| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 12:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Referendum for parking? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | What about a referendum for parking for all of us here on Scott and Maplewood? I see parking as a much larger issue for us since we lost PNC bank parking. As a result the streets are now crowded and not safe. |
What do you want from a referendum? I think the TC is already discussing options and looking at alternatives. They have been for the last 20 some years. Do you really want a referendum that says should the TC look at the parking issue on Maplewood? I think a lot of voters will say no and then you're stuck. So isn't it in your interest to go to a TC meeting and ask they look at it without asking voters for their interest?
With a garbage collection, I would prefer they get our feedback before looking at it to see if the town residents are interested. |
WHAT? So we can have a referendum to look at one issue but not others? That seems to be preferential to me. |
Not saying that. I'm saying what would you want from a referendum? If your goal is to ensure parking is looked at then why risk a referendum saying no? I don't see anyone vested in garbage like residents are on Maplewood about parking? So I don't see how a referendum helps your cause. I do see how people who don't see parking being an issue benefiting because they can then say no don't look at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 12:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Why didn't we have a referendum for buying PNC then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 12:30 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why didn't we have a referendum for buying PNC then? |
Probably should have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 12:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| how about that farmland on Plainsboro road we just preserved? I would have liked a referendum on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 12:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
See I think a referendum should be used for a material changes. PNC and Plainsboro road are short term costs, but once the debt is paid off there is no real material change to you or me.
Garbage to me is a material change. If the town does it then the whole collection process is changed and every resident is impacted (yes it could be for the better, I don't see the TC doing it if it is worse). So I think a referendum by the TC asking does the town want to look at it is a valid use.
If we want the TC to get feedback and consider resident views, should we really complain if they are trying to do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 1:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | See I think a referendum should be used for a material changes. PNC and Plainsboro road are short term costs, but once the debt is paid off there is no real material change to you or me.
Garbage to me is a material change. If the town does it then the whole collection process is changed and every resident is impacted (yes it could be for the better, I don't see the TC doing it if it is worse). So I think a referendum by the TC asking does the town want to look at it is a valid use.
If we want the TC to get feedback and consider resident views, should we really complain if they are trying to do it? |
Really? PNC if it had been purchased would not have required any long term cost? The farmland and woods purchased on Plainsboro road will have no long term cost? Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 1:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
Discussion of Possible Revision to the Township’s Chipping Ordinance
The Township will discuss the possible revision of the chipping ordinance.
Why is this being discussed and not going to referendum for voter input? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 1:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
Discussion of COAH Implementation Schedule
The Township Committee will discuss the Township’s COAH implementation schedule.
And why is this not going to referendum? Based on logic here on this board all decisions should now go to referendum before being discussed just like the trash issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 5:54 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
Most land purchase decisions can't go to referendum because of timing. The lead time it takes to go out to the voters for a specific piece of property is so long others can buy the property or prices would have changed.
On issues where timing is less of an issue it is fine to go to referendum. Though I must admit there are pitfalls to referendum. Not everyone is up to speed on the issues. People have busy lives with work and family commitments. I am amazed at how many of my friends are unaware of who the candidates are for county and state offices. We have elected a TC. For good or ill, they actually seem quite responsive to public outcry. Maybe we should let them do what we elected them for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 6:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | See I think a referendum should be used for a material changes. PNC and Plainsboro road are short term costs, but once the debt is paid off there is no real material change to you or me.
Garbage to me is a material change. If the town does it then the whole collection process is changed and every resident is impacted (yes it could be for the better, I don't see the TC doing it if it is worse). So I think a referendum by the TC asking does the town want to look at it is a valid use.
If we want the TC to get feedback and consider resident views, should we really complain if they are trying to do it? |
That's the kind of logic applied since Reagan (and all subsequent presidents, including the current one, except Clinton) that has got us in trouble with out current national debt level. "Once the debt is paid off" IS a "material change to you and me" and it usually is "long term." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 6:22 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why didn't we have a referendum for buying PNC then? |
Because the TC members trying to push through the purchase kept trying to avoid it hoping to get it approved without public consent. They used the excuse of timing even though it took well over a year in the end from the time they first pursued the purchase until Sweetwater instead acquired it, so the timing was a red herring. Some people came to the public hearing and vocally asked for a referendum and Stout and Stave blew them off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 6:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Referendum for parking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | What about a referendum for parking for all of us here on Scott and Maplewood? I see parking as a much larger issue for us since we lost PNC bank parking. As a result the streets are now crowded and not safe. |
What do you want from a referendum? I think the TC is already discussing options and looking at alternatives. They have been for the last 20 some years. Do you really want a referendum that says should the TC look at the parking issue on Maplewood? I think a lot of voters will say no and then you're stuck. So isn't it in your interest to go to a TC meeting and ask they look at it without asking voters for their interest?
With a garbage collection, I would prefer they get our feedback before looking at it to see if the town residents are interested. |
WHAT? So we can have a referendum to look at one issue but not others? That seems to be preferential to me. |
Not saying that. I'm saying what would you want from a referendum? If your goal is to ensure parking is looked at then why risk a referendum saying no? I don't see anyone vested in garbage like residents are on Maplewood about parking? So I don't see how a referendum helps your cause. I do see how people who don't see parking being an issue benefiting because they can then say no don't look at it. |
Referendums only work when they are very specific and actionable. "Looking into public parking" is vague and useless. It would need to be more specific, like suggesting a specific acquisition or assuring a specific ratio of parking to traffic or whatever, with a specific sense of the cost of doing so. Otherwise there is no point.
I agree though that if there ever was such a vote I suspect it would be a landside against spending any public money on more parking, since a vast majority of people do not believe there is a parking issue in town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010, 11:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Referendum for parking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
I agree though that if there ever was such a vote I suspect it would be a landside against spending any public money on more parking, since a vast majority of people do not believe there is a parking issue in town. |
When you lose a big public parking lot in town, those cars have to park somewhere. Where do you think they are going? I'm sure you would be the first to complain if all of a sudden your street had alot of new traffic and parked cars on it when it never had it before. Add to that potentially more traffic from two new businesses. The "vast majority" of people in town do not live on Maplewood, and so like you, are totally oblivious to the fact that there is definately a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 1:33 am EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
| Losing a parking lot. I believe the parking lot belonged to the PNC Bank and not the township. Soo, maybe you were just allowed to park there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 7:26 am EDT Post subject: Re: The Township Committee meeting for July 26, 2010 |
|
|
No one is going to park on Maplewood and walk all the way around to Main St. The parking on Maplewood is going to increase due to the people who live there parking on the street. In most areas people who have homes either have driveway parking or use the street. Rarely, is a third option such as a lot available. Only on Maplewood did a lot even exist for use in town.
On a side, this does not mean Main St. should be closed on the property. That access should remain open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jul 27 2010, 7:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: Referendum for parking? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
I agree though that if there ever was such a vote I suspect it would be a landside against spending any public money on more parking, since a vast majority of people do not believe there is a parking issue in town. |
When you lose a big public parking lot in town, those cars have to park somewhere. Where do you think they are going? I'm sure you would be the first to complain if all of a sudden your street had alot of new traffic and parked cars on it when it never had it before. Add to that potentially more traffic from two new businesses. The "vast majority" of people in town do not live on Maplewood, and so like you, are totally oblivious to the fact that there is definately a problem. |
No, but I am a user of parking , usually multiple times a day, right in the Main Street area around the PNC site and I have never had to use Maplewood to park since the loss of the PNC site. I doubt many will since there is usually still parking available on Main or the closer lot off of Park Place right next to Main. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
