Referendum to Study consolidating Maplewood & South Orange (edited) archived
Nov 5, 2006 at 5:37am Edited
Fred: Thanks for your prompt reply.
Dave:
The electorate of the municipalities involved has the sole power to determine whether any group of existing municipalities would consolidate into a single new municipality which includes each of the formerly independent jurisdictions. In our case, the BOT and the TC would have no direct say in recommending for or against consolidation (though as Fred points out, one would hope that our present elected officials of both towns would become involved at the fact finding stage and might be asked their opinion as to how we could best combine the two towns into a new entity). This is what makes a consolidation commission approach so attractive to those seeking an end run around their present government.
What the BOT and TC will have the final say on is whether our two towns should enter into any shared services agreements. Here the electorate has no say (unless involved in fact finding and/or opinion input stages of the study.) Since the BOT has already shown extreme reluctance to address the shared services question, it is unlikely that South Orange's government would agree to adopt any shared services recommendations made by the commission. This is just one reason why so many advocates for shared services (even shared services limited to Maplewood and South Orange) who are opposed to consolidation are urging others to vote no on the referendum.
Dave:
The electorate of the municipalities involved has the sole power to determine whether any group of existing municipalities would consolidate into a single new municipality which includes each of the formerly independent jurisdictions. In our case, the BOT and the TC would have no direct say in recommending for or against consolidation (though as Fred points out, one would hope that our present elected officials of both towns would become involved at the fact finding stage and might be asked their opinion as to how we could best combine the two towns into a new entity). This is what makes a consolidation commission approach so attractive to those seeking an end run around their present government.
What the BOT and TC will have the final say on is whether our two towns should enter into any shared services agreements. Here the electorate has no say (unless involved in fact finding and/or opinion input stages of the study.) Since the BOT has already shown extreme reluctance to address the shared services question, it is unlikely that South Orange's government would agree to adopt any shared services recommendations made by the commission. This is just one reason why so many advocates for shared services (even shared services limited to Maplewood and South Orange) who are opposed to consolidation are urging others to vote no on the referendum.
Posted By: kathleenIf there is anything "bipartisan" about this campaign, it's the fact that Democrat, Republican and Independent candidates for the TC have been vocal in opposing it.
In this incredibly charged political season that is an amazing fact! It is evidence once again of why Maplewood is special.
Nov 5, 2006 at 8:23am Edited
I will respectfully disagree with Mr. Profeta, regarding the proper scope of the Consolidation Commission’s work, and whether a shared services study (without a Consolidation Commission) is the better choice. I have a short and a long answer as to why I disagree. I’ll start with the short answer.
The Consolidation Commission has a specific job to do – study and make a recommendation on consolidation. Looking at regionalizing services with towns other than Maplewood and South Orange, is not part of the job of the Consolidation Commission. One could just as well argue that the Board of Education, or the Zoning Board of Adjustment, could do a study of regionalizing municipal services; and one would be wrong. Sure, the members of the school board or the zoning board could for the heck of it decide to do a regionalization study of town services, instead of the statutorily-mandated jobs for which their entities were created. But, they clearly are not supposed to do that. Similarly, the Consolidation Commission (if there is a vote in favor of one here) is supposed to study merger, consolidation, or shared services for Maplewood and South Orange.
Second, with regard to funding, I believe it is incorrect to suggest that state funding would be in a different form, or from a different source, if a shared services study is done instead of having a Consolidation Commission. The money to study either shared services or consolidation comes from the same place, the "SHARE" Program (for "Sharing Available Resources Efficiently") (Note: The link is to a Word document online). If it's a Consolidation Commission, the money has to be spent on lots of things that have nothing to do with saving money (such as the form of government, how to consolidate the debts of the two towns, how to deal with existing legal obligations, etc.). So, for getting money from the state, a Consolidation Commission is no better than simply having representatives from the two towns sit down, and ask for the same money from the state to study shared services. In fact, studying shared services without a Consolidation Study is a better choice, because the money could all be spent on what we actually want studied.
Finally, my disagreement is based upon the plain language of the law. Explaining that requires a longer answer, and that will be in the next post.
The Consolidation Commission has a specific job to do – study and make a recommendation on consolidation. Looking at regionalizing services with towns other than Maplewood and South Orange, is not part of the job of the Consolidation Commission. One could just as well argue that the Board of Education, or the Zoning Board of Adjustment, could do a study of regionalizing municipal services; and one would be wrong. Sure, the members of the school board or the zoning board could for the heck of it decide to do a regionalization study of town services, instead of the statutorily-mandated jobs for which their entities were created. But, they clearly are not supposed to do that. Similarly, the Consolidation Commission (if there is a vote in favor of one here) is supposed to study merger, consolidation, or shared services for Maplewood and South Orange.
Second, with regard to funding, I believe it is incorrect to suggest that state funding would be in a different form, or from a different source, if a shared services study is done instead of having a Consolidation Commission. The money to study either shared services or consolidation comes from the same place, the "SHARE" Program (for "Sharing Available Resources Efficiently") (Note: The link is to a Word document online). If it's a Consolidation Commission, the money has to be spent on lots of things that have nothing to do with saving money (such as the form of government, how to consolidate the debts of the two towns, how to deal with existing legal obligations, etc.). So, for getting money from the state, a Consolidation Commission is no better than simply having representatives from the two towns sit down, and ask for the same money from the state to study shared services. In fact, studying shared services without a Consolidation Study is a better choice, because the money could all be spent on what we actually want studied.
Finally, my disagreement is based upon the plain language of the law. Explaining that requires a longer answer, and that will be in the next post.
As I mentioned above, a Consolidation Commission has a specific statutory responsibility. That responsibility is to conduct a study of the consolidation of the municipalities which have appointed the Commissioners and elected to be part of the study. The law sets forth the duties of the members of the Consolidation Commission:
40:43-66.50. Duties and function; report of findings and recommendations
It shall be the duty and function of the joint municipal consolidation study commission to study the question and feasibility of consolidating the participating municipalities into a single new municipality. In carrying out its duties and functions, the commission shall also study the plans or forms of government available under the "Optional Municipal Charter Law" (P.L.1950, c. 210; C. 40:69A-1 et seq.), the "commission form of government law" (R.S. 40:70-1 et seq.), the "municipal manager form of government law" (R.S. 40:79-1 et seq.), and the plans or forms of government of the participating municipalities, and shall exercise all of the functions and powers of a charter commission under this act and under the "Optional Municipal Charter Law,
Nov 5, 2006 at 8:34am Edited
[Long answer, which was too long to fit in a single post, continued]
All of these recommendations clearly involve services and functions of the participating municipalities (that is, the municipalities which actually formed the Consolidation Commission). Under the law, a Consolidation Commission can be instituted by two, three, or even more municipalities. There are a lot of little towns in New Jersey, and a lot of them are next to each other, and are good candidates for a Consolidation Study. I grew up in a little town in Bergen County, and if that town merged with the towns on its east and west borders, the new municipality would be only slightly more populous than Maplewood alone. It makes sense that the word “regionalization
All of these recommendations clearly involve services and functions of the participating municipalities (that is, the municipalities which actually formed the Consolidation Commission). Under the law, a Consolidation Commission can be instituted by two, three, or even more municipalities. There are a lot of little towns in New Jersey, and a lot of them are next to each other, and are good candidates for a Consolidation Study. I grew up in a little town in Bergen County, and if that town merged with the towns on its east and west borders, the new municipality would be only slightly more populous than Maplewood alone. It makes sense that the word “regionalization
Nohero:
Thank you so much for posting such a clear and understandable interpretation of the implementing legislation.
Fred:
If the consolidation commission referendum were to be defeated on Tuesday, would you be willing to support a shared services summit initiative and if not, why not?
Thank you so much for posting such a clear and understandable interpretation of the implementing legislation.
Fred:
If the consolidation commission referendum were to be defeated on Tuesday, would you be willing to support a shared services summit initiative and if not, why not?
Nohero - great post!
One of the most misinterpreted parts of this study has been the regionalization terminology.
It actually makes sense that other towns not be considered in this study since they haven't formally opted to be in it.
One of the most misinterpreted parts of this study has been the regionalization terminology.
It actually makes sense that other towns not be considered in this study since they haven't formally opted to be in it.
Nov 5, 2006 at 9:54am Edited
I know this one SEEMS long but you'll be surprised how quickly it scrolls by even if you read it.
We may have to form a study commision to study the posts here.
It could take a great deal more than ten months. If I get to sit on that one I am ordering pizza and bringing a deck of cards.
"Ten commisioners for ten months" -Sounds like the first line in the movie trailer for the film, -"The Thing that ate Maplewood" (It's only scary if you live there).
Well it was a lovely day outside in Maplewood if a little brisk. Much like M.O.L. of late.
I have to believe (more through certainty than sustaining need) that I am not alone in holding the sentimental sentiment that I personally care quite a bit about the physical size of Maplewood. It occurs to me that it has quite a lot to do with it's character if it is to have any ambition to being "ideal". (I'm sure that someone else will say that "size does matter" so there I said it first).
To change the size of Maplewood is to change essentially that which Maplewood is beyond any other measure of deliberate change. Some of the buildings, streets and parks may change a little bit, now and again, here and there, most often for the better but regardless it stays affectionately unique to many and even precious to others. It may change in some internal respects as it has in the twenty years that I have been here and raised a kid up and through all the schools. She is doing quite well at "University" thank you all for asking.
But while she is at school and thereafter I would hate to have someone ask her, -"Where are you from?" and she has to say "Well I grew up in Maplewood but it's not there anymore."
I'm not kidding. That is what we are talking about it this whole process runs it's present most likely course. Even those involved should be on guard to that possibility since answering the question of merger (as aptly pointed out by NoHero) is the number one reason that all ten commissioners would show up at a conference room table in those uncomfortable seats that hurt your ass any night after work when they are tired and it's late but there is tons of boring stuff that has to be directed towards the consolidation question because that is why they will be electively sent there. It is the primary directive that will be fed by all other information gathered.
Keeping the physical size of Maplewood constant was a notion that I presumed I shared with a great deal of other Maplewood residents. I presumed it so much that I never even thought about it before someone else suggested that it could be otherwise.
To hear from anyone who has resided here a great deal of time to declare in the interrogative; -"who cares about the ideal size for a town?" I find surprising.
I can only presume beneficent thought to that view if one felt that the very survival of our town is at stake at this time. Is that the case that someone is trying to make? If so I would appreciate such a warning so that I can inform everyone outside of town (what was the name of that town again?) that the name of the town may soon change on my mailing address. I particularly would not like to lose a single issue of "Stay-at-Home-Crank" magazine newsletter. (The local subscription base is quite large and makes for a powerful lobby).
I would also not like as any part of our legacy to be that we ended Maplewood to save it.
We may have to form a study commision to study the posts here.
It could take a great deal more than ten months. If I get to sit on that one I am ordering pizza and bringing a deck of cards.
"Ten commisioners for ten months" -Sounds like the first line in the movie trailer for the film, -"The Thing that ate Maplewood" (It's only scary if you live there).
Well it was a lovely day outside in Maplewood if a little brisk. Much like M.O.L. of late.
I have to believe (more through certainty than sustaining need) that I am not alone in holding the sentimental sentiment that I personally care quite a bit about the physical size of Maplewood. It occurs to me that it has quite a lot to do with it's character if it is to have any ambition to being "ideal". (I'm sure that someone else will say that "size does matter" so there I said it first).
To change the size of Maplewood is to change essentially that which Maplewood is beyond any other measure of deliberate change. Some of the buildings, streets and parks may change a little bit, now and again, here and there, most often for the better but regardless it stays affectionately unique to many and even precious to others. It may change in some internal respects as it has in the twenty years that I have been here and raised a kid up and through all the schools. She is doing quite well at "University" thank you all for asking.
But while she is at school and thereafter I would hate to have someone ask her, -"Where are you from?" and she has to say "Well I grew up in Maplewood but it's not there anymore."
I'm not kidding. That is what we are talking about it this whole process runs it's present most likely course. Even those involved should be on guard to that possibility since answering the question of merger (as aptly pointed out by NoHero) is the number one reason that all ten commissioners would show up at a conference room table in those uncomfortable seats that hurt your ass any night after work when they are tired and it's late but there is tons of boring stuff that has to be directed towards the consolidation question because that is why they will be electively sent there. It is the primary directive that will be fed by all other information gathered.
Keeping the physical size of Maplewood constant was a notion that I presumed I shared with a great deal of other Maplewood residents. I presumed it so much that I never even thought about it before someone else suggested that it could be otherwise.
To hear from anyone who has resided here a great deal of time to declare in the interrogative; -"who cares about the ideal size for a town?" I find surprising.
I can only presume beneficent thought to that view if one felt that the very survival of our town is at stake at this time. Is that the case that someone is trying to make? If so I would appreciate such a warning so that I can inform everyone outside of town (what was the name of that town again?) that the name of the town may soon change on my mailing address. I particularly would not like to lose a single issue of "Stay-at-Home-Crank" magazine newsletter. (The local subscription base is quite large and makes for a powerful lobby).
I would also not like as any part of our legacy to be that we ended Maplewood to save it.
It occurs to me that much of the disagreement over this issue really hinges on whether citizens believe that voting "yes" on the consolidation study could ultimately result one year hence in an actual merger and thus a virtual disappearance of our two towns as we know them.
The News Record has actually recommended a "No" to the study because they basically believe that a merger would never be voted for by the public even if it was recommended by the commission and so the whole thing would be a great waste of time and energy. Others see this as a "failsafe" to vote for the study. Personally I am not so assured that if a recommendation for merger were forthcoming in ten months that voters would indeed vote "no" next November. And I am certainly not at all reassured that a recommendation for merger is not likely.
As I've said before, -things of this nature often gain a momentum of their own, get away from individually well-intentioned people and end up with nasty consequences for all. Over and over in our lives I'm sure that each of us can recall circumstances where someone who was not sure of something was persuaded by someone who seemed sure. ("Well if THAT guy sez it's good it must be").
Perhaps I've gotten overly cautious in my old(er) age particularly when it comes to government but I also don't poke bears with sticks. I will however, still and against all common sense eat raw oysters but that is just because they taste so damn good and I feel that this merger study is rather closer to a bear than a mollusk. I guess that pretty much sums up my personal risk tolerance: -Bear bad. Merger study bad. Mollusk ok.
I think that a merger would be a shame and a disaster for Maplewood in particular.
For those who still say "don't worry, it's just a useful study, that could never happen" I have to say again that I am not reassured even if they mean it. I may also be overly skeptical when it comes to the machinations of government and other close-cousin-commissions but it is a skepticism well earned by all of us who have repeatedly seen things happen that "would never happen".
PS: I hope that Barbara feels better.
I applaud everyone who has taken personal time to voice their opinions and post various facts here.
I also thank our mayor Fred for appreciating ALL of my artistic talents and return the compliment as he can be rather creative as well.
By the end of tomorrow, frankly I expect and very much hope to be too happy about national results to be overly reactive to the local study ballot question no matter what the count (at least until ten months from now!)
"Steel" Wayne Sullivan sez:
"DON'T BE A SCHMO, VOTE NO" and I'll see all you hearty bastids at the polls!
The News Record has actually recommended a "No" to the study because they basically believe that a merger would never be voted for by the public even if it was recommended by the commission and so the whole thing would be a great waste of time and energy. Others see this as a "failsafe" to vote for the study. Personally I am not so assured that if a recommendation for merger were forthcoming in ten months that voters would indeed vote "no" next November. And I am certainly not at all reassured that a recommendation for merger is not likely.
As I've said before, -things of this nature often gain a momentum of their own, get away from individually well-intentioned people and end up with nasty consequences for all. Over and over in our lives I'm sure that each of us can recall circumstances where someone who was not sure of something was persuaded by someone who seemed sure. ("Well if THAT guy sez it's good it must be").
Perhaps I've gotten overly cautious in my old(er) age particularly when it comes to government but I also don't poke bears with sticks. I will however, still and against all common sense eat raw oysters but that is just because they taste so damn good and I feel that this merger study is rather closer to a bear than a mollusk. I guess that pretty much sums up my personal risk tolerance: -Bear bad. Merger study bad. Mollusk ok.
I think that a merger would be a shame and a disaster for Maplewood in particular.
For those who still say "don't worry, it's just a useful study, that could never happen" I have to say again that I am not reassured even if they mean it. I may also be overly skeptical when it comes to the machinations of government and other close-cousin-commissions but it is a skepticism well earned by all of us who have repeatedly seen things happen that "would never happen".
PS: I hope that Barbara feels better.
I applaud everyone who has taken personal time to voice their opinions and post various facts here.
I also thank our mayor Fred for appreciating ALL of my artistic talents and return the compliment as he can be rather creative as well.
By the end of tomorrow, frankly I expect and very much hope to be too happy about national results to be overly reactive to the local study ballot question no matter what the count (at least until ten months from now!)
"Steel" Wayne Sullivan sez:
"DON'T BE A SCHMO, VOTE NO" and I'll see all you hearty bastids at the polls!
Wayne -
I think that, yet again, you have hit on a widely underappreciated point of the process. One of the reasons this process is so involved and so formal -- a ballot question, a duly elected "commission", a tightly enforced deadline, a detailed list of mandatory study topics, money flowing from Trenton -- is precisely to get the political snowball rolling down the hill. Once it gets momentum, look out.
For those who think consolidatiion -- as opposed to share services -- is a bad idea, the only sensible option is to vote "NO."
I think that, yet again, you have hit on a widely underappreciated point of the process. One of the reasons this process is so involved and so formal -- a ballot question, a duly elected "commission", a tightly enforced deadline, a detailed list of mandatory study topics, money flowing from Trenton -- is precisely to get the political snowball rolling down the hill. Once it gets momentum, look out.
For those who think consolidatiion -- as opposed to share services -- is a bad idea, the only sensible option is to vote "NO."
Look at the Pols in SO.
Look at the Beifus mess.
Maplewood has a superior municipal workforce.
Why in the world would you want to go in with SO?
Why start the ball rolling on getting rid of a lovely town and merging it into a small city?
To expand somebody's political operating base?
This is for hick towns out in Sussex and down the Pines.
Don't be a BOZO, vote NO.
BTW - I'd like to see a study about opting out of SOM school district.
Look at the Beifus mess.
Maplewood has a superior municipal workforce.
Why in the world would you want to go in with SO?
Why start the ball rolling on getting rid of a lovely town and merging it into a small city?
To expand somebody's political operating base?
This is for hick towns out in Sussex and down the Pines.
Don't be a BOZO, vote NO.
BTW - I'd like to see a study about opting out of SOM school district.
I have to say that this has been a very confusing issue. I've read the discussions here about this ballot question. I've had friends tell me to vote YES for the shared services study commission, heard people say that those who say this commission is for anything else but the purpose of looking at sharing services are lying... Well, I'm looking at my sample ballot, and I can't vote yes for a shared services commission because that question is not on the ballot!!
The bottom line is that when I walk into that voting booth, I can only answer the questions that are asked of me, not the questions that were meant to be asked. And in looking at this sample ballot, it is very clear that the question being asked is if I will support a commission to study the feasability of merging the towns of South Orange and Maplewood. It says so, right here: "to study the feasability of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed and to make recommendations theron, or in the alternative to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services."
So, if the true intent of this commission is to only look at sharing services, then someone screwed up and put the wrong question on the ballot. The question is clearly asking me if I support looking into merging the towns, and I have to join those of you who are voting NO for that. If the question asked was if I would support a commission to look into sharing services with South Orange and other surrounding towns, THAT I could vote yes for.
This is a huge issue and the commission only has 10 months to look at it. And then we only have 2 months for discussions before we have to vote, should the commission recommend merger. This just doesn't seem right to me. In my opinion, the question of merging should be a last resort. Just my humble opinion.
So, for Fred and others who can't understand why someone would vote no for this, when it seems like such a no-brainer to you--it's (in my case) because you lead with merging.
The bottom line is that when I walk into that voting booth, I can only answer the questions that are asked of me, not the questions that were meant to be asked. And in looking at this sample ballot, it is very clear that the question being asked is if I will support a commission to study the feasability of merging the towns of South Orange and Maplewood. It says so, right here: "to study the feasability of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed and to make recommendations theron, or in the alternative to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services."
So, if the true intent of this commission is to only look at sharing services, then someone screwed up and put the wrong question on the ballot. The question is clearly asking me if I support looking into merging the towns, and I have to join those of you who are voting NO for that. If the question asked was if I would support a commission to look into sharing services with South Orange and other surrounding towns, THAT I could vote yes for.
This is a huge issue and the commission only has 10 months to look at it. And then we only have 2 months for discussions before we have to vote, should the commission recommend merger. This just doesn't seem right to me. In my opinion, the question of merging should be a last resort. Just my humble opinion.
So, for Fred and others who can't understand why someone would vote no for this, when it seems like such a no-brainer to you--it's (in my case) because you lead with merging.
camnol,
"...or in the alternative to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services."
TomR
"...or in the alternative to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services."
TomR
Tom,
Yes, IN THE ALTERNATIVE. So the commission is to spend most of their time deciding if we should merge. If they decide we shouldn't, THEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE they can recommend consolidating "certain municipal services."
This is still leading with merging. I want a commission that is spending all it's time looking at the possibility of sharing services with any of the surrounding communities. But that is not the option I've been given on the ballot.
Yes, IN THE ALTERNATIVE. So the commission is to spend most of their time deciding if we should merge. If they decide we shouldn't, THEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE they can recommend consolidating "certain municipal services."
This is still leading with merging. I want a commission that is spending all it's time looking at the possibility of sharing services with any of the surrounding communities. But that is not the option I've been given on the ballot.
Bingo, Camnol. That is one of my biggest reservations with the question as well.
tomr, the selling of this ballot question in Maplewood was done by completely ignoring or downplaying consolidation and pitching shared services. That's the pitch I received twice. I question the motives of people using falsehoods and half-truths to push their ideas forward.
Nov 6, 2006 at 9:02am Edited
...just responding to your response to camnol where you noted that the commision could just recommend sharing services. However, that is the alternative and not the primary charge of the commision. Proponents of the commision seem to obscure that fact which leads me to question their motives. If all they really want is shared services they don't need to take us down this perilous road.
Vote NO!
Vote NO!
In the space of one post, the mayor went from saying he could prove that 40,000 people was the ideal size for our town to to saying he would never have the time to do any detailed analysis of just that issue.
Wendy,
Thank you very much, but we have several months yet to tussle. By the time I leave Maplewood it will still be Maplewood. But it may also (I hope) have a new mayor, and then maybe a better chance of remaining Maplewood and all the good things it has been.
Wendy,
Thank you very much, but we have several months yet to tussle. By the time I leave Maplewood it will still be Maplewood. But it may also (I hope) have a new mayor, and then maybe a better chance of remaining Maplewood and all the good things it has been.
Oh, and to continue the sloganeering:
Don't Waste Your Dough
Vote No!
Don't Waste Your Dough
Vote No!
gj,
OK. I apparently misunderstood camnol's statement that she couldn't vote for a shared services Commission "...because that question is not on the ballot!!"
She later acknowleged that the alternative is there. She may not like that it is an alternative, and she is certainly entitled to such an opinion. As are you.
Have a good evening, and a good vote tomorrow.
TomR
OK. I apparently misunderstood camnol's statement that she couldn't vote for a shared services Commission "...because that question is not on the ballot!!"
She later acknowleged that the alternative is there. She may not like that it is an alternative, and she is certainly entitled to such an opinion. As are you.
Have a good evening, and a good vote tomorrow.
TomR
The more I read the comments from the vocal opponents of this referendum, I am really shocked at the level of disdain some people in Maplewood show toward those of us in South Orange.
Over the weekend, I was watching something on SOMACOM TV and between shows came the slogan "Two Towns, One Community"
However, based on some of the comments here we are apparently "Two Towns, Two Communities".
Sad!
Over the weekend, I was watching something on SOMACOM TV and between shows came the slogan "Two Towns, One Community"
However, based on some of the comments here we are apparently "Two Towns, Two Communities".
Sad!
mayhewdrive, speaking for myself, I tend to think of it as one community, most of the time. But if you wanted to convince me that my town should merge with yours, you should at least not have been airing your dirty laundry. You make it seem dirtier than mine. It could be that you (you SO folks who complain about your government, not you personally) are merely more expressive and your problems are not worse. But it's hard to tell from here.
Nov 6, 2006 at 9:57am Edited
Posted By: mayhewdriveThe more I read the comments from the vocal opponents of this referendum, I am really shocked at the level of disdain some people in Maplewood show toward those of us in South Orange.
There are folks in both towns who think that this should just be a question of "dissing" the other town.
That's a direct result of proposing to use a Merger Study Commission as a vehicle, instead of simply a shared services study.
If the question passes, we can look forward to more of the same, as people angily debate the form of government, when to hold elections, how much debt to redistribute, which buildings to use for which governmental services, etc. (all issues that the Merger Study Commission would have to address).
We can avoid all that, if we just support a genuine shared services study, without a Merger Study Commission.
Vote "NO", and keep the peace! :peace:
Dave, thanks for posting the Yes & No links on the main page. It was very helpful.
I read the newspaper articles in the Yes link and they don't seem very compelling. I didn't see where they concluded that shared services would save money. But then again, you could also interpret it as shared school systems don't save money, but consolidating something else would.
At the end of the day, I am not willing to take on S.O.'s $$$. I don't need a piece of Tau (ha ha). The proposal is too limited. I would vote yes in a hot flash if the scope of the study were wider. Why spend the money collecting data within such narrow boundaries?
The other thing that worries me is how much this will end up costing. Corzine "supporting" sales tax increases to fund this study is not the same as committing the money. If we are going to spend some mystery amount, then we need the best, most useful data possible.
Otherwise, let's put the money where we know we will get some use out of it. I'll bet it would pay the salary of a youth officer or a couple after school programs for tweens/teens for a few years.
I have decided that I will vote No because this is a great concept that needs some work before we "go live."
It's like knowing you need a new car but only test driving a Bentley and a Hyundai. Is it really useful? What info do you have to make the best purchase? What about Toyotas, Mazdas and VWs?
I read the newspaper articles in the Yes link and they don't seem very compelling. I didn't see where they concluded that shared services would save money. But then again, you could also interpret it as shared school systems don't save money, but consolidating something else would.
At the end of the day, I am not willing to take on S.O.'s $$$. I don't need a piece of Tau (ha ha). The proposal is too limited. I would vote yes in a hot flash if the scope of the study were wider. Why spend the money collecting data within such narrow boundaries?
The other thing that worries me is how much this will end up costing. Corzine "supporting" sales tax increases to fund this study is not the same as committing the money. If we are going to spend some mystery amount, then we need the best, most useful data possible.
Otherwise, let's put the money where we know we will get some use out of it. I'll bet it would pay the salary of a youth officer or a couple after school programs for tweens/teens for a few years.
I have decided that I will vote No because this is a great concept that needs some work before we "go live."
It's like knowing you need a new car but only test driving a Bentley and a Hyundai. Is it really useful? What info do you have to make the best purchase? What about Toyotas, Mazdas and VWs?
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Or, in fact, is the ballot question far more insidious than we're being told and that it's an end-run around representative government?