DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Whatever you do, don’t discuss indemnification. It’s boring, it’s annoying, it’s complicated, it’s controversial, and it’s just plain icky. So, what will you discuss instead?
Sincerely,
Al Ternative
Indemnification.
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Sigh. The Township Council voted April 12 to indemnify Council members and municipal employees from the cost of defending against lawsuits. Thoughts?
Sincerely,
Bill Taxpayers-Instead
I get it, in a way. Council members, for instance, aren’t paid that much for Council work and shouldn’t have to worry about legal expenses they might not be able to afford. Attorneys charge five cents an hour!
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
You’re confusing that rate with what Lucy of the “Peanuts” comic strip charges for psychiatric help, which you desperately need. But haven’t some Council members done things they could be sued for?
Sincerely,
Sue A. Bull
They have, as chronicled by John Grisham in many novels.
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Grisham doesn’t write about Montclair. Wasn’t one spur for the April 12 indemnification vote the to-do about some current Council members formerly accepting state health insurance even though they weren’t eligible for it?
Sincerely,
Ben A. Fitz
Apparently. They were obviously given bad advice, but from whom? The later-to-be-suspended township manager? Someone else? Not from Lucy, I think. Maybe Snoopy…
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
There should be national health insurance in this country. Anyway, I hope that the aforementioned township manager — who’s been accused by multiple women of creating a hostile workplace — isn’t indemnified by the Council’s April 12 action. What else was irksome about the vote?
Sincerely,
Bothered More Than Bewitched
The measure’s March 27 introduction was not on the initial agenda and came up late at night when few residents were watching. Then it was passed just 16 days later — as chronicled in the 1994 Sandra Bullock film “Speed.”
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Contrast the lightning quickness of that indemnification action (on which only Robert Russo voted “no”) with how slow the Council has been to fire the township manager — and to completely ban gas-powered leaf blowers.
Sincerely,
Lee Sher-Lee
As I write this, we still have the manager and no total blower ban. There seems to be a problem with “turning over a new leaf,” or leaves.
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Also on the Council’s plate is the proposed Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment, which was the subject of an April 16 community meeting NOT held by the Council. Thoughts?
Sincerely,
Hugh Mongous
Many good speakers and comments at the Montclair Residents for Responsible Development event. The LP project has to be downsized, and I don’t mean from a 12-inch LP to a seven-inch “single.”
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Begone with your retro references to vinyl records. Aren’t there also worries about gentrification?
Sincerely,
Upton “Up” Scale
Yup. For instance, while 20 percent of LP’s housing units would be “affordable,” most of the rest would probably be VERY pricey like most other new units in town. Rich only? What about people not named Rich?
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Are Wealthy, Moneyed, and Affluent also first names?
Sincerely,
Wellington “Well” Off
Don’t think so, but Wealthy, Moneyed, and Affluent could be the name of a law firm defending Council members and others under the new indemnification measure.
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
Reminds me that the Council also passed a measure setting minimum lot sizes for new subdivisions. I get the desire to avoid another Christopher Court-like debacle of crammed-too-close houses, but larger lots might further decrease Montclair’s dwindling economic diversity. Comment?
Sincerely,
Tom Lawndry
Not sure I should be discussing Lot or any other biblical character.
DEAR MONTCLAIRVOYANT,
It’s lots, not Lot, you idiot! Can you end by mentioning that there were and will be important Earth Week events in Montclair, culminating on Earth Day this Saturday, April 22?
Sincerely,
Planet Hollywood Avenue
Mentioned! I should add that “mentioned” is a more eco-friendly word than “indemnification” because it takes up less space.
Dave Astor, author, is the MontClairVoyant. His opinions about politics and local events are strictly his own and do not represent or reflect the views of Baristanet.
Dave,
As I recall you didn’t have a problem with the Council introducing the off-agenda rent control ordinance – during the COVID State of Emergency. Many people were happy when the Council passed the off-agenda resolution in support of the previous Lackawanna application – before it was fully presented to the Planning Board. We should be consistent in our outrage over procedural hijinks.
Thank you for the comment, Frank. It took a long time for the rent control measure to be crafted, and then a long time before it took effect — unlike the lightning-fast enacting of the indemnification measure. And rent control didn’t have the self-interest that the indemnification measure does (I get the sense that all or most Council members are homeowners rather than renters). Still, as I indicated in the column, I don’t have a totally negative opinion about the indemnification measure; I can understand why the Council wanted it.
The Council introduced the rent control ordinance in March and the municipal election was 8 weeks later.
The Mayor abstained because he wasn’t running again.
And the 3 of the 4 Councilors that voters returned to the dais did it again! I think Russo voted No out of spite, not because of policy or procedure.
Fair point, Frank, that there might have been some indirect self-interest on the part of some councilors in enacting rent control, with those councilors perhaps feeling it might help their reelection chances.