stronger).
they aren’t vandals…they are victims of the military-industrial capitalistic demagogic fascist Bush regime. in order to save them we must lower the standards in schools so they can get back their self esteem.
It’s possible this may be the work of commercial thieves.
Years ago, I volunteered with the Newark Conservancy, and shrub theft from public spaces was a huge problem. Often within 24 hours.
Didn’t usually happen in the residential areas, as we engaged neighbors in the planting, had a local sponsor, and often had signage in place.
I’m with Paul. It sounds to me as if whomever is doing this is either replanting them in their own yard or selling them to other people.
Has anyone checked the yards around Crisco?
I think BluewaveNJ just couldn’t stand it any longer and had to impeach a bush, any bush.
Ha!
Has the Montclair PD been notified? Can’t they assist as a deterent by increasing their patrols in that area? What about a neighborhood watch program for the homeowners that border the park?
Gad, all of you are just so tiresome….
Why not chain them for a few months until the roots set?
We had similar problems in Watsessing Park, when we planted little evergreens in planters by the entrances. People would rip out the little evergreens and take them. I’m surprised to hear that it even happens in Upper Montclair! I guess there are jerks everywhere.
I agree, whoever is stealing them must be reselling them. The idea of having to chain new shrubs down is nauseating, but perhaps necessary, alas.
Same thing happened last year in the new Children’s Garden at Verona Park. Plants taken right after they were planted.
Does anyone know what kind of fine or punishment comes with being caught for this type of crime?
Does chaining shrubs work? If these guys are gardening pros then poison oak won’t stop them, they’ll know how to deal with it.
Why don’t we pay teens to stake out the park with paintballs guns? If they see this happening they can mark the vehicle and the perps! A big neon paint splotch is hard to hide, and weird to explain.
🙁
We’ve planted flowers in front of our store (in big wooden planters) & have had problems w/kids, let out of school..pulling them out of the soil!
When we’ve requested Police, we’ve been told that most of them at that time of day are busy around the High School.
The little angels NOT
Sorry to say, I have heard of landscapers who practice this disgusting theivery and re-sell the plants…sometimes right back to the same people. Needless to say they are the lowest of low lives.
“Montclair Police, who patrol the park regularly”
And how regularly is that?
I wonder if coating the plants with Coyote Urine (recommended on a yahoogroup that will stay unnnamed)would help.
I hear that it’s readily
available at garden centers.
I think coyote urine is only effective against chewing bunnies, not digging humans.
The Montclair police, reportedly – and shockingly -said it’s a County park, call the County police.
It doesn’t smell good. Would you buy a hot shrub if it didn’t smell goo?
“When I came into my house with the bottle of coyote urine, my cat and dog were curious about the smell. When I opened the top to see what it smelled like, they both became spooked and agitated. It really stinks, but it really stinks in a way that other animals understand.”
https://www.tamvalley.org/deer.shtml
There re no county police they are sherrifs
https://www.essexsheriff.com/flowchart.htm
There re no county police they are sherrifs.
They must have been busy underwater when the crime(s) occurred…
“One of the many beneficial aspects of the the Essex County Police is their initiative to train personnel for Underwater Search and Rescue Operations”
by the way ROC- they are called Sherrif
What a wuss!
You blew it. They are not called the “Sherrif” the County Police are a division of the Sherrif’s office charged specifically with the country parks
So when the MPD said to call the “county police” they were absolutely correct and specific.
“The Essex County Division of County Police protects the hundreds of thousands of citizens who utilize these facilities each year. With weekly concerts, festivals and fairs at Brookdale Park, Bound Brook Park, the South Mountain Reservations and with family picnics and reunions, golf and community events at scores of other locations, crowd control and public safety are of primary concern to the Essex County Police.”
(wuss)
ROC,
Have you used the Coyote urine or do you use Fox or Bobcat?
Who cares what they’re called they’re obviously not bothering to patrol!
They should slather new plantings with copius amounts of manure to discourage theft. Or touching.
And big UV markers on the plants. Then you can just drive around with a big UV light at night and find stolen bushes in other people’s yards. “Say, where’d you get that plant?”
Hello, I have spoken to representatives at the Essex County Parks Commission. They will be patrolling the Park more often since the vandalism. They also informed me that they will be talking to the Montclair police department to coordinate working with them. It was reported to me that at least two different times in the past day that there was a police presence in the Park. I have been contacted by an individual who is looking into donating a night surveillance camera to be placed in the Park that would tape any thief’s actions. The stolen shrubs will be replace. We are looking into a variety of options one of which is to replace the smaller stolen shrubs with clay grown mature plants. These shrubs would weigh considerably more then the ones that are there now thus creating a strong deterrent. We have also applied for another Green Acres grant for next year. Hopefully in this time of a drastically reduced grant budget we will be successful. The new grant would go for further landscaping according to the Olmsted Firm’s original landscape design plan. If you have any suggestions or are interested in joining our group, Friends of Anderson Park, please email me directly at Montclairtrees@aol.com.
Thank You, Scott Kevelson
Theft of plantings is a difficult problem to solve. In Erwin Park we used to extensively plant the “islands” with beautiful shrubs and perennials. Last time we tried it, within hours a landscapers truck (it was seen, but not identified) pulled up, several individuals hopped out and proceeded to dig up the entire area loading it into the truck.
How sad!
Maybe scrub stealing landscapers should be shot on sight like wild western cattle rustlers.
NO. Just maimed so that we can identify them by their limping!
Maybe if we required them to be licensed, with a bond and proper insurance, we’d get a better level of service and less likelihood of theft. Who knows? We might even start getting people who know what they’re doing!
I tell you Cary, there isn’t a tax or higher price you’ve met that you don’t like!
“We have also applied for another Green Acres grant for next year. Hopefully in this time of a drastically reduced grant budget we will be successful.”
The Green Acres money is a giant slush fund already borrowed and set a aside. So, go for it. Let your kids pay for those bushes (with interest!).
What could be more liberal than a “preserve open space” fund? “Motgages” on bushes, you gotta love liberalism!
“Mortgages”
the air is filled with negativity. and so early in the morning.
did ya get up on the wrong side of the bed ROC. have you kicked your dog yet this morning or yelled at your kids?
please don’t have that second cup of coffee!
I suppose this will mean one will have to more carefully consider capitalization to determine bush’s deficit.
I tell ya’, ROC, sometimes I really like what you say but sometimes your logic slips, IMHO.
What possible reasons could you have against licensing professionals? Not to compare the two, but do you think the state has no business licensing, say, physicians?
On to more mundance professions. I’ve been ripped off by more incompetent landscapers, carpenters, painters, electricians, and auto mechanics than I can count. Having a properly licensed, experienced, and insured professional SAVES money.
On landscaping, I spent tens of thousands of dollars, when I moved in to my home years ago, needlessly on landscaping projects that were poorly thought out or just plain wrong. Perhaps using a LICENSED person would have helped?
I mean if the landscaper who stole the shrubs in Erwin Park knew that he could lose a license, or forfeit a bond, perhaps they’d think twice about theft?
Seriously, whaddya think, ROC?
You license professionals whose incompetence creates serious safety risk or serious financial risk.
Landscapers? Please. It will increase the cost as all regulation does. In the case of your doctor this is a small price to pay for safety, for the landscaper, it’s not needed.
The (generally liberal) inclination to license and regulate e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g results in less entrepreneurship and higher costs.
If you want an efficient (and thereby low cost) marketplace for landscaping the “price of entry” should be a pick up truck and a pair of blue jeans.
I part company with you on this one ROC. Creating and maintaining public parks is a proper governmental function that even red-blooded true conservative would support.
But you are right on condemning unnecessary licensing.
“I mean if the landscaper who stole the shrubs in Erwin Park knew that he could lose a license, or forfeit a bond, perhaps they’d think twice about theft?”
You guys always make the same assumptions.
You assume a landscaper low enough to steal will be honorable enough to get licensed!
Like assuming a drug dealer will *register* his hand gun.
Or assuming a murderous dictator will abide by UN edicts.
It’s all the same not-real-world nonsense.
“Creating and maintaining public parks is a proper governmental function that even red-blooded true conservative would support.”
I do support it wholeheartedly. Where did you get the idea I didn’t?
I don’t think the bushes should be paid for by deficit spending and long term bond as is the case in the “green acres” slush fund.
In fact, licensing sometimes gives a false aura of respectability to a questionable occupation.
I have no problem with deficit spending for a park, a long term investment I would have no qualms burdening the future generation with.
To buy bushes? Wow.
Do you take ouit home equity loans for garden hoses?
Bonds and long term debt should be used to make capital investments not operating budgets.
But the land with a bond (the land won’t go anywhere). But if you have to borrow money to *operate* the park, I am sorry my friend, you can’t afford the park and are living above your means.
p.s. new streetlights and pothole repair are long term investments too. I certainly hope we aren’t borrowing for those things too.
“You license professionals whose incompetence creates serious safety risk or serious financial risk.”
right ROC- NJ licenses beauticians and cosmetologists, barbers and hair salon personnel, talent agents.
Not to mention, Byron, The “green acres” fund is a state wide bond issue. How much benefit will residents of Cape May derive from our bushes?
Their only “defense” is to come up with some qualifying bright ideas for their parks too so they get their share of the borrowed pork.
(and people wonder why spending is out of control)
ROC, you√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re against “needless” taxation?
But when Montclair proposes two NEW sewer taxes that will push our tax increase THIS year to above 18% you not only don’t complain, you think it just fine?
How about a little consistency?
When Montclair town officials propose spending money you agree; when anyone else does you flip out.
Make up your mind!
Gee, is funding for the Iraq venture a capital investment or an operating budget? Are we living above our means there?
Lucy,
If you’re going to debate my statements you have to get them correct. I have not expressed approval of the sewer authority, in fact the opposite. I took issue with the 18% on factual and mathematical issues alone.
Whatever my “position” on an issue I am always in favor of honesty over demagoguery and loose assumptions.
I will have I have less issue with spending the more local it is, because, in general, the payer and beneficiary are proximate and it means less corruption.
Consider the park and the “green acres” fund.
In the days of yore, when our ancestors held to the notion that big state government was not the solution to all of our ills, how did it work? If you wanted a park in Essex county, the politician in Essex county asked his constituents to approve a bond. If they chose “yes” the park was built. If was a nice park, the people were happy. They reward the politician with trust and support. To whom does he owe the success? To his constituents – they approved the money. To remain successful he must keep their interests in mind, he must watch out for them.
See how that works?
Now, consider the “green acres” approach so much in favor now. (and this kind of thing goes on in many many aspects of bluish government) If he wants to build a park he now turns not to his constituents but to the state politicians who administer the “fund”. It is THEY who give him the money. He builds the park and get’s the “atta boy” from his constituents. Even more of an “atta boy” because it’s money *other* people paid! Huzzah! But to whom does he owe this success? To the state wide constituents (voters)? No…. they don’t vote for him so who gives a damn about *them*. He owes his success to the party apparatus which funneled the money to his project. He will keep *their* interests foremost in his mind. It is a keystone in the foundation of the patronage system and it is corrupt. Build my dogpark and I’ll support your “environmental” center! The people can’t keep track of all this because what does the Cape May resident know about our bushes? What do we know about their park’s new public bathrooms? (personally “inspected” by the ex-governor, no doubt).
The people’s only possible course is to clamor for *their* share of the ever increasing pie. *Their* spoils of the patronage system. And the system grows and grows…
One of the main purposes of government (via regulation and taxes) is to *prevent* the “tragedy of the commons” not enable it!
Crank
“Gee, is funding for the Iraq venture a capital investment or an operating budget?”
Operating budget. It is funded by appropriation in the current budget(s). War bonds have not been issued.
P.S.
I did mistate one thing. It’s more like:
“Build my dogpark and I’ll support your lavish state employee benefits package to buy off the unions.”
ROC,
your statement that ” I have not expressed approval of the sewer authority…” is NOT true
someone said in a previous thread:
“18% is really really high. Aren’t you concerned?”
ROC said:
“It would be if true. But it seems to be made up, so I am unconcerned”
you also felt that it wasn’t up to the mayor to answer any questions.
Your position is always with town government and you’ve said that they don’t need to account or justify spending for things like SUVs and dump trucks and have also expressed approval for their policy on letting town employees take cars home.
You have also said that in your opinion that township residents should not question whether the train station building was insured or not.
You are a FRAUD and HYPOCRITE!
ROC,
your statement that ” I have not expressed approval of the sewer authority…” is NOT true
someone said in a previous thread:
“18% is really really high. Aren’t you concerned?”
ROC said:
“It would be if true. But it seems to be made up, so I am unconcerned”
you also felt that it wasn’t up to the mayor to answer any questions.
Your position is always with town government and you’ve said that they don’t need to account or justify spending for things like SUVs and dump trucks and have also expressed approval for their policy on letting town employees take cars home.
You have also said that in your opinion that township residents should not question whether the train station building was insured or not.
You are a FRAUD and HYPOCRITE!
Lucy, lucy, you mischaracterize my statements.
The 18% was, in fact, inaccurate. The key question remains unanswered:
WHEN will the new sewer fees take effect?
Show me the answer to that.
“you also felt that it wasn’t up to the mayor to answer any questions.”
No, I felt it was up to HIM which questions (or not) he answered.
“Your position is always with town government and you’ve said that they don’t need to account or justify spending for things like SUVs and dump trucks and have also expressed approval for their policy on letting town employees take cars home.”
I have never said that. You are inaccurate.
“You have also said that in your opinion that township residents should not question whether the train station building was insured or not.”
Nope, Never said that either.
“You are a FRAUD and HYPOCRITE!”
As a statement of opinion, you’re certainly entitled. It’s obviously as well informed as all your other characterizations of my statements.
p.s.
I am ashamed to admit it, but I am always gratified greatly when someone has to resort to such obvious and glaring misrepresentations to cobble together an “argument”. Not pretty, I know.
a correction:
“”Your position is always with town government and you’ve said that they don’t need to account or justify spending for things like SUVs and dump trucks…”
I have never said that. You are inaccurate.”
ROC,
lota of misinformation on your part
someone said while talking about the sewer taxes and the fact that Ed remsen was online and in that particular thread:
“I think that Mayor Ed should explain it since he’s here and it’s his administration.”
Roc said:
“why should the mayor have to swat down possiblly faulty info.”
yet now you say
“No, I felt it was up to HIM which questions (or not) he answered.”
BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS
Whoa, ROC:
First of all, today’s Montclair Times has some FACTS that should settle you down a bit.
The proposed ordinance for the Sewer authority is RETROACTIVE to January 1, 2006 and as I read it the next payment will be August 1, 2006.
Next, catch this: according to the town’s OWN ordinance, the “usage” charge will be calculated by taking what the town is charged, and dividing it by a number indicating each residents use.
Thus, whatever the town is charged by Passaic Valley or whoever we pay to dispose of our sewage GETS PASSED ON TO THE RESIDENTS.
Pretty nifty, huh? No need for the town to worry about future increases ’cause the residents will pay. No need to negotiate with Passaic because, what the heck, THE RESIDENTS PAY. No need to include sewage increases in the overall budget, and thus maybe cut something else in order to help out the residents because it’s a PASS THROUGH.
Your thoughts, ROC?
ROC,
lota of misinformation on your part
someone said while talking about the sewer taxes and the fact that Ed remsen was online and in that particular thread:
“I think that Mayor Ed should explain it since he’s here and it’s his administration.”
Roc said:
“why should the mayor have to swat down possiblly faulty info.”
yet now you say
“No, I felt it was up to HIM which questions (or not) he answered.”
BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS
Ahh. NEW facts, Thanks cary. This is why I reserve judgement.
I still don’t know. I’ll read the article.
Why should water be charged by use and not sewage?
“Thus, whatever the town is charged by Passaic Valley or whoever we pay to dispose of our sewage GETS PASSED ON TO THE RESIDENTS.”
that’s the case now, isn’t it? Is someone *else* paying the bill?
“. No need to negotiate with Passaic because, what the heck, THE RESIDENTS PAY”
How would we negotiate in any case? Threaten to move our pipes elsewhere?
ROC,
Saw this on the American Spectator site:
“[T]he real clincher, I don’t mind telling you, and the thing that is sure to persuade me there is nothing to worry about, is the presence of Al Gore as the pitchman for the apocalypse.”
BTW,
“First of all, today’s Montclair Times has some FACTS that should settle you down a bit.”
Where in the paper I can’t find it.
If they charge for sewage by use, who will pay for the poopometers? Yet another expense…
The plan (which seems very wierd to me) it to base the charges on your *water* use from Jan-Mar only.
I suppose that is to try to “isolate” the outside watering useage.
We have a small family so I might probably gain from measured billing. The apartment buildings are the ones who’ll pay a lot.
ROC,
It’s in the public notices section, you know, the tiny print!
You say that you might “gain” from measured billing. Remember: you’re paying NOTHING now, so how will you gain from paying ANYTHING?
This is a tax increase. Plain and simple.
Also, meters will have to be installed. I wonder who will pay for those? At, lets say, $50 per user, what are we looking at 15,000 users? Hmmm … that’s, gee wizz, ANOTHER $750,000! Wow, that’s enough to make a down payment on the Wayfinding Sign project!
Later,
“It’s in the public notices section, you know, the tiny print!”
Got it thanks!
“Remember: you’re paying NOTHING now, so how will you gain from paying ANYTHING?”
Now it’s FREE!? None of my taxes pay for sewer services? I had no idea. Are we just dumping it in a river someplace?
“This is a tax increase. Plain and simple.”
That’s just spin, plain and simple. If it becomes a useage fee then whatever tax support has supported the system will no longer be necessary.
“Also, meters will have to be installed. I wonder who will pay for those?”
Here I am almost certain you are wrong. The public notice mentions meters because it has to cover all the bases legally. (It can’t be “unsaid”)
The montclair Times article of May 25 says:
“will be charged to local customers based on the amount of their *water consumption* for the months of January, February and March of each year.”
You already have a water consumption meter on your line. No *extra* meter necessary.
“At, lets say, $50 per user, what are we looking at 15,000 users? Hmmm … that’s, gee wizz, ANOTHER $750,000!”
So the above is an incorrect assumption (and spin).
Again, I want to know because I don’t know what I think of this proposal.
Why is this a bad idea?
Back to the county vs. Green Acres issue for funding parks:
ROC, the reason the Essex County Park system has to resort to using Green Acres funds to maintain and improve the parks is because the Republican administration that controlled the county for a number of years consistently reduced the funding to maintain the parks under the guise of holding down county taxes (all the while giving “jobs” to friends who didn’t actually do anything, thus wasting the county’s money).
When the Democrats finally got in, they were faced with a park system that was in disrepair, dangerous and unwelcoming. Because they couldn’t just raise the taxes to fix the problem (surely you would be among the first to raise an outcry) they found another way to get the job done. I credit them for their resourcefulness.
“Because they couldn’t just raise the taxes to fix the problem (surely you would be among the first to raise an outcry) they found another way to get the job done. I credit them for their resourcefulness.”
Because they could not, in an honest manner, ask the citizens to pay their own way (ie. taxes) and thereby make priority choices, they opted for the patronage system. Borrowed (borrowed!) money lots of *other* people have to pay back. Thus hiding the *true* cost from the voter’s eyes and preventing them from making a priority choice.
The ends justify the means.
Truly, truly Democratic Party Ideals in action! I credit them for their deceit.
“because the Republican administration that controlled the county for a number of years consistently reduced the funding to maintain the parks under the guise of holding down county taxes”
What a wacky bizzare notion, huh? That lowering expenditures would curb spending and hold down taxes. Strange, eh? Maybe even irresponsible? A foreign concept to many a Democrat, I’d imagine. Much, much better to borrow!
Oh, and as every good democrat will tell you. If you pay your tax (or really your kids pay the debt in *their* tax someday) to the state instead of the county it’s not really tax!
And since the funding stream for that park bench gets vastly more complicated you can’t SAY anything about it becasue NO ONE CAN FATHOM how it all works.
The best you can do is clamor for MORE spending on your parks to get your share of the pork! While at the same time the insider patronage system is strengthened.
This is music to a Democrat’s ear.
Much better than all the mucking about and rancor in local politics.
“That lowering expenditures would curb spending and hold down taxes” is not the point. There is a limit to how many expenditures you can eliminate without lowering quality of life. The parks are an important part of quality of life, particularly in urban areas. Keeping taxes low is no great achievement if you also take away everything that money paid for. What would be a good achievement is to maintain the level of quality of life without raising taxes – now that would be an achievement. And anyway, Treffinger wasn’t being so careful with the taxpayers’ money considering he was CONVICTED of crimes in funneling money to no-show jobs!
As for the Green Acres thing, the current administration is using perfectly legal and legitimate ways to fund the parks. If you disagree with it, then get the government to eliminate Green Acres funding (which you’ll be happy to hear may be on its way out as I don’t know that it is being renewed this year). If that happens then another way must be found to keep the parks maintained.
“another way must be found to keep the parks maintained.”
We could just do that, quaint, curioius and outmoded thing called local politics.
You know, the politicians say, “should we increase taxes, borrow money, cut the parks, lay off some cops, or end costly unnessary recycling programs?” And then, oh I don’t know, let the public make some priority choices?
Who knows it might work.
I hope we didn’t borrow money for this!
how would we “do that, quaint, curioius and outmoded thing called local politics… let the public make some priority choices”?
an election-referendum spend spend spend ROC – more money spent
how would we “do that, quaint, curioius and outmoded thing called local politics… let the public make some priority choices”?
an election-referendum spend spend spend ROC – more money spent
Hiding,
No, haven’t you heard? (boy do we need civics classes again) We live in a republic. YOU choose your representatives and they make policy. And you hold them accountable.
If the good mayor of Cape May is greased up (and I am not saying he/she is) with the state pols and he gets far more than his share of BORROWED MONEY in YOUR name, what are you going to do about it? Hold Nina Gil accountable?
It’s precisely the problem.
Your ONLY recourse is to insist Nina get in there and get greased up too! Get some nice fatty bacon for us!
No one should question why spending is out of control. (at the federal level as well).
“Nia Gil”
oh then your saying “let the public make some priority choices” is a euphamism
No, that’s the process here in America.
It isn’t a euphemism, it is a clear point: if local matters get decided locally by locally-elected officials and funded locally through local taxes, you will get a lot more focus on whether the new traffic light, park upgrade, arts festival — whatever — is worth the $$$ in the eyes of the community. The public will set the priorities.
for a county park? are you suggesting that we abolish county parks and make them “local” instead?
And I’ll tell you right now that if you tried to float a bond to borrow the *operating budget* for the parks department locally, it would get voted down pretty fast!
Thus the need to bamboozle taxpayers to, as Muai says “[find] another way to get the job done.”
That is precisely what is already happening to a point, because the federal government is slowly abdicating any responsibility for preservation of open space and various other things and pushing it down to the states, which in turn will push it to the counties, which in turn pushes it to the municipalities, where our property taxes are already among the highest in the country. So ask and ye shall receive. Eventually only the local municipalities will have the ability to fund any quality of life amenities and since no one wants bigger taxes then we’ll end up with poorer quality of life. But if that’s what you want, so be it. In the meantime our taxes that go to the federal government are being wasted in Iraq.
Hiding,
Here is what I would suggest.
Federal spending should only be for things which have the potential to benefit ALL Americans.
County spending should only be for things which have the potential to benefit all county residents.
Municipal spending should only be for things which have the potential to benefit all township residents.
This is why (to the mystery of many a liberal, I’ll add) we have different levels of government in the first place!
That way the payers of tax SEE and more importantly EVALUATE the benefits (or not). It’s necessary for accountability.
Now, if we could just spend some of that “environmental center” money on reconstituting civics classes in the public schools, we’d really make progress.
should short hills /millburn support and carry all costs for South Mountain reservation?
does Montclair want to support: Anderson, Brokdale, and Glenfield parks by themselves?
i vote NO. i’m e-mailing my duly elected representative to vote NO.
Maui, you’re all over the map on that one.
But to some degree you are right. As conservatives come to power many initives are indeed pushed down to the state or local level where they rightly belong.
so, county parks don’t benefit all county residents?
you are way too weird!
Hiding,
No, those parks are used by county residents, having them be county funded is entirely appropriate.
But, should the resident of Cape May pay for park benches at Brookdale? No.
(I think I may begin to ignore “hiding” posts, it’s too hard to figure out when there is more than one.)
County is local.
OK, here’s the problem, ROC. The ENTIRE government would have to be revamped to do what you said. I think in essence you are right: municipal things should be paid for by municipal money, state things should be paid for by state money, and federal by federal money. But then we would lose the whole system of pork! The Congress would never approve a reform that did what you said would be right. They would lose all their little “earmarks” and no longer get special favors built into the spending bills that benefit their local constituents. It just isn’t going to happen. Not saying you’re not right though!
“It just isn’t going to happen.”
Defeatism to the left of me, defeatism to the right of me…
No excuses Maui. If it is wrong, it’s our duty to try to put it right. We start by recognizing it.
p.s. no so much “revamped” as “restored”.
We should be passing the cost for local things to the local level. What has been missing from the equation is that THEN the larger forms of governmen should then reduce spending. (because it is at the local level).
“What has been missing from the equation is that THEN the larger forms of governmen should then reduce spending. (because it is at the local level).”
Absolutely but they just spend more on other stuff and fewer people get the things they really need.
How do you decide which are federal “things” and which are local? It seems to me that parks exist on all levels from federal down to the local town square.
Or how about stuff like medical research grants? Is that federal or should it only be privately funded?
cary said-“This is a tax increase. Plain and simple.”
ROC replied- “That’s just spin, plain and simple. If it becomes a useage fee then whatever tax support has supported the system will no longer be necessary.”
So you think our town taxes will go DOWN?!?
ROFL
“How do you decide which are federal “things” and which are local?”
That’s the purpose of government. We decide via them.
It’s not perfect. There is not a certain rule for classification. Clearly the Grand Canyon is a national treasure which many Americans from all states will wish to visit, so it should be federal.
I doubt anyone will make a special trip to see Brookdale park, so it’s all a matter of degrees.
But the general rule of thumb should be that those who pay should be those who benefit. The payers (thus overseers) should be close to the spending. When those things diverge you invite corruption and patronage.
So statewide open space bonds should be used to benefit ALL New Jerseyans with EACH allocation. Does that include the Essex County Environmental Center? (and however many other “me-too” environmental centers there may be) No. Would it include purchasing and restoring wetlands? Yes.
Essex county should pay for its own environmental center (and bushes) and Monmouth, the same.
“So you think our town taxes will go DOWN?!?”
If you don’t think it will have an effect, why do you “poo-poo” spending projects like the baseball field? If it’s all for naught, why bother?
I’d still like to know why it is a bad idea. Do any of the naysayers have a reason to say “nay”?
Mind you, I don’t see the reason to do it either. I don’t think Hartnett has made a convincing case.
It’s a bad idea because it’s a sneaky way to raise our taxes while proclaiming that our taxes haven’t risen too much.
I’m not following your statement about the baseball field- WHAT’s “all for naught”?
I hope I am remembering correctly, but if memory serves you were against the woodman baseball field renovation because it was too expensive.
So my question is if you don’t think taxes will eve go down, that they’ll always find a way to raise them, then why bother being against any spending.
It seems like pure cynacism to me.
I’ll admit it is plausable that it might be to avoid a tax hike “blame”. But also, I can see the consistency with the water bill situation.
My main complaint with the woodman field issue was the threatened removal of the ancient trees. But I did also think the whole project sounded excessive.
I think it’s important not to throw away money on stupid crap like a 750K “signage” project. Or that underwhelming logo.
Yes, taxes constantly go up, and much of what we spend money on is crucial, but I’d like to keep some sort of limit on what I consider useless, wasteful projects.
Well I agree the logo and wayfinding project are a waste of money.
And I also think if those project were blocked we’d have less of a tax hike, maybe not much less, but less.
So to I also think that if I pay $350 for sewage treatment directly that my taxes should go down by some degree. Perhaps even more than $350.
I don’t have enough info to decide if a separate water utility is a good or a bad thing for the town (do I sound like ROC?). I do have questions and if anyone actually knows the answers a response would be appreciated.
Last year, a problem was reported concerning the water department’s financial status; I think it involved a shortage. How was that situation finalized? Is the formation of the utility a reaction to that situation?
When the utility starts billing the residents, is that portion of the local taxes going to immediately be removed and not replaced with another equal expenditure?
When the utility is established as a separate entity, can they then float bonds without any input from the town? Will it be similar to the school board where there are town representatives that only have a partial voice in what is going on?
What is the value added to the residents by changing the way the water department does business? Has there been any impact analysis performed to see what the bottom line effect will be on the average homeowner including the loss of tax deductible status for our water bills?
Thanks for any informational replies.
Good Questions.
But:
“Has there been any impact analysis performed to see what the bottom line effect will be on the average homeowner including the loss of tax deductible status for our water bills?”
I think you mean sewer bills, water bills are currently not deductable.
I also have another question. If the sewer bill will be retroactive frm Jan 2006, will be getting a rebate for the portion of our property tax already paid which applies to sewer charges?
Bean Hartnett mentioned in the paper that he expected the average user to pay $325 per year.
Good grief.
The sewer tax will be comprised of TWO parts. The Times and the Ledger say the TWO add up to over $400 for the AVERAGE house.
Yes you currently pay sewer charges in your taxes and no, you won’t be getting a refund now that you will be paying a separate sewer charge.
Yes, it is being set up to generate revenue.
Let me say that again: THIS IS BEING DONE TO GENERATE REVENUE.
It also has the benefit of taking out bond issues from the general borrowing of the town and putting it in a separate place. Perhaps it is less noticeable there? Did you note that was what was done with parking, i.e. the parking authority’s debt now appears separately?
And, as has been said here before, do you realize that these charges now become pass throughs? i.e. any increase Passaic Valley wants just goes to the tax payer and the town need not be worried about it!
And again, knock-knock? As this is not a “tax” in the IRS sense of the word YOU CAN NO LONGER DEDUCT IT FROM YOUR TAXES. By paying for this charge with after tax money, you are, if you are in the 50% marginal bracket, PAYING TWICE THE SUM. We’d be better off taking this as a tax increase rather than the sewer authority.
Oh, and by the way? Borrowing is taking place to repair streets and curbs and purchase SUVs (which STILL don’t have decals on them), etc.
Do you know what the total debt of the town is?
“And, as has been said here before, do you realize that these charges now become pass throughs? i.e. any increase Passaic Valley wants just goes to the tax payer and the town need not be worried about it!”
What would we do now? Threaten to move the pipes?
“By paying for this charge with after tax money, you are, if you are in the 50% marginal bracket, PAYING TWICE THE SUM.”
I think if you are in the 50% bracket and you are worried about an extra $200 per year, you should get a grip!
I think that you should look at the accuracy of my statement instead!
ok.
What would we do now? Threaten to move the pipes?
That might be an option.
Do you have any other suggestions?
Ask Cary. He seem to be concerned about some kind of “barganing pressure” we will “lose” with a sewer authority vs. the township administration.
Perhaps pouting and foot stomping would work, goodness knows we have no shortage of that in Montclair.
or stiff upper lips!
I checked Cary’s posts above and found no such statement or insinuation.
Are you making up quotes again?
I remember a thread where you said that it was ok for you to paraphrase what someone else said and put quotes around it AS IF they had actually said what you paraphrased and interpreted.
Drowning.
(Reading – It’s fundamental)
Cary said above:
“Thus, whatever the town is charged by Passaic Valley or whoever we pay to dispose of our sewage GETS PASSED ON TO THE RESIDENTS.
Pretty nifty, huh? No need for the town to worry about future increases ’cause the residents will pay. No need to negotiate with Passaic because, what the heck, THE RESIDENTS PAY. No need to include sewage increases in the overall budget, and thus maybe cut something else in order to help out the residents because it’s a PASS THROUGH.”
AHHH. quotes that aren’t really quotes again.
“barganing pressure” not in Cary’s post or your post really quoting Cary’s post. And if he had written it it would have been spelled correctly.
Yep- reading is fundamental.
Making up quotes is a form of LYING.
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression