Posted on

Reader says This time around Ms. Price has been bent on “sticking it” to Valley’s opposition

Valleywood_theridgewoodblog.net_-300x225

Reader says This time around Ms. Price has been bent on “sticking it” to Valley’s opposition

Unfortunately, Valley is going to get its way with this Planning Board since it appears that they will be given two choices to vote on – both of which have been proposed by Valley.

Previous writers have neglected to mention the very personal bias that Gail Price has brought to this proceedings. Remember that the CRR lawsuit was based on the last Planning Board’s failure to follow proper legal procedure. In other words, Ms. Price failed to do her job. This time around Ms. Price has been bent on “sticking it” to Valley’s opposition. As the attorney, she is supposed to advise the Board on procedural issues yet she has acted both as emcee and Valley’s mouthpiece for the past 18 months. She has allowed Valley’s attorney to disrupt, interrupt, shout down and otherwise muzzle everyone from little old ladies to expert witnesses to members of the Planning Board itself.

Just about the only tolerable aspect of these most recent hearings has been watching Ms. Fraser squirm as her employer commits one PR disaster after another. Valley has exposed itself for what is truly is – an organization that has nothing but contempt for our Village. Think about how disingenuous they have been with us since 2006. Their experts and representatives have committed perjury, their management has lied to us repeatedly and their supporters (including one Councilwoman) have turned a blind eye because they can’t bear to even watch the behavior of their beloved Valley.

Microsoft Store

One thought on “Reader says This time around Ms. Price has been bent on “sticking it” to Valley’s opposition

  1. On June 16th, Gail Price presented her directives to the Planning Board in preparation for the vote tonight. She claimed neutrality, but various rules were laid out in a biased fashion. For example, Ms. Price said that economics could not sway a vote. She used the residents’ worries about lower property values (should the hospital expand) as an example of what the board should ignore. What about Valley’s economic issues???
    ****BUT, Valley Hospital claimed, years ago, that they could not AFFORD the split campus alternative (we never saw any proof of this), and that they could not AFFORD to move elsewhere. They could not AFFORD to buy Pascack Valley. These are HUGE economic considerations!!!! Indeed, we would not be fighting this issue today had Valley not claimed such “dire” economic circumstances. When is the Planning Board going to notice these discrepancies????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *