A Mature Question - The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board

Date: Fri May 28 9:28 AM, 2004

A Mature Question

Date: Fri May 28 9:37 AM, 2004

Of course CC will play down anything that appears as a stumbling block to the proposed re-development. A tactical response, remember - they have their own people to sooth during this fight - anything to get the foot in the door.

Date: Fri May 28 9:49 AM, 2004

But don't people reading the article see the contradiction and wonder what's really going on? I would say that's a plus for our side. And I hope RT can make CC deal with all the environmental problems at 140 GPR. So far it seems, the town isn't doing much to block this project. And if they have to go by the law then what's the point in having people represent the community? Might as well have outsiders. I resent the fact that the mayor that we elected can't open his mouth. He's suppose to be for his people. And so is the planning board. I've opened my eyes to democracy-it's not all that it's cut out to be.

Date: Fri May 28 9:51 AM, 2004

I asked this question a while back and did not get an answer. Seems most on this board would rather stir controversy and banter than discuss the facts.

Oh well.

Date: Fri May 28 9:58 AM, 2004

Ireland and CC are at war with RT. Most residents in town have not realized it yet. Until they do, we have a formulae for disaster here. You can just imagine what his "phase 3" is going to be. Once he gets in, he will literally run this town.

We need to fight fire with fire. Condem the property now for any reason that we can think of. As I have said before, one very good idea is to condem it because its disturbance will jeopardize the town well! What is wrong with that idea?

Please advise.

Date: Fri May 28 9:58 AM, 2004

Yes, it's somewhat embarrassing for our town to read what other residents have posted. CC must really be laughing at us. Seems like alot of people have left this board too, just like NJ.com. I hope the clowns here stop fighting for us. With that kind of help, we don't need any.

Date: Fri May 28 9:59 AM, 2004

Agilent is responsible for the cleanup before anything is going to be built there. This cleanup will be supervised by the state/federal DEP. This could "break the camels back" as far as a timely re-development of 140 GPR is concerned.

There is a long road to be traveled before we see anything like a Mega-Resort on this property.

Date: Fri May 28 9:59 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Issues
"But don't people reading the article see the contradiction and wonder what's really going on? I would say that's a plus for our side. And I hope RT can make CC deal with all the environmental problems at 140 GPR. So far it seems, the town isn't doing much to block this project. And if they have to go by the law then what's the point in having people represent the community? Might as well have outsiders. I resent the fact that the mayor that we elected can't open his mouth. He's suppose to be for his people. And so is the planning board. I've opened my eyes to democracy-it's not all that it's cut out to be."

Until the facts are presented in the proper forum, the elected officials will not express their oppinion because there will be no evidence to support them. Just wait. I think they are playing it cool. They know this is wrong for the town and 99% of the voters don't want it. CC has put them in a tough spot. Give it time, they will come through with the right decision and stop this....and if they don't....Ted Doty for Mayor! NOT.

Date: Fri May 28 10:13 AM, 2004

If Agilent is responsible for the clean up, then why did the BOE state that as one of the major expenses in acquiring the property for the town? I just don't understand and I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing. It bewilders me that an outside entity with NO ties to the community can try and take over a town and the town has to fight and spend money to stop them and hope they win or else it will be the end of RT as we know it.

Date: Fri May 28 10:17 AM, 2004

To: The Issues

Date: Fri May 28 10:39 AM, 2004

RE: A Mature Question

Date: Fri May 28 10:46 AM, 2004

Amen. I think we should all stand behind that statement!

Date: Fri May 28 11:54 AM, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Like I've Said Before
"If the elected officials fail to stop this from being built here, I will do all I can to see they loose their jobs come election time.

i.e. I don't want elected officials who follow the law, I want the ones who will do "whatever it takes" to satisfy my selfish needs of having no cars on my road (I mean Greenpond Rd.) on Sunday morning. If this means backroom deals and a few laws broken, so be it.

Whether one comes out and state they were against it or not...if it happens they have failed in protecting the town...and if you fail at your job, you get fired...In this case, not just an individual, but the whole team should go... because this is a team effort. Burgis & Co. would be on the top of the list to get fired for not keeping an eye out and projectiing this sort of mess.

That's right, they SHOULD have projected it! For crying out loud! Don't they have a crsytal ball or something? I mean, so what if NO OTHER TOWN in NJ has laws any different than ours that could have stopped this. I DON'T CARE! I HAVE to blame SOMEONE! I am VERY AFRAID based on all the fear mongering and propaganda that VORT and The Town Genius have sent out! These BIBLE THUMPERS are going to ruin my life! Their views are so repugnant that they SHOULDN'T be allowed ANYWHERE!

SO WE WILL VOTE OUT ALL THE TOWN OFFICIALS! Can we impeach them NOW???

CRAIG MAIER for MAYOR!

"

Date: Fri May 28 12:13 PM, 2004

I really doubt that any politician cares about his or her job here in RT. This is not exactly a good political stepping stone to higher office. Besides, most of these folks are working people with real jobs and do this as a favor to the township on the side.

So, voting them out of office is no big deal for them. However, they do live here. And, their part of town is going to be turned into the same hell hole as yours and my part of this town if this monstrosity is built. So, that is their real motive to do the correct thing for us - - - a simple personal a greedy one - - - they will be looking out for their own self financial and lifestyle interests.

And exactly what is wrong with that?

PS - Thanks for the job offer, but I much prefer the retired lifestyle. Besides, I am totally politically incorrect and prefer to remain that way.

Date: Fri May 28 12:14 PM, 2004

MAIER

for

MAYOR

---------------

Hahah, catchy campaign slogan ... but I worry about the [foul] language that might be used in the ad campaigns and on billboard and lawn posters etc.

-B.

Date: Fri May 28 12:20 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Bystander
" MAIER for MAYOR --------------- Hahah, catchy campaign slogan ... but I worry about the [foul] language that might be used in the ad campaigns and on billboard and lawn posters etc. -B."

You mean there might be a lawn sign that says:

STFU and

VOTE

FOR MAIER!

lololololololol!

Date: Fri May 28 12:22 PM, 2004

Don't be an A$$HOLE!

Vote for MAIER!!!

Now that's a WINNING campaign strategy!!!

Date: Fri May 28 12:26 PM, 2004

ROTFL!

How about:

Mayor Maier

All else STFU!

Date: Fri May 28 12:54 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: BJR
Seems most on this board would rather stir controversy and banter than discuss the facts. Oh well."

I rest my case...........

Date: Fri May 28 12:59 PM, 2004

To: Rance et al ...

Date: Fri May 28 1:08 PM, 2004

RE: A Mature Question

Date: Fri May 28 1:14 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: BJR
"I rest my case..........."

BJR - Full disclosure - I do not think I have ever agreed with a single thing you have said on this board until now! I will try and discuss the topic though.

I think it comes down to point of view. The BOE has a certain view of the financials, and whatever cost of remediation exists would appear to increase the financial problems associated with the Agilent site v. the other options to a point where it is no longer a viable alternative. The church on the other hand has a different economic model - either they have no existing alternative sites to compare to or those options are less attractive financially than the Agilent site even including whatever remediation costs exist.

It is true that Agilent is responsible for clean up. But that clean up is only to satisfy state/federal environmental law. It may be (I have no idea) that the BOE sees extra remediation requirements in order to put a school in. The kids would be there all day almost every day, while churchgoers just once a week or so. I am just guessing there. Though it does not seem totally irrational to think that the remediation that would be desireable for a warehouse or a sports stadium might be different than for an office or a church, and on up to a school or private homes.

Date: Fri May 28 1:39 PM, 2004

But what about Irelands 77 classroom K - 5 school? Are his clubs kids ammune to Chemical Contamination?

Date: Fri May 28 1:57 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Craig Maiere
"But what about Irelands 77 classroom K - 5 school? Are his clubs kids ammune to Chemical Contamination?"

Hey congratulations! That is actually a good point, spelling aside. As I mentioned, I was guessing about my second paragraph. I do wonder though - are there different remediation requirements based on the type of use?

Since both the church and the town are/were considering a school for the property, I imagine that it comes down to their respective economic models.

Date: Fri May 28 2:01 PM, 2004

Seems a no brainer. If remedial efforts are needed to clean up 140 GPR for a school, then it's any school. Christ Church's kids are kids. Same as a MEGACHURCH is a church.

Date: Fri May 28 2:01 PM, 2004

And what about the soil disruption?? Would this remediation cause any concern for drinking water quality?? Food for thought.

Date: Fri May 28 2:34 PM, 2004

The BOE said the costs of remediation were too high. Since we know that Agilent will bear the financial costs of remediation, than we know that the BOE can't be referring to financial costs. One interpretation is that they were referring to Time Costs, meaning they could wait several years for the property to be cleaned up to solve the school problem. But CC may see the Time Cost hurldle as a relatively easy leap since they no doubt realize that the legal battle will probably take just as long anyway. So for CC, the timing is perfect, but for a RT School, it is not.

Date: Fri May 28 3:02 PM, 2004

To: Seacrest ... Out!!

Date: Fri May 28 3:11 PM, 2004

RE: A Mature Question

Date: Fri May 28 3:31 PM, 2004

So I'm getting to ya b??...