Why endorse a candidate who frivolously SUED our town?
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected ...
You missed a step. After the firm evaluated the 3 proposals and recommended L+M, then L+M was selected. L+M subsequently withdrew, leading the township to consider five other developers to pick up the project, from which it chose JMF.
This Village Facts timeline might help sort out the selection process:
http://villagefacts.org/timeline/
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
jimmurphy said:
Of course that didn't answer the question. Your specialty.
I deliberately will not touch the subject of impropriety
The TC apologists and minions can deal with that one
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Instead of implying that favoritism existed, which accuses every official involved, could you please just clarify your statement into the form of a sentence such as: "I think [NAME OF OFFICIAL(S)] improperly favored the JMF bid because JMF gave or promised to give him/her/them [SOMETHING].
Stoughton said:
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Instead of implying that favoritism existed, which accuses every official involved, could you please just clarify your statement into the form of a sentence such as: "I think [NAME OF OFFICIAL(S)] improperly favored the JMF bid because JMF gave or promised to give him/her/them [SOMETHING].
Kindly print where I said anything like that.
I have been most forthcoming in stating that the whole idea for this building lacks any intelligence and cohesion with the rest of the Village
However it is one thing to largely trumpet, as I have that this is a dumb move
and quite another to state there is malfeasance .
Waiting for your/my quote
author said:
I deliberately will not touch the subject of impropriety
The TC apologists and minions can deal with that one
That's just not true. You have alleged impropriety on the part of town officials repeatedly for months. The last time was minutes ago. Doing so in a baseless, unverifiable way that doesn't mention specific names doesn't change it the fact that you're accusing people of illegal, immoral conduct. Maybe even worse, you're alleging that they are profiting at the expense of every Maplewood resident they have sworn to serve.
This isn't an "All Canadians like hockey" generalization. It's a pretty small number of people involved. You know and we know who you're talking about. If you think people are doing something illegal, have the courage of your convictions so say who and what.
If you can't, at least answer me this: Why can't the officials just be wrong about the development. Why are you so sure that they've been corrupted?
author said:
Stoughton said:
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Instead of implying that favoritism existed, which accuses every official involved, could you please just clarify your statement into the form of a sentence such as: "I think [NAME OF OFFICIAL(S)] improperly favored the JMF bid because JMF gave or promised to give him/her/them [SOMETHING].
Kindly print where I said anything like that.
I have been most forthcoming in stating that the whole idea for this building lacks any intelligence and cohesion with the rest of the Village
However it is one thing to largely trumpet, as I have that this is a dumb move
and quite another to state there is malfeasance .
Waiting for your/my quote
"Asking" if there was favoritism and referencing the similarity to an imprisoned corrupt politician is an accusation of malfeasance. If you want to play word games or pretend it's not, that's fine, but I trust you know the truth.
Saying it's a "dumb move" is fine, and might be correct. But saying that improper favoritism exists is defamatory unless you can support it.
Stoughton said:
author said:
Stoughton said:
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Instead of implying that favoritism existed, which accuses every official involved, could you please just clarify your statement into the form of a sentence such as: "I think [NAME OF OFFICIAL(S)] improperly favored the JMF bid because JMF gave or promised to give him/her/them [SOMETHING].
Kindly print where I said anything like that.
I have been most forthcoming in stating that the whole idea for this building lacks any intelligence and cohesion with the rest of the Village
However it is one thing to largely trumpet, as I have that this is a dumb move
and quite another to state there is malfeasance .
Waiting for your/my quote
"Asking" if there was favoritism and referencing the similarity to an imprisoned corrupt politician is an accusation of malfeasance. If you want to play word games or pretend it's not, that's fine, but I trust you know the truth.
Saying it's a "dumb move" is fine, and might be correct. But saying that improper favoritism exists is defamatory unless you can support
Any statement about favoritism was yours ...........not mine
Furthermore you claim it was implied...........I never used the word favoritism
You are not only parsing words you are parsing concepts
author said:
Stoughton said:
author said:
Stoughton said:
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Instead of implying that favoritism existed, which accuses every official involved, could you please just clarify your statement into the form of a sentence such as: "I think [NAME OF OFFICIAL(S)] improperly favored the JMF bid because JMF gave or promised to give him/her/them [SOMETHING].
Kindly print where I said anything like that.
I have been most forthcoming in stating that the whole idea for this building lacks any intelligence and cohesion with the rest of the Village
However it is one thing to largely trumpet, as I have that this is a dumb move
and quite another to state there is malfeasance .
Waiting for your/my quote
"Asking" if there was favoritism and referencing the similarity to an imprisoned corrupt politician is an accusation of malfeasance. If you want to play word games or pretend it's not, that's fine, but I trust you know the truth.
Saying it's a "dumb move" is fine, and might be correct. But saying that improper favoritism exists is defamatory unless you can support
Any statement about favoritism was yours ...........not mine
Furthermore you claim it was implied...........I never used the word favoritism
You are not only parsing words you are parsing concepts
Your 12:58 post reads "Was there favoritism." Then you bring up an infamous Newark mayor who went to jail because he showed favoritism to the contractors who were bribing him.
I find a 12;52 comment which is a reply to something Ridski wrote
There is no mention of actual or implied favoritism
Would you do the green quote thing
I suppose you could forget this post from a couple of hours ago. But you and a couple of your cronies have been alleging "sweetheart deals" and impropriety, not to mention incompetence and negligence for at least a year. That should be hard to forget.
author said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected, a company that was not involved in the bid process. Is there a hint of impropriety or favoritism based on these facts?
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio
special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
Again another allegation with out proof
This is really getting boring
I get more conversations with substance from my parakeets
If you read favoritism...........I forgot I mentioned it, yes..................
perhaps it was the wrong word to use
But then again a proper vetting would have found over 20 complaints by the Town of South Orange
in relation to the building of the Avenue by this company
They were published right here in MOL for anyone who cares to use the search engine
author said:
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
You asked if there was favoritism and answered your question by noting the similarity to a now-deceased Essex County mayor who was jailed because of the favoritism he showed to the contractors who bribed him.
If you went a little too far (which happens to all of us) and just believe the decision was incorrect but not corrupted, it's fine to just say so.
If you believe the process was corrupted, please say who you believe was corrupted by whom and what was given or promised.
But it's absurd to argue that you brought up Hugh Addonizio without wanting to imply that favoritism occurred here.
Stoughton said:
author said:
There were these bids for the one building. One building that is inappropriate for its location
Overly large and not in keeping with its surrounding
The Rhinestone Building
Was there favoritism. They built the Avenue with many complaints from South Orange
The architect was on the job at The Station House
In Newark when a building was put up with questionable standards it was known as a Hugh Addonizio special. I just don't have a good feeling about this
You asked if there was favoritism and answered your question by noting the similarity to a now-deceased Essex County mayor who was jailed because of the favoritism he showed to the contractors who bribed him.
If you went a little too far (which happens to all of us) and just believe the decision was incorrect but not corrupted, it's fine to just say so.
If you believe the process was corrupted, please say who you believe was corrupted by whom and what was given or promised.
But it's absurd to argue that you brought up Hugh Addonizio without wanting to imply that favoritism occurred here.
I have loudly proclaimed from day 1 that the decision on all counts was not the best for the Village
NO, proper procedure was followed.............However from day one the premise or process was flawed and especially when Kings dropped out of the running. To have continued to build the same building
was not in the best interest of Maplewood Township
I know I may be reaching this conclusion later than most, but author has totally lost any credibility in my opinion based on his posts today. To ask "was there favoritism?" and then compare the PO situation to a Newark Mayor who went to prison for corruption, but then claim others are putting words in his mouth, is truly disingenuous.
tomdevon said:
I know I may be reaching this conclusion later than most, but author has totally lost any credibility in my opinion based on his posts today. To ask "was there favoritism?" and then compare the PO situation to a Newark Mayor who went to prison for corruption, but then claim others are putting words in his mouth, is truly disingenuous.
What a simple conclusion. Like most there is a back story and it helped to be present at the time.
I was there when Mayor Addonizio was elected. And I was there when Grand Jury found there was a
prevailing lack of confidence of the people of Newark in he and the City Council. This lead to further investigation and the jailing of the Mayor and a few council people
Rather then debate the merits or lack of merits of the new building we are mired down in my one time use of the word favoritism. I won't call it a Red Herring but it certainly does take away attention from
the building about to be presented to us.
Be careful what you wish for
author said:
tomdevon said:
I know I may be reaching this conclusion later than most, but author has totally lost any credibility in my opinion based on his posts today. To ask "was there favoritism?" and then compare the PO situation to a Newark Mayor who went to prison for corruption, but then claim others are putting words in his mouth, is truly disingenuous.
What a simple conclusion. Like most there is a back story and it helped to be present at the time.
I was there when Mayor Addonizio was elected. And I was there when Grand Jury found there was a
prevailing lack of confidence of the people of Newark in he and the City Council. This lead to further investigation and the jailing of the Mayor and a few council people
Rather then debate the merits or lack of merits of the new building we are mired down in my one time use of the word favoritism. I won't call it a Red Herring but it certainly does take away attention from
the building about to be presented to us.
Be careful what you wish for
It is a complete and utter waste of time to debate the merits or lack of merits of the new building. IT IS A DONE DEAL.
Continued innuendo about impropriety and favoritism is what is upsetting people.
jimmurphy said:
author said:
tomdevon said:
I know I may be reaching this conclusion later than most, but author has totally lost any credibility in my opinion based on his posts today. To ask "was there favoritism?" and then compare the PO situation to a Newark Mayor who went to prison for corruption, but then claim others are putting words in his mouth, is truly disingenuous.
What a simple conclusion. Like most there is a back story and it helped to be present at the time.
I was there when Mayor Addonizio was elected. And I was there when Grand Jury found there was a
prevailing lack of confidence of the people of Newark in he and the City Council. This lead to further investigation and the jailing of the Mayor and a few council people
Rather then debate the merits or lack of merits of the new building we are mired down in my one time use of the word favoritism. I won't call it a Red Herring but it certainly does take away attention from
the building about to be presented to us.
Be careful what you wish for
It is a complete and utter waste of time to debate the merits or lack of merits of the new building. IT IS A DONE DEAL.
Continued innuendo about impropriety and favoritism is what is upsetting people.
Don't worry..........be happy
jimmurphy said:
Sure would be great if you took your own advice................
You have never met someone as happy as I
But happiness does not preclude speaking out when necessary
Striking a balance within one self is the trick
DaveSchmidt said:
lord_pabulum said:
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected ...
You missed a step. After the firm evaluated the 3 proposals and recommended L+M, then L+M was selected. L+M subsequently withdrew, leading the township to consider five other developers to pick up the project, from which it chose JMF.
This Village Facts timeline might help sort out the selection process:
http://villagefacts.org/timeline/
While that is correct, if memory serves, that last round was by private invitation not by published notice so "lord" is somewhat correct. Please correct this if I am mistaken
OliveBee said:DaveSchmidt said:While that is correct, if memory serves, that last round was by private invitation not by published notice so "lord" is somewhat correct. Please correct this if I am mistakenlord_pabulum said:You missed a step. After the firm evaluated the 3 proposals and recommended L+M, then L+M was selected. L+M subsequently withdrew, leading the township to consider five other developers to pick up the project, from which it chose JMF.
The facts are that there were eight initial bids and three were selected to submit full proposals. Then a firm evaluated the 3 proposals. Then JMF was selected ...
This Village Facts timeline might help sort out the selection process:
http://villagefacts.org/timeline/
That may be, which under the circumstances doesn't trouble me. I'm content to correct the implication, left by lord_pabulum's juxtaposition of facts, that the township disregarded the evaluation before selecting JMF.
I like Olives comment that Lord is "somewhat" correct. I suspect that if the tables were turned and instead, Lord Pablum was arguing with the TC (and the majority of Maplewood residents) that she may have jumped all over his inaccuracies.
Woot said:
I like Olives comment that Lord is "somewhat" correct. I suspect that if the tables were turned and instead, Lord Pablum was arguing with the TC (and the majority of Maplewood residents) that she may have jumped all over his inaccuracies.
Should I have said "partially correct"? Part of his statement was correct and part isn't that's all
If we are going to continue to have discourse on this, perhaps to sort out what to do I future, then the sniping has to stop
OliveBee said:
Woot said:
I like Olives comment that Lord is "somewhat" correct. I suspect that if the tables were turned and instead, Lord Pablum was arguing with the TC (and the majority of Maplewood residents) that she may have jumped all over his inaccuracies.
Should I have said "partially correct"? Part of his statement was correct and part isn't that's all
If we are going to continue to have discourse on this, perhaps to sort out what to do I future, then the sniping has to stop
Hey, its New Jersey. Shvt happens
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.