Are the opinions expressed by Craig Maier regarding CC's leadership, members and mission representative of the opinions held by VORT and its supporters as a whole?
Thanks for the response Karen. The point of the question is that I am interested in knowing how many agree with the charges Craig continues to make.
So far he has essentially stated that CC is a fraud, a scam to steal the money of followers of Christianity. He has accused Rev. Ireland of purposefully establishing this entity, calling it a church, in order to derive personal profit at the expense of its members (who, as a group, he has also insulted).
He has done all this (repeatedley) w/o providing any evidence to back up his allegations, despite requests. He only mentions the existance of a D&B rating, which I noted in the Green Pond Church string is not evidence of the serious allegations he is making.
So, again, I am interested in knowing the extent to which these opinions are held by VORT and supporters, and what evidence can be provided. (For good background, the Green Pond Church topic is good)
i, personally do believe that ireland's goal is personal gain...and that he has started cc for profit...
again...this is my OPINION...this is demonstrated to me by:
his lack of concern for the community in which he wants to build his empire...he knows this will hurt our town (taxes, roads, environment)...yet...he has shown no concern - and no true offerings to alleviate the real issues...
he has also shown that he is willing to abandon his parishoners who cannot make such a long trip to his new land...and that he will abandon montclair...which apparently makes use of some of his offerings (according to several posts...i don't know whether or not to believe them)...to come to RT - which does not need anything he is offering...we have it all here already...
and again...he's doesn't seem to be hurting for cash...
I say that Ireland has been less than honest under oath. What reasonable person would actually belive that the CEO of a company would spend 31 Megs with no projection of growth.
Does anyone actually believe this? If so, I have a bridge to sell ya.
I must say that, though there is nothing I can do about it (nor really want to on free speech grounds), it is disturbing to hear the vehemence of the way in which many of the opinions disscussed above are portrayed in other posts. What I mean is that they are often "screamed" out quite forcefully as fact in stead of opinion.
As I said though, you are free to do so. Just recognize that there is no real supporting evidence for those opinons, just other opinions ("abandoning Montclair," "seems to be doing well," "nothing to give to RT" are all opinions, not facts, since many hold exactly the opposite opinions on those topics).
I urge those who support the church to state these facts here (hopefully only holding one screen name at a time)--and appear at the planning board meetings, and write letters to the Daily Record stating these facts. Because there are only 3 or 4 people thus far who are vocal supporting the church. And I have yet to hear any "facts" from them.
Maybe I can shed some light. First, regarding Church member support - it is quite high, but technical matters like planning board meetings are left to those required to be there (they are not really viewed as pep rallies).
Next, the issues that are raised in opposition to the move are also seen as technical matters to be reviewed and addressed through the planning board process. While it may be VORTs opinion that the impact on traffic and the environment will be negative, it is the opinion from the CC perspective that there will be no negative impact. So essentially, whatever the "facts" might be, they are interpreted differently depending on where you stand. CC support sees a traffic study saying impact will be negligible. VORT sees the same thing and disagrees. CC support knows that, in order to be approved, all environmental laws must be complied with - meaning that, as CC has stated, before approval by the board the plans will be adjusted if needed to comply with new regulations. VORT is concerned (even if the planning board can't consider) about taxes. CC isn't, and no church would be. There is not a church in existance that would volunteer to pay taxes - and for good reasons, they are an inherent good to the community that provide far more benefits through their outreach than the tax payment would. You may disagree, but you can't actually expect the tax laws to be changed, so it is not really relevent to the application.
So, the "facts" from a CC supporter view:
1. Traffic will not be adversely impacted (or plans will be made to address any issues that arise - essentially a planningn board issue);
2. Environmental laws will be fully complied with in the final site plan (I understand that the present plan - submitted last year - may need adjustment to comply to this year's new regs);
3. CC will provide its community (which you should understand is a "Regional" community - drawing from essentially the entire North Jersey area) with the same innumerable benefits it currently does. RT will likely benefit more than other towns (as Montclair likely does now).
Is that a helpful synopsis? You can disagree, I am sure many here do, but I am not sure a debate is possible (unless people are willing to have their opinions changed, debate is not really useful).
One thing that might help would be if everyone here would understand that it is not CC's intention to be a "bad neighbor." Supporters firmly believe that if the move takes place that CC will prove to be (as it is viewed in Montclair) a great neighbor - which is why there is no desire to stop the application process just because there is some vocal opposition. So try not to view that as not caring about RT people, but more just disagreeing with them with the intent to prove them wrong in the long haul.
All traffic impact studies will have to be based on one very fundamental assumption:
Membership Growth.
Ireland has (under oath) stated that he has no growth projections. Therefore, I suspect that the number that he will use in his traffic studies will be something around 5000.
My calculations say that he is building a facility for 25,000.
Now, that is a significant impact on a town of 24,000.
I appreciate your post and your perspective, honestly I'm absolutely certain you mean well.
But my bottom line is...
I still feel like you guys are talking to us like we don't know what's "good" for us.
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you think that once we've seen the light we'll come around.
It seems as if you guys are missionaries out to convert the ignorant Redneck heathens (yes, I capitalized Redneck! lol), and that once we've seen how great the church is, we'll come around too.
But we've already seen how great the church is. They do wonderful things for the poor and homeless, pregnant teens, prisoners (I know, it's offsite), drug addicts. There's no doubt it's a "good" force in your neighborhood.
I have my doubts that many of the benefits you offer your community will be applicable in our community. In a more urban environment, they're far more useful. Here we have our own churches who serve us.
And, if things DON'T turn out wonderful like you promise, it's too late to change it.
And many of us don't think it's going to turn out like you promise.
So many of us would prefer not to take the chance...
We get undiplomatic (myself included), we get loud, and sometimes rude (ok, often--myself included), and I do feel badly about that (sometimes). But we feel very passionate about our position on this--as do you guys--and we're "in it for the long haul" too.
And for that matter, if it means litigation, so be it.
You certainly raise an issue for the planning board to consider in the site plan review. I happen to disagree (I am sure this shocks you) with your characterization of the testimony, as from my understanding the questioning was less than respectful. However, if I am informed correctly, no cap, even at 25,000 was part of the testimony. So go ahead and make growth assumptions. I have no clue (do you) whether the traffic study assumes 0%, 5%, 20% growth, but I am sure the planning board can read.
I will say this: I am of the opinion that roads, particularly those in commercial areas (yes I have been there and seen the nature of the area businesses), end up being improved as needed. And I am a supporter of this process, so to me this is not a negative factor. So to argue that the roads at present can't support 25,000 members is irrelevant. There will likely be less than 5000 members making the move (CC has affiliates in NJ which members might go to if RT is too far) so the roads won't need to support 25,000 for many years to come, by which time the entire corridor is likely to be improved, to everyones benefit.
quote: Originally posted by: Karen "...I still feel like you guys are talking to us like we don't know what's "good" for us. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you think that once we've seen the light we'll come around. It seems as if you guys are missionaries out to convert the ignorant Redneck heathens (yes, I capitalized Redneck! lol), and that once we've seen how great the church is, we'll come around too. But we've already seen how great the church is..."
Sorry Karen, I did not see your post before I wrote my last one. With respect to the part I quoted above, I think there is a bit of a misconception maybe I can help clear up.
While I agree that I think that opposition to the church would wane once CC was given the opportunity to be a "good neighbor" so to speak, I can certainly say that "redneck heathens" who "don't know what's good for them" is not the view of the overwhelming majority of members. In addition, CC is not like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Where there is a difference between churches you might be familiar with, and a larger church like CC is that CC looks to actively reach out and spread the Word, where smaller churches tend to rely on the existence of local Christians to make up their congregations. Many smaller churches find church membership dwindling in our present social atmosphere. So the alternative approach is to reach out, essentially saying "Hey, there is something here that you might not be giving a real chance, come on in and take a look!" Just a different perspective on how to approach things. Maybe you are a member of a smaller church and are quite pleased with that, that is great, CC is not going to be banging on your door arguing that one is better than the other. But it will be more active in relaying its availability to people. (hey, I wouldn't know how great Pat's cheesesteaks are if no one ever told me! )
I do not want a 25,000 person church in this town, EVER. I suspect that most of the rest of the 24,000 people who live in this town feel exactly the same way about it. We moved out here to live in a rural type of area and not in an urban one. We intend to keep it the way that it is. And RLUIPA is not going to help you. It is just going to cause you a lot of heartache and waste a lot of your time.
"There will likely be less than 5000 members making the move (CC has affiliates in NJ which members might go to if RT is too far) so the roads won't need to support 25,000 for many years to come, by which time the entire corridor is likely to be improved, to everyones benefit."
yeah...they'll be improved at the town's (each of the residents of RT's) expense...you would think ireland would say - i'm contributing to the traffic and roadwear...let me really offer something...but nahhh...
quote: Originally posted by: Curious "So go ahead and make growth assumptions. I have no clue (do you) whether the traffic study assumes 0%, 5%, 20% growth, but I am sure the planning board can read."
I have read the traffic reports and from what I gathered, they do not assume ANY growth for Christ Church - they plan for the current number of parishioners and they assume a 1% per year background growth on Green Pond Road, which I have been told by a professional traffic engineer is a very low number to use (he usually uses 2% to 3% background growth number)...Considering how the Green Pond area will grow because of ALREADY APPROVED PROJECTS, the 1% growth rate is way too low. As for the roads being widened to fill out the need...What about the backroads. Nobody will straighten or widen Meridan Rd or Farber Hill Road. The people living in this area have already seen what a traffic nightmare can be like (when Route 80 was closed)...Heavy traffic ran through their backroads daily until route 80 was fixed.
That's NOT the way of life we are looking for in Rockaway Township.
And how about that growth. No projections at all? Now really - I have a hard time believing that...and what of special event days that overflow the parking lots? Will people be parking on the front lawns of Meridan Road residents, or will this be our chance to 'clean up' by charging a $10 parking fee (Craig - your retirement job perhaps) for the use of our driveways.
A back-road area (if you've driven around, you'll see that Green Pond north of Meridan and Meridan are both back-roads) is not the place for 25,000 parishioners.
quote: Originally posted by: Curious " "Hey, there is something here that you might not be giving a real chance, come on in and take a look!" Just a different perspective on how to approach things. Maybe you are a member of a smaller church and are quite pleased with that, that is great, CC is not going to be banging on your door arguing that one is better than the other. But it will be more active in relaying its availability to people. (hey, I wouldn't know how great Pat's cheesesteaks are if no one ever told me! )"
I don't want to be financially supporting a line in commercial, constantly replaying the message "All you heathens take warning...we know what is right for you...come and join our church or forever listen to our braying".
The prostelization of religious beliefs grates on my nerves till they are raw.
I don't like people barraging me with ads, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for it with increases in taxes, stress to the towns infrastructure, traffic and evnvironment.
The cheesecake advertisements can be turned off....but what CC is proposing is an in your face insult and burden that will adversly affect the harmony and style of life here.
All your outreach and "benefits" we can get here already, and no one is shouting :"hey come and get it....be saved...we know what is better for you."
I am so outta here if this comes to town....I have a nice house for one of the new parishoners to buy (that is if they can afford it after tithing).
I am going to address the original post on this thread:
Does VORT "support" every comment made by specific individuals on this message board? No, we do not, and it really has nothing to do with the application before the plannign board. People have strong opinions on the matter and the members of VORT are well aware that some hold opinions that are different than our own. Our core concerns are clearly listed on the website and have been discussed time and time again. Traffic, environment, infrastructure and taxes. We respect each individuals opinion on the matter, pro or con, but are disappointed in how some individuals have chosen to ‘communicate’ regarding this matter.
It is normal to have groups of people agree to disagree on issues and enter into debate; we believe this is healthy and productive. Name-calling is not productive and will assist neither side in getting though this process. When those who support the application issue "prayers" against those who oppose the plan, it is sad to see such anger issued in the name of G-d.
I will recount something that happened a few minutes ago at the Rockaway Twp Baseball parade. A member of VORT was handing out fliers to remind ALL people of the planning board meeting. A woman handed the flier back and said (to paraphrase) 'I do not need this I support Christ Church', at which point the reply was 'good you should come and support them'. Her response back was really something - she advised that she did not need to attend as “the Lord knew of her support” and that we (members of VORT) would be sorry we did not support this when “our day comes”. That is just about the most blinded comment I have heard to date. Our opposition is based on the negative impact to the community (Traffic, environment, infrastructure and taxes) nothing more nothing less. Those who support the project rely on this tactic in an attempt to draw up fear in the opposition, fear in G-d.
One could easily see this from a different point of view - G-d gave us but one earth, it is our responsibility to protect it from harm. We have reviewed all the reports, we have had experts review the reports, and we have had experts at the highest-level issue advice on the law. With all of this review, skill and knowledge it is overwhelmingly clear that there are significant faults with the plan and there will be damage caused to this community should this project become reality.
Those who see this as a matter of religion, you are missing the point. Those who view this as a matter of race, you are missing the point. Those who think we are a group of non-believers in G-d, you are simply wrong. How anyone wishes to pray is a private matter. To those who are against diversity - We the members of VORT - denounce you and your beliefs. For those who have no tolerance for people of different faiths (including those who choose not to have a faith) we denounce you and your beliefs.
Please attend the Planning Board Meeting on Weds. April 21, 2004 8pm Morris Knolls. ALL residents pro and con!!! See the facts for yourself, make a well educated opinion as to what you think is best for Rockaways future.
The problem that you are going to have is "getting out of here." It is well known to those in the Real Estate market what is going on here in RT, and people are not generally interested in purchasing homes here. People who want to buy houses in Morris Country are looking for peace, quiet, and serenity. That is not what they may get if they buy here. Our home has dropped a few hundred K in value in the last 8 months due to this situation. It really does suck! A good deal of our life savings are invested here, and it is sort of evaporating right before our eyes. You will probably be confronted with the same situation. Have a real estate professional do a Market Analysis on your property. You will be very unpleasantly suprised.
Please, don't shoot the messenger.
The Loon
(Hey, guys - I like nick names. The others like Clueless Karen and the Town Clown have nice rhyming names. Maier the Loon does not wax poetic. Try using this one - - - How about using "Craig Egg Head"?? That's kewl.
)
