Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing :: View topic

Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

[http://cranbury.info] -> News | Events

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 11:40 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

I still think both tree proposals seem cynical. There are neighborhoods all over town that would benefit from more plantings. It was lazy or cynical to plan to waste all of the trees in one spot. You could have put aside even a small fraction for neighborhoods and streets and still had plenty for "reforestation."

The state had restrictions on where they could go it wasn't as simple as some make it appear unfortunately.

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 11:43 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

The Township could have netted up to one million dollars.

Simply not true. The Township identified several sites to plant the trees. There was no $1 million loss of "net" income for the Township because there were other options on the table.

The point of the open discussion at the meetings was to weigh the various options and get public input. Particularly in that forum, you can't blame someone for expressing an opinion about township decisions that will impact their property value. In fact, one of Dan's strong suits is his willingness to consider the rights and concerns of individual property owners. That is why I'm voting for him.

Ok I'll bite. What were the other sites. Good luck coming up with them.

As I recall, there were 3 or 4 primary sites considered (Haggerty, Fischer, Updike and others, if I remember correctly). I believe the Township ultimately decided on a plan to plant most if not all of the trees before the state decided to keep the money. You're welcome to check this against the various meeting notes.

What I don't recall is your objections being raised at the time. If you really believe what you're saying now, why didn't you raise these concerns back then?

Again the proposal was 10,000 trees on Fischer and updike. If you don't reforest Fischer you can't do 10,000 trees. Updike is much smaller. Interestingly Updike is a much better piece of farmland than Fischer. But regardless the only way to plant 10,000 trees is Fischer and Hagerty.

This is all of course water over the dam. The only point was the statement, "No one can highlight a position Dan has stated snd say it is wrong", demonstrably false.

10k of trees is a lot of trees. They could have been planted on Fischer and Haggerty. If you try to plant on less acreage, you have to plant fewer trees. You of course could argue fewer trees would be better. But you can't plant that amount of trees on Haggerty and Updike.

The point is now moot, but it is unfortunate that some people appear to have thought we could have farmed fischer and still planter the 10k that is not true and I don't believe anyone at the time claimed that to be true. There is really no point in rehashing this incident. The money is no longer available.

You also have to consider that the town had to guarantee the tree for 3 years. How do you water and maintain this many trees? The town had to agree to an audit which while it may not have happened could have. So we could have found that what seemed like a good idea would soon become like the ball field we're we were spending more to comply then we got.

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 12:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

Thank you to all three for running this year.

Need info! In NJ, can you cast a write-in vote in township elections?

I’ve been wondering about that, too.

Great appreciation for the information that this web site provides – in its own way! Over the last several weeks we all have been prodded to investigate on the web the credentials and backgrounds of our TC candidates. I was able to find out a great deal about the candidates for TC that I just didn’t know. The most interesting was a post prompting posters to query the two Republican candidates and their connection to the tea party.

After doing that, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot vote for either Republican candidate; so it’s important to find out my alternatives. It’s not like in our congressional race where there is an incumbent who advocates views which are very different from the fringe views espoused by the Republican Tea Party candidate. In Cranbury, we have two open spots and three candidates - two which I cannot to vote for because of their connection to the Tea Party.

So my dilemma is maybe like yours. How do I proceed? If I vote for main stream candidate Johnson, and not vote for either Republican candidate, one of them will be elected anyway. That’s not a desirable outcome. How do I then proceed?

I believe we need instigate a new candidate - a write-in candidate who is not a tea party person – perhaps a green party person.

I am looking forward to comments/feedback from out community – although I’m not anticipating many positive comments from the judgmental crowd that regularly posts on this website.

How is Glenn main stream? Perhaps he is if you are far left of center. Seriously, this is another attack on Dan and Art in a more subtle manner. Glenn has been the Democratic party chair in town. He and the current TC members are bad mouthing the two sitting TC Republicans who are not Tea Party members or associated in anyway.

Look I get the Democrats are afraid of losing their hold on the TC. However, they could have run a second candidate and chose not to. So let's look at the real issues and what the people will do for the town.

I believe the local Democratic party did Cranbury a major disservice by not running two candidates for the two vacant seats on the TC. We are now left with the strong probability that one of the two republicans who both appear to have some connection to the Tea Party will be on our town council. That is reprehensible.

Democrats – Shame on you

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 1:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

Thank you to all three for running this year.

Need info! In NJ, can you cast a write-in vote in township elections?

YAWN

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 1:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

Thank you to all three for running this year.

Need info! In NJ, can you cast a write-in vote in township elections?

Then shame on YOU for not running yourself. You assign to much power to the local "Party." This is a tiny town. It is not that organized and has no power or money. It is a collection of people, led by Glenn who is at least running himself. I know he tried hard to interest others in running but no one stepped up. What else would you have him do?

If you think it is critical to have two Democratic candidates this year, then you should have taken on the responsibility of either running or convincing someone to run. Try criticize a tiny group of volunteers for not doing something you didn't bother doing seems weak.

Guest

Posted: Wed, Sep 22 2010, 1:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

So now this disgruntled, poster is turning on his/her own party.

Guest

Posted: Thu, Sep 23 2010, 9:30 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

http://glennjohnsononline.com
http://www.mulliganforcranbury.com

Mulligan is a hardcore teabagger. If you want the likes of O'Donnell, Paul, Rubio and Miller - and yes Beck and Palin on our town council, then he's your man. No amount of rationalization about keeping the local township elections non-partisan, would justify not exposing him and what he represents - for us locally and for our country

Do you actually know him personally? Have you actually had detailed discussions with him on his politics? Otherwise aren't you being a bit presumptuous?

I do know him. I am a Democrat and we don't agree on many things politically, though I like him as a person. To lump him with Palin, O'Donnell or Beck is ridiculous. He is conservative on economic issues but he is not a religious extremist like Palin or O'Donnell. There is a huge difference.

There are many conservatives who lament that such people have taken over both the Republican party and the "Tea Party" which was started by someone whose original purpose was to protest "big government" and over taxation -- thus the name -- and originally had nothing to do with religious extremism. In fact, the original tea party was supposed to be for people of either party, and largely Independents, who were dissatisfied with Washington in general. It was quickly co-opted by the extreme right. I never had anything to do with it because personally I could see that it was inevitable that it would become an extremist group, but I don't disagree with its original principle of small government so I can see how it would have initial been interesting to people.

BTW, the fact that you would lump Miller with Palin and O'Donnell shows that you either are ignorant or an extremist yourself. I guess basically anyone who isn't a Democrat may as well be a "tea bagger" to you? Miller is pretty moderate, is not a religious extremist and has already broke with the party a couple times and voted with Democrats. But I guess that doesn't matter when you're throwing around broad generalizations that the world is black & white. The irony is that's exactly the kind of thing Beck would do, or Bush did with his "if you're not with us, you're our enemy" speech. Did you realize you act just like them?

Just to be clear, You are refering to Joe Miller and you are calling him a moderate? Politically Miller is clearly more extreme than Palin and while not as Kooky he is more extreme than O'Donnell. He calls for State takeover of federal lands and advocates open carry of assault rifles. He has the backing of most of Alaska's militia groups. This is your definition of moderate. Jesus does this say something about you. By the way, I am in no way lumping Dan in with these guys. I just want to point out that Yes Miller is an extremist.

Guest

Posted: Thu, Sep 23 2010, 10:02 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

So now this disgruntled, poster is turning on his/her own party.

Not surprising, given the same person doesn't seem to have any problem condemning people solely off what they read in an anonymous chat board and broadly assuming the politics of someone based on a meeting they may have attended. Ironically that's exactly how people got blacklisted during the commie baiting days of McCarthism -- they attend one meeting with socialist or labor speakers and are suddenly hardcore "communists" for life and to be shunned. Interesting that a supposed liberal is doing precisely the same thing in reverse then declaring him or herself "mainstream."

Guest

Posted: Thu, Sep 23 2010, 11:24 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Guest wrote:

So now this disgruntled, poster is turning on his/her own party.

Not surprising, given the same person doesn't seem to have any problem condemning people .... Interesting that a supposed liberal is doing precisely the same thing in reverse then declaring him or herself "mainstream."

Ignorance is bliss, and its blissfully easy to stay ignorant even with all this information and the web at your fingertips.
I bet this same person voted for Corzine just because he was a Dem, boy what a bigger mess NJ would be in now. It's a shame he puts so much trust in his party (it doesnt matter what one in my book) but in history we have had great leaders from both... and some idiots too. It always is up to the character of the leader running I have felt is most important, his party affiliation is secondary at best, I try to look for political leaders that are strong, intelligent, with conviction, with ideas, with a record, etc before the party comes into play at all.

I have talked with Dan before at TC meetings. To me Dan has shown these attributes over and over in prior meetings with his questions and understanding of town issues, and I have talked with him afterwards several times as well. I know who I will vote for, I feel I have done my due diligence by asking questions and understanding better the person I will be voting for first hand. Its not that hard to do this and become an educated voter in Cranbury at all.

The hateful posts that this person is spewing on this forum is the worst kind of politics and I am surprised that one of my Cranbury neighbors is such an extremist. Hope you decide to move to another voting district real soon.

Guest

Posted: Fri, Sep 24 2010, 12:47 am EDT Post subject: Re: Mulligan or Johnson or Hasselbach

Quote: