| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
anon-7s9r
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 6:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
 |
|
Who did you contact and when? All you've posted is that your expecting an answer here. You've never said you called or emailed town hall. Town hall must give you an answer if asked.
Post their reply here and let us all know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 6:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-7s9r wrote: | | All you've posted is that your expecting an answer here. You've never said you called or emailed town hall. |
I just counted at least 3 previous posts where people previously mentioned contacting Town Hall. There may be more. I didn't re-read every post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4oq0
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 22 2015, 6:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| And yet despite all your posts you have not. Considering it is illegal for the town to ignore a request for information I highly think it improbable the town would not respond. So if you really care contact them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huh-4618
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 12:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| I've noticed less cars speeding now that the signs have been installed! Can anybody tell me if the new signs have reduced the number of tickets issued?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 2:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| Huh-4618 wrote: | | I've noticed less cars speeding now that the signs have been installed! Can anybody tell me if the new signs have reduced the number of tickets issued?? |
LOL. They won't even tell you how many tickets were issued before let alone compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 2:51 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-4oq0 wrote: | | And yet despite all your posts you have not. Considering it is illegal for the town to ignore a request for information I highly think it improbable the town would not respond. So if you really care contact them. |
Wrong again. I was one of the many who did try. No luck.
As stated above, they give you the option to use the Freedom of Information Act to fill out an Open Public Records Act request to ask for the information, along with a deposit to cover their costs. You cannot do so electronically either, only in-person. Short of that, they are not readily providing the information to the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-52o0
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 3:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-np42 wrote: | | anon-4oq0 wrote: | | And yet despite all your posts you have not. Considering it is illegal for the town to ignore a request for information I highly think it improbable the town would not respond. So if you really care contact them. |
Wrong again. I was one of the many who did try. No luck.
As stated above, they give you the option to use the Freedom of Information Act to fill out an Open Public Records Act request to ask for the information, along with a deposit to cover their costs. You cannot do so electronically either, only in-person. Short of that, they are not readily providing the information to the public. |
I saw Mayor Taylor the other day and asked him about this thread. He said he has not received a request in email, person or otherwise nor is he aware of anyone asking the Township Clerk or TC. That all data was available at the meeting and now it falls to OPRA. That is how the process works. People need to come in and file the request. Apparently, these are very common to do.
So to be clear they aren't denying providing you information. You are not wanting to follow the process required. There is a difference.
To get the information you do need to fill out an OPRA request. That is the law. Further, it is not their cost, but my cost and every other tax payer. It is not making money, but the fee ensures my taxes do not go to cover every request that may ever be filed.
If you care, then go in and file the OPRA request. No one is going to violate the process for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 4:48 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-5651
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 5:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-np42 wrote: | | Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here. |
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 6:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-5651 wrote: | | anon-np42 wrote: | | Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here. |
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process. |
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0o99
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 6:54 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| This is not the official Cranbury Township website. Why would the township want to come on here to comment on this anonymous hateful board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 9:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-0o99 wrote: | | This is not the official Cranbury Township website. Why would the township want to come on here to comment on this anonymous hateful board. |
I don't know, ask Mayor Taylor who did just that earlier in this very topic. Or ask any of the current TC members except Glenn Johnson who have all done so in the past. And even Johnson did once to respond to comments about him. But the rest have all regularly used this site to communicate on official issues.
And who said they had to use this site? It's been said at least a dozen times in this topic that they could use the official Cranbury Township site. And its been proven they can easily add links and documents to that site as they recently did with the redevelopment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-5651
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 27 2015, 10:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-np42 wrote: | | anon-5651 wrote: | | anon-np42 wrote: | | Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here. |
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process. |
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out. |
People went to a meeting and asked. No one has done that for this issue. Per the Mayor no one has contacted them.
No one is saying your rights are void. We're saying follow the rules and go to town hall.
You don't have a right to have answers here. Further, i hope they don't given you keep questioning their ethics. Maybe that is why they are not responding to you. You are the only one saying a study or proper review was not done, but won't ask town hall so you have proof.
Maybe ignoring posts like this will bring back the civil tone this board used to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 9:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-5651 wrote: | | anon-np42 wrote: | | anon-5651 wrote: | | anon-np42 wrote: | | Continue to make excuses all you want but it doesn't make it any more true. There is no requirement that they force people to go through a formal OPRA process to get this very basic public information. They are making a decision to make it harder to get. But comparison just look at all the notices they have sent out about the re-development meetings and the way they added pages to their website with links to documents about it. This shows how easy it would be to make this information available to the public in a reasonable way. They clearly have opted not to do that here. |
Your not asking for notices, but even still they were provided on this issue.
People went to the meetings on redevelopment. Many people asked questions and gave their names. People asked for data. You haven't done anything except complain here. So either follow the process or don't, but your not going to get what you want. And don't say your being denied, your not. You are being told to follow the process. |
The didn't just post notices. They posted plans and drawings. It was incredibly easy for them to do. Why not do it for this? Why intentionally make it hard to get the data and info that was allegedly provided at the meeting, though I have yet to find anyone who can confirm that and the details are not in the minutes?
And they didn't do anything like the notice they have done on this re-development. They did the minimum they are legally required to.
You continue to be under the impression that if someone isn't available to attend one particular meeting all their rights are forfeit. Where do you get this strange notion? And why would we want a process that does the minimum legally allowed to try and fast track a decision through on a change to something that has been in pace for decades? What drove that? And why would our public officials come here to post, multiple times, then intentionally decline to provide any of this allegedly public information?
You are making excuses because you are satisfied that the ends justified the means, so you don't mind the poor process. And you don't want answers to the uncomfortable questions about why they didn't do a proper study, why they excluded their resident traffic expert from the process, why they are reluctantly to answer straight forward questions about how many tickets were issues, etc.
I'm sure there is an issue that will matter to you, and they you will care when corners are cut, when answers are evaded. Fortunately for both of us we have the rights to our opinions whether you like it or not.
You can keep making excuses in lieu of providing simple facts. And others will keep calling it out. |
People went to a meeting and asked. No one has done that for this issue. Per the Mayor no one has contacted them.
No one is saying your rights are void. We're saying follow the rules and go to town hall.
You don't have a right to have answers here. Further, i hope they don't given you keep questioning their ethics. Maybe that is why they are not responding to you. You are the only one saying a study or proper review was not done, but won't ask town hall so you have proof.
Maybe ignoring posts like this will bring back the civil tone this board used to have. |
There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one?
All posters like you are doing is trying to distract from the real issue. Let's turn this into a discussion about ethics or civility and not pay attention to the simple, logical request to share public information. These requests for information started because some early posters on this topic made assertions about the change being based on some facts that are simply not in evidence including that concerted attempts to regulate the 25 MPH zone with speeding tickets was ineffective. Therefore sharing the data on how many speeding tickets were issued becomes directly relevant to assessment of that reasoning. It's perfectly reasonable to want to see evidence that the people making the decision reviewed and confirmed that a material number of tickets were issued in this zone as otherwise increasing the effort to do so would have been a reasonable precursor to the more aggressive action of changing the speed further up the road. And it's perfectly reasonable to ask why they decided to pay someone less qualified than the existing Township traffic consultant to assess a traffic-related matter. Would you consider it reasonable for them to make a decision on the structural integrity of the Main Street bridge by consulting the Township attorney but not the engineer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-ppq7
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 11:24 am EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| Quote: | | There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one? |
Because one can pose as different people by posting from different IP addresses. Anonymous one posing as a dozen? We don't know.
That is one reason why I really wish the township committee would not regard this forum as a way to gather legitimate information or conduct any official business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-np42
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 28 2015, 12:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Speed limits |
|
|
| anon-ppq7 wrote: | | Quote: | | There are at least a dozen people on this topic who have questioned this action or asked for the information. What is served by pretending its just one? |
Because one can pose as different people by posting from different IP addresses. Anonymous one posing as a dozen? We don't know.
That is one reason why I really wish the township committee would not regard this forum as a way to gather legitimate information or conduct any official business. |
So this entire conversation on both side could be two people. Or one person arguing with him/herself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
