Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat, Oct 25 2008, 9:36 am EDT    Post subject: Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter Reply with quote

Another search result. Just FYI:

Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter

Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:30 PM EDT

David Nissen, Cranbury

I write to support John Ritter for Township Committee.

Cranbury is facing an overwhelming threat of development, school pressure and taxpayer costs from COAH. The township critically needs a committeeman with knowledge, engagement and the full-time capability to help represent and develop our interests in contesting the new COAH numbers.

Mr. Ritter, who recently retired, has devoted himself to this issue and has been working as an advocate for Cranbury. He has testified on his own initiative in Trenton at COAH and legislative meetings. He is working to build links with other townships confronting the same problem, and is establishing a relationship with the League of Municipalities. His proposal for broadening support in the business community for limiting development will be an important extension of our political efforts.

Mr. Ritter’s thoughtful and informed discussion at Candidates’ Night of the broad issues facing Cranbury showed the depth of his engagement in Cranbury affairs, as I know myself from our many discussions. I am always struck by the care and originality of his thinking.

As a long-ago member of Cranbury’s Planning Board and Township Committee, I believe I know something of what we need now, and I support John Ritter for Township Committee.

David Nissen
Cranbury

http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/10/23/cranbury_press/your_views/doc4900deaab846a387036945.txt
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun, Oct 26 2008, 3:57 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter Reply with quote

I have met with both Win and John and find them both to be very good people. However, I am casting my vote for John Ritter. I find that he is very engaged in the community (I see him at many town meetings) and has a solid grasp of the issues, especially COAH. He has the time to commit to the job, as evidenced by his active participation now and in the past. He strikes me as an intelligent man that does his research and in order to make informed decisions.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun, Oct 26 2008, 4:20 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter Reply with quote

One thing that concerns me is all the people highlighting the fact that John is retired and therefore has time. To me this is a dangerous comment because it sets up an idea that the only people who can or should run be those who are retired and a lot of good can be done by those who do work. As well, I know many retired people with less time then I have in a day to do things.

Vote for John or Win because of their ideas and what they will do, not because one is retired and the other is not. Vote for the one who best represents your view regardless of time.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun, Oct 26 2008, 4:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cast your vote in Cranbury for John Ritter Reply with quote

People should vote wherever their conscious leads them. My only hope is that as many people as possible vote understanding the implications of their votes. In this case the principle difference between the two candidates is not their character or experience and certainly not their grasp or position on COAH which is similar (but for Mr. Ritter’s praise of Rep. Greenstein despite her cowardly refusal to assist Cranbury as our State Representative).

The difference this year boils down to whether we want to have a Cranbury Township Committee that is free to vote unilaterally for elective spending measures that will cost us millions and affect our taxes for years to come or whether we want a TC that will be required to seek voter input and/or votes before spending millions on controversial, elective “opportunities.”

The reason this one vote defines this so much is simple. Our Township government was wisely setup to require a 4 of 5 person super-majority to vote for the bond issuances required for major spending initiatives. A vote for Ritter guarantees that Mayor Stout will have 4 votes on any issue he chooses. It is well understood that he hand-picked Mr. Ritter as a candidate. This has never even been disputed by Mr. Ritter or his supporters. And Mr. Ritter has already gone on record as supporting Mayor Stout and all of his decisions. He has not taken a counter position on a single issue. He has supported the Ball Field. He supported re-zoning the land adjacent to the school contrary to its original intent without even having a dialogue with the school. And he has supported Mayor Stout’s preference to “study” the purchase of the PNC site as a possible Library with the express intent to not allow any public review following the study prior to making a decision that would cost the Township millions. The last point is important because Mayor Stout and his followers have tried to obscure the truth by claiming they only support more “study” not immediate action. But when asked on the public record to commit that they would at least release the results for public review and have another opportunity for public comment prior to final action following the study, Mayor Stout pointedly refused to do so and has refused to amend that position ever since. The reason is straight-forward. He does not intend to allow further public input, let alone a referendum of voters. He wanted the vote to directly lead to the power for the Township Committee to act unilaterally on the decision to proceed outside of the public light. They then would have re-written the previous Township support for a study as a strong public mandate for their action. Mr. Ritter supports this position, as he does the Township Committee’s substantial increase in closed door sessions and private sub-committee’s even for matters that do not involve personal issues or litigation or other sensitive matters. As does he support Mayor Stout’s unprecedented policy in Cranbury of considering politial party affiliation as a prerequisite in selecting people for volunteer committee and board positions.

In short, Mr. Ritter supports our Mayor in turning Cranbury from a non-partisan local government to one that is entirely partisan. However good his character and experience, I cannot support that. I would love to have seen him come out against this practice or in any way declare that he would be his own man instead of joining the Mayor’s iron-clad coalition that votes as a group on every matter, but he not only has declined to do so, he has made repeated gestures that he would be entirely supportive of the Mayor’s leadership.

It would therefore be against my conscious to vote for someone who basically intends to give Mayor Stout a blank check to our wallets for any initiative he sees fit, regardless of Township support, to vote for a philosophy that believes that even in such a small town as ours that majority public support is totally irrelevant to any major decision. To be clear, my principle objection to Mr. Ritter and Mayor Stout are not the whether I agree or disagree with their positions. I respect differences of opinion. It is their overall philosophy that the public doesn’t matter and that the Township should be free to pursue projects with impunity regardless of public support and that local government should be a collection of people that share the party affiliation and personal allegiance to the Mayor and his party.

A vote for Mr. Ritter, unfortunately, is a vote for my vote and that of my neighbors not to matter in the future. I would rather retain that fundamental right.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1