This is Llopez81374's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Llopez81374's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Llopez81374
Recent Activity
And this is what I am talking about... if we continue to raise the debt ceiling, we are continuing to force ourselves to find more sources of funding... Look at it this way - you go to work every day, and bring home a paycheck every week. When you cash your paycheck, and you look at your budget, you realize that you don't have money to buy steak every night AND have every channel on the cable lineup. You don't sit there and say, well, I will keep both and hope somehow the money shows up. No, instead, you say, I have to cut my budget. You decide you'll only eat steak one night a week, and you'll eliminate half the cable channels. Then, you can afford to have what you want and need. We all know it is irresponsible to run our credit cards up with no expectation of being able to pay for them. We all understand that running up debt costs us in interest, and we will end up paying more for something in the long run... it really IS cheaper to go to the store and buy a tv straight out than go to Rent-A-Center and pay $50 a week for 26 months. Sometimes, it is unavoidable - we go to the hospital, and we have to get care, so we rack up a hospital bill, and we spend the time paying it off... but it doesn't make sense to do that for everything, because eventually, we will get to the point where we cannot, or will not pay anything off... The Republicans simply want to trim the budget so that we are not buying a tv from Rent-A-Center. Instead, we trim our budget so that we can afford the tv...
1 reply
Dan and all... Deep sigh... I don't like this at all... I can't say it's the answer, although I get your point... They are wrong, flat out wrong, on this fishing issue, and I hope tonight at the City Council meeting that we get a chance to make our opinion known. I hope you find a way to change your mind... remember that quote I used last week, and remember that YOU are one of the good guys... We need more people like you to act, and not to be scared off by bullies. Lisa Lopez Candidate for City Council, Third Ward
1 reply
Jen, Just in case they don't get back to you in time, I think they are doing signups every Tuesday night at 8:30pm at their meetings at O'Donnell's... There's a facebook page, and also, a website at http://www.gcyouthsoccer.com . I hope you see this! Lisa
Toggle Commented Aug 14, 2012 on CNBNEWS CHEERS AND JEERS FOR JULY 2012 at CNBNews
1 reply
I have been thinking about this topic a lot. When Mayor James and the rest of the current City Council were elected, I am sure they had great ideas. They live here, they saw the difficulties our community faces, and they had a plan for how they wanted to deal with them. They are not evil people - they most likely did not set out to do things that would tick us off. They wanted to make Gloucester City a better place to live, for all of us. I don't know whether they lost their way. I don't know whether they changed their priorities. What I do know is that they stepped into positions where people are going to vehemently argue with them, almost every day. For every person who says, "Great job!", they are going to find people who think they have failed the trust they have been given. I'm running for Council in November, and so this probably makes me a bit more introspective about this question. I don't like things that they have done. I disagree with them. A lot of it is basic political philosophy - I think Gloucester City people need to step up, and government needs to step back, manage the responsibilities given to them, and leave alone things that need letting alone. I don't think we need more ordinances, more regulation, but more common sense, and application of those ordinances already in place. But what it comes down to is the fact that they were willing to step up to make the hard decisions that needed to be made, and they deserve our respect for that willingness to serve. I think you should carefully consider who you vote for in November. I know that a good person does not set out to do wrong, but good people sometimes make decisions that are wrong. What you need to decide is whether the vision and dreams YOU have for Gloucester City match those of the council members up for election. If they do, then you vote to keep the council as it is. But if it doesn't, don't vote for them. Look around, vote YOUR conscience. Vote YOUR dreams. Vote YOUR vision for Gloucester City. Lisa Lopez Republican Candidate for City Council 3rd Ward
1 reply
Cheers to Dave Stallwood, for stepping up to help the community! Lisa Lopez
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2012 on CNBNEWS CHEERS AND JEERS FOR JULY 2012 at CNBNews
1 reply
You know, reader, that's the theory :-)... I would say that except in very rare circumstances (so rare that I'm struggling to come up with an example), the government should act within the desires of the people. Our representative government acts in this way specifically so that the voice of the people can be heard. Government should never be the enemy. I don't know that the current Council will hear the cries of the people from over here, on CNB. What I do know is that if the public who wants fishing to be permitted on this pier shows up on August 16th at the final reading, the current Council will be forced to act in direct opposition to the stated desires of the public, assuming they choose to go ahead with this ordinance. Trust me, we can make THAT heard all over Gloucester City, before November 6th. So, can we get a show of hands of who will show up on August 16th in support of fishing at the pier? Remember, it starts with us, and if we can't be bothered to let the current Council know how we feel, we can't be bothered to complain about them when they act against our will. Who will be there?
1 reply
I love the conversation that has gone on here, from all sides, and I believe this dialogue is an excellent step. The input on how effective, or not effective, the current "fishing allowed" pier is can be invaluable to the city, especially non-fishers (like me) in looking at the design and improving the circumstances. In terms of the fishing ban at Freedom Pier, I really don't believe this is an issue about fishing at all. This kind of vandalism and trash would go on without fisherman. The problem is that, as was pointed out, this is an isolated area with no regular reason for traffic. As such, it is rife with potential for destruction. I don't think blaming the fishermen and banning fishing accomplishes anything. It's really a matter of surveillance. If there is no policing presence to deter the vandalism, then there will be no policing presence to deter fishing, even when signs are posted, and we all know that laws only keep the law-abiding from mis-stepping - laws do nothing to keep criminals (and that's what vandals are) from breaking the law. I know we are constantly complaining about the lack of police presence in certain places, and trust me, I know that Chief Berglund is working hard to monitor Gloucester City. But we need to make priorities, and if we want to attract stores and restaurants to Gloucester, we've got to make sure it looks like the type of place people want to come from. Let's face it, we aren't trying to lure restaurants so that residents have a nice place to go - we want to get them so we can bring in tourism dollars, jobs, and grants. We've got great riverfront property, and we need to show it off. I'd prefer to see Council, rather than create unenforceable ordinances, sit down with the police chief to formulate innovative ways to police the unpoliced areas. Other communities use civilian officers, who are lower paid, but better trained versions of a community watch, in order to patrol areas which are low-violence but full of nuisance crimes. These officers, rather than confront lawbreakers, have immediate access to armed officers, and can dispatch directly when needed. Imagine a parking officer, but on vandalism duty. We know there are no easy answers. But there are creative solutions which can come if we don't go with the same knee-jerk reactions. Lisa Lopez Candidate for City Council 3rd Ward
1 reply
If the point is that the government should not be involved in such a sign due to the supposed separation of church and state, we'd actually have to look at the restriction and see that what is said is only that a government should not "establish" religion. This doesn't mean that government has to stay out of religion, but only that the government can't decide that everyone should, let's say, belong to the Church of England, or the Catholic church. But helping a community organization hang a sign doesn't endorse a religion... it simply means that the government helped hang a sign. Hhmph.
1 reply
My understanding is that, by keeping careful records of who donates, all money will be returned to the contributors in the event that the diocese does not agree to keep the school open.
Toggle Commented Jun 22, 2011 on BENEFIT ST. MARY’S SCHOOL -cnbnews.net at CNBNews
1 reply
Before vilifying the school board, I'd like to see an article reporting why this decision was made.
1 reply
In my humble opinion, this is a foolish move. We all understand government in general takes too long to act. I am not sure of the exact path that these decisions have to take, but the language of this article indicates that the Planning Board decided what Council would do, which would say to me that Council must then accept the vote of the Planning Board. So, let's imagine for a second that funds might become available from the state for areas in need of rehab. Do we have to wait for the Planning Board to request that Council make the designation? And then wait for Council to actually make the designation? And then apply to get the funds? What will it actually hurt to make this designation? Stigma? Let's face it - anyone driving into town can see that the homes in this town are ALL over 50 years old, and that we could use some spiffing up. Drive over the potholes on 5th Street, drive down Burlington Street and watch the renovation status of the homes change drastically. There's work to be done. Councilman Marchese's statement that "the governing body is working very hard to improve the city and making such a declaration would seem to be setting the city back" is ridiculous and indicative of the current mentality that if we keep our mouths shut, no one will notice there's anything wrong. Last week, my 4 year old did that when he got into the peanut butter jar, even though I could smell the peanut butter and see the smears across his shirt from across the room. Don't get me wrong, Gloucester City is a great town, and my young family has purposely moved into town, wanting to make it our home. But in order to make it great, we actually need to acknowledge the problems, OUT LOUD, and then have a reasonable discussion on how to fix them. We don't call people dumb and think that by not designating the town as a place in need of rehab, other people won't see the reality. If, as other towns have done, we agree to make the designation city-wide, then we open our city up for any and all funds available, without having to wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn, while being honest about what our city needs. It is an efficient use of government, and a responsible way to run our city. Let's not hide our issues - let's show ourselves as a municipality that is willing to do any and all things to make Gloucester City thrive.
1 reply
Llopez81374 is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 23, 2010