Thrive, Partnership or Unity? See Them All Tonight!

Who are the moderators?

Are they from the Montclair Watercooler?

The moderators are members of the League of Women Voters who do not live in Montclair. Some, maybe all I'm not sure, are from different chapters from the Montclair Area League, which includes Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Essex Fells and other local communities.

The LWV has been sponsoring these events for as long as I can remeber.

That must explain this on their website describing tonight's event:

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:00 PM LGI room
Montclair High School
100 Chestnut St
Montclair Candidates Night. Candidate for Town Commissioners & Mayor forum

Thrive, Partnership, Unity or Change?

After tonight, if you are not impressed with Joyce Michaelson's Partnership slate, consider this bit of common sense:

Michaelson's Partnership slate represents the ESTABLISHMENT. Little will CHANGE. Like in the past, the slate will take turns supporting each members pet projects. They'll continue to decide votes before the public has input. They'll continue to ignore the will of the people.

I believe a majority Montclair citizens want a CHANGE. Unfortunately, Michaelson's Partnership slate is the likely winner on election day. That is because the two possible CHANGE slates (Unity and Thrive) will split the CHANGE vote and hand Michaelson the election. She can win with less than majority of the vote.

If you want CHANGE in Montclair, this is the only way to beat Michaelson's ESTABLISHMENT machine:

Ask your friends and neighbors, especially those who wouldn't normally participate in a town election, to vote for this consolidated CHANGE ticket:

Mayor-Jerry Fried (Unity)
At-Large-Starr Daniels (Thrive)
At-Large-Kathryn Weller (Unity)
First Ward- Roger Plawker (Thrive)
Second Ward-Cary Africk (Unity)
Third Ward-Nick Lewis (Unity)
Fourth Ward-Dr. Renee Baskerville (Independent)

This is the only way to reject the nonsense of the last few years and to have real CHANGE in Montclair.

This is common sense.

It would be greatly appreciated if someone would spread this logic on the Watercooler.

There's a silent majority in Montclair that needs to know there is another option.

And thank you to all those who have e-mailed me reasons why we need CHANGE (keep them coming). They will be included in the e-mail pamphlet of common sense I'm preparing.

thomas
pamphleteer76@gmail.com

wow. only four comments. and one is serious. we deserve what we get. Can we pledge to have an exchange of impressions on this site, tomorrow?

wow. only five comments. and one is serious. and one is only a comment on how there are only four comments. Can we pledge to have an exchange of more comments about how there aren't enough serious comments?

No comment.

Right now, I am having a cup of Constant Comment tea. I think this should be the signature brew of Baristanet.

No commas.

Thomas writes:
"Ask your friends and neighbors, especially those who wouldn't normally participate in a town election, to vote for this consolidated CHANGE ticket"

Why any candidate who is for "change" would align him/herself with any incumbant is curious. Everyone says they are against wasteful spending and ever increasing taxes but the only incumbant that questioned and voted against budget increases (3 times) is Ted Mattox. The other incumbants may say they'll do something about taxes but what were they doing the past four years? They have had a chance and we've seen what they've done. You have to quetion any one that has sided up with an incumbant, those that stand with Mattox are the only ones for true change, they've aligned themselves with the only council member who has shown the courage to hold fast against these ever inflated budgets. The fact that Jerry Fried continually states that the current counsel has failed to do its job and then goes out and picks an incumbant to be part of his team leads me to question his judgment and the judgment of all on his slate.

Please explain how Ted's multiple lawsuits have brought costs down.

Ted is aligned with David Herron who also keeps suing.

If Ted and David don't like what's going on they sue.

That's some judgement. I question your judgement if you're going to endorse "So I'll sue" Mattox.

I've been hearing a lot of talk about Gikas. Not sure what slate he's on. Perhaps he's one of those unaffiliated candidates. I keep seeing his campaign lawn signs plastered all over town. I'd have to think if you're really serious about change, he's your man.

and Gikas and his signs are around all year long. Not like these signs that just pop up for a few weeks.

Beisdes, Gikas will make sure that you're done in an historical manner.

Dear Better (who joined the day before yesterday -- I wonder who else
you are):

Ted says "no." It's easy to say no. It proves nothing.

Ted hasn't even convinced ONE other person to say no.

What's difficult is to get other people to accept your ideas. And to say yes to what you propose.

Just ONE other person would prove something. THREE would be better. You could actually pass an
ordinance or resolution.

You make it sound like it's a big deal to say "no."

It isn't a big deal.

I attended the forum last night. The format wasn't ideal: les than two minutes for each slate to introduce themselves. But good questions from the audience. The break-out sessions with each ward candidate were better. I'm favoring Ted Mattox, Mark Reynolds, Sandy Castor and Roger Terry. Mixed slate wouln't be a bad thing.

Cary Africk was outstanding (as always!)

Did you like when Ted pounded his fist? I thought it was contrived!

MM: I don't remember that. I'd vote for anyone who doesn't mention "Marlboro Inn", "diversity" or "the artist community". Seriously, they answered my question. But I wish I'd asked one about the budget and taxes. Like, "what will you do to hold next year's budget to zero growth?"

Like, "what will you do to hold next year's budget to zero growth?

They will lie, just like Remsen did.