Published today:
After the meeting, Mayor Matt Doherty said he was “blindsided” by the petition because members of the committee asked him to separate the projects.
“We’re trying to work and negotiate with people who aren’t serious. After negotiating in good faith, working to convince skeptical council members that we can trust these folks, they just completely betrayed that trust,” he said.
Why would he say that if the Council intended to pass the new ordinance into law?
The petitioners didn’t petition for a first reading and introduction. They petitioned for the law to be changed. They legally committed themselves to withdraw the petitions when the new ordinance becomes law.
Why would that be a “betrayal”?
20 Comments
As usual Mayor Dorehty reacted like a bully at the petitioners. Why would they be upset that the residents want assurances that they were going to unbundle the two important projects. Lake Como outflow pipe is imperative Taylor is still a hot button issue. The fact that the mayor bundled these two projects together in the dark of night then tried to convince the town through a letter sent to residents directly stating the petioners were against the outflow pipe (An absolute lie) without even mentioning the Taylor project Lends itself to the lack of trust on residents part. Negotiating with one person on the petion is not at all done in good faith. As usual he heard himself talking and assumed everyone was going to go along. Guess what mayor? We DONT trust you. There. I said it!
Bundling the two projects together was vile.
There was a vote on the pavilions. It should be honored. It certainly cost enough.
There is a t-shirt with a saying that goes something like “Trust the government? Ask an Indian”.
Richard Nixon said, “I am not a crook.” Maybe he did not steal anything, but he deleted some important tapes. Tricky guy.
Hey, council members, I trust that you will do whatever the mayor tells you to do.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. ~Bob Dylan
Well said Katrina
D Jays can give you 200 votes but it can’t give you the trust of the people.
Who do you trust?
Is a shame there are no reporters anymore like the old days. They should ask each and every council member what they think of being sued once and lost and being sued again. Do they understand what fiduciary responsibility is??? What have each and every one contributed to an honest and forthright government?? And why did they do they want to be council members????
As far as I can tell, some council members get to do fun things for the most part, like organize children’s activities, break Guinness world records (is that important for government to do?) and do senior walks, etc., in other words, social activities, instead of learning about ordinances and technicalities about procedures, zoning issues, land use, etc. I guess they think it is ok to overspend and get sued for doing things that are questionable and possibly illegal. In my opinion, that last point reflects personal character. There I go again on the attack, but there is just so much to attack. These folks were voted in and we just have to be faithful watchdogs lest they ruin the town.
Actually, I would hate the social stuff.
#9 Me, too. I would prefer that the individual council members knew what they were doing in regard to running government properly, not building their own resumes.
#10. Building one’s resume is for the ambitious YOUNG. So you have ruled out 3 of the five. That leaves us with Matt and Jenn.
So I ask, who will step up? The bottom line is we get the elected officials we deserve. I look at the NJ 30th Assembly race this year and cry myself to sleep. We get the state government we deserve.
The various council member to whom you refer have stated publically and privately things that were unthinkable a decade ago. Who will step up?
If i were on the present council I would be embarrassed by how things are being done. Unfortunately, I don’t think they are embarrassed.
#8, For the most part, the problem is that they’re all more or less inexperienced people with the exception of Councilwoman Blackburn. I view Councilwoman Blackburn as having lived a somewhat active life compared with the rest of the council and Matt. But she is only one in five.
When the NO campaign wanted to spend 4.1 million it was for TWO pavilions. What is wrong with this mayor and council did they not understand the results of the Special Election. WE CAN BUILD FOR 4.1 MILLION again that was for 2 pavilions, has nothing changed with the costs or plans. Residents do not want debt to replace the Taylor pavilion. Cut back the plans and build what we can afford.
#13 Tom I think they All have an active life they love to party!!! I never met a pilot that did not know where to have fun.
The offered compromise was to take another “look” at the plans. Not even a window was up for discussion so what’s the point? The Special Election meant nothing, just a bump in the road. A delay really.
Of course if they had won the special election it that would have been the end of the discussion.
Spend in excess of 11m for the two pavilions. Who cares whose pockets are picked. Some people have a future in politics as did the Vichy members.
It’s $6.1 million. The $11 million included Taylor, Streetscape and the Lake Como outflow.
do the math after you factor in the multiple change orders that will come in addition to the 6.1M. nobody’s kidding anyone, the outfall pipe is separate and apart from the 11M I believe we will be stuck with. we the people.
Post a Comment