Will you be voting on Tuesday? If you will, you won't be alone - it will only seem that way. Many of Hillsborough's voters will likely stay away from the polls this year. After all, this is traditionally the most "off" of "off years" - no Presidential race, no US Senators, no Congressmen, no Governor. If only there were some other local question to galvanize voters.
Just kidding.
On November 6 Hillsborough will choose whether to keep its current Township Committee form of government, or change to a Mayor-Council form of government. Each form has its strengths and weaknesses. Yes and no are each valid choices - just as TC and MC are each valid forms of government.
How will you vote? This is your chance to make a pitch right here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment". Take a minute to let us know how you are voting and why.
I’ll Be Voting NO
ReplyDeleteI see nothing really wrong with Hillsborough’s government and we just received that wonderful endorsement from Money Magazine naming us the 23rd best small town to live in America. Personally, I think a lot of the hoopla about what is wrong with Hillsborough was made up by a couple of the CSC commissioners to enhance their shot at getting elected.
I’m not falling for it. I’ve never seen government do anything right anyway, why would I what an even bigger government here? So, as I mentioned, I’ll be voting NO, I see no reason to change the status-quo, it will just coat me more money in the long run and that is for sure!
A yes vote.
ReplyDeleteThere is something about the entire misinformation campaign being run by the "vote no" group that is making me very uneasy.
www.hillsboroughnjjournal.blogspot.com
P.S. Greg, on a personal note, my profound admiration for coming up with 20 well thought out posts every month!
Sorry AP, But You Are Way Off Base
ReplyDeleteFact. The VOTE NO people have simply proven that every town the CSC mentioned as changing government forms and coming out better is INDEED the true misinformation.
Jackson Twp. Taxes UP 39%, West Windsor UP 16% and Berkeley Heights UP 12%. Why did the CSC try to hide this information? They were elected to study and report, not filter data and only provide what favored a Yes Vote.
Why did the CSC elect not to bring in any other town that had a TC government like Montgomery?
This misinformation is so disgusting it's appalling!
ReplyDeleteMr. Gillette, weren't you in the audience the night former mayor Steve Sireci LIED to the Charter Study Commission about Jackson Twp's huge tax increase??? Here this 08844 commenter lies just as the local political party in power did - by FALSELY claiming that Jackson's tax increase was due tot he change in government?!
IT has been completely documented in newspaper articles and in discussion not just once but three time during CSC meetings that the tax increase in Jackson was NOT due to the change in government!!!
It's interesting that you choose to ignore facts and items that do not support your personal conclusion that Hillsborough should NOT change it's form of government!!! And you came to that conclusion at the very start of the Charter Study, before ANY research and testimony was obtained?!
To this day, I do not know what portion of Jackson's huge tax increase was due to the change in government forms. I can say with certainty that ALL 39% was not due to the change, as there was a deficit from the previous year.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone speaks into a microphone at a CSC meeting and states that Jackson't tax increase was not due to a change in government does not automatically make that statement fact. Even if it was stated three times!
Mr. Gillette, you continue to act as-one with the fabricators, prevaricators and political animals who merely conducted a massive campaign of voter fraud here in Hillsborough. You falsely characterize the Jackson Twp issue as what one person said with no proof?!
ReplyDeleteI asked you in my response whether you were in the audience when Steve Sireci lied to the CSC and to the good people of Hillsborough that night. You did not respond. However, whether you were there or not, there was a tape of the meeting (well, DVD) and the meeting was aired on Channel 25, plus there are minutes filed for that meeting.
Therefore, if you or anyone wanted to truly research the change of govt issue you and they would have known the clear facts.
But you choose to obfuscate in stead of illuminate!
When Steve Sireci lied to the public, I responded to him with proof positive that his accusation of Jackson's problems stemming from the change of government was FALSE! I held up a copy of the newspaper article where the editor of that local paper fully detailed the budget problem in Jackson - and it had NOTHING to do with the change of government!!!
So - what do we know as FACT???
We know for a fact that the Republican Party of Hillsborough, RALG and yourself, have all made a large number of incorrect claims and statements regarding the change of government question. We know for a fact that RALG and the elected officials and their political pals in the Republican Party made the claim that Jackson Twp's tax increase of 39% was due to the change in government.
We know that this false claim was rebutted by me in not one, not two but three CSC meetings yet you and they kept lying to the voters!
You here admit that you didn't know how much if any of the 39% tax increase was due to the cahange in government. So why didn't you speak out against the lies published by the political powers that be??? Why did you keep hiding critical information from the good people of Hillsborough on such an important issue as the change of government?
We know and agree that Jackson's tax increase was NOT primarily due to the change in government but we also know that the voters were lied to in a most abhorrent manner! But you remained silent and in fact you continued to support the same people who spread those malicious lies around our community!
It seems apparent to me that your conflict of interest is making you write, say and do things that are not consistent with making Hillsborough a better place. You have received a political appointment from these political operators and you also benefitted from their largesse as your Board of Education campaign spent $20,000 for a position that is voluntary and where the average campaign spends perhaps $200 to $500 tops for some signs. It seems that a conflict of interest is coloring your opinion in a dramatic fashion. IF there is another explanation then please provide one.
You have misquoted my response in an attempt to lie and deceive the public. I never used the term "if any" in relation to the Jackson tax increase - and that is a fact without dispute.
ReplyDeleteI have written 20 blog posts on the topic of the CSC. I made no opinionated posts until AFTER the last public hearing. I have responded to almost all of the comments to those posts.
In short, I have written thousands of words on this topic, and I am loath to repeat all of my positions here for the benefit of one crusader.
Rest assured, however, that all of the comments to these many blogs will remain here, visible to the public, so that they may decide for themselves about the change in government question, and the character and integrity of all of the particpants, including me.
This of course is in sharp contrast to what happened here
http://gvlhillsborough.blogspot.com/
where all comments have been removed!
Ladies and gentlemen, the writer of this blog, Greg Gillette, is proving with every response that he cannot be trusted. He changes subjects to cover his mistakes and lies, and he routinely makes statements with no basis in fact.
ReplyDeleteExample #1 - Mr. Gillette has written many posts on this subject and in each and every post, he has not once contradicted the politicians who mounted a massive campaign of voter fraud - in fact he has supported their nasty effort. One huge lie by the local political powers was discussed in part right here. I've asked Greg twice (or is it three time by now?) whether he was in the audience when Steve Sireci lied to the CSC and to the town. He refuses to answer! Hmmm - makes him look guilty doesn't it? But we'll move on. The LIE made by the local political pals of Greg is that our taxes would go way up if the govt was changed - and they used Jackson Twp's 39% as an example. Whether Greg attended the meeting or not, it is undeniable fact that if not all of that 39% tax increase, certainly most of it was NOT due to the change in govt! Therefore, the political pals of Greg, LIED to the town and Greg stood by and did - NOTHING!
Don't you think the public deserved to know THE TRUTH about this important item Greg???
Apparently not!
Example #2 - here's what Mr. Gillette wrote on the subject of this change of govt "One of the RALG lies - the Beacon recommendation - was no lie at all. The Hillsborough Beacon editor said that there was no overwhelming need for change, and from that he concluded that we should vote yes."
Mr. Gillette covers up the real facts here. RALG acted illegally, A)because they used a copyrighted banner that made their lie look official and convincing, and B)they only included the editor's statement about nothing terribly wrong!!! However, the Beacon editor most certainly had considerable argument, compelling and pertinent, over and above the cherry-picked RALG statement, wherein the Beacon editor suggested voters should vote YES on the change because there were MANY better reasons to vote YES than to vote NO.
But RALG, the local political pals of Greg, and other liars in Hillsborough hid the facts from the voters! They LIED! They made it seem to those who don't read the Beacon (that's 90% of the voters), that the Beacon was telling them there is nothing wrong, and so, no reason to vote yes!? That's WRONG!
Example #3 - Greg's following statement is very interesting - "In essence, the CSC did exactly what they should have done - lay out the facts and let the people decide. The voters said no to a "more complex. larger government"."
And here is the critical problem - either Mr. Gillette cannot comprehend issues and facts, or he is capable but chooses to lie. It must be one or the other!
Mr. Gillette and his political pals only gave the voters THEIR narrow view of the overall issue! The new form of govt would NOT be "larger and more complex" as the summary of ALL conclusions and viewpoints! To fully conclude this means to exclude 9 months of open public meetings by the Charter Study Commission, to exclude testimony from unbioased experts, and to exclude virtually EVERY fact obtained by the CSC that does not support the local politicians' desire to keep the old form so that they can continue to abuse it!
The fact is, Greg Gillette supports these dishonest politicians because they gave him an appointed position in the town's government and because they helped support his incredibly expensive campaign for Bd of Ed where he spent over $20,000 in a race where people typically spend $200 to $500 at most!
Mr. Gillette has not denied this at all! He owes considerable favors to the local political powers and it appears that he has started paying them back.
As I responded in another of your vile posts Greg, You know full well that the blog I wrote was discontinued and you are well aware that all that's left are my posts with no comments, nor is it functional as a blog in any manner. The blog was stopped and stripped some time ago and so it indicates NOTHING that there are no comments! However, I write letters to the editor of the Beacon and I respond factually to EVERY comment that comes back, despite the majority of those comments being nasty, dishonest and libelous - similar to your posts here. Your vain attempt to smear my name did not work and only shows you to me a nasty and vindictive person who cannot hold an intelligent and respectful debate.
I stand by the many words I have already written on this subject.
ReplyDeleteMr. Gillette - you cannot honestly make the claim that you stand by your many words already printed! I have revealed much if not most of your prior writing to be filled with inconsistencies, inaccuracies and most likely outright lies. IF you were standing by your words then you would provide a modicum at least of support to show that you are able to "stand by" your words!
ReplyDeleteHowever, you abjectly refuse to support your many claims, most of which I've shown to be totally meritless.
At best, you stood by doing nothing while the taxpayers were being lied to by our own elected officials in a massive campaign of voter fraud! In my opinion, the facts lead to a less-friendly conclusion, that you helped your political pals in their disreputable efforts. That also explains why you choose to avoid any detailed discussion of the facts of the issues here.
The readers can only be left with one conclusion.