 |
| Mr. Eke had no problems with New Democrats when Al McWilliams was mayor, as shown here at the 2000 Ethfest. |
I am rubbing my eyes with disbelief!
Is this the same Charles Eke who, as Mayor Robinson-Briggs' nominee for a PMUA commissioner's seat, came before the Council and in his public interview had NOTHING NEGATIVE TO SAY ABOUT THE PMUA (see Bernice's report in Plaintalker II here)? The record shows that Rev. Tracey Brown was the ONLY nominee who offered to look at the PMUA with a critical eye.
Is this the same Charles Eke who would have been eligible, as a Commissioner, for health benefits FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY and made no offer to forego same if appointed?
Is this the same Charles Eke whom I have never seen at a Council meeting except when his nomination was on the agenda for the evening? Whom I have never seen at a PMUA Commissioners meeting ever?
Is this the same Charles Eke who, after failing to be appointed, came to the February Council meeting to harangue the Council over his rejection, labeling those who failed to vote for him as 'unfit for public office' (see Bernice's report here).
Not only is this the same Charles Eke, he displays a level of ignorance about the Council's role which only confirms their sound judgment in not appointing him. Eke proposes --
...[t]he City Council could have taken bold steps towards reform of the PMUA. They could have put out the entire city's garbage collection out to bid. Let Waste Management, let Grand Sanitation and other garbage collection companies bid on this work. Let the PMUA bid on this work and may the best company win.That is the way I would have done it. That is the way any sound businessman would have done it. It's very clear...Eke completely misunderstands the Council's power.
The Council has no authority whatsoever, given the agreement that established the PMUA, to 'put the city's garbage collection out to bid'.
It has jawboned the PMUA to no visible effect.
It can dissolve the PMUA agreement, but would need some findings of fact to do so -- which the task force to which Eke objects could report back to the Council as findings.
Eke only shows what an ignorant and foolhardy appointee he would have been.
As for Eke's endorsement of Storch's challenger, Tony Rucker, if Rucker doesn't publicly object to this idiotic proposal, you should chalk it up as one more reason to vote for Storch.
P.S.: In the 2009 City Committee races, in which Eke ran for a District seat against New Dem Kieran Anderson, he was beaten 127-23. Can this have anything to do with his antagonism toward the New Dems?
- Courier, Letter to Editor: "Charles Eke: PMUA reforms moving too slowly"
- Plaintalker II --
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
8 comments:
Yhe issue is what isStorch's record of reining in the PMUA? What is the record of New Dem appoontes PMUA? What have they done. Show us that.
I dont care for 10year old photos.
I think he has a point.
Another study? It would only take the councilman an hour to call all the waste haulers in the area, get their pricing for hauling in other towns in Union county. dumpPMUA has gathered a ton of facts pulled from OPRA requests. What more does the council need?
Storch touts the Rutgers Economic Development study. Really? Why use a college that has no REAL WORLD business experience. All our hopes for the city are based on a study by college students, with no experience, no credentials? Just sounds like more political-speak BS. Everything gets studied, no one designs a real plan, makes real decisions.
Why not talk to towns in a similar situation that have turned their town around, what they did, how they made it happen.
And transit village housing with little parking? Come on, let's get real! What yuppy is going to pay big bucks to live next to the railroad tracks an hour from NYC, with no parking for 2 cars? People move out of the city when they want a house and a yard and are willing to commute 1.5 hours to have that.
I'm not against Storch per se, but Eke does have a point. When someone doesn't know what to do or doesn't want to make a decision -- they call for a study.
I think Ekes idea is good. I am tired of excuses.
I don't know much about Charles Eke, but it does seem like the same old Dan Damon, the one who is stuck in the self-satisfying 'Golden Era' of the late mayor Al McWilliams when we agreed to putting DYFS and unemployment at the city's premier corner at Front and Park. He's still fighting the fight of 2005. No wonder Plainfield has had such difficulty moving forward when we are stuck in the past.
Is this the same Dan Damon who toiled for the United Plainfield PAC that took campaign money from the PMUA executive director, and its attorneys, auditors, and engineers, and funneled it to Councilman Storch's campaign committee?
Is this the same Dan Damon whose partisanship was blind to Mr. Storch's vote for an illegal job-training contract that jeopardizes future State and Federal grants?
Is this the same Dan Damon whose 'team' thinks that getting a bills list a week or so earlier than usual, and slaps the mayor's wrist by maintaining the previous state-mandated bid threshold, is making headway when it comes to transparency and accountability? The same team that says the city needs a CFO, and then unanimously approves the appointment of a retired part-timer who works from home?
Is this the same Dan whose knee-jerk partisanship typically keeps half the city enraged, and the whole of the city mired in gridlock?
You bet it is, which is why I am supporting the two Council candidates who have yet to cast a foolish or ignorant vote, and have not been wholly consumed by a power struggle six years old that has debilitated the city and kept us a backwater of Union County. This year the choice is clear for anyone with any interest in making real progress in our city, Tony Rucker in Ward 2, and Dee Dameron for Wards 1&4 at-large.
I am sick and tired of excuses. Fire the PMUA.
whatever happened to "losing gracefully" ??? You can try to hide it all you want...but lack of class always comes out in the end.
Good riddance to bad rubbish I suppose ( get it ?? get it ?? )
Question is why are the New Democrats protecting the PMUA?
The only thing the council needs to do is shut the PMUA down. they don't need a task force to tell them that we pay WAY TOO MUCH! They don't need a task force to show them that the services we get are no better than that of Scotch plains, Westfield, South Plainfield, Summitt, etc. etc. at a fraction of the cost. For under $10 million sewer and solid waste services could be performed. Right now we pay close to $30 million as touted by the PMUA in their latest 8-page color newsletter. The PMUA is a bloated agency who is only concerned with friends and family.
Post a Comment