Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 7:31 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: What is to stop... -Homeless people from setting up a tent city? -Campers from lighting a bonfire? -Teenagers from partying all night? -Young Adults from bringing booze? -Hunters from shooting guns or setting traps? What if someone gets hurt? Couldn't they sue the Township? Or couldn't they sue private property owners? There are no signs indicating what is and isn't legal. There are no markings to indicate what is public property and what is private. You would think all the lawyers who live along the park would consider the liabilities of NOT marking the easements and posting signs. Then again, you would have thought they would read their property surveys, too. The easements were marked for more than a decade and none of the outrageous scenarios listed above ever came to pass. The hysteria was total BS whipped up by a few selfish property owners who want to keep public land for their own private use at the expense of their neighbors and Township residents.
Guest	Posted: Thu, Apr 28 2011, 10:14 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum The easements are clearly marked at the street with a concrete colored dot on each curb!
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 10:12 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Some residents received an email stating that the vote would be on the 25th there was also a rumor it would have been voted on at the 11th meeting. The clerk at the meeting explained that this was all false. However, the TC did a straw vote on the 11th as they said they saw a number of people in the audience and wanted to give thought on where the TC stood. I received the false email as well and interestingly the person who sent it did not show on the 25th.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 8:16 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: Guest wrote: The committee members failed the decision making test again! After all the meetings and panels formed to evaluate the situation there was no decision. Why have people do all this work and spend their valuable time to provide input? Maybe with no decision nor any action being taken it is sort of a type of job security. The same issue will come up again and again. Its just another example of an indecisive committee. Maybe they should hire some "Professional" at some outrageous fee to give some more input. It really amazes me that the committee members totally disregarded the petition with a huge number of signatures in favor of marking the easement. There are some members of the Committee that certainly chastised some previous Committee members for their disrespect of the public. Its a shame that they have turned into carbon copies of their disrespectful predecessors. The item did not appear on either April agenda and no vote was taken in April. I believe it appeared on the December agenda and was effectively tabled. The Cranbury Press reported a non-binding "straw poll" as a vote at the April 11th meeting. First off the Mayor who is the one who sets the agenda did not put it on so a formal vote would not have been proper. Second, as an attendee at the the meeting the TC did take action they said they were not going to vote on the physical marking, but would mark them via the website and have a map at town hall. So that is a decision, just not a decision to physically mark them. There were two petitions as well with equal numbers of signatures. So it is not proper to say they ignored the voices of residents.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 5:51 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: The committee members failed the decision making test again! After all the meetings and panels formed to evaluate the situation there was no decision. Why have people do all this work and spend their valuable time to provide input? Maybe with no decision nor any action being taken it is sort of a type of job security. The same issue will come up again and again. Its just another example of an indecisive committee. Maybe they should hire some "Professional" at some outrageous fee to give some more input. It really amazes me that the committee members totally disregarded the petition with a huge number of signatures in favor of marking the easement. There are some members of the Committee that certainly chastised some previous Committee members for their disrespect of the public. Its a shame that they have turned into carbon copies of their disrespectful predecessors. First off the Mayor who is the one who sets the agenda did not put it on so a formal vote would not have been proper. Second, as an attendee at the the meeting the TC did take action they said they were not going to vote on the physical marking, but would mark them via the website and have a map at town hall. So that is a decision, just not a decision to physically mark them. There were two petitions as well with equal numbers of signatures. So it is not proper to say they ignored the voices of residents.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 10:47 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: The committee members failed the decision making test again! After all the meetings and panels formed to evaluate the situation there was no decision. Why have people do all this work and spend their valuable time to provide input? Maybe with no decision nor any action being taken it is sort of a type of job security. The same issue will come up again and again. Its just another example of an indecisive committee. Maybe they should hire some "Professional" at some outrageous fee to give some more input. It really amazes me that the committee members totally disregarded the petition with a huge number of signatures in favor of marking the easement. There are some members of the Committee that certainly chastised some previous Committee members for their disrespect of the public. Its a shame that they have turned into carbon copies of their disrespectful predecessors. They decided by not doing anything to not mark the easements.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 10:44 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum What is to stop... -Homeless people from setting up a tent city? -Campers from lighting a bonfire? -Teenagers from partying all night? -Young Adults from bringing booze? -Hunters from shooting guns or setting traps? What if someone gets hurt? Couldn't they sue the Township? Or couldn't they sue private property owners? There are no signs indicating what is and isn't legal. There are no markings to indicate what is public property and what is private. You would think all the lawyers who live along the park would consider the liabilities of NOT marking the easements and posting signs. Then again, you would have thought they would read their property surveys, too.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2011, 8:57 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: The committee members failed the decision making test again! After all the meetings and panels formed to evaluate the situation there was no decision. Why have people do all this work and spend their valuable time to provide input? Maybe with no decision nor any action being taken it is sort of a type of job security. The same issue will come up again and again. Its just another example of an indecisive committee. Maybe they should hire some "Professional" at some outrageous fee to give some more input. It really amazes me that the committee members totally disregarded the petition with a huge number of signatures in favor of marking the easement. There are some members of the Committee that certainly chastised some previous Committee members for their disrespect of the public. Its a shame that they have turned into carbon copies of their disrespectful predecessors. I wasn't at the meeting so maybe I missed a key fact, but why do you say no action equals no decision? By definition not taking action is a decision. If lack of action always meant indecisiveness then the only way to ever demonstrate decisiveness would be to constantly vote for change, which would be just another form of inaction because there would be no real decision involved. Action and decisiveness means considering each situation and making decisions when to act and when the best action is to preserve the status quo. What I heard, perhaps incorrectly, is they made a conscious decision to preserve the status quo, to not further mark the public easement. Is that not what happened? Did their indecision just defer some future action down the road? It’s easy to see why the people who were in favor of helping the public access its wetlands would be upset by this, but why would the Shadow Oaks people be unhappy? Were they expecting something further like a permanent declaration that the public land was inaccessible to the public? I’m unclear what kind of decision you feel they didn’t make. I also don’t understand your comment about comparing them to their predecessors. In what way were they disrespectful? Again, I wasn’t at the meeting so I didn’t see what happened. But the reputation of some of the former Committee members was that they would allow people favorable to their positions to speak multiple times but limit those they allowed to speak against their position, and that they stacked all the decision making boards only with members of their party. The latter certainly hasn’t happened as a point of fact. Did the former? If not, what made them disrespectful? I assume them simply not voting the way you wanted isn’t your definition. Someone will always be unhappy and what would be disrespectful to their constituency as a whole would be to cater to the crowd in the room at any given time. So what exactly was disrespectful?
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 11:18 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum The committee members failed the decision making test again! After all the meetings and panels formed to evaluate the situation there was no decision. Why have people do all this work and spend their valuable time to provide input? Maybe with no decision nor any action being taken it is sort of a type of job security. The same issue will come up again and again. Its just another example of an indecisive committee. Maybe they should hire some "Professional" at some outrageous fee to give some more input. It really amazes me that the committee members totally disregarded the petition with a huge number of signatures in favor of marking the easement. There are some members of the Committee that certainly chastised some previous Committee members for their disrespect of the public. Its a shame that they have turned into carbon copies of their disrespectful predecessors.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 9:19 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Since it is for their private use then divide up the taxes on the "Public Land" amongst the properties that it touches. Win Win situation, they get more land and are now responsible for it. Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already there's at no tax or cost to them. Let's put the land up for sale and see if anyone buys it.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 7:08 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Since it is for their private use then divide up the taxes on the "Public Land" amongst the properties that it touches. Win Win situation, they get more land and are now responsible for it. Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already there's at no tax or cost to them. use the pronoun - yes? Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already theirs at no tax or cost to them. no apostrophe on possessive pronouns - either
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 5:17 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Watch out, the grammar Police are here and they will point out every little typing mistake we make. Gall dern it, we aint the type of educated folk that you is. You reel smirt and we juss dumm. I hope yous feel more better bout yourselve.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 3:21 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: Guest wrote: Since it is for their private use then divide up the taxes on the "Public Land" amongst the properties that it touches. Win Win situation, they get more land and are now responsible for it. Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already there's at no tax or cost to them. use the pronoun - yes? Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already theirs at no tax or cost to them.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 2:53 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Guest wrote: Since it is for their private use then divide up the taxes on the "Public Land" amongst the properties that it touches. Win Win situation, they get more land and are now responsible for it. Except they have been living under the expectation, for a long time, that it is effectively already there's at no tax or cost to them.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 12:43 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Since it is for their private use then divide up the taxes on the "Public Land" amongst the properties that it touches. Win Win situation, they get more land and are now responsible for it.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Apr 26 2011, 12:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Tantrum Let's just say it wasn't a Mensa meeting.