| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | I see the problem. You have no reading comprehension. Since you have no idea what you are reading it makes your responses insane.
Very slowly now. Your first sentence says, "the first two sentences contradict each other." OK what are the first two sentences, "the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate smaller districts"
If English were understandable to you, these sentences are not in contradiction. You are simply commenting because you like to type and have a back and forth on the internet.
None of my commentary was a defense of Greenstein(again your problem with reading english). The point is the problems that Cranbury faces are constitutional not legislative. If Greenstein is replaced nothing will change, Unless she is replaced by someone who strongly advocates a constitutional convention.
Get it now. |
The bill called for studies on consolidation. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. It makes sense people wouldn't follow your words because they are nonsense. I guess you're counting on people being too dumb or lazy to use the Internet or have a memory when you make stuff up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Feel better? It is sad that you must derive pleasure from this type of condescending behavior on an anonymous forum. Heaven forbid folks should disagree. Definitely warrants throwing a tantrum in the sandbox. I for one am one over to your position simply on the basis of your charm and tact.
Back to point...it will be interesting to see Wayne's campaign unfold. Coming from a small town within a district of large towns means he will need to come out of the gate with some clear goals, if elected, and a visibility strategy. |
Just to be clear. You don't want a contitutional convention, correct. |
Way to stay off-topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Feel better? It is sad that you must derive pleasure from this type of condescending behavior on an anonymous forum. Heaven forbid folks should disagree. Definitely warrants throwing a tantrum in the sandbox. I for one am one over to your position simply on the basis of your charm and tact.
Back to point...it will be interesting to see Wayne's campaign unfold. Coming from a small town within a district of large towns means he will need to come out of the gate with some clear goals, if elected, and a visibility strategy. |
Just to be clear. You don't want a contitutional convention, correct. |
Way to stay off-topic. |
Way to not answer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:45 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
Do you prefer boxers or briefs?
If you don't answer you must be trying to avoid the subject even though it has nothing to do with this topic. Why should anyone let you try and change the subject by answering you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 3:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
There were two different bills a year or two apart and that being referenced here which may be causing some of the confusion. The first was a joint resolution in late 2006: SJR47 and AJR69. It established the Joint Legislative Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services. So obviously it did have something to do with consolidation. The early drafts of the bill had more teeth and it got watered down quite a bit. It ended up resulting in a study but not much else. Still it generated concern at the time like previous similar efforts because there were politicians trying to push small towns to consolidate and looking for tools to force it. Here’s a link to an editorial re-posted on this site at the time:
http://www.cranbury.info/viewtopic.php?t=1119
The second bill established new executive superintendent positions for New jersey schools and charged them with looking for various ways to save money including consolidation and merging of smaller school systems. The person appointed to look into Cranbury held a public meeting and did discuss the possibility of merger. Again all that got done were mostly incomplete studies but on paper they were armed with the ability to withhold funding if a school district merger was recommended but voted down by a Township. It would be incorrect to say the bill didn’t have anything to do with consolidation and it did come from a State Legislative action not just a meeting of County Supervisors.
Neither bill turned out to be a big deal. And they weren’t the first or likely the last attempts. But it is fair to say they generated anxiety at the time as others had before them. I believe Linda Greenstein did vote for them but someone could check the record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 3:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Do you prefer boxers or briefs?
If you don't answer you must be trying to avoid the subject even though it has nothing to do with this topic. Why should anyone let you try and change the subject by answering you? |
Because the topic was already changed by bringing up Linda Greenstein. Apparently Wittman is not even running against her. My only point is you are not focused on the real problem. You support my argument as you go on and on about Greenstein, who really is quite irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 4:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| I’m not the same poster but it looks like Greenstein was the focus from the second post of over 50 and most since. You are saying something different from the other poster. They are talking about not liking Greenstein’s voting record on a host of issues and you are talking about how to fix affordable housing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
