Turf Wars

Where does Glen Ridge have their fireworks? Artificial turf is flammable and fireworks cannot be held on a field that has it.

No one thought of it while the Army Corps were doing there thing because the DPW did a MUCH better job then. Every public green space seems to be slipping. Could it be the leadership? I've also noticed the whole town littered with garbadge.

Whats going on?

Glen Ridge doesn't do fireworks.

Turf fields are being added everywhere, because they extend the playing season and reduce maintenance costs. Teams can play on turf fields in rainy and snowy weather.

Tax dollars shouldn't fund extracuricular activites period. That should be an add on expense to those that participate. I don't mind paying taxes to educate future tax payers but I resent paying for their entertainment.

Raise them taxes! -keep out the riff raff!
And everyone else who doesn't have a 7 figure income......
-Change the township name to Millionaire's Row.......or Overprivileged KidsTown
Who can afford to live in Glen Ridge any more? I really don't believe that there are any more Seniors living in the township -I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the Congratulations, Graduate signs along the For Sale signs???

From the article:

One wonders, however, why nobody thought of this when EPA was restoring Carteret after the town's epic Superfund ordeal. Wouldn't the feds have paid for this then?

Artificial surfaces have improved tremendously over the last few years, and the type of surface we are considering was not available at that time. In any case, the EPA made very clear that they would not even discuss anything other than replacing the grass fields (and, in fact, initially gave us a hard time when we asked for sod).

Now that Mountainside has been sold to a for profit company, why not just allocate these tax revenues to these fixes?

Don't cheap out like Montclair with merely flammable turf -- I still think explosive turf (or at least turf that gives off sparks) would be much more interesting.

Glen Ridge doesn't do fireworks.

Posted by: The Barista | August 7, 2006 10:12 AM

EVER???

"Tax dollars shouldn't fund extracuricular activites period. That should be an add on expense to those that participate. I don't mind paying taxes to educate future tax payers but I resent paying for their entertainment."

M--this is not just about "entertainment". Children need exercise, games, sports, etc... this is a heath and safety expense (I believe lights are included in the price?).
This wouldn't be an issue if we had more fields in this town. Then they wouldn't be overused and overcrowded.
Adults AND children of all ages use these fields, year round, during all daylight hours.

I would also love for the expense to cover bathrooms that are available for use during daylight hours. Any chance, Carl?

Glen Ridge doesn't do fireworks.

Posted by: The Barista | August 7, 2006 10:12 AM

EVER???

Viscious cycle...

more families move here with kids because the schools are good which stresses the infrastructure so property taxes get raised then seniors on fixed incomes & poorer folks move out selling their houses to more families who move here with kids... and on and on.

Many of us who live here, myself included (ten year resident!) would love to keep our houses but can't afford to pay the property taxes AND have kids in college.

"M--this is not just about "entertainment". Children need exercise, games, sports, etc... this is a heath and safety expense (I believe lights are included in the price?)."

That is what gym class is for and I'm sure if the school fields were restricted to that they would be adequate. I have absolutely no interest in tax money going toward adult use of school fields. Your arguements are lame in that regard. Pay for the use.

Some more information:

The bond proposal is available on the town website, www.GlenRidgeNJ.org, here is the actual page:

http://www.glenridgenj.org/06bondprop.htm

We have been working on this for quite some time. In our first meeting in January, I formally asked the Planning and Development Committee to put together an inventory of all of our capital assets, together with an assessment of their condition, what work was needed and an estimated cost.

We have had presentations to the full council (as part of our regularly scheduled meetings), including one from the library, and another from the GRAA, and meetings at one level or another with those responsible for various town facilities.

At the April 25th Council Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee presented a draft report to the full council.

On June 25th, we had a special meeting of the council, where we toured many of the town facilities, so the council (and any member of the press or public who wished to attend), could get a first hand look at each of the facilities with the staff.

The full council reviewed the report, and at the June 27th meeting sent it back to the committee with a list of work that the council wanted to pursue taking to the next step. We also requested that in the next presentation, in addition to each component being broken down showing its cost, that it also show how much the cost of that item would be to the “average” taxpayer (property assessed at $100,000).

That is where we are right now. The P&DC will be presenting the bond proposal to the full council tomorrow night, and we will be having a public hearing as part of that introduction.

Then, if we move forward, we will be having a “drop-in” session for the public to come and review the proposal with the elected officials and staff. It is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, September 6th between 5:30pm to 9pm at the Glen Ridge Community/Seniors Center at the Ridgewood Avenue Train Station.

Then, at the regularly scheduled September 12th meeting of the Mayor and Council, we will have another public hearing. At that point, the council may have a vote to approve all of, or part of, the Bond Proposal.

As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or comments, and I hope to see many of you at one of the public hearings or at the "drop-in" session.

Carl

The link to the bond proposal on the town website was in the first sentence.

The link to the bond proposal on the town website was in the first sentence.

Could the timing for this be ANY WORSE? As interest rates are on the rise and a revaluation just around the corner, NOW is when the Council decides to do this???!!! Can't this wait for the next cyclical rate downturn -- these bldgs have been here for +100 years, they're not going anywaher in the next five!

Yes the timing could be worse. Glen Ridge could wait and finance at a higher rate.

100 year old buildings need to be maintained.

It's my understanding that Glrn Ridge has very little debit- as compared to Montclair

Hmmm....lets see....I use only Hurrell field & the library. I shouldn't have to pay for the carteret park turf, freeman court surface or the rose garden work. I also don't think we need work on the municipal bldg. --therefore, I can save my money on that.
Let's just pay per use: Say $8.00 for entrance to library. (Maybe $2.25 for seniors.) $10.00 to step onto a field for one hour. $2.00 to smell the flowers. And $.25 to walk under new lights installed on Bloomfield Ave. after 5 pm. on weekdays.

I lit off a firework in Glen Ridge once. Then I went inside

Won't those "speed humps" Washington Street need maintenance?, I know my car will from hitting them.

Does anyone know when GR will revalue? All my neighbors are doing work witout permits thinking they are cheating the "tax man" when in fact it is you and I.

Call up the town and turn them in. It's the Glen Ridge way!!!

CC - Maybe it's not the tax man your neighbors are avoiding, so much as the town inspector. Not the most pleasant, nor the most professional I've come across.

CC - Maybe it's not the tax man your neighbors are avoiding, so much as the town inspector. Not the most pleasant, nor the most professional I've come across.

Permit Purgatory,
You may be right not only has my experience been unpleasant but I had one inspector tell me outright he was harrasing a contractor he did not like. If ever there was opportunity for joint services it would be the building department.

Maybe Mayor Bergmanson needs another part-time job? On Sunday's he is the remover of "Open House" signs all over town. People who have lived here over 40 years and raised four children through the GR School system, paid their taxes on time, can't even attempt to sell their house on their own because of the "Masked Sign Stealer Mayor." Maybe he has enough time on his hands to personally put down artificial turf, like laying down kitchen tiles!" Don't let your job go to your head "mayor."

Turf is good....end of story

Mad Dog,

I regularly pick up litter throughout the town. That includes signs that people place illegally on public property, sometimes more than a mile from their homes. I've been doing it for more than 15 years, long before I was the mayor, not just on Sundays, and I don't wear a mask.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel entitled to place your signs in front of other people's homes, in violation of the law?

GR expat - there are plenty of seniors left in GR. Next door to me is a 90 year old couple that moved in in 1938. Across the street there is a wodower in his 70s, next to him is a widow in her 90s.

I too, would like to know when the revaluation of GRs property taxes will be done. To me, it seems that Montclair decided to reval AND got it started while GR residence are still waiting. Given what houses are selling for on Ridgewood, I'm paying more than my share.

Cait,

Generally, the County Tax Board orders towns to perform revals, and the CTB ordered both the Montclair reval (effective 2007), and the Glen Ridge reval (effective 2008). It was also the CTB that determined that Glen Ridge should be done a year after Montclair. We estimate that the reval is going to cost Glen Ridge about $300,000, which is paid for by property taxes.

Of course, if you believe that your assessment is too high (by more than 15%), you should look into appealing it, information on how to do that is available at Borough Hall.

Hey Caaarrrrllll....
Didn't Mayor Bloomberg fire someone for being on the Internet too much? And that guy was just a clerk...Those GR folks are not paying your salary with their STUPID HIGH TAXES to keep your schnozz on the Barista all day. Go get something done.
And Mad dog has a point. Lay off taxpayers signs and balloons.

Hey Caaarrrrllll....
Didn't Mayor Bloomberg fire someone for being on the Internet too much? And that guy was just a clerk...Those GR folks are not paying your salary with their STUPID HIGH TAXES to keep your schnozz on the Barista all day. Go get something done.
And Mad dog has a point. Lay off taxpayers signs and balloons.

As a taxpayer of GR who appreciates the value I receive from my tax dollar, I'm very pleased to see my Mayor have such an open and informative discourse with the public. While I may not agree with him all the time he has single handedly made our town government more responsive to all its citizens. If you need help pulling up signs or any other such garbage left by ex-residents let me know how I can help.

I must agree, thank goodness you are no longer a Ridger!

In spite of your statement to the contrary, it certainly is a part of a mayor's job to follow news coverage about Glen Ridge, and to answer constituent's questions, and well worth the few minutes I spend here on Barista reading the posts about Glen Ridge, just as it is part of my job to read the GR Paper, the GR Voice, and the Star Ledger.

Responding to cowardly weasels like you, however, is not a part of my job, it is a pleasure I reserve for my own time, although as far as a salary is concerned, you must not have been much of a Ridger if you didn't know that Glen Ridge does not pay, and has never paid, a salary to any of its elected officials.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked "Mad Dog":

Please explain why someone should be entitled to place their signs in front of other people's homes, in violation of the law?

Common Cent$:

Thank you for your kind words.

You guys in Montclair had him now we have him.

Mike "bond it" Rohal
The wasp element in GR "never spend principal" has let the infrastructure fall apart. Most have moved south and the remaining gr ccc are now learning from the bond it man from montclair. now lets talk about the ccc.

I heard Carl is now trying to join the CCC as the council delegate.

You are wrong. Carl ran as "not the CCC"

Carl will roll over like a trained dog. The entire council is afraid of their friends in the GRAA.

Carl Bergmanson rocks!

Long live the CCC!

Sally & Fan,

Thanks for your kind words.

Been here,

The Council is facing a number of state mandates that must be dealt with, plus infrastructure problems that I believe should not be put off, or postponed with half-measures, any longer. If you have some other ideas on how to solve some of these problems, I suggest you come to one of the hearings, or write a letter. Snarky comments don't really produce anything, nor do they serve any useful purpose.

Death before CCC,

Your statements here show only that you are an ignorant fool. Moreover, they are an insult to me, and I'm really not surprised that you don't have the guts to sign your name to your post. I have fought through many elections, over more than a decade and half, fighting to bring representative democracy to Glen Ridge. I have spent many thousands of hours, and thousands of my own dollars, in that very worthwhile, but very difficult, pursuit.

I have never run, nor would I ever run, under the CCC banner, in fact I have never even participated in their selection process, nor would I, and I do not advocate the "CCC system", but at least they have the courage of their convictions, wrong as I believe they are. Democracy is not a spectator sport, and it is not for cowards, so I guess that explains why you aren't participating.

Tonight we had a good Council Meeting, which included an Open Public Hearing on the bond ordinance that was introduced. We had a number of citizens speak, including some who supported the bond, and some who didn't. All of them had two things you don't have, the intellect to research and understand the issues involved, and the strength of character to step up the microphone, give their name and address, and speak their minds on an important public issue affecting our town.

People like that earn the respect of their fellow citizens, even those who may disagree with them on a specific issue. People like you earn only well-deserved scorn.

Regarding "Open House" signs: The signs are there for a few hours and always taken down by the seller. It is a stupid law to begin with...almost as stupid as not being able to walk your pigs on sunday. There are more important things to worry about don't you think?

Regarding "Open House" signs: The signs are there for a few hours and always taken down by the seller. It is a stupid law to begin with...almost as stupid as not being able to walk your pigs on sunday. There are more important things to worry about don't you think?

MadDog,

I started taking them down when I was a Councilman. I received complaints from homeowners (mostly those who live on corner lots) who were unhappy that people were putting signs for commercial ventures (Garage sales, Open Houses, etc.) in front of other people's houses, on public property that homeowners are required to maintain. In more than one case, realtors had gotten nasty when asked by homeowners not to place signs in front of their homes.

I don't think it's a stupid law, I don't think people should be allowed to place advertisements for their sales on public property without permision, whether it is at the curb, or in a public park. Frankly, I think that it is highly presumptious of people to think that they are somehow entitled to place signs for their commercial ventures, on public property, in front of other people's houses.

It's very much like the garage sale signs (which I also take down regularly), although the garage sale signs are even worse because people often damage town trees or gas lamps when they put them up.

In any case, the signs are illegal, and as long as they remain illegal, I'll keep cleaning them up, along with the rest of the litter, whenever I have the opportunity.

Here's an idea: require a $20 day permit to place an open house sign on public property. The dated permit must be taped to the sign, so the sign patrol will know whether to take it away or not.

The ordinance would pay for itself, the town would be adequately compensated and residents could try to sell their homes.

While I do not agree with spending our tax dollars to pay for turf fields at Carteret Park, I will never vote "no" for helping children have a safe place to play sports. In spite of what people are saying, sports are essential to growing up and existing in today's society. Recess in school is not enough for children. Sports are esential to building character, camraderie and sportsmanship for girls and boys. I will vote "yes" in spite of what I deem as "nonessential" turf. If this is what the town feels they need to keep Carteret beautiful for athletics then who am I to say that is not true. However, to all those people who continue to whine about their taxes...no one asked you to live here...you are always welcome to leave. However, I feel GR is one of the best places that I could personally choose in which to raise my children. My neighbors are terrific as is the whole community!

Maybe this has come up in one of the hearings, but none of the press coverage has included an actual cost-benefit analysis of the turf fields. If they save money as has been claimed, then, presumably, partially offsetting the bond payment, there will be tax savings. If these numbers are available, could someone post 'em?

Appletony,

I think the part you are missing is that very few people want the signs, I get many more complaints from people about the signs being put up than I do about them being taken down.

grvulture,

The proposed addition of the artificial surfaces is not a cost-savings measure. The reason the Council is looking at adding artificial surfaces to Hurrell & Carteret is because all of our grass fields are being overwhelmed by all the additional usage, and because every year, we spend more and more man-hours on them, which means our crews have less time to spend on everything else.

While there will be some reductions on things like water and outside contractors, I don't believe it would be prudent at this time to count on these projects for any significant savings, because there are too many unknowns. I'd much rather wind up with some additional savings then count on a savings that is never realized.

Many of the proposed projects are also eligible for a number of grant programs, or for zero-, or low-interest loans, and I'm pretty sure that we will receive some. Obviously, if we are able to get some grants or loans for some of these items, that will reduce the amount of bonding we will have to do, but because we don't know how successful we will be in getting those loans and grants, it would be unwise to count on that money at this time.

1:20 am?? Go to bed Carl

Hey "Dude", thanks for your concern. My son had his wisdom teeth out yesterday, so I was up with him. Besides, between being Mayor and my regular jobs, I'm often up pretty late doing "real-job" stuff or catching-up on Glen Ridge news or reading (There is a lot of reading involved in being Mayor). There will be plenty of time to sleep when my term is up.

I'll sleep when I'm dead.
Warren Zevon

Carl,

You say:

"The proposed addition of the artificial surfaces is not a cost-savings measure. The reason the Council is looking at adding artificial surfaces to Hurrell & Carteret is because all of our grass fields are being overwhelmed by all the additional usage, and because every year, we spend more and more man-hours on them, which means our crews have less time to spend on everything else."

Doesn't this statement contradict itself -- as you would save on the extra man hours and your crews would not be so overwhelmed?

I am totally in favor of the project, but let's be clear -- this type of field is completely cost-effective and will absolutely save money. If it didn't save money, why on earth would would you be pushing for it? Because it looked nice?

First of all, I'm not "pushing" for it, only asking that it be explored as an option. We're still waiting for the public hearings on all of the items on the bond, and I'll make up my mind as to whether I think we should proceed after we've heard what everyone has to say.

But as to your point, the reason we think it might be a good idea to explore adding artificial surface playing fields is not because we believe there will be a cost savings, it is because the grass fields are being overwhelmed by all the additional usage, and that won't happen with an artificial surface.

Let me use Hurrell as an example. I've heard some pretty convincing arguments for putting an artificial surface at Hurrell, but “net-net” it will not save money. Putting an artificial field and track at Hurrell will probably cost over $130,000 per year for each of the next ten years, which is more than our total annual budget for Hurrell currently, so even if there were no additional expense whatsoever, we will be spending more on Hurrell per year than we spend currently, that's not a savings. It is true that there may be some reduced expenditures to offset some portion of that additional cost, in fact I'm pretty sure there will be, but at this point there are too many unknowns to be able to quantify those reductions with any confidence, and in any case the reductions will not be enough to entirely offset the additional cost.

Some folks play a game where they say “it costs $100 now, and to keep doing it the way we’re doing it and bring it up to some new standard it will cost $300, but “Plan X” will only cost $200, which means a 33% savings”, but I think that is dishonest, or at least very misleading. “Plan X” may make sense, or it may not, but it is not a savings, $200 is more than $100.

Carl,

What you are saying makes perfect sense, I just am not sure what you mean by "the grass fields are being overwhelmed by all the additional usage, and that won't happen with an artificial surface." Would the turf fields not get the same, if not more, use?

Thanks for the late night responses, Carl.

So effectively the argument probably is not economic, and the people who are pushing for the field turf on that basis are mistaken? Though maybe they can say it will help real estate values.

I'm as envious as anyone of the swanky artificial turf in Montclair, Westfield and elsewhere. But if we're going to bond an extra $2M is this really the best use of the money?

I'd rather see it go to rebuilding GR town infrastructure in general. Examples, streets needing resurfacing/rebuilding, cobblestone gutters not being maintained, tree replacement abandoned, etc., etc. I'm sure there is a master plan for addressing all this over a long period of time, but if we're going to bite the bullet on a big bond issue, why not get it all done now?

Ah, the "swanky artificial turf in Montclair" that caused Montclair to have to relocate their fireworks and the resulting NJ transit fiasco.

That "swanky artificial turf in Montclair" ?

A big part of the problem is that our fields never get a chance to rest and re-grow in the spring or the fall. Many towns don't allow "goal sports" to be played on a field in both the spring and the fall, so the field gets 8 or 9 months, and one good growing season, to recover (summer is not well suited to re-growing damaged fields, and, of course, neither is winter).

Unfortunately, we don't have enough fields to do that. We have been reaching out to the County to try and get more time on fields in nearby County Parks, but demand for those fields is very high. Just this week the County agreed to give us one season annually at one of the new fields in Brookdale, and we are currently re-working our schedules to see what that will allow us to do.

For quite some time we have been reaching out to our neighboring communities to see what we can do together (and we continue to do so), but most of our adjoining communities have a lot of the same problems with increased demand, and, probably because of that, pretty much all of them already have at least one artificial surface field. I do think there is some potential there, but those things take a long time to come to fruition.

We also looked into, and continue to look into, the possibility of acquiring new fields, but in a fully built-out historic town, you don’t have a lot of options, and in any case, that would be more expensive and probably cut into our revenue, and those types of projects usually take years to bring about.

All of that explains why we are now considering artificial surfaces. Artificial fields are designed to hold up better to heavy use, and they don't need time to rest and re-grow.

(My 12:11 post was a reply to "come on"'s 7:57 post.)

(please note..I am a CB Fan..some of the political issues suggested are not something Carl would consider).

The same arguments advocating Artificial Turf is replayed in every town..too many teams, not enough land.. in the meantime the irony is that the land that isn't being used to build buildings is now used to build structures which reduce the amount of natural resources we can all enjoy.

Also..while this is not necessarily the case for every town and decision to go with AT, but I'm sure these artificial turf installers are donating funds to various political campaign. Sanzeri..the guy who gets the contract to build all the NJ highways, built the AT in East Rutherford and Rutherford..Sanzari is a councilman in ho-ho-kus and was once considering running for either a state or congressional seat, His engineer, paul Sarlo, is the mayor of wood ridge, and a state senator.

Not only that, team sports are great for politicians (I don't say this is Carl's thing) but it is easier to get more votes from the squadrons of families involved with team sports, than it is to tap non-team voters.

In other towns women could not wear spiked heels on artificial turf (so forget about graduation events) and there are prohibitions against matches (smokers beware .. and .. no candlelight picnics). Probably can't walk a dog on artificial turf. and I always have this fear of flocks of birds landing on the turf, hoping to snare a worm or two and leaving hungry or inadvertently ingesting plastic "grass". Can't be good.

Perhaps team sports requiring lots of open space needs to be rethought. What about biking or competitive walking? Or maybe towns should start pumping up their open space trust funds and acquire land. If we are doing turning land into plastic now, what will it be like here in 3 generations.

In the meantime, town boards are approving more and more high density projects with no requirements that the develoeprs offer any open space for their residents. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank and the rest of us are stuck with traffic congestion, bad air and plastic land. Look at the Reserve, look at Christopher Place, look at the project by Brookdale School in Bloomfield for projects build to the edge of the lot. Pretty soon we are going to see plastic trees rimming the ball fields..after all, won't need to spend money replacing the trees, or trimming branches. I heard one developer say "Trees are dangerous".

GR Vulture (in Italics):

So effectively the argument probably is not economic, and the people who are pushing for the field turf on that basis are mistaken?

You are confusing two different things. An economic argument is not the same as arguing that you will save money. I repeat my “Plan X’ scenario:

Let’s say we have a problem. We are doing something now that costs $100, but the results are no longer satisfactory. Suppose we could achieve satisfactory results by doing it the same way we do it now, but spending an additional $200. Suppose that someone comes up with a new way of doing it (called “Plan X”) that would only cost an additional $100 ($200 total).

Many politicians would call “Plan X” a “33% savings”, but it is not a savings at all, because $200 is still more than $100.

But while “Plan X” is not a savings, it may be a good plan, and the argument for doing it is economic.

I'm as envious as anyone of the swanky artificial turf in Montclair, Westfield and elsewhere. But if we're going to bond an extra $2M is this really the best use of the money?

Determining that is what this whole process is about, I gave a brief timeline of the process way up in my comment of August 7, 2006 12:13 PM in this thread.

I'd rather see it go to rebuilding GR town infrastructure in general. Examples, streets needing resurfacing/rebuilding,

We already have a program to evaluate and rank each street, and a schedule to resurface and rebuild them, paid for through a combination of grants and our regular capital budget. Frankly, since that program began, under Mayor Lincoln and Mayor Plate, our streets are generally in the best condition that they’ve ever been in. We still have more streets that need work, but we’ve made a lot of progress in a relatively short time, so the decision was made that the program is working, and that is why I did not include streets when in January when I formally asked the Planning and Development Committee to put together an inventory of all of our capital assets, together with an assessment of their condition, what work was needed and an estimated cost.

cobblestone gutters not being maintained

That is not a capital project, and cannot be funded by bonding. That said, it is being indirectly addressed by this proposal, because if we can reduce the time our crews spend on trying to keep all of our fields maintained, repaired and lined, we will be able to have them spend more time on things like the gutters.

tree replacement abandoned, etc., etc.

Here you are just wrong. In the last three years we have doubled the amount of trees we have planted. In addition, we just got a new grant for 50 additional trees to be planted in the fall. Our street trees have been facing a number of extraordinary challenges over the last decade (from Mother Nature and/or man), but we are working hard, and working with our town arborist, to keep up with the challenges that the crazy weather and nasty bugs have brought our trees.

I'm sure there is a master plan for addressing all this over a long period of time, but if we're going to bite the bullet on a big bond issue, why not get it all done now?

First of all, we can’t afford to do it all now. As you know, our taxpayers pay some of the highest property taxes in the state and in the nation, the Council and I are very sensitive to that (as we should be), and so we didn’t include many things that other towns might take for granted. Three years ago, our Capital Improvement Fund was under-funded by $500,000, we have been replenishing it, and the plan is for it to be fully funded by 2007, but that also costs money and limits the amount of additional bonding we can do and still keep the total tax increase somewhat reasonable. We will also be adjusting the Capital Improvement Fund to cover the replacement costs of most of the items in the bond, if we go ahead with them, so that if the fund remains fully funded, we will not have to bond for them again when they reach the end of their useful life.

Secondly, over the last few years, we have set up capital programs to address many of our long-term capital needs, and they are working. We are only considering bonding things that are new, or that we have not funded, or under-funded, in the past.

GR Vulture, I hope to see you at one of the hearings, but remember, it’s BYOC (Bring Your Own Carrion).

However, I hope everyone is going to Teaneck or Maplewood or NYC to see an Inconvenient Truth.

Until we fix Global Warming, the battle over AF, NT, taxes, etc etc is inconsequential because we are going to need all of our money to build cooling centers. We might be living on beachfront property soon.

And GR Vulture,

All Carrion Bags will be inspected...

reshowed howe primped myalgias faxless payday loan torot .