That's pretty melodramatic, don't you think? Do you really think the "common man" can not afford to live in Asbury Park these days? I'm just not buying any of these gentrification complaints I'm hearing. Despite some wonderful sale prices on the east side, Asbury Park still contains more affordable housing than any other community in the county by far. No one is being pushed out. People leaving the prison system today can't afford to move to Avon, but they can get a place here without trying very hard.
There is a terrible prejudice in this town - against rich people. We haven't even finished one condo on the beach and already rich people are vilified - THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MOVED IN YET!!! I hope we welcome them when they do. I'll take that cigar now :) --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "jerseyjohn99" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, there are two ways to look at it. 1) 28% of the residents here > in 2001 chose not to vote or 2) 28% of the residents here in 2001 > are gone. > > If you believe #1, take a look at the quote at the top of > apaction.org : "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do > not vote." -George Jean Nathan > > Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their candidates. > > If you believe #2, and don't really care about it, then welcome to > the Republican Party, would you like a cigar? Have people truly been > so blinded by the rise in their property values that they ignore the > plight of the common man struggling to get by??? Is it really > necessary to get your property value UP that you have no concern > that the guy next to you is going OUT? Enjoy the boom times, > people...just make sure your neighbors don't consider you one > of "those people" holding property values down in the next four > years. > > by the way, the figure bandied about has been 30% of Asbury is below > the poverty line. If in fact the bottom 28% of this 30% have been > removed, it's time for the state to reevaluate the amount of > extraordinary aid, Abbott school funding, grants & other transfer > payments the City is receiving. The winners campaign was based upon > the premise that Asbury's gotten back to a level footing with the > rest of the county & state, it's time to start turning away the > handouts meant for needy cities. > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice post - very interesting stats. I'm not willing to make the > > leap that redevelopment caused there to be less voters available. > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "jerseyjohn99" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > More telling than the mandate (and I'll admit it definitely was) > > is > > > how it was achieved. > > > > > > There were 2,419 people who voted in 2001, but only 1,915 in > 2005. > > > > > > Let's assume no new voters & no deaths in the past four years. > 504 > > > voters decided it wasn't worth it to show up to the polls this > > time. > > > That's 21% down from just the baseline four years ago. Why > didn't > > > those people vote? I'll admit, there is a slight chance that > those > > > people who were "relocated" when their multi-family homes became > > > single-family homes became so angry that they boycotted the > > > election. But, could it possibly be they are no longer here? > > > > > > Now, I don't know how many of those 1,915 that voted yesterday > > were > > > new to the city, but I can take an educated guess. Bruno > received > > > 178 more votes & Hamilton 156 less votes than in 2001. Let's > meet > > in > > > the middle & assume 167 new voters. That means only 1,748 of the > > > 2,419 voters (72%) in 2001 returned to vote in 2005. > > > > > > What's the point? Why am I boring you with seemingly meaningless > > > statistics? > > > > > > Kate Mellina, the Coaster, March 20, 2003: > > > http://asburypark.net/news/columns/anewday/20030320.html > > > > > > >>In the past several weeks, the beachfront redevelopment rumor > > mill > > > has been churning out some real whoppers in Asbury Park. (My > > > nomination for the most outrageous fabrication: "Redevelopment > > will > > > force 75% of our current residents to leave town over the next > 10 > > > years." If that were anywhere near true, I'd be frantically > > > scratching at the federal government's door, begging for > admission > > > into the Councilwoman Protection Program.)<< > > > > > > You were right Kate: that WAS a whopper!!! At the current 7.8% > > > annual exodus rate, it will actually take 14 years for 75% of > the > > > residents to get displaced, not 10 years!!! > > > > > > By the way, what was the second most outrageous fabrication??? Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
