Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"]Great. I'm a Democrat but will vote for him over Greenstein who has never voted in our favor for Cranbury. But he has virtually no shot against her just the same. If voting patterns hold true she'll even get hundreds of votes from registered voters in Cranbury despite the fact that they are voting against their own interests because most peopel don't bother to educate themselves and just vote their party line.[/quote] You sound like a "don't tread on me" Democrat[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:28 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
According to today's Trenton Times Wayne is running for assembly not senate. I am confused.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 1:16 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
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.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:44 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
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.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:04 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
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.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 11:01 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
Guest wrote:
Now if I recall the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate the smaller districts. If the plan was approved by the Corzine administration, the effected municipalities would both have to approve it for the consolidation to occur.
As I see it, the only folks that should be angry about such a weak and stupid bill are those that are for consolidation. Because there is no way in hell you are going to find to municipalities to approve this consolidation that have not already been consolidated.
Let us talk about Cranbury and Princeton, would Princeton vote for such a bill? NO. Would Cranbury vote for such a bill? No.
This completely worthless bill designed to appease the consolidation crowd has your knickers all twisted up. What are you going to do when something important happens?
Your first two sentences contradict each other. You say it had no comment on consolidation then that it setup a process to make plans for consolidation. That sounds like more than a "comment." The bottom line is the purpose of the bill was to begin a process that could lead to State-pressured municipal and school consolidations. If the only purpose was to let Township’s do whatever they wanted they didn’t need a bill for that.
If it was a “worthless bill,” why did she vote for it? No one has suggested it wasn't weak. But why was she voting for it at all, especially when she admitted she didn't like it in our public meeting? The answer is she did it because her party leaders wanted her to. Does she represent them or us? I keep reading defenses of Greenstein that are based solely on “not much harm was done” as opposed to “good was accomplished.” What has she done for Cranbury? Why are some people’s standards for support merely that she didn’t single-handedly cause our problems?
And the bill wasn't as weak as you suggest. Yes local municipalities had the chance to vote, but the new executive superintendent had various leverage points as well, including the ability to without state funds. So, yeah, a Township could say no but then face punitive financial consequences if they did. In the end, as far as I can tell the initiative died with the Corzine administration. Though Christie is rattling his saber about wanting to support consolidation too, and if anything he tends to be more aggressive than Corzine if he does get serious about it.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 10:09 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment.
Or....
Maybe getting executive experience is part of his career development plan?
If Baroni ever is again elected to public office, I will come on this board and praise your political acumen. But I doubt Baroni will ever be heard from again.
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 8:20 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
Guest wrote:
And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment.
Or....
Maybe getting executive experience is part of his career development plan?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:29 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
Now if I recall the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate the smaller districts. If the plan was approved by the Corzine administration, the effected municipalities would both have to approve it for the consolidation to occur.
As I see it, the only folks that should be angry about such a weak and stupid bill are those that are for consolidation. Because there is no way in hell you are going to find to municipalities to approve this consolidation that have not already been consolidated.
Let us talk about Cranbury and Princeton, would Princeton vote for such a bill? NO. Would Cranbury vote for such a bill? No.
This completely worthless bill designed to appease the consolidation crowd has your knickers all twisted up. What are you going to do when something important happens?
Guest
Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:22 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Wittman?
And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment.