Jump to content

Walmart


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest A. Realist
Dear Al Realist,

So I guess you're not up to my challenge. You are all talk with no back-up. How sad. I am curiuos though. How did I "change the rules"? They're YOUR rules! You put that previous poster on the spot by telling them to provide proof of their statements. I merely said the same thing to you. And I offerred to do it for my own statements.

You are right about one thing. There is no challenge in debating someone like you. I'm going to go pick a fight with Radagast.

Jim Mangin

Jimbo,

That's "A. Realist". Freudian Slip?

You should know by now that you can't goad me. I'll answer what I want, when I want.

PS Did you know that your face gets really red when you're frustrated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Barbara,

A couple of clarifications:

First, on the 2003 debate (that never materialized). I challenged the Mayor to a one-on-one debate. He would only agree if all candidates were included. You're right, I couldn't convince the rest of my slate, so I re-stated my one-on-one challenge to the Mayor and he refused. As I recall, he pulled a no-show at his mayoral debate with Hal Delaney two years earlier.

As to fiscal "schemes," I am referring to:

- bonding in 2002 to cover the $1.2 million defecit in the Water Dept (costing taxpayers interest for the next 15 years)

- over-paying North Jersey Water for East Orange's water allotment from Jan-Mar 2001 and not lifting a finger to recoup it for Kearny taxpayers

- ignoring (and denying the existence of) almost $2 million in capital surplus as an alternative to the 2004 bond, costing taxpayers almost $500,000 in administrative costs

- failing to properly research the zoning ordinance prohibiting sex offenders in South Kearny, costing taxpayers $400,000 a year

- ignoring our water consultant's recommendation to put some of the proceeds from the 2003 water rate increase into a Rate Stabilization Fund, postponing the next water rate increase until 2014. Instead we raised water rates again in 2004.

I could go on, but this is getting long.

Regarding Walmart, thank you for answering my question. But, don't you think the Mayor should have spoken to you about his discussions with Walmart? You have been his strongest defender and ally. I can understand (but not agree with) his decision to not tell me. But, it's your ward. I think he should have told you.

As to my "coolness," Oh well, I guess apology not accepted. That's ok. You know what I've learned from being Dickie and Jay Mangin's kid. One taught me not to ever stay mad at anyone, and the other taught me life's too short.

Jim Mangin

Jim,

I feel like I'm in that movie "Ground Hog Day". Talk about beating a dead horse. It's deja vu all over again. We thoroughly discussed all of these points when you were on the council. But if you insist, just a couple of clarifications on your "clarifications":

In 2003, it was a team decision to ask for debates between both slates. We all felt that you and the Mayor had debated ad infinitum and that the voters needed a chance to see what the rest of each team was about. As for the Delaney/Santos debates, you've got that backwards. Good man that Hal is, I know he will confirm that he confessed he never wanted the debate and didn't show up.

The 2002 bond to which you refer was not for a water deficit, but for meters, a capital and hence bondable expense. I akin municipal bonding to personal financing one might do for any big ticket item--perfectly legitimate and responsible economics.

What you recall as an "overpayment" to North Jersey, I remember as one of the closing costs included in the Kearny/E. Orange/North Jersey agreement. Didn't you vote on this? And wasn't this the subject of a rather comprehensive written decision on the part of the Town Attorney?

The 2 million dollar capital surplus you allude to was, I believe the UEZ bond, the proceeds of which had to be used in the Zone. If we were to reappropriate that bond use, we would also have lost the paying entity. Counterproductive.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the water rates, but I will say this: that department couldn't be run any more efficiently. The 2003 increase did not foresee the raise in rates from North Jersey, but even with the 2004 increase we still have one of the lowest rates around.

I think we all understood the zoning ordinance concerning the housing of sex offenders in South Kearny, the rest of us just weren't willing to put a $400,000.00 price tag/seal of approval on it

Walmart, one more time: there were no "secret discussions" between the Mayor and Walmart. And if the Mayor had given me any type of advance notice, you would have cried foul and cited favoritism. Come on, Jim, you know that's true!

P.S. You know I accept your apology about *****, but I just had to get some mileage out of it.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content. Councilwoman Sherry's family members name was edited out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Well Guest ... I obviously have no problem with anonymous posting, however, my general reference to those who use it to hide behind personal attacks on those who choose let everyone know who they are... are indeed cowards and the lowest form of life. IMHO, of course.

There's a difference between a general reference to a group of loathsome people and attacking someone's family members simply because you disagree with them.

I'm sure you're smart enough to see that and I'm surprised that you would proffer such an argument.

Much could be accomplished in discussing and debating these issues here. It seems, however, that the selfish need of a few to use this board to get even or whatever, with former and present officials is, to say the least, counterproductive.

First, public officials and their families like it or not, are fair game. Especially when they abuse their position.

Second, absolutely nothing is accomplished by debating issues here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Spoken like a true Santosian. Of course you don't want the Councilwoman to answer my specific question. That would lead to a debate. And no Santos-supporter, including the Mayor, Councilwoman Sherry, or yourself, wants to debate me on the facts.

Gee whiz! I take a half day off to go to the beach and look what happens! Jimbo creates a new moniker for me. You know, I think I like it. "Santosian", hmm. I'll submit the dictionary entry:

Santosian, 1. proper noun meaning one who takes on the qualities of goodness; from the Latin sanctus meaning holy or sacred. 2. one resembling Alberto Santos or 3. used as an adjective to denote winning characteristics, as in: The Santosian team rules.

Yeah, I definitely like it! Thanks, Jimbo.

The debating thing? (Quite full of one's self, isn't one?) You have selective memory. I have debated you and so has the Mayor and the Councilwoman. Frankly, it's become old hat and I don't get a rush from it anymore 'cause it's really not much of a challenge. I made a decision as a kid playing sandlot (wow, that'll date me) that I wouldn't play ball with self-aggrandizing guys who cheated by changing the rules mid-game to suit their own strategy or agenda. (That would be you). But that doesn't mean that I won't be on the sidelines providing play-by-play commentary and rooting for the home team.

And so A. Realist takes his bat and ball and runs home. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Barbara please.  When the town pays nothing into pension funds for a total of 5 years, and then is required to pay only 20% of what they owe; you  cannot, as the mayor has done, blame tax increases on a "state mandated increase in pension funds." 

The ability to delay pension payments was temporary, and everyone KNEW it.  When you know a bill is coming, and decide not to prepare for that bill I, myself, call that a scheme.  I, like most, plan ahead for my bills.  You probably do as well, but in this case, blaming others for the failure to plan ahead is misleading at best, and at its worst, flat out dishonest.

I received the Mayor's mailer, and know that this falsehood was put out to distract the public as to where this blame should fall.

Debate this if you will, defend this if you can.  Personally, I find this disconcerting.

Please, no sarcasm.  Sarcasm and I are close personal friends.

You're not going to get an answer to this post.

I also got the Mayor's mailers every year blaming everyone else for tax increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Silly me... I thought we were talking about WalMart. Noooo... we're just beating the crap out of whoever it is we don't like.

A word from the wise, folks... I think that everyone would acknowledge that the Town of Kearny has problems. What they are and how big they are should be what we're talking about here. Normal everyday people have posted thoughts on the internet over the past few years that have literally changed history. They researched and turned over rocks that main stream news organizations wouldn't touch and performed a real service for their fellow citizens. Unfortunatly, most discussion boards are clogged with the toxic stream that has invaded here.

I've known 10 Kearny mayors and more councilpeople than I can count. Granted, there were some bad apples but for the most part they all, Republican, Democratic and that one Independent, left their mark and managed to achieve at least a little good.... even Leo. So forgive me if I can't find my place in this chorus of crap throwing and egocentric and anonymous (which is so wierd) venting. I've always thought that those who attack someone personally from the safety of a name like 'guest' are truly the lowest form of life. 

Whenever everyone wants to get back to talking about issues... gimme a ring, OK?

Are you kidding? When have any of the current councilpeople that post here or their supporters ever admitted that Kearny has problems? Mrs. Sherry just posted about walking Kearny Ave like it was Main St. USA at Disney World. She's either in denial or we're talking about two different places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Councilwoman Barbara Sherry

Oops, just realized my post of Thursday,4/21/05 at 6:59 (response to Jim Mangin) appeared as posted by "Guest". Sorry, being technically impaired, I wasn't sure if I could go in back and edit. I didn't want anyone to think I had gone anonymous on you, but it must have been evident it was my posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, just realized my post of Thursday,4/21/05 at 6:59 (response to Jim Mangin) appeared as posted by "Guest".  Sorry, being technically impaired, I wasn't sure if I could go in back and edit. I didn't want anyone to think I had gone anonymous on you, but it must have been evident it was my posting.

Councilwoman,

May I suggest that your Register as a Member. Registering as a Member allows you to edit your own posts and also guarantees that no one else posts with your name. Registering as a Member does not prevent one from posting anonymously as a Guest. You simply do not sign in. This is not to suggest that you post anonymously, it is simply an explanation. I want to Thank You for expressing your viewpoint on KOTW. Your dialogue with former Councilman Mangin has been enlightening.

KOTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Councilwoman,

May I suggest that your Register as a Member.  Registering as a Member allows you to edit your own posts and also guarantees that no one else posts with your name.  Registering as a Member does not prevent one from posting anonymously as a Guest.  You simply do not sign in.  This is not to suggest that you post anonymously, it is simply an explanation.  I want to Thank You for expressing your viewpoint on KOTW.  Your dialogue with former Councilman Mangin has been enlightening.

KOTW

Thank you for your assistance. I'll do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I like boldly except that there's nothing bold about the guy. 

Never trust a man that can't throw a baseball properly on opening day! :lol:

Thanks for the humor, bold wouldn't be an adjective I would use. However, I can throw a baseball properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest concerned Harrisonian
Let's be logical: the Mom and Pop stores on the Avenue will always have their loyal following with a few defections here and there.  We are looking beyond the Kearny resident to expand the customer base.

I stand by my original assessment that WalMart will bring jobs and revenue to our town, that the competition for the public's dollar will spur the economy, and that its location precludes it from detracting from the character of our commercial or residential districts.

Free enterprise is the American way.

I would just like to say a couple of things. If you think that a Wal-Mart in Kearny will only affect Kearny you are completely wrong. It will affect Harrison, North Arlington and perhaps many other neighboring communities. As for people buying things at mom and pop stores, consider the following scenario:

Person walks into Wal-Mart looking to buy a cheaper garden hose than say K-Mart has to offer. Oh look, they walk by the rock bottom jewlery section and say, hmm Mary would love me if I brought home a new pair of earings for her, and hey these are only $30.27. Ill take 'em. Then on the way to the Garden shop they pass by the bakery section of Wal-Mart. They buy bread and nex thing you know, they are buying everything they would have bought on Kearny Ave, or Harrison Ave, or Shop Rite, or Pathmark.

As far as the jobs Wal-Mart brings, they are net loss jobs. That is, most jobs Wal-Mart offers are junk jobs, minimum wage, no benefit, jobs. They don't allow unions (like our Shop Rite for instance). So the jobs they bring won't stimulate the economy as much as you think because the only place someone on minimum wage is going to be able to afford to shop is Wal-Mart.

As for the tax revenue, I don't know enough about that. However, there should be no tax abatements whatsoever to bring in a sweatshop such as Wal-mart.

As for Free Enterprise.

Free Enterprise is already happening with Kmart and Shoprite and Pathmark. However, there is only a certain amount of competition a small town economy can take before it all goes to crapsky. I think all politicians should consult with other small towns that got Wal-marts. Ask them what the effects have been on their economies.

That ought to help you make a better decision on what mom and pop economies think about walmart. I have seen what type of towns Walmart creates. They are not pretty.

http://mediaintrouble.blogspot.com

is it too late to stop the Walmart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RADAGAST
Rad,

I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the re-opening of the Keegan Landfill. But only if you're interested in a debate based on issues and not personalities or alliances.

You in?

Jim Mangin

Here is what I understand is going to happen with Keegan. I want to go over it just so maybe someone who is on the inside can fact check me because I'm not 100% sure what the whole plan is.

As I understand it, they want to reopen the landfill to construction debris and collect dumping fees in order to cover the cost of sealing it permanently. As memory serves me, the last garbage truck rolled out of Keegan sometime in the 1970s. Also, I believe this plan was floated back in the 1990s and was shot down primarily because of a large public outcry. Well, what a difference a decade makes. I'll bet you dollars to old disgarded tires that there will be little objection to this plan in 2005.

Why not, one might ask. Two reasons, as I see it. One; the Meadowlands Commission is doing a better job of selling their plan this time rather than giving the apperance of trying to slip one past Kearny residents as they used to do. Two; the objectors in the '90s were mostly members of the Kearny Republican Party. The Kearny Republicans have marginalized themselves to the point where they barely exist ... but that's a subject for a separate rant.

My own opinion is that the original plan generally had merit and so does this one. Garbage landfills leach toxins into the ground water. That is an ultimately bad thing. The meadowlands commission has closed and sealed two of the four that are within Kearny's boarders. It costs tens of millions of dollars to seal a landfill. Construction debris dumping, if its 'clean', will not contribute to the leaching and it will help pay to stop it. I'll believe all the golf course stuff if I live long enough to see it.

No plan is perfect and even though this plan looks a little strange, I think it will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest 99
Here is what I understand is going to happen with Keegan. I want to go over it just so maybe someone who is on the inside can fact check me because I'm not 100% sure what the whole plan is.

As I understand it, they want to reopen the landfill to construction debris and collect dumping fees in order to cover the cost of sealing it permanently. As memory serves me, the last garbage truck rolled out of Keegan sometime in the 1970s. Also, I believe this plan was floated back in the 1990s and was shot down primarily because of a large public outcry. Well, what a difference a decade makes. I'll bet you dollars to old disgarded tires that there will be little objection to this plan in 2005.

Why not, one might ask. Two reasons, as I see it. One; the Meadowlands Commission is doing a better job of selling their plan this time rather than giving the apperance of trying to slip one past Kearny residents as they used to do. Two; the objectors in the '90s were mostly members of the Kearny Republican Party. The Kearny Republicans have marginalized themselves to the point where they barely exist ... but that's a subject for a separate rant.

My own opinion is that the original plan generally had merit and so does this one. Garbage landfills leach toxins into the ground water. That is an ultimately bad thing. The meadowlands commission has closed and sealed two of the four that are within Kearny's boarders. It costs tens of millions of dollars to seal a landfill. Construction debris dumping, if its 'clean', will not contribute to the leaching and it will help pay to stop it. I'll believe all the golf course stuff if I live long enough to see it.

No plan is perfect and even though this plan looks a little strange, I think it will work.

Just to clarify some points, the construction debris for this project will not contain asbestos, unlike the prior plan. And before anyone has a thought, asbestos has a cradle to grave paper trail, making it next to impossible to sneak any into the site. Also, the highest point, as stated by the NJMC, including the capping material, will be 60 feet. Refering to the dumping fees, Kearny will be collecting a portion of the tipping fees as the host community.

The leachate will be collected by a piping and pumping system built inside an impermeable dike surrounding the site. The piping system will then be tied into the KMUA lines and sent for purification.

Although the golf course was only one of the many parameters offered by the NJMC, it seems far too many people think the decision has already been made to tee off. I think this is due to yet another slanted article in our local newspaper. Athletic fields, parks, walking and running paths were all mentioned as was a possible community building with canoe docks.

It is my feeling that this is the best plan to date. The timeline is long, but that can only help to insure that the job will be done right. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I feel like I'm in that movie "Ground Hog Day".  Talk about beating a dead horse.  It's deja vu all over again.  We thoroughly discussed all of these points when you were on the council.  But if you insist, just a couple of clarifications on your "clarifications":

In 2003, it was a team decision to ask for debates between both slates.  We all felt that you and the Mayor had debated ad infinitum and that the voters needed a chance to see what the rest of each team was about.  As for the Delaney/Santos debates, you've got that backwards.  Good man that Hal is, I know he will confirm that he confessed he never wanted the debate and didn't show up.

The 2002 bond to which you refer was not for a water deficit, but for meters, a capital and hence bondable expense.  I akin municipal bonding to personal financing one might do for any big ticket item--perfectly legitimate and responsible economics.

What you recall as an "overpayment" to North Jersey, I remember as one of the closing costs included in the Kearny/E. Orange/North Jersey agreement.  Didn't you vote on this?  And wasn't this the subject of a rather comprehensive written decision on the part of the Town Attorney?

The 2 million dollar capital surplus you allude to was, I believe the UEZ bond, the proceeds of which had to be used in the Zone.  If we were to reappropriate that bond use, we would also have lost the paying entity.  Counterproductive.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the water rates, but I will say this: that department couldn't be run any more efficiently.  The 2003 increase did not foresee the raise in rates from North Jersey, but even with the 2004 increase we still have one of the lowest rates around.

I think we all understood the zoning ordinance concerning the housing of sex offenders in South Kearny, the rest of us just weren't willing to put a $400,000.00 price tag/seal of approval on it

Walmart, one more time: there were no "secret discussions" between the Mayor and Walmart.  And if the Mayor had given me any type of advance notice, you would have cried foul and cited favoritism. Come on, Jim, you know that's true!

P.S.  You know I accept your apology about *****, but I just had to get some mileage out of it.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.  Councilwoman Sherry's family members name was edited out.

Barbara,

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"In 2003, it was a team decision to ask for debates between both slates. We all felt that you and the Mayor had debated ad infinitum and that the voters needed a chance to see what the rest of each team was about."

No "team decision." I sent the Mayor a certified letter challenging him to a one-on-one debate. He declined except if it were slate vs. slate. The decision to ask for a debate was mine - not your "team's" or my "team's." I don't know what the Mayor told you, but if you'd like I'll send you copies of the letters.

"The 2002 bond to which you refer was not for a water deficit, but for meters, a capital and hence bondable expense."

Don't you remember? We only "said" it was for water meters. We never used the money to pay for water meters. That's just what we told the public. We used the money to pay for the defecit. That's why I voted against it. I'll send you a copy of the Water Dept's 2003 Financial Statement to show you, if you'd like.

"What you recall as an "overpayment" to North Jersey, I remember as one of the closing costs included in the Kearny/E. Orange/North Jersey agreement. Didn't you vote on this? And wasn't this the subject of a rather comprehensive written decision on the part of the Town Attorney?"

You're wrong. The overpayment occurred three months after the closing and had nothing to do it. That's why I voted for the closing. The Town Attorney's written opinion acknowleged that we over-paid but there was nothing (he said) we could do because the settlement agreement said we can't sue East Orange. My plan called for North Jersey Water to sue East Orange for the money, not us.

"The 2 million dollar capital surplus you allude to was, I believe the UEZ bond, the proceeds of which had to be used in the Zone. If we were to reappropriate that bond use, we would also have lost the paying entity."

You're dead wrong on this one. There's no such thing as a "UEZ bond," only the Town of Kearny can bond. The UEZ Zone Assistance Fund agreed to pay for the actual project cost. That's $1.2 million of the $3 million bond - leaving the remaining $1.8 million in Capital Surplus. The Town can use that surplus as long as the proper Bond Ordinance is ammended. Do your homework.

"I'm not sure what your point is regarding the water rates, but I will say this: that department couldn't be run any more efficiently. The 2003 increase did not foresee the raise in rates from North Jersey"

My point was this - in 2003 we were told to put some of the water rate increase funds into a Rate Stabilization Fund. We didn't. A year later we had to raise rates again. And not because of a rate increase from North Jersey. Do you know how much that increase was? Just $27,000 - less than 1%! Who are you trying to kid?

"P.S. You know I accept your apology about *****, but I just had to get some mileage out of it."

Getting political "mileage" out of your grandson is unfair to both him and me. I would almost call it "tacky."

Jim Mangin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I understand is going to happen with Keegan. I want to go over it just so maybe someone who is on the inside can fact check me because I'm not 100% sure what the whole plan is.

As I understand it, they want to reopen the landfill to construction debris and collect dumping fees in order to cover the cost of sealing it permanently. As memory serves me, the last garbage truck rolled out of Keegan sometime in the 1970s. Also, I believe this plan was floated back in the 1990s and was shot down primarily because of a large public outcry. Well, what a difference a decade makes. I'll bet you dollars to old disgarded tires that there will be little objection to this plan in 2005.

Why not, one might ask. Two reasons, as I see it. One; the Meadowlands Commission is doing a better job of selling their plan this time rather than giving the apperance of trying to slip one past Kearny residents as they used to do. Two; the objectors in the '90s were mostly members of the Kearny Republican Party. The Kearny Republicans have marginalized themselves to the point where they barely exist ... but that's a subject for a separate rant.

My own opinion is that the original plan generally had merit and so does this one. Garbage landfills leach toxins into the ground water. That is an ultimately bad thing. The meadowlands commission has closed and sealed two of the four that are within Kearny's boarders. It costs tens of millions of dollars to seal a landfill. Construction debris dumping, if its 'clean', will not contribute to the leaching and it will help pay to stop it. I'll believe all the golf course stuff if I live long enough to see it.

No plan is perfect and even though this plan looks a little strange, I think it will work.

Rad,

My problem with this plan is that the Town of Kearny is being told the Keegan Landfill must be opened if we want it closed properly. That's simply not true. The Keegan Landfill is just like the 1-D Landfill. The 1-D was closed by the Meadowlands Commission because it was their responsibility. Likewise, Keegan is their responsibility for the same reasons. I'd outline those reasons, but this post would become rather lengthy.

My other problem is this. In 1992 the HMDC had several very vocal public hearings where the Town of Kearny came together and actually fought off the Meadowlands Commission. Where are the public hearings now? No where. Why? Because, as you correctly stated, the NJMC successfully "sold" this plan to the Mayor and Town Council. No opposition there. In 1992 every single member of the Town Council (8 Republicans and 1 Democrat) spoke out against re-opening landfills. But, they weren't offerred $2 million a year (for the next 3 years only) to keep quiet.

Another problem - after 15 years of construction debris, who will actually be liable for the landfill closure - the NJMC or the Town of Kearny? Kearny will. In 1992 when the HMDC said they would be responsible they told us at the public hearing it would cost $100 million. Now in 2005 since Kearny will be responsible, they claim it will cost $30 million. Which Meadowlands Commission is lying? The 1992 HMDC or the 2005 NJMC? This plan desperately needs to be scrutinized or Kearny will be left with all the responsibility and not nearly enough money to close.

There are a lot of other reasons why people need to know more information before we make such a long-term commitment.

Jim Mangin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimbo,

That's "A. Realist". Freudian Slip?

You should know by now that you can't goad me. I'll answer what I want, when I want.

PS Did you know that your face gets really red when you're frustrated?

So in other words, you can pose questions and expect responses, but you'll only answer "what you want, when you want."

You really are Al Realist, aren't you?

Jim Mangin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A. Realist
So in other words, you can pose questions and expect responses, but you'll only answer "what you want, when you want."

You really are Al Realist, aren't you?

Jim Mangin

Jimbo,

Last time I checked, even you have the freedom to answer or not to answer. (It takes discipline and self-control not to issue a hasty retort. But you just can't resist, can you?) After all, this is not the Spanish Inquisition. No one HAS to answer you. So I'll just sit back and pick my targets. Ho hum, yawn!

As for my identity, let's just say that you couldn't be more wrong if you think Im Al, but I am flattered. You could say that I'm his ALTAR-ego (big clue there). Seriously, now, Santos is smart but he doesn't have the soul of a poet, as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Rad,

My problem with this plan is that the Town of Kearny is being told the Keegan Landfill must be opened if we want it closed properly. That's simply not true. The Keegan Landfill is just like the 1-D Landfill. The 1-D was closed by the Meadowlands Commission because it was their responsibility. Likewise, Keegan is their responsibility for the same reasons. I'd outline those reasons, but this post would become rather lengthy.

My other problem is this. In 1992 the HMDC had several very vocal public hearings where the Town of Kearny came together and actually fought off the Meadowlands Commission. Where are the public hearings now? No where. Why? Because, as you correctly stated, the NJMC successfully "sold" this plan to the Mayor and Town Council. No opposition there. In 1992 every single member of the Town Council (8 Republicans and 1 Democrat) spoke out against re-opening landfills. But, they weren't offerred $2 million a year (for the next 3 years only) to keep quiet.

Another problem - after 15 years of construction debris, who will actually be liable for the landfill closure - the NJMC or the Town of Kearny? Kearny will. In 1992 when the HMDC said they would be responsible they told us at the public hearing it would cost $100 million. Now in 2005 since Kearny will be responsible, they claim it will cost $30 million. Which Meadowlands Commission is lying? The 1992 HMDC or the 2005 NJMC? This plan desperately needs to be scrutinized or Kearny will be left with all the responsibility and not nearly enough money to close.

There are a lot of other reasons why people need to know more information before we make such a long-term commitment.

Jim Mangin

Don't worry. You could bury an A-bomb out there, as long as there' no asbestos Guest 99 will be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A. Realist
Don't worry.  You could bury an A-bomb out there, as long as there' no asbestos Guest 99 will be happy.

Oh, but you should worry! You should be very worried about the ecological bomb buried there NOW; and what is entering the environment from the leacheate that flows right behind where Kearny's kids spend so much of their leisure time. You have an opportunity to remedy that situation in the foreseeable future. If for no other reason, you have an obligation to get the true facts, not the political spin Mr. Mangin is spouting, regarding this matter.

Funny how the former councilman would lead you to believe this, like eveything else the Mayor and Council agrees on, was somehow negotiated in secret. Private citizen that I am, I attended at least two open, advertised meetings where this was discussed. I don't recall seeing Mangin there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but you should worry! You should be very worried about the ecological bomb buried there NOW; and what is entering the environment from the leacheate that flows right behind where Kearny's kids spend so much of their leisure time. You have an opportunity to remedy that situation in the foreseeable future. If for no other reason, you have an obligation to get the true facts, not the political spin Mr. Mangin is spouting, regarding this matter.

Funny how the former councilman would lead you to believe this, like eveything else the Mayor and Council agrees on, was somehow negotiated in secret. Private citizen that I am, I attended at least two open, advertised meetings where this was discussed. I don't recall seeing Mangin there.

A. Realist, I did not see you there either, because your anonymous. Are you talking about the Town Meeting where nobody on the council asked a question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...