Readers defend Ms. Price
Without getting into the specifics of this matter, realistically, every planning board attorney has a private practice and unless you are a complete novice it is to be expected that developers would be your client base. This has never been viewed as a conflict per se unless of course your private clients are filing applications before a board you represent. To dump the current PB attorney you would need to replace her with someone with a fairly similar law practice, or, as I said, replace her with a complete novice who doesnt have any land use clients.
Questioning whether Ms. Price should be the Planning Board’s attorney on the Valley and CBD applications is not character assassination. The implication is not that she has business with Valley. Nobody is saying that. What is being said is that Ms. Price has a bias towards these developers. This is the nature of her private practice where she represents similar companies and projects as a proponent of development.
Ms. Price has a pro-developer job and it would be illogical to think as the attorney on the Planning Board she would not have a bias for these developers. Many residents have cited examples of this bias. This is what she gets paid for at her firm. Wake up and smell the conflict of interest. We are not picking on Ms. Price. It is just common sense. Ms. Price herself would say, if objective, it is a possible conflict of interest and not character assassination. I agree she is an ethical lawyer and that’s why she should recuse herself immediately. Let someone else adjudicate these proceedings more fairly in the public interest and not the developers interests.
Not much of a defense. The bias issue aside, Ms. Price’s job as the Planning Board attorney is to see that procedure is followed. Her job is not to weigh in on testimony or to offer any of her own opinions which she has done repeatedly.
Correct — maybe we’d give her a pass if she at least gave the appearance of impartiality.
thed.
“Ms. Price has a pro-developer job”. In your opinion.
She is a professional. It you do ‘t agree with her opinions then you cite the law to support yours.
Your “common sense” means nothing except to you. Cite facts. The fact that she is a partner in a large law firm does not disqualify her. She has vast experience and that is what you should want in a lawyer.
So, #3, how do you think her “vast experience” is helping Ridgewood with regards to the Valley issue? By treating the residents with contempt? By agreeing to all of the Valley lawyers’ objections? Come on. Get real.
Thed.
It was a very emotional meeting and all of the criticisms are emotional. You see everything as unfair – from your point of view.
I do not support Valley and I do not support character assassination.
#5 — the meetings have all been emotional. Price has consistently allowed Valley to get its message out and allow any and all of Valley’s “experts” speak. Now that the residents finally get to speak, she’s not allowing them. She should shut Drill up. Maybe then, we’d feel that she’s not totally favoring Valley.