May 1 2016
Derek Schnure
I want to remark on a few comments in this group that imply that somebody is being defamed by the discussion on the candidates. I think that individual is trying have a chilling impact on the critical review of the council members vying for a seat in the village election next week.
Firstly, a statement must be false or it’s not considered damaging. If a statement can’t be proven false it is not defamation. According to nolo.com, “Public officials and figures have a harder time proving defamation. The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” People who aren’t elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous — like movie stars — also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.”
Therefore, I don’t see it as unreasonable if the citizens question connections between candidates and employees/contractors of the village and Planning Board.
Secondly, certain individuals have criticized discussion arenas like the Ridgewood Blog. The Blog is not a newspaper. It’s a collection of published articles from other sources and an open discussion forum. It provides a valuable service in the discovery and dissemination of facts in this town and of the happenings in the government. Contrary to some opinions, most of the information happens to be true. There obviously are speculative opinions on the blog but it definitely serves a valuable purpose in that people can discuss goings on anonymously (more openly) without fear of retribution. I think more honest discussions can be held there. A lot of people have opinions that aren’t posted in this forum because they don’t want to ruffle feathers or appear at odds with their neighbors.
Just my two cents….
comments taken from “It takes a Village Facebook page “
Gail Price “Please exercise extreme caution as falsehoods continue to be spread and reputations are maligned”
Gail Price “There’s no vested interest – there’s no conspiracy- there’s nothing sinister or underhanded at play. The most decent civic minded intelligent person who happens to be my husband has announced his candidacy for Village Council. But rather than allowing people to run on their merit, some of you are compelled to fabricate absolute non-issues and to create fire where there is none. The anonymous evil, rude and malicious commentary that has been released by a group of people who clearly are unhappy with their lot in life is most unbecoming to our Village. I don’t have a vote on the Planning Board and people should stop insinuating anything to the contrary. Here’s a fact, people may think they can say whatever they feel like saying about anyone at any given moment. However, uttering false or malicious statements has very real consequences. Making those statements that in turn impact people’s lives Is not without ramifications. Our schools have strict anti bullying policies. It’s remarkable that those policies don’t seem to apply to certain adults. Focus should be on facts and real issues rather than on spreading gossip and trying to Instill fear.
If people don’t know what’s going on in their town, then shame on them. Read the paper, attend meetings, volunteer — lots to do. But I guess it’s just easier to take pot shots at people than to put oneself out in front of things and to take personal responsibility for pitching in to make this Village a better place to live. In the 33 years I have lived here (not the handful of years that some have been living here) I have never witnessed the utter and sheer lack of respect being displayed. It’s unrepresentative of the kind of town we used to be. Self entitlement is so inappropriate.
I have no intention of engaging with anyone on these points and I don’t “jump” when someone expects a reply on here. I will however not hesitate to protect my reputation and my family.”
Gail Price wrote this sad commentary on Facebook. Her husband is running for office and she believes that he is being libeled. No doubt that she loves her husband but they are not cut out for politics.
Brooks has gone on the record as being for the “council knows best” garage. He has to live with that public statement writted by a PR firm, and MANY disagree with him. Like Vaggianos he will not win. I am sorry to se that they talked him in to running for office. He is being used. Nice guy, coach. And leave it at that.
Two things for Gail – A person who has lived in Ridgewood for 33 years has the same right to voice their opinion as the person who has live here for one day. The people who lived here 66 years ago may have had the same opinion of you when you arrived. Secondly, your commentary doesn’t pass the smell test.
Derek,
Just because it’s not technically illegal to say or imply certain things doesn’t make it right. I don’t neccesarily agree with Gail’s opinions on certain issues. That said, I do agree with her general point that the level personal attacks on fellow resident’s character and motives for their support or lack there of for major projects in town has gotten completely out of hand in recent years.
what personal attack????
She came to that Facebook thread. Threatened people. When she was questioned, she did not reply back.
It is the tone that is the problem. Imply a motive beyond the candidate simply having a position on the issue prevents us from having a real dialogue on the issues.
There are many of us who want the 300 spot parking deck because we believe it is more fiscally responsible and because we we have trouble finding parking when we go to town. Every person who supports the garage is not “on the take” or “paying back favors.”
On the other side, there are many well meaning people who believe that Valley can be convinced to take a smaller expansion plan. Candidates who believe this are not simply “pandering to CRR” or “NIMBY Activists.” They too are neighbors who have an opinion on the issues.
in case u didn’t see my back and forth with Gail Price, this was my response to her post saying that there would be no conflict of interest if her husband was elected because the council and the PB are different groups:
“The main point I want to make is that there *is* a potential conflict of interest. According to the village code, the composition of the PB is as follows: the mayor, a village official other than the mayor,a member of the village council, 6 village residents appointed by the council.
So, yeah, I think the connection between your husband and you is potentially relevant. Not saying there would be any issues but there could be the appearance of a conflict even if he’s not actually on the Planning Board himself. He will have influence over the PB members and they make decisions over which professionals to retain if you see what I mean.
Thanks.”
No response from Gail to this
12:20 more details on your valley plan please? How will you get that done with Brooks, willet and Weitz supporting the current 3% reduction and they will be the next one to vote on it if elected. Planning board has already approved it.
Its worth reflecting on the fact that Gail Price has at least some “extra” protection against defamation due to her being active in the practice of law in New Jersey. If she is the target of a demonstrable lie about a matter of fact (i.e., not pure opinion) within earshot of a third party or in a printed publication in New Jersey that would naturally diminish her reputation as a legal practitioner, the originator of the lie may find themselves liable for money damages calculated based on the number of New Jerseyans who were exposed to the lie. So, even as we try to avoid lying about matters of fact with respect to our neighbors generally, we need to be even more careful in this regard when a specific person’s professional reputation is at stake. On the other hand, if one speaks the truth about facts within their sphere of observation, or offers a considered opinion or prediction based on the facts as they reasonably appear at the time, they shouldn’t live in fear of liability for defaming another person, whether or not they have a professional reputation to defend.
Always find parking when I go downtown. Might not be right in front of the place I am looking to shop or dine, but I can park my car and walk a little. Isn’t that the beauty of a downtown like ours. Park and walk.
5:06pm – I am 100% with you on this. I don’t have a problem parking downtown at most times of the day or night provide I am willing to walk a little. And it is a beautiful downtown so what’s the downside to walking? I get a little exercise and window shop? But, unfortunately, I don’t care for the direction this (former) Village is heading so I will be leaving come fall.
618 – – vote for the clean slate, Hache, Voigt and Bernie and then you won’t have to leave town!!
5:06, for your good memories, your neighbors, and those of us who will stick it out for a while, please vote for Coghlan-Walsh, Hache, and Voigt on May 10!
…oops, I meant previous message for 6:18.
The current Council majority has used the same tactics that the current slate of pro development candidates and their new team of apologists are using now. They’re quick on the attack but then whine when people use such uncivil tactics as facts and logic to retort. I think it’s safe to call out Ron Simoncini by name at this point – he’s the classic bully/victim. He drapes himself in “The Truth” but bristles when people point out that he’s the PR guy for one of the developers and has a huge personal financial stake in the outcome of this election. Sorry Ron, but “The Truth” cuts both ways. And anyone who’s taken Marketing 101 knows that when the PR guy becomes part of the story, he’s failed as a PR guy.
Mrs. Price is not correct that there are two blocs. There is one bloc running, and there are also three independent candidates. Three candidates have intentionally aligned themselves together, that is Brooks Willett and Weitz. They made it very clear that they are together, and even ran a full-page ad in the Ridgewood News to this effect. The other three candidates are not a bloc. They are independent of each other. The fact is that many MANY people support the three of them, Walsh, Hache, and Voigt. That does not change the fact that the three of them are running independently.
Next, the Attorney for the Planning Board is paid by taxpayer dollars and as such that person works for the Village. You can depict it any which way you want, but the fact remains that the Planning Board Attorney is paid for by us. So there is nothing inaccurate or twisted in stating that one of the candidates, Richard Brooks, is married to the Planning Board Attorney and as such this looks like a conflict. Granted most of the Planning Board business does not come to the Village Council for consideration or action……but some things do. And there are two representatives from the Village Council who serve on the Planning Board. There would be a potential for husband and wife to be together in this. I’m sorry, if it looks like a conflict and it smells like a conflict then it must be a conflict.
Next, the comment about “tradespersons” possibly making more than $125 an hour…..this is wrong on so many levels. Now correct me if I’m wrong here, but it sure sounds like Mrs. Price thinks she is superior to “tradespersons” and therefore her measly $125 an hour should be increased because maybe a plumber or carpenter makes more. Kiss my A*** Mrs. Price Brooks. You don’t like your hourly wage? Then don’t take it. We can get another PB attorney, and we would be lucky to be rid of such a disgruntled one. You think lowly tradespersons should not make as much as you? I’m betting they do a much better job than you do!
HACHE VOIGT WALSH are the three to elect. Save us from four more years of this systematic destruction of Ridgewood.
Derek we totally support you. This is ridiculous. They’re afraid so they claim personal attacks.
You’re right. You know it and we all know it. Don’t let this get it twisted.
It’s very annoying to those who wish to profit from destroying our lovely town (or who have been sadly misled by marketing professionals–including, but not exclusively, our leader, the mayor) that residents are finally starting to wake up and smell the corruption. Sorry!