Malone's article states:
"I'm not happy about it," Keller said. "Doing it to the cement company is one thing. Doing it to a small business owner is something else."
Keller said he expressed disproval with the board on the matter but the majority voted to condemn the land.
"It all comes down to money," Keller said. "The question is what is the dollar amount (going to be)."
The article also notes that the Board has already voted to proceed with eminent domain if the Calandras don't accept the offer given. The Calandras contend the offer is half what an appraiser of their own declared the land to be worth.
It still comes down to doing what is right, not legal. For me, I haven't seen enough proof that this project is the best one for us, using eminent domain against a local business (with a commercial property that is tax generating) to make it happen goes beyond wrong and irresponsible. I only hope more Board members will step up like Keller has and that they will vote again on this issue at the next meeting - with a different outcome.================== ADVERTISEMENT ==================
On Thursday, February 8, 2007 NewsOverCoffee will present "Resident to Candidate: What You Need to Know" at 7:00 p.m. at the Nazareth News Agency (Main Street, Nazareth).
This non-partisan program is free of charge and designed to give you the information needed to become, or recruit, a candidate for local office.
Caffeinate Your Brain - Engage Your Community!
=============== END OF ADVERTISEMENT ================
15 comments:
So did Mr. Keller vote for the eminent domain to be used to take the land or Did Mr. Keller vote against the issue of taking the land?
The vote not withstanding, what is important right now is the fact that a member of the board has spoken publicly as being opposed to it.
The big question is will a member take the bigger step of making a motion to rescind the previous decision.
Unfortunately, it appears to me as if a public official who has been highly criticized by the public contituency is now trying to win back the public. The time to state nonagreement on a position the board takes is as soon as the topic comes up. Not continue along complacently until a public outcry has occurred. The way I see it, when the topic comes up at another meeting, the president should voice his dissaproval immediately, and then allow the rest of the borad who may or may not support the proposition incur the wrath of the public. Personally, there are some members on the board whom I am extremely dissapointed in. Especially the former educators and spouses of educators. I simply do not understand where they are coming from. One question I would like to see answered is "where exactly is this whole "taj mahal" school complex idea coming from. Is it our administrators?? Is it the entire board? Are there no board members opposed to this project? Why do they all think we need this excess spending to produce a masterpiece when a good quality purposeful project can succeed.
I find myself Totally Agreeing with the previous post. I felt exactly the same way when I read his remark in the newspaper. Mr. Keller is now trying to get the public attention in a good way by releasing a statement opposing the taking of Calandra's land. If Mr. Keller was so against this decision, why has he not come forward with action sooner, after all he is the president of the board. Would of been nice to hear his comments right at the public school board meeting when this option was first a consideration and now planned action. It is not to late to reverse the decision. I am sure Mr. Keller would not like to see his land conquer by eminent domain either.
I can't disagree that I would have preferred not getting to this point and having something said earlier, however, since it didn't, I am hoping this is a first step on correcting what I think many believe is a bad decision (regarding the land).
Let's hope there is a domino effect and the building comes next. Like I said in a previous post this building is built for 2 grades only, it can't be used with 3, so the extra space will sit empty until class sizes approach 650 (our largest now is 420).
Anonymous, at both time periods, has hit the nail on the head. I would venture that Mr. Keller voted in favor of eminent domain. Had he not done so, one would presume he would have stated such. The fact that he said that it was easier to take it away from that nasty, evil cement company tells us a great deal about Mr. Keller. The tendency seems to be to go along to get along. Shame on the lot of them. No one will have the courage to make a motion to rescind because they are intent on building the taj mahal and I would lay the blame for that where it has historically been placed, the administration. It is, after all, their legacy.
The big thing to keep in mind with the Calandras land is they don't need it to build the building. They are putting two practice soccer/field hockey fields on it.
If you balance two practice fields against six privately held commercially zoned acres of property that you are taking against the wishes of the owner it really looks and is bad.
Keller stepped up, I hope he follows through and makes the motion to rescind the use of eminent domain.
If he did vote in favor, speaks up in the newspaper, and does nothing at the meeting, then I'd say people have every right to get on him, but I think he first deserves a chance to follow through and make amends.
Do you ever wonder how many times the same person posts multiple comments pretending to be multiple anonymous individuals on this blog? Its a very intersting thought especially when there seems to be so much inside knowledge. Hmmmmmm.
I find it interesting that Mr. Keller voted in favor of acquiring the land and in the board mintues of the special meeting held on 12/4/06, didn't necessarily speak out about his concerns to take away the land. Check out the minutes on the district website.
Another example in this district of being told one thing and having the exact opposite occur.
The following is from the NASD minutes from the 12/4/06 special meeting. Mr. Butz motioned, Mrs. McDonald seconded the following motion. Authorize the Superintendent to make a revised offer to the owner of 5.91 acres in the amount of $638,280 and if that offer is refused, does hereby authorize and direct the solicitor to file and initiate condemnation proceedings and to take all steps necessary for the acquisition of the 5.91 acres identified as J8-11-2A. The motion passed with a roll call vote. Yes 5 No 0
Don Keller was at the meeting. Therefore, he voted Yes. It is disgusting to see him misrepresent his previous actions because of the present bad publicity. He must figure that the public will buy his bull! I cannot understand why the newspaper didn't do there homework and look up the vote on the NASD website. I am personally not interested in his double talk. I could believe him if he had said, Yes I voted for the condemnation but have since changed my mind. Don't be fooled.
I'll give Mr. Keller the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if someone brings this issue up at the 2/12 meeting, he'll clarify his position.
Even clarifying without trying to reverse the action does no one any good. Mr. Keller and nasd board voted to condemn the land, so let us hear what he can do about that decision now.
Having made the statement he did, there are basically two options, do nothing or talk without making a motion to do something about it and be shown to be two-faced, voting one way speaking another, or make a motion to rescind the decision to use eminent domain against the calandras.
I expect having made the statement that he will make a motion (and I hope he does, it is the right thing to do) and they will each vote taking into consideration the fact that the land doesn't impact the building, but only the two practice fields.
I also wouldn't mind if they put all plans on hold to really consider if this is the best option, but I won't hold out for that one.
Clearly we all now know that Mr. Keller knows what is being said, at least on this site (at best through either his wife or daughter which we know from a previous post are reading our comments).
Maybe he will buck the trend at the next meeting and really push the agenda to stop this land grab. Or, maybe he won't.
But, I think what bothers me the most is one simple tenet of democracy. We have elected representative (in this case the NASD board) to carry out the wishes and desires of the poeple that elected them.
I have yet to find any individual that supports the exercise of eminent domain over the Calandra's property.
So, if the desire of the electorate (us) is not to sieze their property, then shouldn't they (our elected representatives) honor our wishes and not go forward?
If they go against the public desire, do we no longer have a democratic for of local government?
If that is how they are thinking, I certainly hope this is a wake up call to each and every registered voter come the next time any of them are up for re-election.
The reality is that an elected official has no obligation except to do what that person feels is best for the people they represent.
What they feel is best, may not be what the people think is best or what a poll says they think.
They are not obligated to act or vote the way a majority of the people want them to.
We elect them to do the work for us and if we don't like the way they do the work we can speak up, but the only real recourse is to vote them out.
Having said that, we of course would hope that they will listen when enough voices speak up and attend meetings. And often they do.
On this issue, there has been no voice speaking up at the meetings.
Online, concern has been expressed, but as far as they know there is one person called anonymous, myself, and maybe three or four others who use their names.
Not exactly a mass rising perceptually.
I have to admit I was surprised that there wasn't more said (as well as more in attendance) at the last meeting. One comment was made and it addressed the cost not the property acquisition.
Post a Comment