| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 11:19 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
 |
|
BTW, why is everyone assuming Hank had anything to do with this? He changed jobs within the Packet organization a year or two ago and is now in charge of their onlien sites, I think. He still does his personal editorials but he is not the managing editor of the Press.
It doesn't change the fact that it was monumentually dumb or arrogant for them to publish an editorial unequivically contrary to the interests of the entire Township. Just saying I don't know why it had to be Hank personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 11:21 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| It is a shame. I really enjoy having a local "hometown" paper and they do such a good job on the basics. I don't know why they insist on expressing such disdain for the community they serve. It is unfortunate that the only recourse I have is to make them aware of my disappointment and disapproval, cancel my subscription and inform their advertisers. I hope someday the Cranbury Press starts advocating FOR Cranbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 12:42 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | BTW, why is everyone assuming Hank had anything to do with this? He changed jobs within the Packet organization a year or two ago and is now in charge of their onlien sites, I think. He still does his personal editorials but he is not the managing editor of the Press.
It doesn't change the fact that it was monumentually dumb or arrogant for them to publish an editorial unequivically contrary to the interests of the entire Township. Just saying I don't know why it had to be Hank personally. |
He did change jobs, but three months after doing so he was placed back in charge of the paper and John Saccenti the editor who was put in charge was laid off. So Hank runs the Cranbury Press and Maria is the staff writer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 3:35 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | BTW, why is everyone assuming Hank had anything to do with this? He changed jobs within the Packet organization a year or two ago and is now in charge of their onlien sites, I think. He still does his personal editorials but he is not the managing editor of the Press.
It doesn't change the fact that it was monumentually dumb or arrogant for them to publish an editorial unequivically contrary to the interests of the entire Township. Just saying I don't know why it had to be Hank personally. |
He did change jobs, but three months after doing so he was placed back in charge of the paper and John Saccenti the editor who was put in charge was laid off. So Hank runs the Cranbury Press and Maria is the staff writer. |
So if there is only one reporter, and it is "published" by a larger company and advertising is presumably run by the parent co, what exactly does Hank "manage" as the managing editor? Other than these editorials which seem to intentionally tweak their nose at Cranbury, what is his actual job? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 3:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | BTW, why is everyone assuming Hank had anything to do with this? He changed jobs within the Packet organization a year or two ago and is now in charge of their onlien sites, I think. He still does his personal editorials but he is not the managing editor of the Press.
It doesn't change the fact that it was monumentually dumb or arrogant for them to publish an editorial unequivically contrary to the interests of the entire Township. Just saying I don't know why it had to be Hank personally. |
He did change jobs, but three months after doing so he was placed back in charge of the paper and John Saccenti the editor who was put in charge was laid off. So Hank runs the Cranbury Press and Maria is the staff writer. |
So if there is only one reporter, and it is "published" by a larger company and advertising is presumably run by the parent co, what exactly does Hank "manage" as the managing editor? Other than these editorials which seem to intentionally tweak their nose at Cranbury, what is his actual job? |
There is a lot that goes into the running of the paper from an editorial standpoint- story selection, review, placement of stories, editorial, management of the one reporter... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 4:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
^^^
I assume that was tongue-in-cheek...
I worked at a small community paper in the summer during college. I did more stories than this one and the managing editor shared in the reporting duties. I also was an editor for a large college paper that had more stories per department than the Press has a week and the edtors there all had story duties too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 5:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| It's not college though. Read the by lines it is all Maria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank-r-chief?
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 13 2009, 9:43 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Imagine if Hank actually took the time to do research to try to substantiate his opinion. They might have to go bi-weekly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 9:39 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Homer wrote: | Consolidation means more government union jobs.
Yeah, baby! Pick me! Pick me! |
Imagine that - good paying jobs with health benefits, job security, workers with some self respect – doing something meaningful like teaching our kids, taking care of our disabled folks, cleaning our streets, processing our property taxes –
So make sure you demonize the workers (whether they work for local government or private companies) and sit silently by as the gap between the wealthy and the poor gets larger. Trickle down as Mulligan and the tea baggers would explain it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Mulligan
Joined: Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 pm EDT
Posts: 172
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 10:12 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
It appears the one thing most of us agree on here on cranbury.info is that less is more when it comes to government here in NJ. Because when we look at the landscape of our state and view cities such as Newark, Trenton and Camden we quickly see the waste within these larger urban areas and at the same time see the efficiencies of the small suburban municipalities around New Jersey.
As for the Cranbury Press I too do not understand their position and need or want to highlight consolidation which is not only a concern of Cranbury but also for the other surrounding towns in our area as they too do not want to lose their identity or self governance. The one thing I will say is that while I do not agree with the press in any form or way about consolidation, I do agree with their right to give a point of view. Further I feel hearing this point of view is a good thing as it is important for us to be reminded that while we do not want consolidation others in our State do and this reminder should serve to keep us all focused on this issue and to not take for granted that everything will be ok.
Currently at the state level we know State Senator Bill Baroni stands with us and is against consolidation. We now need to find out where Linda Greenstein and Wayne DeAngelo truly stand on this issue to see if they are with or against us. This issue is one where they can both finally show they do or do not care about Cranbury.
So whether we like it or not the consolidation issue is not going away anytime soon and is and will be as big an issue for our town as the unfair affordable housing rules and regulation have been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 10:17 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Homer wrote: | Consolidation means more government union jobs.
Yeah, baby! Pick me! Pick me! |
Imagine that - good paying jobs with health benefits, job security, workers with some self respect – doing something meaningful like teaching our kids, taking care of our disabled folks, cleaning our streets, processing our property taxes –
So make sure you demonize the workers (whether they work for local government or private companies) and sit silently by as the gap between the wealthy and the poor gets larger. Trickle down as Mulligan and the tea baggers would explain it |
Why do you have to bash a person who ran for office, who was not elected and yet continues to try and be active and help us? I wish Dan had been elected. As it stands, I think Jay and Dave will serve us well, but there is no point hiding behind a "Guest" and bashing someone when if you feel he's a threat you could easily place a name on your post and run for TC or seek to be involved in other areas.
I can't believe you're even a Cranbury resident. IMO, no real resident in this town feels that we should be forcefully consolidated. Why? Because the other town will likely be in a worse financial position, we'd lose valuable employees in our town where there are duplicate positions, while increasing other jobs, we'd lose our school, we'd lose our property values, we'd lose our culture, and we'd likely see our tax revenues going to support the other town or if it is county going to support the other schools like New Brunswick our county. West Windsor would see more of their tax money flow to Trenton.
I have news for you as well. WE ARE ALL WORKERS. We are not demonizing individuals, but the fact that the larger or government is the less accountability exists. It's why we get in a position where waste becomes evident. You can't deny there is waste in the state and federal government regardless of the party that is in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 10:24 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Homer wrote: | Consolidation means more government union jobs.
Yeah, baby! Pick me! Pick me! |
Imagine that - good paying jobs with health benefits, job security, workers with some self respect – doing something meaningful like teaching our kids, taking care of our disabled folks, cleaning our streets, processing our property taxes –
So make sure you demonize the workers (whether they work for local government or private companies) and sit silently by as the gap between the wealthy and the poor gets larger. Trickle down as Mulligan and the tea baggers would explain it |
Are you joking?
Let me get this straight. You are actually advocating that the creation of "make work" jobs that aren't necessary is a good thing?
Your theory is that creating padding larger districts and municipalities with middle-management union jobs that didn’t need to exist is social responsible because it is a way to offset wealth disparity by using property taxes from the “wealthy” to re-distribute to the recipients of this invented jobs?
No one was “demonizing” workers. Anyone objectively reading the previous posts would see that for themselves. What was objected to was the idea of forcing smaller, efficient schools and townships to merger with less efficient larger ones that actually cost more money per student or taxpayer to run, not less, yet is being proposed under the false pretense of reducing taxes. That is a flat-out lie, and the facts prove it. Those advocating for this big lie, whether politicians or the Press, persist in not bothering to cite a facts that supports their case. They rely on their self-evident “logic” that these smaller districts must inherently be inefficient and count on indiscriminate or unintelligent voters to simply buy their false assertion unchecked.
You fall into a different class, however, presuming you weren’t kidding (which would make more sense). You seem to be advocating that its okay and even preferable to force consolidation specifically BECAUSE it will cost more money and generate more taxes, so that it can be used to create new union jobs, even if they are not necessary. Does your name happen to be Wayne DeAngelo? What local are you a member of? Otherwise it’s hard to imagine why you would rationally suggest such logic? In any event, even those pushing for these consolidations, while your logic may be their real purpose, know better than to make your case, which would be wildly unpopular with a vast majority of voters. Which is why they persist in the lie that its really about tax reductions. I guess in that context, at least your naked honestly that it’s really about redistribution of wealth is refreshing. Even if its wrong.
BTW, I’m a Democrat that voted for Obama, lest you try to generalize me with the tea party crowd. Believe it or not, most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, don’t believe in intentionally increasing taxes for the sole purpose of diverting money to unions… |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 10:39 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Homer wrote: | Consolidation means more government union jobs.
Yeah, baby! Pick me! Pick me! |
Imagine that - good paying jobs with health benefits, job security, workers with some self respect – doing something meaningful like teaching our kids, taking care of our disabled folks, cleaning our streets, processing our property taxes –
So make sure you demonize the workers (whether they work for local government or private companies) and sit silently by as the gap between the wealthy and the poor gets larger. Trickle down as Mulligan and the tea baggers would explain it |
Why do you have to bash a person who ran for office, who was not elected and yet continues to try and be active and help us? I wish Dan had been elected. As it stands, I think Jay and Dave will serve us well, but there is no point hiding behind a "Guest" and bashing someone when if you feel he's a threat you could easily place a name on your post and run for TC or seek to be involved in other areas.
I can't believe you're even a Cranbury resident. IMO, no real resident in this town feels that we should be forcefully consolidated. Why? Because the other town will likely be in a worse financial position, we'd lose valuable employees in our town where there are duplicate positions, while increasing other jobs, we'd lose our school, we'd lose our property values, we'd lose our culture, and we'd likely see our tax revenues going to support the other town or if it is county going to support the other schools like New Brunswick our county. West Windsor would see more of their tax money flow to Trenton.
I have news for you as well. WE ARE ALL WORKERS. We are not demonizing individuals, but the fact that the larger or government is the less accountability exists. It's why we get in a position where waste becomes evident. You can't deny there is waste in the state and federal government regardless of the party that is in power. |
You can’t make this stuff up!!! Anyone who calls out Mulligan because he is a tea bagger or who defends unions is a “non resident”. Because? Oh because we are all tea baggers or tea bagger defenders or – we are the only true patriotic American, a true Cranburian.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 10:58 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| This little Koffee Klatch has gotten way out of hand. I would suggest moving on because this has devolved into anonymous name calling that has little to do with the original post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 11:13 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Homer wrote: | Consolidation means more government union jobs.
Yeah, baby! Pick me! Pick me! |
Imagine that - good paying jobs with health benefits, job security, workers with some self respect – doing something meaningful like teaching our kids, taking care of our disabled folks, cleaning our streets, processing our property taxes –
So make sure you demonize the workers (whether they work for local government or private companies) and sit silently by as the gap between the wealthy and the poor gets larger. Trickle down as Mulligan and the tea baggers would explain it |
Why do you have to bash a person who ran for office, who was not elected and yet continues to try and be active and help us? I wish Dan had been elected. As it stands, I think Jay and Dave will serve us well, but there is no point hiding behind a "Guest" and bashing someone when if you feel he's a threat you could easily place a name on your post and run for TC or seek to be involved in other areas.
I can't believe you're even a Cranbury resident. IMO, no real resident in this town feels that we should be forcefully consolidated. Why? Because the other town will likely be in a worse financial position, we'd lose valuable employees in our town where there are duplicate positions, while increasing other jobs, we'd lose our school, we'd lose our property values, we'd lose our culture, and we'd likely see our tax revenues going to support the other town or if it is county going to support the other schools like New Brunswick our county. West Windsor would see more of their tax money flow to Trenton.
I have news for you as well. WE ARE ALL WORKERS. We are not demonizing individuals, but the fact that the larger or government is the less accountability exists. It's why we get in a position where waste becomes evident. You can't deny there is waste in the state and federal government regardless of the party that is in power. |
You can’t make this stuff up!!! Anyone who calls out Mulligan because he is a tea bagger or who defends unions is a “non resident”. Because? Oh because we are all tea baggers or tea bagger defenders or – we are the only true patriotic American, a true Cranburian.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity |
No, if you read and comprehend the post you'll see that there are two separate ideas mentioned. The first part was in response to their personal attack on Dan Mulligan.
The second part was me saying any real resident of Cranbury would not want to see our town done away with and consolidated with another town for the reasons I mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BenFranklin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Dec 14 2009, 12:45 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Press Again Advocates Destruction of Cranbury Township |
|
|
To me, this is a really important topic for this town. A traditional and vitally important role of a local newspaper has been to provide a check against local government, to make sure those voted into office (or paid through the town's coffers) hold up their end of the bargain. I would argue that Cranbury Press has failed at this mission for some time now, as others on this board have noted so enthusiastically. The larger issue, really, is that Cranbury is simply too small to get coverage from the Trenton Times or the Newark Star-Ledger -- both of which are also struggling financially, I might add.
This essentially means that today there is ZERO neutral, unbiased and meaningful press coverage of Cranbury. (Or even, on top of that, most of the state governmental chain that affects Cranbury.) Sure, we all rely a bit on this bulletin board to get a general sense of what's going on in and around our town, but how accurate is what's posted here? Do the views on here represent a cross-section of opinion? Does anyone who posts on here have the time or energy to dig into the facts or background on stories? Now that Jay Taylor has been elected, will anyone bother to report what "really" happened at the last Township Committee? If, as Brandeis said, sunshine is the best disinfectant, then a town like Cranbury without a functional press corp could become a pretty dark place.
Or maybe Cranbury Sauce is more important than it seems  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
