Important Message From Ron Francioli (06/07/10 8:50pm)
Hanover neighbors,
Opened my mail, as you did, to a despicable - yet expected, campaign mailing from one of Ms. Iradi’s supporters on Woodcrest Road, Whippany. It attacks me as never before using out-and-out distortions to misrepresent my positions and 27 year record in Hanover– almost theatric in nature.
This is the worst form of campaigning indicating desperation on the part of the opposition. As I had said in my past postings, negative campaigns and attacks are not what I do and they are not what Hanover voters appreciate. It speaks volumes about the poor character of the candidate and person doing this.
It troubles me that Iradi’s campaign of misinformation is using our Whippany Fire Company as a pawn to have you believe they were cheated out of a ‘donated’ new firehouse. Each and every fireman, Whippany and Cedar Knolls knows the true facts - they are simple. Whippany Village would swap land with the Whippany Fire Company in order to get them off their flooding Rt 10 location and onto Troy Road. An opportunity your fire company has wanted for countless years.
The idea of who would construct the new firehouse was discussed with Whippany Village who offered to ‘frame and close’ a firehouse from the proceeds of the fire companies cell tower (5 users generates reasonable income for the Whippany Fire Company.) In turn and over time, the fire company would complete the improvements on their own. Later in negotiations the fire company decided it was in their best interest to hold onto the cell tower, using that income along with grants to fund their new firehouse - Their decision, not the town. Iradi wants you to believe otherwise.
We need, and have needed, a new Whippany firehouse! Or, invest costly dollars updating the old location. Shortly, the fire company will invite you to a special public meeting and explain what the options are – that’s it. On the record! Iradi voted with Fariello in a 2 to 2 vote and blocked any forward movement of this Whippany Village development and the real estate tax value for nearly 2 years.
The attacking writer refers to my using fear tactics as Hanover’s largest taxpayer, the Lucent property began to shut down. Did this in the 2008 campaign against me, too, and look where we are. He also deceptively called the mayor of Holmdel to check on the validity of my statements. Holmdel is now sitting on 500 acres of Lucent property for years now and it has greatly impacted their property values. We are actively partnering with Lucent to be assured that will not happen in Hanover.
They claim our taxes have remained ‘stable’ under them. Is a nearly 9% jump in your 2010 municipal taxes stable? The Daily Record claimed Hanover had the largest amount of tax appeals in the county in 2009 and we’re down 45 million in rateables – is that stability? And still, this year Iradi voted to bond (put Hanover in debt) for 3 million dollars to purchase property not nearly that worth. She claims she is protecting you from Morristown. More spin.
I left “quit” as they point out. The Star Ledger stated ‘ from what Francioli sited as a ‘negative political climate.’ The then majority of Fariello, Iradi and Copolla reversed planning board approved ordinances and discouraged the very rateables we sorely need - and that they now claim to support – The Weekly Regional who says I should have stayed would have me do what against that?
But, what the flyer does say of me with some accuracy is that ‘now the committee is more in keeping with my thoughts.’ Correct! Now with the addition of John Ferramosca and John Sheridan, along with Ken Schleifer. I am excited to say we can get some things done and unblock Hanover! You now know the just say ‘no’ approach of Iradi, Fariello and Copolla does’nt work. Tuesday, June 8th you decide, but not from the misinformation they are pitching to win your vote.
Outrage over the way a few facts were stated on a flyer?
EXCUSE ME! But, during this campaign one of my supporters had his house and cars vandalized with orange spray paint, my new car received a 2-foot long "keyed" scratch down to the metal, candidate Galofaro became the victim of identity theft and fraud, and what small amount of campaign signs I distributed throughout town, are being torn down from private property, mutilated and made unusable.
These are the "Real Dirty Campaigning Facts", and these are the despicable acts that decent well-meaning concerned citizens are subjected too, just because we want to help township residents and make a difference in Hanover.
These low-life acts are the kind of acts, that discourage people from entering politics. Others may have been intimidated into silence by these retaliatory acts, but if I win a seat on the Township Committee tomorrow, I will continue to stand up for EVERYONE.
Judy, There you go again playing the sympathy card!
You have no basis for assuming the vandalism had anything to do with your candidacy do you? So why create that impression?
You also have no way of knowing why you car was damaged or who might have done it. You blame it on the fact that you are running for office and have chosen to bring it up purely to garner sympathy.
Another candidate that ran against Lenny a few years back had their sidewalk spray-painted with obscenities and they didn’t go around complaining or accusing Lenny’s supporters (the same ones that support you) of doing it.
I think you have a legitimate issue with the signs but it’s not isolated to you alone so why are you trying to create the impression that you are being picked on?
Everybody’s signs are disappearing or being trampled. On my way home tonight your sign was the only one left standing on the corner of Forest Way and Ridgedale Ave. All of the others had been pulled out of the ground and were strewn about. I put Francioli’s sign back in the ground and continued home.
And Identity theft – I’m sorry, that's just too bizarre for me to comment about. How do you come up with this stuff.
For someone who is supposed o be just "a sponsor" why is it that you are at the forefront here. Shouldn't a sponsor or moderator, a real one that is, just sort of remain in the background and make certain that things that are posted don't cross the line when it comes to such things as foul language and seeing to it that nothing that is clearly slanderous, etc. gets posted?
In the interest of fairness to those people who think that you and your guys are, to use an expression you recently used in a post, "a crock," maybe you should step aside and let someone who can display just a wee bit of independence run the site. In other words, your bas is not just getting in the way, it's beginning to get damn irritating!
Plainsman When I am expressing my opinion, I have always signed them as "Tom Sutcliffe" and not "Sponsor". I provide everyone the opportunity to express theirs, anonymously or otherwise with extreme very few exceptions. I'm sorry if you were offended by the word I used to describe the attempt at drawing sympathy but you know what they say about "the shoe fitting". I could have used “ludicrous, preposterous, absurd, sill, outlandish, outrageous, incredible, etc.” all of which would have framed the topic as well. I provided equal access to all of the candidates very early on and there have been posts in the dedicated sections - I think that represents a level of fairness. Whenever someone expresses an opinion, they are expressing a certain degree of bias. As a "Sponsor" I need to avoid bias, but as an individual I am entitled to my opinion. As far as the site is concerned, the sponsorship involves a few thousand dollars per year and the advertising revenue does not cover those costs. So this is out pocket for the most part. It is a free market and there are other sites that people can visit or participate in if they so desire. You can also start your own site if you are willing to spend the money and deal with all of the other stuff that comes with the territory including not making everyone happy 100% of the time.Tom Sutcliffe
Plainsman
When I am expressing my opinion, I have always signed them as "Tom Sutcliffe" and not "Sponsor". I provide everyone the opportunity to express theirs, anonymously or otherwise with extreme very few exceptions.
I'm sorry if you were offended by the word I used to describe the attempt at drawing sympathy but you know what they say about "the shoe fitting". I could have used “ludicrous, preposterous, absurd, sill, outlandish, outrageous, incredible, etc.” all of which would have framed the topic as well.
I provided equal access to all of the candidates very early on and there have been posts in the dedicated sections - I think that represents a level of fairness.
Whenever someone expresses an opinion, they are expressing a certain degree of bias. As a "Sponsor" I need to avoid bias, but as an individual I am entitled to my opinion.
As far as the site is concerned, the sponsorship involves a few thousand dollars per year and the advertising revenue does not cover those costs. So this is out pocket for the most part. It is a free market and there are other sites that people can visit or participate in if they so desire. You can also start your own site if you are willing to spend the money and deal with all of the other stuff that comes with the territory including not making everyone happy 100% of the time.
