As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
09/18/2006
Mendham:
Town Stuff:
The Next Council Meeting:
09/18/2006
     By 06. 06. 06. on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
Questions to be asked during the public comment portion of the September 18th meeting.
1) In a last effort to avoid a formal protest, including the possibility of formal legal process that may include the accusation that town officials are willfully misappropriating funds in violation of state and federal law-- I again request that the council responed to my observation that they are using inappropriate figures in defining eligibility for COAH subsidies. The relevant council ordnances state: " "Very Low" or "Low" income with single individuals having an adjusted income of less that $29,500 and $41,700". The appropriate 2006 figures quoted on the COAH website are $17,702 and $29,504. By common sense standards the town's "error" is obvious (defining $41,700 as low income), and I respectfully request an explanation of this council's refusal to require investigation and correction.
2) It is my desire to perhaps videotape/photograph one of the taxpayer sponsored, recreational, bow and arrow, cullings of a deer. For safety's sake, can the Council direct that necessary cooperation is to be provided to prevent risk of interference or accident. Also, can the Council provide explicit explanation of a citizen's right to use public land posted with Deer Management signs.
3) In the last year previous to making public law relevant to the production of Channel 25 (and the expenditure of $50,000 indirectly provided by cable subscribers) did any member of the Borough Government read the relevant franchise agreement? if so, who?
|
| By 06. 2....... on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
The Mayor says:
quote:Starting with number one.... I think the writer is uneducated, relative to how this was written, the Mendham area senior housing or mash is a federally subsidized low-income housing that has criteria of 29,500 and $41,700 as the criteria for residency in that housing complex and those numbers were chosen based on the federal regulation that controls Mendham Area Senior Housing.... we had a lengthy discussion with COAH, and COAH agrees, because it is a federally subsidized site, and because we are subsidizing the rent of those who do not qualify based on the federal subsidy numbers, we can use those numbers in our ordinance. We do not have to use the $17,702 and $29,504
Number Two, My comment would be it is not practical to have people videotaping deer culling... we one don't know when it's going to happen... and two, from a safety standpoint... and from the practicality of someone standing there trying to video tape someone trying to shoot a deer doesn't make a lot of sense. I will say we will not address that issue... if someone has another comment their welcome to make it.
and No. 3 I know I read it, I can't remember how long ago when we were going through the franchise... I know that the committee stan your group and others worked in great detail on that entire franchise agreement... anyone who wants to comment on whether they read that franchise agreement you're welcome to do so
[other jerk cm]we also have not spent any money
no...it says here "indirectly by the cable subscribers" ... it's paid by the cable-TV company to the town.
any other comment on that...
hearing nothing
Here is a link to a letter I believe the mayor received last week. Obviously the executive director as well as some staff at COAH were also "uneducated" by the mayors standard. I suppose I was prematurely optimistic to believe common-sense would prevail without me having to go to court--to enforce a rational interpretation of the law. For the record, although I have an income 50% below the COAH definition of "very low-income", my interest is not personal in the obvious sense. As a matter of simple fact, I'm am alive today because the state of New Jersey has had the decency to subsidize my housing costs. Having been homeless, and lived most of my life inches from it, I know from personal experience that affordable housing isn't just a convenience. People with an income of 41,000 are not desperately poor, or in desperate danger of being unable to afford a roof over their head... especially if they're paying a rent of under $500 a month. It offends all logic to "further" subsidize these "merely less than rich" people when others can't afford a roof over their head.
As to the Mayor's explanation, I can't make any sense of it.... Their qualified for HUD assistance... but because they don't meet the HUD qualifications, the town is allowed to use the HUD standards, they don't qualify under, but somehow do qualify under when the town applies those same standards???? Bottom-line, why would COAH prominently provide qualifying income definitions... if those definitions don't ever apply (as the now acceptable[?] HUD standards are universally, for every region, much higher). Another point worth noting is that the Mayor's response doesn't address the legality of using "affordable housing money" to subsidize medically required[?] or elective, air conditioning. Also of note, MASH discriminates (refuses occupancy) against anyone making under $11,000 per year. I don't know what the average Social Security recipient receives, but it seems a bit ludicrous that people living just on Social Security would be EXCLUDED from accessing affordable-- tax revenue subsidized-- housing.
On the bowhunting questions, we have the brilliant oxymoron "that safety and practicality demands that we be uncooperative"... I guess I will have to ask for a third time for a legal clarification regarding... what the goddamn signs mean?
On the TV-25 question, the truth is as I suspected, they wrote the new law without even looking at the law they wrote governing what law they can write. When the mayor states he "knows he read it"... clearly he means he read it five years ago when he signed it... but in spite of my constitutional claims he has felt no obligation to look at it again. Just one more bit of evidence proving my claim that my American constitutional rights were not just misplaced, there were "maliciously" pilfered by the evil government you installed.
As for the $50,000 paid by the cable company, who but a silly hypocrite Republican would possibly claim it was paid by "the company"... The new law written to allow state wide franchises certainly doesn't mistake the "tax" for some sort of silly contribution from the owners or shareholders of the company. |
|