bd
-
The Basics
-
bd on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Michael Ducker Wants Back on Baldwin Council
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
bd
7:54 am on Saturday, May 18, 2013
2004 Graduate - Martin Schmotzer did the deed and never paid the price. You can choose to ignore a major flaw in his ethics, morals and character. After all, Ignorance is Bliss.
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
bd
4:25 pm on Friday, May 17, 2013
2004 Baldwin Graduate - As far as I am concerned, your "leader" Martin Schmotzer can never explain away his past improper taking of $50,000 of county funds for his own personal use. That is a major character flaw in my book and in no way should he be in any elected office let alone be placed in a leadership position on a school board. What a role model for our children. If you want to ignore his past, you deserve the school board you get.
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
bd
9:40 am on Friday, May 17, 2013
2004 Graduate - So, you are saying that Schmotzer has expertise in returning funds to their rightful owners? I would say he has had personal experience with that one that cost him his job with the county.
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
bd
10:01 am on Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Rambo is just another vote for whatever Schmotzer will want. You may as well vote for Schmotzer if you are voing for Rambo.
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
bd
4:41 pm on Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Rambo is Marty's protege. No Schmotzer and no 19 year old protege named Rambo for me. At 19 years of age, I am not sure he has balanced a check book as yet.
-
On the article Baldwin-Whitehall School Board: Who Are You Voting for, and Why?
-
On the article Group Gathers to Share Route 51 Bus Stop Dreams
bd
12:33 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
ReplyBaldwin Dad makes a great point. Part of the problem with development groups is that they do "pie-in-the-sky" stuff. Totally unaffordable. Instead of looking at realistic solutions to the mass transit problem which really comes down to funding. Especially when the Port Authority expects huge subsidies from the taxpayers so that the riders can travel at reduced rates. One solution is for riders to pay what it truly costs to run mass transit.
-
On the article Whitehall Council Considering Stricter Animal Nuisance Laws
bd
7:53 am on Saturday, May 4, 2013
Robert - If your garbage can has handles, a bungee cord works well to keep the critters out. A large rock will only work until the raccoon figures out (and it will) that tipping the can removes the rock.
-
On the article Baldwin Boro Manager Calls Soccer Group's Petition 'Unfounded'
bd
7:48 am on Saturday, May 4, 2013
Robert - Isn't it funny when people who fail to investigate the facts, immediately get their backs up, claim to be "pissed" and rant and rave? If "Pissed citizen" really wants to do something about the B-W school board's edict to keep the public off of the Macek Drive fields that were paid for by the taxpayers, then I say go to the school board meeting and argue your case. Of course, that would take some initiative and thinking and I suppose that is not the way people like "Pissed citizen" respond nowadays. Blogging might satify your need to rant, but it does not solve the problem of which you rant.
bd
7:43 am on Monday, May 20, 2013
I disagree. They definitely wanted to raise taxes. Moeller, Brown and Collet voted against the budget because they had wanted to raise taxes. This is from Mr. Healy's past article in the Patch: "Councilmen Ed Moeller, Larry Brown and Bob Collet voted against the budget and the accompanying ordinance that fixes the borough's tax rate, saying that the $750,000 designated for road work didn't go far enough. The three dissenters coalesced around a plan that Collet previously presented to fellow council members that would raise property taxes by 0.33 mills and designate roughly $1.3 million for road repairs. The council voted against that plan along the same opinion lines at a meeting earlier this month."