From The Press of Atlantic City, 1/28/2010, Rob Spahr, Staff Writer
The township's new governing body wasted no time announcing that it plans to revise some of the more controversial ordinances passed by the previous administration.
In only it's second regular meeting of the year Tuesday night, the Township Committee - which Democrats now control 4-1 - announced it would revisit three ordinances passed last year.
The ordinances include one that raised the fee for the township's public defender from $100 to $200. The Township Committee instituted the increase last spring, saying it was needed to cover a $1,700 salary boost the township gave its public defender a few weeks earlier.
But Deputy Mayor Bernard Graebener explained that he felt this increase was only hurting the poorest members of the community and felt the fee should be lowered back to $100. The committee elected instead to investigate the possibility of inserting language into the ordinance that would give the municipal court judge the authority to set the amount for the public defender anywhere from zero to $200.
"It lets the judge know that the committee would like the fee to be considered based on financial circumstances of individuals," Graebener said Wednesday night. "The judge already had that ability, but our law is pretty straight forward that our fee is $200."
The committee also announced it plans to revisit a decision the township made late last year to erect a "No Parking" sign on a 30-foot-wide road in the Sweetwater section of township after several residents complained that one of their neighbors regularly parked on the roadway, making it difficult for cars and emergency vehicles to pass.
"If the situation was unsafe for that street, it makes sense it would also be unsafe for other streets of that same width," said Mayor Michael St. Amour, who said the committee would likely look at drafting an ordinance that would regulate on-street parking in a way that would guarantee emergency vehicles could easily navigate every road in town - not just one street in Sweetwater.
The ordinance that drew the most public opinion last year involved amendments made to the township's Parades and Public Assemblies ordinance. The changes mandated that people or groups wanting to hold a "special event" on township property must apply for a permit 30 days before their gathering and provide proof of liability insurance 10 days prior to the event. Any request for a permit can be denied "at the discretion of the township," which also has the authority to revoke any permit.
The Republicans on the committee at the time - who were backed by the township's chief financial officer and former solicitors - argued that the ordinance was needed to protect the township from being held liable for accidents at public gatherings.
But Democrats argued that the ordinance was unenforceable and unconstitutional. The committee voted to revisit the ordinance for possible changes, but specifics on what those changes might be were not announced.
Former Mayor Janet Forman raised issues with the committee's decision to investigate making changes to each of the three ordinances.
"We did this to protect our taxpayers," she said, adding that other municipalities are using Mullica's Parades and Public Assembly ordinance as the model for their own. "I think it should be left the way it is."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Mullica Plans to Revisit Controversial Ordinances
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
You know, we live in a rural community. One of the benefits of living here is that we have fewer laws than do more congested municipalities. Sticking no parking signs on a 30-foot wide street, where they are not needed, is ridiculous. If a resident is parking on one of our roads in a manner such that that he is impeding the flow of traffic, the police should ask him not to park that way any longer or issue him a ticket. I don't know why we would pass an ordinance that would inconvenience other residents from parking on their street just to try to control the actions of one individual. It seems excessive to me when there are other, simpler means to stop such inconsiderate behavior.
What other towns are trying to control access to their roads and public facilities and to hinder free speech by copying our ordinance? I'd like to know.
It's more than one sign, there has to be at least 6 signs along that section of roadway and it seems unnecessary.
RE: No Parking Restrictions
Just because several people want a new law doesn't mean that the committee should always comply with their request. That's not good government. The committee has an obligation to the entire community to consider all the circumstances and base their decision on the facts. Otherwise, we will have a town being controlled by various factions and one of disharmony. Rational decision making is needed here.
"We did this to protect our taxpayers," said Forman.
No, I think that they did it to shield the township from the taxpayers.
It seemed apparent at the meeting that the wealthy folks residing in their million dollar homes in Sweetwater Haven are not able to get along. Who calls the police when they don't like where a neighbor parks his car? I don't see why our township should be putting up signs in order to settle their petty disputes. I am glad that I live in a neighborhood where my neighbors are some of my best friends.
I agree with a previous poster that the parking issue is a dispute between neighbors and that the committee should not have been involved in the first place. Its solution was excessive.
Janet Forman never impressed me as being an honest legislator and I'm glad that she's gone. She was a contining embarrassment to all of us. The current administration is now trying to clean up the mess that she left.
If this meeting was filmed and available for the public to see, it would be noted that the police were called 4 times about the man's vehicle being parked on the street. Four different officers did not see a problem and considered the complaints to be unfounded and nuisance calls.
This seems to be a case of a few neighbors ganging up on a person who does not agree with them on other matters. This man was never asked to move his vehicle by any of the neighbors who called the police.
When the police didn't think this was a problem,the neighbors took their complaint to their friends, Forman and Chasey.
Being it was an election year,I guess Chasey, Forman and their flunky Kennedy passed the no parking signs so their friends could get revenge on this man.
It seems that parents pick up their kids from the bus on this street and totally ignore the signs and some of the other neighbors in the past had asked if it was ok to park there if they had parties.
Sure,it's ok with Forman and Chasey. They are used to selective enforcement of the laws. Just don't let the original offender park there even though he stopped months before the Ordinance was passed.
The new Committee was elected to change the way our Twp. was being run. Changes to all three of these Ordinances will bring fairness to everyone.
If Janet Forman had chosen to run for office again,she would have lost by a much larger vote than Chasey or Crowe.
Janet Forman and Cathy Chasey showed no respect for the people attending the meeting by their constant talking and giggling among themselves.
They were both a disgrace while sitting up front but their behavior while sitting in the back of the room was deplorable. Their true character was revealed and I feel their only motive in attending was to heckle and challenge the new Administration.
The poster gave me the idea of new monikers for Forman and Chasey, formerly part of KFC. We can call them Heckle and Jeckle from now on.
At one point, all of the Dems on committee were on the other side of the dais, in the audience, and never once do I recall while they were there any of them (Graebener, St. Amour, Polk or Gabris) ever being disruptive and talking during a meeting. They spoke during public comment, but were never rude during the actual meeting. I think they deserve the same respect they gave Chasey and Forman during the meetings while they were on committee. Grow up ladies.
re 9:26 pm
Heckle and Jeckle! BAWHaahaaaa!!
What appropriate monikers for the two old crows!
Looks like there will be real entertainment at the meetings.
I'm sure Jeckle will sit back,shut her eyes,blush,fluff her feathers and cackle as Heckle does all the dirty work for her.
Birds of a different feather that flocked together for the sole purpose of using each other.
Jeckle must have plans to try to regain her large political perch.
Wow! You mean we might be able to have birthday parties or picnics at the park without giving a 30 day notice,$100 application fee,insurance plus a permit fee?
I remember that Chasey saw no difference between a birthday party or a person campaigning at the dump. Everyone would have had to follow the same procedures.
The KMG guys and the Press fought Chasey and Forman and won the Freedom of Speech fight.
I'm glad that the new Committee will work on changing the rest of that Ordinance that hurt the public just so Chasey wouldn't have competition at the Dump.
Just a note that Heckle and Jeckle were also con artists that, more often than not, lost to the characters they were victimizing.
The new monikers are most fitting.
Post a Comment