| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
State bills
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 9:19 am EST Post subject: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
 |
|
Note the several pieces of legislation being pushed through the lame duck session focused on "prevailing wage". This wage is heavily influenced by what can politely be called 'interested parties'. It does little but pander to those interests.
Not surprisingly, DeAngelo is a sponsor of some of these bills. One that is an utter slap in the face to Cranbury, which for some inexplicable reason cast votes for him in November, will basically extend prevailing wages to the construction of COAH units. A double whammy as the costs of these units can only go up.
Take a few minutes to demand accountability from our district legislators. Anonymous, venomous posts I've seen lately do little to help us. Apply the same energy to challenge these senseless pieces of legislation that are stealthily being advanced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 10:52 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
I agree with this poster. Unfortunately, this board often gets bogged down with percieved slights (who did or did not get nominated and why) and misses the big picture items that could have big implications for Cranbury.
The good news is that this legislation has not come up for a vote in the lame duck session and appears to be heading nowhere. This was a horrible bill that had implications for both the township and the school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 11:10 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| State bills wrote: | Note the several pieces of legislation being pushed through the lame duck session focused on "prevailing wage". This wage is heavily influenced by what can politely be called 'interested parties'. It does little but pander to those interests.
Not surprisingly, DeAngelo is a sponsor of some of these bills. One that is an utter slap in the face to Cranbury, which for some inexplicable reason cast votes for him in November, will basically extend prevailing wages to the construction of COAH units. A double whammy as the costs of these units can only go up.
Take a few minutes to demand accountability from our district legislators. Anonymous, venomous posts I've seen lately do little to help us. Apply the same energy to challenge these senseless pieces of legislation that are stealthily being advanced. |
Just more conservative republican whining against working class folks. (all with a COAH connection to garner interest)
I have never seen such a coordinated approcah to government whether in Washington, Trenton or Cranbury, whereby the strident minorty incessantly whines about our institutions and the integrity of those who hold office |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 11:35 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | State bills wrote: | Note the several pieces of legislation being pushed through the lame duck session focused on "prevailing wage". This wage is heavily influenced by what can politely be called 'interested parties'. It does little but pander to those interests.
Not surprisingly, DeAngelo is a sponsor of some of these bills. One that is an utter slap in the face to Cranbury, which for some inexplicable reason cast votes for him in November, will basically extend prevailing wages to the construction of COAH units. A double whammy as the costs of these units can only go up.
Take a few minutes to demand accountability from our district legislators. Anonymous, venomous posts I've seen lately do little to help us. Apply the same energy to challenge these senseless pieces of legislation that are stealthily being advanced. |
Just more conservative republican whining against working class folks. (all with a COAH connection to garner interest)
I have never seen such a coordinated approcah to government whether in Washington, Trenton or Cranbury, whereby the strident minorty incessantly whines about our institutions and the integrity of those who hold office |
I am not a conservative. Look up the bills in question. They are poorly written horrible legislation that will raise taxes and make it harder for the TC and School board to operate. If you think these particular bills are good fine, but read them before you pass judgement on these posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 12:03 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Don't feed the troll. Whoever posted that nonsense about this all being conservative whining is just trying to garner some response and doesn't really mean what they post. Probably some high school student laughing if they get a response. No one would really hold such an odd position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 12:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
If you're against paying individuals a prevailing wage, so be it. I find that this type of thinking, though is mostly advocated by republicans. I don't know whether there are any more rational republicans - I think the republican party has been takenm over by Tea Party activists.
Regardless paying a person the prevailing wage is a good thing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 12:40 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
I don't know what planet you people are alll living on. My husband and I are just about making now. I lost my job and if it were not for his job (yes union) which pays a prevailing wagw with medical benefits, we would have lost our house here in Cranbury 6 months ago.
So be as clever as you want and rant about your taxes, but we are just about making it. Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 2:58 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | If you're against paying individuals a prevailing wage, so be it. I find that this type of thinking, though is mostly advocated by republicans. I don't know whether there are any more rational republicans - I think the republican party has been takenm over by Tea Party activists.
Regardless paying a person the prevailing wage is a good thing |
Read the legislation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 8:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | I don't know what planet you people are alll living on. My husband and I are just about making now. I lost my job and if it were not for his job (yes union) which pays a prevailing wagw with medical benefits, we would have lost our house here in Cranbury 6 months ago.
So be as clever as you want and rant about your taxes, but we are just about making it. Thank you |
Sorry that you lost your job. Glad you and your family have been able to keep your house.
This forum is mainly a political vehicle for right wing individuals to bash democrat policies and values. So the individual who posted about prevailing wages in New Jersey and legislation about it were really just trying to belittle it. They have no interest really in working class people getting good wages. It’s the same way about our Cranbury local town politics. There is a democratic majority on town council in Cranbury and the people who can’t get elected to a majority will try to belittle them.
I don’t think they believe in democratic rule. It’s more like “lets’ have elections and if we don’t win, let’s try to bring the house down until we get what we want”. That’s what’s happening in Washington DC, too
Anyway, good luck. Hope you can get a job ands stay in Cranbury
And by the way, they will always include COAH when they write because it scares us residents. Always good to have a scaprgoat poor people |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 8:35 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | I don't know what planet you people are alll living on. My husband and I are just about making now. I lost my job and if it were not for his job (yes union) which pays a prevailing wagw with medical benefits, we would have lost our house here in Cranbury 6 months ago.
So be as clever as you want and rant about your taxes, but we are just about making it. Thank you |
Sorry that you lost your job. Glad you and your family have been able to keep your house.
This forum is mainly a political vehicle for right wing individuals to bash democrat policies and values. So the individual who posted about prevailing wages in New Jersey and legislation about it were really just trying to belittle it. They have no interest really in working class people getting good wages. It’s the same way about our Cranbury local town politics. There is a democratic majority on town council in Cranbury and the people who can’t get elected to a majority will try to belittle them.
I don’t think they believe in democratic rule. It’s more like “lets’ have elections and if we don’t win, let’s try to bring the house down until we get what we want”. That’s what’s happening in Washington DC, too
Anyway, good luck. Hope you can get a job ands stay in Cranbury
And by the way, they will always include COAH when they write because it scares us residents. Always good to have a scaprgoat poor people |
First of all please show where the Democratic party claims prevailing wage as a policy issue. I have not seen it on any Democratic Platform.
Second in the last 48 hours Wayne D'Angelo has removed his name as a sponsor of the worst of this legislation. Why did he do this? I assume it is because he finally realized what a turkey this particular bill is. You apparently don't realize this because you haven't read the bill. Do you believe any bill that has the term prevailing wage in it is a good bill?
I would enjoy debating the merits of the bill with you. It is a pity we can't because you have know idea what is in the bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 9 2010, 9:07 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | I don't know what planet you people are alll living on. My husband and I are just about making now. I lost my job and if it were not for his job (yes union) which pays a prevailing wagw with medical benefits, we would have lost our house here in Cranbury 6 months ago.
So be as clever as you want and rant about your taxes, but we are just about making it. Thank you |
Sorry that you lost your job. Glad you and your family have been able to keep your house.
This forum is mainly a political vehicle for right wing individuals to bash democrat policies and values. So the individual who posted about prevailing wages in New Jersey and legislation about it were really just trying to belittle it. They have no interest really in working class people getting good wages. It’s the same way about our Cranbury local town politics. There is a democratic majority on town council in Cranbury and the people who can’t get elected to a majority will try to belittle them.
I don’t think they believe in democratic rule. It’s more like “lets’ have elections and if we don’t win, let’s try to bring the house down until we get what we want”. That’s what’s happening in Washington DC, too
Anyway, good luck. Hope you can get a job ands stay in Cranbury
And by the way, they will always include COAH when they write because it scares us residents. Always good to have a scaprgoat poor people |
First of all please show where the Democratic party claims prevailing wage as a policy issue. I have not seen it on any Democratic Platform.
Second in the last 48 hours Wayne D'Angelo has removed his name as a sponsor of the worst of this legislation. Why did he do this? I assume it is because he finally realized what a turkey this particular bill is. You apparently don't realize this because you haven't read the bill. Do you believe any bill that has the term prevailing wage in it is a good bill?
I would enjoy debating the merits of the bill with you. It is a pity we can't because you have know idea what is in the bill. |
it's always obtuse "prevailing wage" 'interested parties' guess who might benefit from such legislation - give me a break - and if you weren' the original poster for this thread, sorry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 10 2010, 8:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
I keep telling you guys:
It just doesn't matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote for this one, vote for that one................it just doesn't matter anymore. The average person is too busy playing games on their Blackberry or watching some mind-numbing "reality" show to really care about anything anymore. Unless it affects them DIRECTLY.............especially their pocketbook or their property values............they don't really care all that much anymore.
It's good to keep abreast of the issues at hand, but, to vote in the right people, or to get the person next door to move to action is not going to happen.
Sorry to have to break it to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 10 2010, 11:54 pm EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Ironically, if companies were required to pay a living wage, affordable housing would be a virtual non-issue. Most workers making the prevailing wage will make too much money to qualify for COAH housing. Allowing companies to pay sub-standard wages creates a class of "working poor" and also drives illegal immigration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 9:30 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Ironically, if companies were required to pay a living wage, affordable housing would be a virtual non-issue. Most workers making the prevailing wage will make too much money to qualify for COAH housing. Allowing companies to pay sub-standard wages creates a class of "working poor" and also drives illegal immigration. |
Both your logic and that which justifies COAH seem to be based on the false premise that everyone has some right to own a house. What is this based on, where is it in our State or Federal constitutions or even in any of the historic literature that defined America's concept of freedom and liberty? You won't find it anywhere because there has been no historic concept that owning a house was some kind of inherent right. Nor is there any inherent right to live within X miles of your place of work. Even during FDR's massive social programs during the Great Depression there was no such concept. Even Johnson's Great Society had no such concept.
Historically home ownership has been something only attainable by a minority of the population because of the financial requirement. The idea, for example, that the laboring class can only afford to rent is even older than our nation. (And yes there have always been social classes and always will be; even Communism was never able to purge them despite its entire premise being based on their elimination.) Even in the 17th Century, despite the vast undeveloped land available in this country, people clustered in cities and settlements were divided by the minority who could afford to own and the majority who could only afford rent. And this ratio still remains the norm in most of the world today, including most of socialist Europe.
This was true in most of the country until the 1990’s. Even in the post War period of the Baby Boom, with returning GI’s able to purchase tract housing for the first time, the overall ratio still put ownership in the minority. It was only in the ‘90’s in their greed that developers, banks, mortgage brokers, title companies and others with a vested interest in more profit marketed to people the notion that everyone was entitled to a home and could afford it, of course using a variety of questionable financial devices that proved disastrous in the long run and led to the current economic crisis. It was a myth, born not from some great belief in a new social right but the greed of some businesspeople playing on the desire of people who shouldn’t have owned homes. New Jersey was uniquely ahead of that curve with COAH (which has few corollaries of its breath elsewhere in the country), again not because we were more socially progressive than everyone else but because of greed. Study the history of COAH and you will find its primary financial backers from the start were developers and unions (who stood to get work from the development), sensing a means to expand profit under the guise of a social program. The net result, statistically, is that New Jersey is the most over developed state in the Union.
I am not a “tea-bagger,” I am a Democrat. But this isn’t a political ideology I am sharing, it is history, objectively available for anyone who cares enough about issues to study it and discover. As a Democrat, I actually agree with the need for some social programs. But I am also an American, a believer in capitalism and a student of history, and I understand that COAH is New Jersey’s unique and failed experiment and has no rational basis in democracy, capitalism and cannot sustain itself in any viable form of government that has been proven anywhere in the world. There will always be economic classes and a majority will never be able to afford ownership in any self-sustaining economic system. That is simply a fact. It doesn’t mean we say screw the masses. It just means that we have to accept that premise before we can pursue more rational means of helping them. Otherwise we’re building on a foundation of sand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 10:10 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
| I love the disclaimers. After posting conservative nonsense, the poster says they're not a tea party activist - just an ordinary Democrat like the "cranbury liberal" who speaks for all non republicans or non-conservatives. Just painting the same old picture - all fair thinking Americans are against COAH. BLAH BLAH BLAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jan 11 2010, 10:35 am EST Post subject: Re: Prevailing wage legislation and COAH |
|
|
The way that I think about this is that COAH is the local emotional issue that's used by conservative activists to undermine progressive social policy and local government just the same way that terror is exploited by conservative Republicans to undermine government in Washington.
Be scared - my property taxes will go up, my kids will be affected by outsiders - and these fears will always be couched in intelectual arguments that were developed by the heritage foundation. Remember John Yoo's wonderful legal and historical brief to justify Dick Cheney's torture policy.
Boy - America was at its best when my father came back from the big one and got his education through the GI Bill and they bought their small little starter house on Long Island. VA loans helped out peole were just starting. A wonderful government program that produced the best middle calss Americ's ever had.
So go on with you conservative rants with voices of the angry selfish white right - Fox noise and all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
