Mayor Santos running out of excuses?

[Jim Mangin]

Paul,

There's way too much here for me to comment all at once, so I'm gonna have to take this piece-meal.

"Whatever the answer is to that question, let’s step back and imagine that you had been mayor when this happened. Let’s imagine that you had uncovered these funds and convinced the council to treat them as surplus funds. Next thing you know, the state finds out about it and they’re calling to funds in. We taxpayers then have to come up with the money to repay the state then on what should have been a twenty-year grant. What are you going to tell us? We now have to raise additional taxes to repay the state. And why? Because Mayor Mangin didn’t understand the legal limits on the funds."

It's obvious you spoke to the Mayor and he told you what I said and what my plan was. Then he told you why it wouldn't work and you believed him. The problem is you should've asked me. There's a reason courts don't allow heresay evidence.

In municipal accounting "surplus" has a specific definition. I used the term "surplus" to mean excess. We bonded for $3.1 million and the project cost $1.3 million. The $1.8 million is surplus (excess) funds. What I said to do was to ammend the bond ordinance and use the proceeds instead of issuing a new bond. Don't say "Mayor Mangin doesn't understand the legal limits." That's bull. I'm not a lawyer but I can read - NJSA 40A:2-39 if you're interested. Perfectly legal.

". . . you can’t expect me just to take your word for it; especially when it makes sense to me that a state capital grant would have conditions attached to it."

Speaking of the law, did you read the bond ordinance? The UEZ grant was for the cost of the project ($1.3 million) not the total amount of the bond ($3.1 million). As I told the Mayor just before he closed the public hearing on this, it's not a UEZ bond. There's no such thing. Only the Town of Kearny has the authority to borrow money. And the $1.8 million was excess funds for that project. If you asked me for my opinion (instead of asking the Mayor for my opinion) I would have told you that I would've cancelled the unexpended balance and used it for tax relief. How? By returning the money to where it came. The proceeds came from serial bonds. They should then have been returned to an account called "Reserve to Pay Off Debt." Then you use this account to make your debt service payment instead of new tax dollars. And I don't expect you to take my word for it. Call the Division of Local Government Services. While I don't expect you take my word for anything, I do expect you to ask me what my word is, and not someone else.

Now, to try and get back to the point (which was not the use of surplus funds). The only reason you have given for supporting the Mayor was because you said he was a professional. The point was (and still is) it was unprofessional of the Mayor (and Council) to close that public hearing while I was speaking just because they didn't like what I was saying. Now, do you have a comment on my point or do you need more examples? You haven't commented either on the King St / Schuyler Avenue residents. It's getting hard to keep this discussion on point.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

This is just more cheap politics from Mangin. Jimmy, don't you realize this is why you keep losing elections. You keep saying the mayor doesn't listen, but look in the mirror, man. We're sick of politicians throwing mud. Do something constructive, then we'll listen to you, if you clean up your political reputation.

You know the only place for the mayor to make any significant cuts in outlays is with fire and police salaries, but you either don't have the guts to tell the police and firefighters that you wants their salaries cut. Or you know damn well that they're in line with other units in the area, in which case you're the liar here. You can bet that if the salaries were out of line, you'd know it.

In the end, unless the contracts are unreasonable, Mangin and all the anonymous hacks pushing  a recall can't save us a dime.

68337[/snapback]

Cheap Politics, There is no such thing as cheap politics with the kind of INCREASED TAXES that Mayor Santos has given us every year he has been the Mayor, Keep exposing this Mayor he is misleading the public and it is wrong.Keep the information coming Jim your doing a good job. Spin Doctors Invade!!!!!

[Jim Mangin]

Paul,

One last point and then I have to go to work. I sign my name to my posts for a reason. The reason is I'm willing to defend and stand behind everything I write. But I'm not willing to defend what others write. I am not RMS and I don't know who he/she is. If you want to address a point they've made - adress it to them, not me.

I've stated my opinion clearly. I believe a recall is good for the Town of Kearny for the three reasons I've stated. Hold me accountable for what I've said, not someone else. That is a standard I've set for myself and while I would like to see it in others (like you) I certainly don't demand it. Try it sometime.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

There's way too much here for me to comment all at once, so I'm gonna have to take this piece-meal.

"Whatever the answer is to that question, let’s step back and imagine that you had been mayor when this happened. Let’s imagine that you had uncovered these funds and convinced the council to treat them as surplus funds. Next thing you know, the state finds out about it and they’re calling to funds in. We taxpayers then have to come up with the money to repay the state then on what should have been a twenty-year grant. What are you going to tell us? We now have to raise additional taxes to repay the state. And why? Because Mayor Mangin didn’t understand the legal limits on the funds."

It's obvious you spoke to the Mayor and he told you what I said and what my plan was. Then he told you why it wouldn't work and you believed him. The problem is you should've asked me. There's a reason courts don't allow heresay evidence.

In municipal accounting "surplus" has a specific definition. I used the term "surplus" to mean excess. We bonded for $3.1 million and the project cost $1.3 million. The $1.8 million is surplus (excess) funds. What I said to do was to ammend the bond ordinance and use the proceeds instead of issuing a new bond. Don't say "Mayor Mangin doesn't understand the legal limits." That's bull. I'm not a lawyer but I can read - NJSA 40A:2-39 if you're interested. Perfectly legal.

". . . you can’t expect me just to take your word for it; especially when it makes sense to me that a state capital grant would have conditions attached to it."

Speaking of the law, did you read the bond ordinance? The UEZ grant was for the cost of the project ($1.3 million) not the total amount of the bond ($3.1 million). As I told the Mayor just before he closed the public hearing on this, it's not a UEZ bond. There's no such thing. Only the Town of Kearny has the authority to borrow money. And the $1.8 million was excess funds for that project. If you asked me for my opinion (instead of asking the Mayor for my opinion) I would have told you that I would've cancelled the unexpended balance and used it for tax relief. How? By returning the money to where it came. The proceeds came from serial bonds. They should then have been returned to an account called "Reserve to Pay Off Debt." Then you use this account to make your debt service payment instead of new tax dollars. And I don't expect you to take my word for it. Call the Division of Local Government Services. While I don't expect you take my word for anything, I do expect you to ask me what my word is, and not someone else.

Now, to try and get back to the point (which was not the use of surplus funds). The only reason you have given for supporting the Mayor was because you said he was a professional. The point was (and still is) it was unprofessional of the Mayor (and Council) to close that public hearing while I was speaking just because they didn't like what I was saying. Now, do you have a comment on my point or do you need more examples? You haven't commented either on the King St / Schuyler Avenue residents. It's getting hard to keep this discussion on point.

Jim Mangin

68621[/snapback]

Jim, those are all legitimate points, which I intend to look into. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Before you read too much into what I write, don't forget the sentence that followed next after what you quoted: "Would it have happened that way? I don’t know . . ." This could be a productive discussion, so let's keep it going. If you can find a way to lower my taxes without sacrificing important services, I'm there.

What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?

What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?

On your procedural point, if you're following usual parliamentary procedure as I recall it (rusty as that may be), the governing body has the right to end debate, no? Was there a vote, or did Al cut off debate unilaterally?

By the way, it's all hearsay unless and until I see official public documents, no less so if I get it from you.

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

Paul

  You opened the door and now we will walk right threw it with the facts. We are up to the challenge unlike the Mayor who has no plan to address this TAX MESS other than to solve this problem by adding to the problem.(INCREASING TAXES) Tough decisions need to be made thats the first thing, and he hasn't made not ONE in confronting HIGH PROPERTY TAXES.    KEARNY NEEDS A NEW DIRECTION

The time for a RECALL is now.  By the way Paul can we expect you to be on the Towns payroll soon???  Is there anything in this for you or your family for being so outspoken in favor of this Mayor and will you go on the record on this site to not accept any position for you or your family under this adminstraton???? Its interesting that we have lawyers defending lawyers. Very Interesting!!!!

67888[/snapback]

Paul

Could you please take a position on this above post.

Thank you

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

Ugh...

It's hard to believe this is an adult's writing.

68235[/snapback]

It is, sorry for the typo Miss Crabtree

[Guest Kearny Senior Taxpayer]

I just wish this could truly be a productive discussion. If there's money to be found so we can have lower taxes, let's find it. Personally, I doubt that there's anywhere to cut, but would like to be pleasantly surprised.

Does anyone really know how the million dollars a year in debt service works? Did we borrow to pay off old debts when we were uninsured? When is that going to be paid off, if ever? What's the story with that?

68576[/snapback]

We were uninsured? How stupid is that in this day and age?????

[Guest Guest]

Jim, those are all legitimate points, which I intend to look into. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Before you read too much into what I write, don't forget the sentence that followed next after what you quoted: "Would it have happened that way? I don’t know . . ." This could be a productive discussion, so let's keep it going. If you can find a way to lower my taxes without sacrificing important services, I'm there.

What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?

What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?

On your procedural point, if you're following usual parliamentary procedure as I recall it (rusty as that may be), the governing body has the right to end debate, no? Was there a vote, or did Al cut off debate unilaterally?

By the way, it's all hearsay unless and until I see official public documents, no less so if I get it from you.

68629[/snapback]

So, by being silent on the issue, you are basically admitting that you did speak to the Mayor to try to combat Jim's points.

[Guest Paul]

Paul

  Could you please take a position on this above post.

                                                      Thank you

68637[/snapback]

You wrote: QUOTE(Recall Mayor Santos @ Sep 29 2007, 11:53 AM)

Paul

You opened the door and now we will walk right threw it with the facts. We are up to the challenge unlike the Mayor who has no plan to address this TAX MESS other than to solve this problem by adding to the problem.(INCREASING TAXES) Tough decisions need to be made thats the first thing, and he hasn't made not ONE in confronting HIGH PROPERTY TAXES. KEARNY NEEDS A NEW DIRECTION

The time for a RECALL is now. By the way Paul can we expect you to be on the Towns payroll soon??? Is there anything in this for you or your family for being so outspoken in favor of this Mayor and will you go on the record on this site to not accept any position for you or your family under this adminstraton???? Its interesting that we have lawyers defending lawyers. Very Interesting!!!!

My response is first, don't assume that I'm going to answer your every demand. I'm a citizen just like every other Kearny citizen. I'm not running for any office and don't intend to run for any office, and I sure as hell don't see myself going on anyone's payroll. Therefore, I'm not obligated to respond to anything.

However, I will answer this question because I'd like you to understand why I react as I do to your writing. My position is that you're reacting, not thinking. Just because taxes go up doesn't mean it's the fault of the mayor or council. Just because you call it a "tax mess" doesn't mean that it's a mess. We'd all like our taxes lower, but it is what it is. Your labels don't add anything. They just cloud the water.

I've asked for a productive discussion. Along with some invective of his own, Jim Mangin is discussing the facts as he understands them to be. I'm trying to sort through the claims on both sides to understand whether there are any real solutions that would allow us to achieve lower taxes without sacrificing important services or foregoing needed improvements or the maintenance of infrastructure.

You said you were going to provide facts. So where are they? I don't like the way you're doing this because you're acting like a one-person mob. You're not thinking. You're just yelling.

Look, if you could recall Mayor Santos tomorrow, what will you have achieved? In itself, nothing. Show me that you have a plan to improve our town, then I'll support you, not before that.

That's my position.

[Jim Mangin]

"So then we come to your letter in yesterday’s Observer, and your response to me here. I’m not interested in watching politicians call names. It wouldn’t be the least bit difficult for me or any of your political opponents to sling back at you as hard as or harder than you’ve slung at Al. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in whether you have any constructive suggestions for lowering our taxes and/or improving services. That’s why I’ve asked the questions, and what you’ve told me is that you don’t have the answers."

Paul,

In my letter and my response I don't call anyone any names. What I said was Mayor Santos made a deliberately misleading statement about who sets the police and fire salaries. That's what I said and I stand behind that statement. Do you have a comment? Feel free to "sling back" at me all you want. By posting my name I make it easier for people to do that.

You asked for examples to support my views and I've provided them. You've asked for constructive alternatives and I've provided some (but admitidly, not enough). But you haven't answered any of my questions.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Guest]

"So then we come to your letter in yesterday’s Observer, and your response to me here. I’m not interested in watching politicians call names. It wouldn’t be the least bit difficult for me or any of your political opponents to sling back at you as hard as or harder than you’ve slung at Al. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in whether you have any constructive suggestions for lowering our taxes and/or improving services. That’s why I’ve asked the questions, and what you’ve told me is that you don’t have the answers."

Paul,

In my letter and my response I don't call anyone any names. What I said was Mayor Santos made a deliberately misleading statement about who sets the police and fire salaries.  That's what I said and I stand behind that statement. Do you have a comment? Feel free to "sling back" at me all you want. By posting my name I make it easier for people to do that.

You asked for examples to support my views and I've provided them. You've asked for constructive alternatives and I've provided some (but admitidly, not enough). But you haven't answered any of my questions.

Jim Mangin

68693[/snapback]

When it comes to name calling in this forum, Paul LaClair will be the first person who says he doesn't like it but then does it in the same sentence.

See His Post on Oct 5, 2007. "I hate to call people stupid, but this response is stupid. Instead of addressing the real issues put before you, you ignore them. You can't do that consistent with any intelligence."

His post on Oct. 7, 2007, "Would it possible for one of you right-wingers to discuss the issues, once? "

Lets see his Sept 25th post "Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think. You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it. "

The list goes on. So Sainthood is not in Paul's future. Not with the lies he spins here.

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

You wrote: QUOTE(Recall Mayor Santos @ Sep 29 2007, 11:53 AM)

Paul

  You opened the door and now we will walk right threw it with the facts. We are up to the challenge unlike the Mayor who has no plan to address this TAX MESS other than to solve this problem by adding to the problem.(INCREASING TAXES) Tough decisions need to be made thats the first thing, and he hasn't made not ONE in confronting HIGH PROPERTY TAXES.    KEARNY NEEDS A NEW DIRECTION

The time for a RECALL is now.  By the way Paul can we expect you to be on the Towns payroll soon???  Is there anything in this for you or your family for being so outspoken in favor of this Mayor and will you go on the record on this site to not accept any position for you or your family under this adminstraton???? Its interesting that we have lawyers defending lawyers. Very Interesting!!!!

My response is first, don't assume that I'm going to answer your every demand. I'm a citizen just like every other Kearny citizen. I'm not running for any office and don't intend to run for any office, and I sure as hell don't see myself going on anyone's payroll. Therefore, I'm not obligated to respond to anything.

However, I will answer this question because I'd like you to understand why I react as I do to your writing. My position is that you're reacting, not thinking. Just because taxes go up doesn't mean it's the fault of the mayor or council. Just because you call it a "tax mess" doesn't mean that it's a mess. We'd all like our taxes lower, but it is what it is. Your labels don't add anything. They just cloud the water.

I've asked for a productive discussion. Along with some invective of his own, Jim Mangin is discussing the facts as he understands them to be. I'm trying to sort through the claims on both sides to understand whether there are any real solutions that would allow us to achieve lower taxes without sacrificing important services or foregoing needed improvements or the maintenance of infrastructure.

You said you were going to provide facts. So where are they? I don't like the way you're doing this because you're acting like a one-person mob. You're not thinking. You're just yelling.

Look, if you could recall Mayor Santos tomorrow, what will you have achieved? In itself, nothing. Show me that you have a plan to improve our town, then I'll support you, not before that.

That's my position.

68688[/snapback]

Paul

Has there ever been a Mayor and Council that has been successful in reducing Kearny Muncipal Taxes???

[Guest Paul]

So, by being silent on the issue, you are basically admitting that you did speak to the Mayor to try to combat Jim's points.

68667[/snapback]

No, I'm speaking to a lot of people to gather information so that I can make informed decisions. I prefer that to having my mind made up in advance and launching off into personal attacks instead of focusing on information that could provide a basis for lower taxes. If such information exists, I want to find it. If there's not, I want to know that too.

This is in response to Mr. Mangin's comment a couple posts down, too. Do not assume I am your enemy. I want the same thing you want, which is lower taxes. However, I also want a responsible and cool-headed government. Every time you launch off into a personal attack, whether against me or against someone else, you just turn me off and show me that you're not suited to governing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

[Guest Paul]

When it comes to name calling in this forum,  Paul LaClair will be the first person who says he doesn't like it but then does it in the same sentence.

See His Post on Oct 5, 2007. "I hate to call people stupid, but this response is stupid. Instead of addressing the real issues put before you, you ignore them. You can't do that consistent with any intelligence."

His post on Oct. 7, 2007, "Would it possible for one of you right-wingers to discuss the issues, once? "

Lets see his Sept 25th post "Are you kidding me! "I'm right and you are all stupid if you disagree" is classic right-wing-think.  You right wingers blow hot gas all the time. When someone finally stands up to you with as much conviction as you have, you can't take it. "

The list goes on.  So Sainthood is not in Paul's future.  Not with the lies he spins here.

68707[/snapback]

The difference is that I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's dozens and dozens of times, and still people who are hell-bent on defending a renegade teacher insist on ignoring the facts. It does get frustrating after the facts are presented over and over, are undeniable, and yet are denied or ignored. I'm well aware that I called names. That's why I wrote that I don't like doing it.

I also don't like the fact that this style has come to dominate our national political life, but it has. One side, the far right, has decided that the way to win is to attack, even to the point of systematically lying. Politicians are not angels, but the far right systematically lies. It makes it very hard to have a meaningful national dialogue.

On this topic, I'm tryinig to find out the facts. Mangin says one thing, Santos and apparently the rest of the council another. I'm trying to find out who is right, and then if I figure that out, decide what it means for Kearny taxpayers and what we can do to rectify it, if anything.

RMS just opened another topic calling for people to storm the next council meeting. What's he going to do, wear a bag over his head? He's going to have to give his name if he wants to speak. If taxpayers decide to come to the next meeting and ask for some answers, that's great. If they're just going to come and yell, it's not going to lower my taxes, or yours or anyone's. That's what I'm interested in. The finger pointing and name calling get in the way of our getting what we all want, which is low taxes, good services and properly maintained infrastructure.

And look how pointless this is. Instead of discussing places where we can save money, we're arguing over each other's styles. This isn't the way to accomplish anything productive, so please understand if I don't respond to another one of these.

[Guest An Objective Observer]

No, I'm speaking to a lot of people to gather information so that I can make informed decisions. I prefer that to having my mind made up in advance and launching off into personal attacks instead of focusing on information that could provide a basis for lower taxes. If such information exists, I want to find it. If there's not, I want to know that too.

This is in response to Mr. Mangin's comment a couple posts down, too. Do not assume I am your enemy. I want the same thing you want, which is lower taxes. However, I also want a responsible and cool-headed government. Every time you launch off into a personal attack, whether against me or against someone else, you just turn me off and show me that you're not suited to governing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

68724[/snapback]

This response is directed to Paul: I find this discussion to be very enlightening, however; I haven't seen anything from Mr. Mangin that resembles a personal attack against you or even Mayor Santos. He has stated his opinions and has asked you several times to respond but you haven't. He has described actions that he witnessed the Mayor do when he was a councilman or comments the Mayor has made in print. There has been no personal attack. You sir however, avoid the points he has made and ignore his requests for a response to evidence he has provided. I detect a note of annoyance in his posts but nothing worthy of being classified as an attack.

[Guest Guest]

No, I'm speaking to a lot of people to gather information so that I can make informed decisions. I prefer that to having my mind made up in advance and launching off into personal attacks instead of focusing on information that could provide a basis for lower taxes. If such information exists, I want to find it. If there's not, I want to know that too.

This is in response to Mr. Mangin's comment a couple posts down, too. Do not assume I am your enemy. I want the same thing you want, which is lower taxes. However, I also want a responsible and cool-headed government. Every time you launch off into a personal attack, whether against me or against someone else, you just turn me off and show me that you're not suited to governing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

68724[/snapback]

Please point out where I attacked you. In my opinion nothing in my post was an attack.

I would just like to know if you were speaking to the Mayor regarding your discourse with Jim.

You may be getting a little paranoid Paul. Probably means a vacation away from KOTW is due.

[Guest Paul]

This response is directed to Paul: I find this discussion to be very enlightening, however; I haven't seen anything from Mr. Mangin that resembles a personal attack against you or even Mayor Santos. He has stated his opinions and has asked you several times to respond but you haven't. He has described actions that he witnessed the Mayor do when he was a councilman or comments the Mayor has made in print. There has been no personal attack. You sir however, avoid the points he has made and ignore his requests for a response to evidence he has provided. I detect a note of annoyance in his posts but nothing worthy of being classified as an attack.

68746[/snapback]

First, how do we know you're objective? You could be anyone. This is a problem with a forum like this.

Second, accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead the public, in effect, accusing him of lying, is most certainly a personal attack. He also accused the mayor of cutting off debate. I've asked twice now whether the mayor did that unilaterally or whether the council voted to end debate, and am still waiting for an answer.

Third, I'm trying to gather information and therefore am not in a position to respond to what Jim has presented. It's not as though anything is going to happen tomorrow or even this year. In addition, what I read here is not evidence. Mainly, it's a lot of conclusions. They may be true, but others say they are not; I wish to gather more facts and then decide for myself.

Fourth, I'm exploring Jim's points. I don't see how you can say I'm ignoring them. I'm very interested in the bond issue, but when the mayor and the entire rest of the council don't agree with him, I need proof. If I get it, then I'll change my mind. As for police and fire, I don't understand where Jim is trying to take that. The only way to save money there is to pay police and fire less money, and it appears that we're up $2 million this year in those salaries compared to last year. So what happened? Did the mayor and council just give away the store to the police and fire unions, or did our police and fire just catch up to the other units in the area? I've asked that question, Jim said he could provide the data, but I haven't seen it. Someone else challenged him very pointedly whether he was calling for cuts; I see no answer to that either. This isn't by way of casting blame. Like me, Jim has a full-time job. It's just an observation that there are a lot of facts I'd like to know before I change my mind.

[Guest Guest]

No, I'm speaking to a lot of people to gather information so that I can make informed decisions. I prefer that to having my mind made up in advance and launching off into personal attacks instead of focusing on information that could provide a basis for lower taxes. If such information exists, I want to find it. If there's not, I want to know that too.

This is in response to Mr. Mangin's comment a couple posts down, too. Do not assume I am your enemy. I want the same thing you want, which is lower taxes. However, I also want a responsible and cool-headed government. Every time you launch off into a personal attack, whether against me or against someone else, you just turn me off and show me that you're not suited to governing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

68724[/snapback]

You're full of it Paul. What did you just move into town yesterday?

See Post

This isn't the way to accomplish anything productive, so please understand if I don't respond to another one of these.

Are you kidding? KOTW is your pulpit. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I normally regard you as educated, informed, focused, articulate and dedicated to your cause beyond reproach. Well, I still do. However this recent behavior baffles me.

[Guest Guest]

The difference is that I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's dozens and dozens of times, and still people who are hell-bent on defending a renegade teacher insist on ignoring the facts. It does get frustrating after the facts are presented over and over, are undeniable, and yet are denied or ignored. I'm well aware that I called names. That's why I wrote that I don't like doing it.

I also don't like the fact that this style has come to dominate our national political life, but it has. One side, the far right, has decided that the way to win is to attack, even to the point of systematically lying. Politicians are not angels, but the far right systematically lies. It makes it very hard to have a meaningful national dialogue.

On this topic, I'm tryinig to find out the facts. Mangin says one thing, Santos and apparently the rest of the council another. I'm trying to find out who is right, and then if I figure that out, decide what it means for Kearny taxpayers and what we can do to rectify it, if anything.

RMS just opened another topic calling for people to storm the next council meeting. What's he going to do, wear a bag over his head? He's going to have to give his name if he wants to speak. If taxpayers decide to come to the next meeting and ask for some answers, that's great. If they're just going to come and yell, it's not going to lower my taxes, or yours or anyone's. That's what I'm interested in. The finger pointing and name calling get in the way of our getting what we all want, which is low taxes, good services and properly maintained infrastructure.

And look how pointless this is. Instead of discussing places where we can save money, we're arguing over each other's styles. This isn't the way to accomplish anything productive, so please understand if I don't respond to another one of these.

68741[/snapback]

And about dotting the I’s and crossing the t’s, try writing in complete and comprehendible sentences instead of trying to burp our some diarrhea.

I did not I mentioned anything about any teacher in my post. It is you that is hell-bent on that, if you still believe in a place like that. That is your hang up, not mine. About 20 posts ago you said you were not going to respond and yet still you do. Face it, it’s in your blood and you can’t keep your mouth closed no matter what the issue. And what great light bulb lighting idea have you come up to lower my taxes? Maybe bring in the ACLU again? Until you have something meaningful to say I will continue to comment on the ridiculousness of your posts here.

[Jim Mangin]

First, how do we know you're objective? You could be anyone. This is a problem with a forum like this.

Second, accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead the public, in effect, accusing him of lying, is most certainly a personal attack. He also accused the mayor of cutting off debate. I've asked twice now whether the mayor did that unilaterally or whether the council voted to end debate, and am still waiting for an answer.

Third, I'm trying to gather information and therefore am not in a position to respond to what Jim has presented. It's not as though anything is going to happen tomorrow or even this year. In addition, what I read here is not evidence. Mainly, it's a lot of conclusions. They may be true, but others say they are not; I wish to gather more facts and then decide for myself.

Fourth, I'm exploring Jim's points. I don't see how you can say I'm ignoring them. I'm very interested in the bond issue, but when the mayor and the entire rest of the council don't agree with him, I need proof. If I get it, then I'll change my mind. As for police and fire, I don't understand where Jim is trying to take that. The only way to save money there is to pay police and fire less money, and it appears that we're up $2 million this year in those salaries compared to last year. So what happened? Did the mayor and council just give away the store to the police and fire unions, or did our police and fire just catch up to the other units in the area? I've asked that question, Jim said he could provide the data, but I haven't seen it. Someone else challenged him very pointedly whether he was calling for cuts; I see no answer to that either. This isn't by way of casting blame. Like me, Jim has a full-time job. It's just an observation that there are a lot of facts I'd like to know before I change my mind.

68779[/snapback]

"Second, accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead the public, in effect, accusing him of lying, is most certainly a personal attack."

Paul,

This is it? My statement that the Mayor is deliberately misleading the public is a "personal attack?" This is what you call my abusive language? To you, this is "fighting" and "name calling" (your terms, not mine). Questioning the Mayor's statement makes me "unsuited to govern?"

By your definition then I am definately and absolutely "unsuited to govern." I refuse to give my up my independence, my free thinking and most of all my duty to question those in authority when I feel they are being less than honest. All I can tell you Paul, is don't ever vote for me because I will disagree with someone's position somewhere along the way. And if I feel someone is deliberately misleading the public I will point that out every time.

Here's another opinion Paul - debating with you has been a colassal disappointment. You have ignored every question I have posed to you.

example - The Mayor's statement about binding arbitration being responsible for the police and fire salaries is deliberately misleading. Do you have an opinion on this statement? (He asked for the fourth time). All I hear is an opinion on the fact that I have an opinion.

You have twisted my positions.

example - "As for police and fire, I don't understand where Jim is trying to take that. The only way to save money there is to pay police and fire less money, and it appears that we're up $2 million this year in those salaries compared to last year. So what happened?"

My point was (and always was) the Mayor taking responsibility for the police and fire salaries. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. Do you have a comment on who is responsible for setting police and fire salaries - the Mayor and Council or an outside arbitrator?

You are silent on any of my suggestions on lowering the tax levy.

example - Ending the contract with United Water, my discussion on lowering the cost of employee health benefits, reducing our insurance expenditure by leaving the Middlesex Joint Insurance Fund, controlling our solid waste costs by strengthening our recycling ordinances.

I can provide more examples, but you said . . .

"Someone else challenged him very pointedly whether he was calling for cuts; I see no answer to that either.".

Before I give you more examples, how about a comment on what I've suggested so far?

Finally, let me tie all this together with another opinion. The Mayor and Council don't know what to cut and they don't know how to cut. But the Mayor is very quick to criticize my suggested cuts. In fact, he goes so far as to MAKE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING STATEMENTS about me and my suggested cuts.

Now of course Paul, I know you need proof. Click here.

We appropriated the Meals on Wheels Program twice in the budget. My suggestion was to eliminate the second appropriation (this was done in the following year). The Mayor characterized me as "heartless" for wanting to eliminate the Meals on Wheels Program. Do you know how hard it was to explain to the dozens of senior citizens I speak to every day that I wasn't cutting the program, just the second budget appropriation?

That's why it bothers me when I read statements that are designed to fool people.

And, understandedly so.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Studies and Observations]

You're wastin gyour breath (well, ok, Bandwidth) Jim..trying to point out Misleading statements and obfustication to someone who by there very profession RELIES on just such tactics is a waste. Paul will read what he want to read into it,. just like on every other subject.. Typical attorney, his arrogance is matched only by his intransigence. Remember as someone who isn't a member of the "Lofty" bar..you are Obviously not as intelligent as the vaunted Paul..or Alberto Santos for that matter. The Mayor in an article in the Jersey Journal LIED when he stated that the towns financial troubles were the result of Binding Arbitrations on the part of Police and Fire Salaries..PERIOD. Of course the JJ when confronted with this fact, instead of giving the Kearny PBA an equal footing to reply to the Mayor's Slanderous statements, relegated the response to a Letter to the Editor.

[Guest Paul]

"Second, accusing someone of deliberately trying to mislead the public, in effect, accusing him of lying, is most certainly a personal attack."

Paul,

This is it? My statement that the Mayor is deliberately misleading the public is a "personal attack?" This is what you call my abusive language? To you, this is "fighting" and "name calling" (your terms, not mine). Questioning the Mayor's statement makes me "unsuited to govern?"

By your definition then I am definately and absolutely "unsuited to govern."  I refuse to give my up my independence, my free thinking and most of all my duty to question those in authority when I feel they are being less than honest. All I can tell you Paul, is don't ever vote for me because I will disagree with someone's position somewhere along the way. And if I feel someone is deliberately misleading the public I will point that out every time.

Here's another opinion Paul - debating with you has been a colassal disappointment. You have ignored every question I have posed to you.

example - The Mayor's statement about binding arbitration being responsible for the police and fire salaries is deliberately misleading. Do you have an opinion on this statement? (He asked for the fourth time). All I hear is an opinion on the fact that I have an opinion.

You have twisted my positions.

example - "As for police and fire, I don't understand where Jim is trying to take that. The only way to save money there is to pay police and fire less money, and it appears that we're up $2 million this year in those salaries compared to last year. So what happened?"

My point was (and always was) the Mayor taking responsibility for the police and fire salaries. I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. Do you have a comment on who is responsible for setting police and fire salaries - the Mayor and Council or an outside arbitrator?

You are silent on any of my suggestions on lowering the tax levy.

example - Ending the contract with United Water, my discussion on lowering the cost of employee health benefits, reducing our insurance expenditure by leaving the Middlesex Joint Insurance Fund, controlling our solid waste costs by strengthening our recycling ordinances.

I can provide more examples, but  you said . . .

"Someone else challenged him very pointedly whether he was calling for cuts; I see no answer to that either.".

Before I give you more examples, how about a comment on what I've suggested so far?

Finally, let me tie all this together with another opinion. The Mayor and Council don't know what to cut and they don't know how to cut. But the Mayor is very quick to criticize my suggested cuts. In fact, he goes so far as to MAKE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING STATEMENTS about me and my suggested cuts.

Now of course Paul, I know you need proof. Click here.

We appropriated the Meals on Wheels Program twice in the budget. My suggestion was to eliminate the second appropriation (this was done in the following year). The Mayor characterized me as "heartless" for wanting to eliminate the Meals on Wheels Program. Do you know how hard it was to explain to the dozens of senior citizens I speak to every day that I wasn't cutting the program, just the second budget appropriation?

That's why it bothers me when I read statements that are designed to fool people.

And, understandedly so.

Jim Mangin

68830[/snapback]

A mayor takes a lot of abuse. Therefore, he has to have a lot of patience. He has to understand that his citizens don't know what he knows about the details of the town's bonds, contracts, projects, etc. He has to be willing both to listen, and to explain patiently and in detail when detail is requested. He doesn't challenge his constituents to answer his questions; he invites them to ask him questions, and then he patiently tries to answer in a way that satisfies them, not him.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Guest Loki]

The difference is that I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's dozens and dozens of times, and still people who are hell-bent on defending a renegade teacher insist on ignoring the facts. It does get frustrating after the facts are presented over and over, are undeniable, and yet are denied or ignored. I'm well aware that I called names. That's why I wrote that I don't like doing it.

I also don't like the fact that this style has come to dominate our national political life, but it has. One side, the far right, has decided that the way to win is to attack, even to the point of systematically lying. Politicians are not angels, but the far right systematically lies. It makes it very hard to have a meaningful national dialogue.

On this topic, I'm tryinig to find out the facts. Mangin says one thing, Santos and apparently the rest of the council another. I'm trying to find out who is right, and then if I figure that out, decide what it means for Kearny taxpayers and what we can do to rectify it, if anything.

RMS just opened another topic calling for people to storm the next council meeting. What's he going to do, wear a bag over his head? He's going to have to give his name if he wants to speak. If taxpayers decide to come to the next meeting and ask for some answers, that's great. If they're just going to come and yell, it's not going to lower my taxes, or yours or anyone's. That's what I'm interested in. The finger pointing and name calling get in the way of our getting what we all want, which is low taxes, good services and properly maintained infrastructure.

And look how pointless this is. Instead of discussing places where we can save money, we're arguing over each other's styles. This isn't the way to accomplish anything productive, so please understand if I don't respond to another one of these.

68741[/snapback]

Lies are not specific to either party. At the "pinnacle" of their careers I would imagine EVERY single politician in Washington has lied. The difference is in which lies you consider to be egregious, and which are the "little white" variety.

You continuously malign the logic that some on this board use, but see no blame when you do the same thing. The truth is you CHOOSE not to see it. As long as the logic fits your needs it is okay.

Paul, you are the emperor who has no clothes. Let the name calling begin.

[Strife767]

It is, sorry for the typo Miss Crabtree

68639[/snapback]

Unless you are ESL and still learning, the following applies to you:

Noooo no no. A typo is an error that results from slipping fingers or the like. Two transformed letters is a typo. A letter or two in the wrong place is a typo. Using the wrong word, a homonym with a completely different spelling, that is not a typo. That's you not knowing the difference between "through" and "threw." That is the kind of mistake only early grade students have any reason to make. It's similar to writing "air" when you mean "heir." It's not a typo. It's a lack of understanding of the meanings of the words you write. A high schooler would be labeled "D**bA**" by his/her entire class if he/she made the same mistake.

Instead of responding with an attempt at wit, accept your stupid mistake and try to learn from it. You'll have a hard time convincing educated people that your recall fantasies are worth actually acting towards if you can't even get something that simple right.

[Jim Mangin]

A mayor takes a lot of abuse. Therefore, he has to have a lot of patience. He has to understand that his citizens don't know what he knows about the details of the town's bonds, contracts, projects, etc. He has to be willing both to listen, and to explain patiently and in detail when detail is requested. He doesn't challenge his constituents to answer his questions; he invites them to ask him questions, and then he patiently tries to answer in a way that satisfies them, not him.

Draw your own conclusions.

68846[/snapback]

Paul,

Here's what I've concluded . . .

You won't be voting for me, or Al Santos anytime soon.

Jim Mangin