July 2nd Edition, “Tomorrow’s Messenger Tonight”

Looking at tomorrow’s Messenger, headline news:

Frank Severage bids fond farewell to B-R

Apparently, the board didn’t go with Severage, and wanted Christine Kane instead.

I don’t know what that was about, but Frank goes out with 30 year’s service, including stint as “Interim”, and that’s not so bad as far as the list of supes goes.

Back on Herb’s site, I listed the number of Superintendents Bridgewater-Raritan had since Harmon V. Wade. It’s some incredible number—-representing turnover every three years, on average. I don’t know how to count the recent “interim” ones—-it’s kind-of like all those acting governors we had in the month of January 2002 (diFrancesco, Bennett, Codey).

I think the Board and Superintenden-cy (or whatever) of Bridgewater-Raritan has been some kind of multi-decade, long-running joke on the people of the district, so I hope the new arrangement yields some positive results for a change. At least the new candidate doesn’t seem to be some kind of armband-authoritarian jackass, with a diploma mill Ph.D., recruited from Pennsylvania backwoods country by the Dittman family, or a district-hopper looking for a $200,000 payoff in a few years to leave.

Residents: no more development

Planning Board got an earful again by the organized Bridgewater residents (mostly Foothills Civic and the Arbor Glen people it looks like). That revised Master Plan is coming down the pike, and won’t it be interesting to figure out who is getting taken care of this time around?

Council President Flannery got herself some more press, saying “I would to see a decrease in development in the residential and commercial areas.” Sounds good, except I’m wondering what that is supposed to mean.

Bridgewater’s biggest problem has been the RE-developments of what was residential INTO commercial, and a lot of behind-the-scenes rezoning (by the Zoning Board of Adjustment). Most of the residential areas are “all built up” already. And the commercial areas keep getting rezoned into even more car-generating usage.

For example, this proposed Commons expansion that no one is talking about.

I counted this evening: seventy cars up North Bridge Street from North Grove to the Prince Rogers Highway intersection, in seven minutes. So, 10 a minute or one every six seconds. At 8:30 pm.

(By the way, check out the new Grove Street Bridge blind spot that the Freehold-based State landscaping crews are developing on North Grove, as you make the left turn to go over the bridge. Tell me, if a car is coming north over the bridge in YOUR southbound lane, will you have enough notice to see it with the weeds so high? And that little scenario plays itself out more and more, as more folks use the opposite lane to avoid the people that run that yield sign!

But I digress . . . )

So with all this development that HAS happened, and the stuff in the pipeline that no one’s talking about, what exactly would Council President Flannery NOT like to see developed? Does a decrease mean less development than what’s planned, or more, just not as fast? Is it downzoning? Or just not putting anything on Ed Irving’s pet project, the Cronheim Tract?

Many of these developments are just an unforgiveable mess —- a mess made two or three miles away (or more) from the homes of the people who voted to have the mess there!

What really would Patty Flannery change?

It sounds like this week, same as usual, she just says the things that are gonna win the audience and put a nice quote in the paper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s