Take it from me Mr. Mayor- Admit your mistakes early and things work out better in the end- Get rid of the stupid light now- don't wait till Watergate and they call you Tricky Dick!

I wish people would get this worked up about the unemployment problem or global warming or...

If children crossing Central Avenue is such a concern to Westfield, why did they remove the crossing guard who used to work the busy Grove Street/Central Avenue intersection, which my daughter and her friends use on their way to and from Edison School? I have written, asking if Westfield would at least install "No turn on red during school hours" signs at the Grove/Central light although I'd prefer having the guard return, but no one has answered me.

There is no turning right on red at that intersection at any time. Are you sure you don't mean Clifton/Sycamore and Central? If you do, that verbage is there at the light.

If the report suggested Central Ave and Clover ,then who authorized a different location and why? I use the light to cross and it serves its purpose but am concerned if information is being hidden from the public.

@dan levine. You have asked the exact question that no one (except Mayor Skibitsky) seems to know the answer to! If the traffic flow expert hired by the Town of Westfield, Gordon Meth, determined the safest location for pedestrians and motorists was the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central, then how did it ultimately end up at MID-BLOCK? Mr. Meth’s report is in the public record and available for any citizen to review. Connecting the dots however, as to how Mr. Meth’s report translated to installation of the light at what many people consider to be a very dangerous location, at MID-BLOCK, seems to be something only Mayor Skibitsky knows. And, for some reason, he has not been letting the people (voters/taxpayers) of Westfield know how to connect those dots. There certainly could be DOZENS of great points that could be made to conclude MID-BLOCK will serve pedestrians and motorists as the safest of these two choices but Mayor Skibitsky does not seem to want to share any of those great points with the voters/taxpayers of Westfield, assuming there are any such great points. If anybody knows good reasons for installing at MID-BLOCK instead of the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central, please let the rest of us know what those reasons are– maybe we’re missing something in our analysis. Anybody? Anybody? [sound of crickets chirping on a clear summer evening].

@Richard Nixon. Excellent point, Mr. Nixon. Alternatively, if Mayor Skibitsky really does whole-heartedly believe that MID-BLOCK is the safer alternative when comparing it to “the Gordon Meth Traffic Flow Expert recommended” INTERSECTION of Clover and Central location then he should confidently, without making any character attacks on anybody or talking about anybody’s past employment or any other non-related issue, list for the taxpayer/voters, ALL OF THE MANY WELL-THOUGHT OUT REASONS why he thinks going against Mr. Meth’s recommendations made sense. And, if he runs out of room on one sheet of paper, he can use more and more pieces of paper to list all the great reasons. I consider myself a pretty open-minded person – He might even be able to make me change my mind. But, so far, I’ve heard no good reasons from Mayor Skibitsky, or anyone else for that matter, as to why Mr. Meth’s recommendation was not followed. Oh, and thank you Mr. Nixon for your service to our country… well, at least until that whole Watergate thing.

I’d like to remind the people of Westfield of something that many people seem to be getting confused about. Very few, if any, people are suggesting that a light/pedestrian walkway is/was not needed. The issue is whether or not the light/pedestrian walkway should have been placed where originally suggested by a traffic flow expert, at the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central or further down at its current MID-BLOCK location. There are many people who think the current MID-BLOCK location is LESS SAFE than the INTERSECTION would be. The current debate: (1) Convince the taxpayers/voters why the MID-BLOCK location was selected and give good, well-thought out arguments as to why the equipment should stay there OR, since we all make mistakes, (2) Admit that choosing the MID-BLOCK location instead of the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central, even if done with the best of intentions, now appears to have been the less safe alternative and that the equipment should be moved.

Stand strong Mayor because there is no way in hell I want that monstrosity anywhere near my front yard, or side yard. I'm sure you don't want it in front of your house either.

Where's the smoking gun that Kasko and Carluccio have been taking about these past few months? I just viewed the traffic report it said:

"The HAWK crosswalk meets all three purposes for which it was intended. It provides a safe crossing for pedestrians, particularly school-age children, it minimizes traffic delays, and it does not create cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets. In consideration of all of the above, the WPD concludes that the HAWK crosswalk is effective in achieving its goals."

Later on it goes onto say, there are positives and negatives for any location as Central is a busy road with 25,000 cars per day. What was all this noise about the past few months?

I have been watching the rebroadcast of council meetings on the local tv channel 36. I catch updates of this issue here and in our town's local newspaper. Why are people speaking from the audience told they are out of order and threatened with ejection when the mayor does the exact same thing by interupting people when it is their turn to speak at the microphone? I am of the belief that the report issued by the police department has the desired outcome since its author answers to the mayor. Why was the traffic light put in front of the lady's house if the report concluded that it be at the corner? Something is missing here.

The study done by the police department says that it is in the best location possible. Why isn't this issue dead yet?
The Central Ave ladies got the study they wanted and now they just need to accept it.

Hey Rob G. why should we get worked up about unemployment B. Hussein Obama isn't. Barry Soetero is a human wrecking ball. And by the way global warming is a hoax. How is that hope and change working out for you Rob? Yes we can't!

JR13 apparently you are unaware of the simple fact that the chief of police is appointed by the mayor who is the architect of this awful project. I encourage you to come on over and use the light and then report how many cars blow through the light. To say nothing about the unbelievably compromising and dangerous position the home owner is placed in every time they attempt to exit their driveway. Their driveway is straddled by two giant street lights. I'm certain this never would have been placed in this location if this was mayor Skibitsky's house or any ones house that was "in" with the ruling class of Westfield. Please get a clue about this debacle. It is totally political and has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It is clearly an unsafe location for a cross walk period, compounded with a Hawk light which is pedestrian activated it is a formula for disaster. In case you are unaware there was all ready a major accident at this location during school crossing hours with a crossing guard on duty. The light and cross walk obviously belong at the intersection where all, I repeat, ALL cross walks exist. At the YMCA in town they have a sign out front instructing pedestrians to cross at the corner and not in the middle of the street. I guess it's like the mayor says, special people live on Central Ave so we have to live by the mayors special rules for us special folk. Give me a break. Remove the scales from your eyes. This really isn't that tough to figure out.

The placement of this light only affects one home owner, adversely I may add, which is a far better political move for the mayor than to have placed the light at the intersection where four homeowners would have been affected. There are only approximately four residents complaining regularly at the council meetings. Do the math geniuses. Four homes could likely generate sixteen residents showing up regularly at council meetings to complain. Not about safety people or least points of conflict for children crossing. It's about the least points of conflict for the mayor. And by the way, he never dreamed he was going to face this much opposition. He thought he had us pegged. Ha! Losing!

Oh sorry I didn't realize it was a big conspiracy against the people who live on Central. I heard the mayor and police department are hiding aliens in the basement of town hall too.

I thought I got rid of all those pesky Aliens in my last major motion picture of the same name.

If it is not too late, I suggest everyone present their argument in a civil, non-accusatory tone. Putting people - be it the mayor or the citizens - on the defensive distracts from the matter at hand. No one likes to feel as they will lose face if they concede your point.

The Mayor has sought justification for his acts by asking one of his appointees to answer three questions irrelevant to the controversy.No one questions that the Hawke is safe.Everyone questions why the Hawke was placed mid-block rather than at the corner.
When it cones to trust, the public will look on the opinion of the mayor's appointee the way they look on the report of British Petroleum's expert report blaming the oil spill on an act of God.
The Hawke system does away with the need for cul-de-sacs.The Mayor's plan included cul-de-sacs.The Hawke system did not exist when the decision was made for a mid-block light.How the mayor can ask the public to accept a study of the Hawke as justification for his acts is insulting to the intelligence of the public.To spend manpower and time creating an appologia based on the efficacy of a system not under attack is wasteful.
Simply put Mayor,you said that the placement of the light at mid-block was safer than at the originally proposed corner.Maybe you can find an appointee to defend that position.
A.John Blake

If I were an enterprising Patch reporter or town council gadfly, I'd look into who did all the excavation and paving work that was necessary to create the cul-de-sacs and sidewalks on the streets that no longer permit traffic to and from Central as a result of the decision to install the light at its current location rather than at the intersection. And then I'd see if there is any connection at all between those contractors and the people in town government who made the decision. There may be nothing at all to find, but my experience as a former journalist tells me that often this is a good place to look when trying to figure out the method to politicians' madness.

Another thing I'd look into is who lives at the four residences that occupy the corners of Clover and Central, and what relationship they may have to folks in town government. Again, could be nothing there, but worth checking out.

Mr A John Blake and Mr Taxpayer, to answer both of you I say that the mayor should reconnect with his loud-mouth Francis Terr resident, that now lives in Deleware and ask her to write a report that the location of the light is safer. She in no more an expert on it then him but she surely ranted and raved about the light being on the corner so much that the mayor and Ciarocca worried about all the votes they sood to lose if they pissed her off. Or maybe the crossing guard that live on the corner or the inflamed corner resident of Cedar could write the report. The mayor may think its safer because the number of vehicle movements that conflict with pedestrians is one less but how about the unfamiliar location of a crossing in the middle of the street makes that one less conflict with pedestrians a moot point. Mayor, you screwed the pooch on this one and you know it. Your legacy has been re-written.

I read the report, and while I question Mr. Blake's anti-mayor stance and his motivations, I have to agree with him. This report has a very narrow defintion to base its evaluation: Those being:
1 - Does it provide a safe crossing for pedestrians, especially school age children?
2 - Does it mimimize traffic flow interruptions?
3 - Does it prevent cut through traffic on side residential streets?

In addition, the time for evaluating these objectives was limted to 7:30 am - 9 am, and 2:45 pm - 3:45 pm. Clearly this study had more emphasis for children during "preschool" hours given the initial reason to install the light in the first place. It would have been a smart move to rescope this study to be more inclusive for both morning and evening "rush hour", and to include any known accidents and causes during the period of evaluation.

Dear JR13,
According to the Town,the decision to place the light mid-block was made at the last public meeting and the Meth drawing is dated. Both events predate the invention of the Hawke system.Reports concerning the Hawke cannot explain the Mayor's decision to place the light at mid-block.The Hawke did not exist.
The decision by the Mayor that mid-block is more safe than at the corner could not be affected by a device that did not exist.
The waste of tax money to create a report that did not answer the questions of placement and comparative safety between the corner and mid-block is unfortunate.The administration does not answer, it dissembles and attacks the critic.
A.John Blake

I have been following this story and have watched coverage of the town council meetings on tv. One question I have without commenting on the actual light is why does Mayor Skibitsky interrupt the people at the microphine but yet he tells those that interrupt and speak from the audience to be quiet and not interupt him, and then threaten them with removal? That sounds hypocritical to me. It makes it look like he has something to hide..

This poor woman; My 1st thoughts are, what has she been compensated for the devaluation and inconvenience that has been inflicted on her? My second thoughts were that this would never have been allowed by her neighbors and citizens of "Colonial Westfield", but of course the principles that made "Colonial Westfield" they town that it is today, no longer exist. My last thought is, what happnens when someone's vision is blurred and they assume the stop light is at an intersection and then turn into this poor woman's garage?

Dear JR13,
You have to read the report. It has to do with the benefits of the Hawke system. The decisions on the placement of this light was made ,according to the Mayor in 2005.The HAWK was not recognized until 2009.A report on a device that did not exist at the time the decision was made cannot be used to explain the placement of the device. The HAWK does away with the problem of cut-through traffic. The Mayor decided to have two cull-de-sacs to avoid cut-throughs. This decision would be unnecessary if he had known about the HAWK.
Having an appointee waste 30 pages to report on a device that didn't exist at the time the decision was made is wasteful.
I trust your knowledge of the HAWK system is better than your knowledge of the candidates for office. I am not a candidate for office.
A.John Blake

The debate over this light rivals the debate over the crosswalk that was moved on Highland Ave. to the foot of a resident's driveway. Speaking with a resident/friend that witnessed the fight over this crosswalk has said that Westfield's administrator Jim Gildea's parents lived in the house where the crosswalk was recommended to be located but then moved by the council's traffic safety chairman. Sounds like a similar "bait and switch" tactic was used on Central Ave.

didn't union county put that light in on what is arguably the busiest street in westfield?

if someone turns into that garage because their sight is blurred they shouldn't be driving in the first place

“The outburst in the room” during the Town Council meeting on August 16 happened because Mr. Kasko, Mrs. Carluccio and I could not stand any longer to see the Mayor trying to deceive the Westfield residents. We left the room. During the last 11 months all the people (at least 12) who have dared to oppose the unusual, absurd and extremely unsafe location of the crosswalk in the middle of the block on Central Avenue, were treated by Mayor with “That’s not true” even they presented the pure truth. In the same time like everybody else we heard from him a lot of untrue things as well as the famous but baseless “this is the safest location”. No document and no expert indicated such a thing. The mayor tried to deceive the Westfield public reading from “The signal Warrant analyses” one paragraph from the chapter “Analyses” not the Conclusion. The Conclusion is clear: “Based on above analysis, School Crossing Warrant 5.0 is satisfied at Intersection of Central Avenue and Clover Street.” For how long do we have to accept the Mayor to treat us like his brainless slaves? It is time for truth and for correction of a gross mistake that affects a whole community and put in a very unsafe position any pedestrian using the crosswalk as well as the drivers.

The town's administration including Mayor Skibitsky does not want Kasko to get elected. Mayor Skibitsky does not want to be questioned. Mayor, why not tell the public how town attorneys have wasted the taxpayer's money looking into blocking Kasko's candidacy by exploring the parameters of his agreement with the town that he would not seek employment with the town after he retired? Is running for office, seeking employment? Define employment. If he is voted in by the will of the people will you waste our tax money by commissioning our attorneys to seek ways to have him removed from the council after elected? You may be able to remove people from your council chambers during meetings but you will have a difficult time removing anyone from a town council that has been elected by the voters. You were able to steam roll your way into getting your friend to replace your other friend after he left the council last month. No need to mention names. There were other qualified members of our party that could have been considered as a candidate but you wanted your choice. Why not put three viable candidates to a vote within our party? Instead, two people who had no interest in running were put up against your friend. Dirty politics as usual within the party and it resonates from you during council meetings. You overstayed your welcome and it shows. You've changed. I'm not about to jump party affiliation, but our party has lost my vote in november.

I was wondering what all the fuss was about that started this shouthing match. I was doing some searching and found an article on the Alternative Press. It looks like Kasko wants revenge against the town and police department after accusastions of perjury and false written statements.

"Kasko, an independent candidate for the third ward council seat is not without controversy himself, after recently settling litigation with the town over charges of conduct unbecoming of a police officer. Kasko was accused of perjury as well as presenting false written statements surrounding an incident back in early 2006, where he was charged with sleeping in his patrol car during his tour and failing to respond to a call for backup of another officer. Kasko was found guilty by an independent police board and subsequently suspended from duty. As a condition of the settlement, the charges of misconduct were dismissed. "

http://thealternativepress.com/articles/westfield-residents-erupt-in-shouting-match-at-cou

@Greg Skoak. What does stuff Kasko may or may not have done in 2006 have to do with the SAFETY of pedestrians and motorists riding on Central Ave TODAY, NEXT WEEK, NEXT MONTH, THE REST OF THIS YEAR, 2012, 2013 AND BEYOND?

Please, stick with THE ISSUE. Which location do you feel will keep PEDESTRIANS and MOTORISTS SAFER in the years to come and why do you feel that location is best? INTERSECTION of Clover and Central or the current MID-BLOCK location?

MANY people have written in Patch with first-hand experiences whereby they have either observed or been a part of situations where ACCIDENTS CAME VERY CLOSE TO HAPPENING. There have been A LOT of comments along those lines from MANY Patch readers over many months. At an absolute minimum, I would think (and hope) so much testimony would, at a minimum, suggest to the Mayor and Town Council that a mistake may have been made and that the location should be re-considered. Instead, the Mayor and Town Council have simply been on the attack about all such testimonials. Such a stance by the Mayor/Council is troubling!

So, why the character attacks on Kasko? Is it because you have no good points to make on the actual issue - which location would be safest for pedestrians and motorists and why?

And, in your reply, please don't mention Kasko's report card from kindergarten a.m. in 1972 - it's not relevant and besides, the other kid really did take Kasko's crayons first. Please focus on the light and walkway TODAY.

Dear JR13;
Please re-read the conclusion to which you refer in your response to Mrs.E. It does not say the light is in the safest location.The only one that says that is the Mayor and he has steadfastly refused to identify the source of his statement.
Any light is safer than no light.The Mayor decided on the placement of a light years before the HAWK was recognized so a report on the efficacy of a traffic device that did not exist at the time the decision was made cannot be used to prove the correctness of the placement. A.John Blake

@JR13 wrote: "the newly released report (http://tinyurl.com/42bcguz), the conclusion clearly states that the crosswalk is in the safest place away from Clover."

Yes, you are correct. This is what the newly released report states. However, you fail to mention that the report was created by people who report directly to Mayor Skibitsky and not an independent traffic consultant like Gordon Meth, who the town originally hired for guidance in determining the best location for the light/walkway and who concluded that the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central would be the safest location.

If the Mayor's office issued a report indicating that 2+2=7, that wouldn't mean 2+2=7 just because it's in a report. Likewise, the testimonies of MANY people observing many near-accident situations at that location subsequent to the new light/walkway set up should be an indication that perhaps, maybe... just maybe... the light/walkway should be moved a few feet to the north, where it was originally recommended by traffic flow expert Gordon Meth.

I happen to fully agree with your second sentence above- I do think the safety of the children crossing Central is far more important than Mrs. E's property value.

Dear Mr. Skoak,
May I first note the coincidence that your alleged name is an anagram for "Kasko".
May I next point out that the "Alternative Press" is well named since it has found an alternative way of commenting on the news without the handicap of facts. Both you and your source should look at the record.
Lastly,I don't judge a statement on the drivel rumored about the speaker, I look at the facts stated and judge them against the opposing facts.When a statement is countered by only name-calling against the speaker, I give greater weight to the speaker.
A.John Blake

There are dozens of issues that the Town Council and Mayor need to deal with now but can't because this group of irate, obnoxious citizens are taking all their time. As someone who lives in the third ward and sends his kids to Jefferson, I am pleased that this crosswalk is in place. Maybe if you had small children who you sent on their own to school every morning, Mr. Blake, Ms. Toescu-Enculescu, Mr. Kasko, you would understand the crosswalk's importance.

Please stop harassing those who have volunteered to serve you. It is quite unbecoming and is embarrassment for all the citizens of Westfield.

You are so right Jay !

Perhaps you and Ms Enculescu can do an equitable (before the construction) property swap and everyone can then move on to the dozens of other issues that you allude to

Thanks for your solution

Jay. You said it perfectly. We should be thinking about the children that can now go to Jefferson at a light.Hopefully the nonsense will stop.

Is it me or does anyone think that Greg Skoak is someone that has a bone to pick with Mr. Kasko? Mr. Skoak, did Mr. Kasko wrong you in some fashion that you feel the need to attack him and not the issues. Your constant bashing of him is beginning to make me think you might be afraid he has the support of the people and may pull off an upset in this years election which is something you, and others like you, are afraid of. Mr. Kasko has presented information to the council and the public that merits consideration. From news reports in the local newspaper and here on the Patch to the website he runs, I have never seen him advocte the removal of the light or suggest putting our children in harms way. Instead, he has explored the process that took place to get to the point of the light being installed and has revealed that something took place to move the light from the corner to where it stands today. From what I have seen,, Mr. Kasko is just as concerned for the children as the Mayor is and merely believes the light should be at the corner. My neighbors and I live in the vicinity of this light and have been following this story. I give Mrs. Encelescue, Mrs. Carluccio and Mr. Kasko credit for sticking to their position. The town council, especially the mayor, is used to people walking away when rejection is the council's defense without explanation. It's not like these people are making claims without proof. You can't forget about all the reports they have presented

Mr Stevens,
The issue of the need for a light was never questioned. The continued safety of children is always important.These issues are as important as the truthfulness and credibility of our elected officials.Also the ability of a citizen to seek aid from the government without being mis-led is crucial. Please don't sacrifice one important thing for another.If the volunteer mis-leads and mis-states he/she should be corrected. There are numerous people in government who have lied and cheated but who have effected some good.When all is known and capable of being balanced, we can then judge. Truth might be annoying to some but necessary to others.
A.John Blake

Greg Skoak said: "Anyone who thinks the light is going to be moved after an independent report clearly states the light is in a safe location is dreaming."

The INDEPENDENT report was the one created YEARS AGO by traffic flow expert Gordon Meth who was HIRED BY THE TOWN to determine the safest place- INTERSECTION vs. MID-BLOCK. In his report, Mr. Meth concluded the INTERSECTION would be the SAFEST place for the light/walk.
The report you are referring to is the one that is NOT INDEPENDENT. It was just created last week BY PEOPLE WHO REPORT TO MAYOR SKIBITSKY. The report concludes what Mayor Skibitsky wanted it to conclude, which is the OPPOSITE of what traffic flow consultant Gordon Meth had recommended.
However, no one knows why Mr. Meth's recommendations were not implemented and, for some reason, Mayor Skibitsky is not explaining why he acted differently from those recommendations. Instead of simply explaining why he acted differently from the expert opinion, he has been on the attack. At a minimum, it would be nice if he would simply explain to the people of Westfield (taxpayer/voters) how/why he chose to select what expert Gordon Meth considered to be the LESS SAFE of the 2 locations.
EVERYONE WANTS A LIGHT/WALK.THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. We want to know why the location deemed to be the LESS SAFE one was chosen by the mayor. And, as MANY have observed and commented, the MID-BLOCK location has added some more dangers suggesting it should be moved to the INTERSECTION.

Mr. Skoak BEGINS his post with: "The issue is Kasko has no credibility."

This is a clear tip-off, right up front, that Mr. Skoak is UNABLE to provide any strong arguments at all to even slightly suggest that the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central was not the SAFER of the two locations.

What Mr. Skoak is engaging in may be referred to as an "argumentum ad hominem" which may be defined as "the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument."

For further discussion of an argumentum ad hominem, particularly with regards to how Mayor Skibitsky implements it when challenged on this issue, I refer Patch readers (or, should I say, Westfield voters/taxpayers) to the following thought-provoking website posting by Mr. Kasko:

http://07090.blogspot.com/2011/08/as-last-resort-mayor-skibitsky-engages.html

Are we in Hazzard County with Mayor Skibitsky as Boss Hogg? “We gonna get them Duke boys and Uncle Jesse this time. Here’s what we’re gonna do Roscoe. I want you to put together a report. Here’s what I want the report to say…”

Something about this whole light thing just seems really shady. People keep asking questions and the Mayor won’t explain why he didn’t go with the intersection as recommended by the traffic expert. When challenged to explain, he goes on the attack. There does not appear to be any clear documentation showing how Gordon Meth’s recommendation for the INTERSECTION later translated to installation of the equipment at MID-BLOCK. When challenged to explain, the Mayor instead engages in argumentum ad hominem. (See: http://07090.blogspot.com/2011/08/as-last-resort-mayor-skibitsky-engages.html)

Something doesn’t sit right. It would be fine if he provided strong reasons for not going with the consultant's recommendations. But, the fact that he did not and that he seems to close his ears off to the many Patch commenters who have described numerous near-accidents taking place at MID-BLOCK just makes things look more shady.

SAFETY should be his most important concern. If that means entertaining the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the equipment should be moved a few feet up to the INTERSECTION at Clover, as an elected official, he owes it to the people to consider moving the equipment even if he might have to admit a mistake was made.

The only important issue is the Mayor telling the truth? Who picked the sight and why? I suggest 3 retired judges review the facts and let the Mayor be prepared to fall on his sword.

Why does the Mayor now attack Kasko's credibility when for months all Kasko has done was refer to the Town's and the County's expert's reports. Does that mean that the Mayor questions credibility of the his own experts. Mayor, you can issue a 100 page report from your subordinate, the chief of police, and it still wouldn't be able to say that the current location of the light is "safer" than at the corner. You know that because your own experts told you to put it at the corner form the very beginning. If anyones credibility is now in question, its yours Mayor. Why have your fellow council members sat silent in your defense on this. Ever since your friend Ciarocca left, not one councilman has been quoted that they support this location over the corner nor have they backed up your statement that the current location is safer than the corner. Mayor, you played "politics" when you moved this light and put it in front of the lady's house. You took a chance and got caught. Don't blame anyone else. Don't try to cover up your mistake by having your chief of police, who has his own credibility issues, write a report to cover you.

This light debacle will be Mayor Skibitsky's nemesis just like the failed parking decks were Mayor McDermott's.

See how easy it was to mislead everyone. I lied to you all. Blake never represented him.

I made a mistake in my earlier post. Kasko makes the Mayor out to be a liar because he uses the expert's reports from the town to disprove the Mayor's claims about the light. I thought Kasko was making the stuff up. His legal issues stemmed for him filing a lawsuit against the town administrator Gildea, and the Chief Barney Tracy for violating his right to free speech when he tried to report that the police department was running illegal computer checks on Westfield residents. Its a shame they trumped up charges on him to silence him and force him into retirement. Hang in there Greg. We support you. We know you.

The last two postings from South Westfielder were not from me. I find it very telling that those who support Kasko, maybe Kasko himself post as someone else to discredit those who they disagree with. Those of you who vote for him this Fall now know the type of people he attracts. The same thing happened with me when I posted counter-opinions to certain members of the BOE. Slater attracts the same kind of low-lifes. Shame on you all!

TO South Westfielder,
If you would use your correct name,it would be difficult for people to allegedly imitate you.
Do you think people don't remember the slander used by the proponents of the parking decks against those who sought the truth?All the snide remarks, all the record checks,and all the pressure brought to bear on the opponents only resulted in the biggest defeat a mayor of Westfield ever suffered. It was a great example for the present. Tell the truth and stop evasions. Stop personal attacks on a critic and answer the criticism.
A.John Blake

Mr. Stevens, I probably look irate and obnoxious to you because:
1) One year ago the front of my house started to change from a regular property in a residential area in a nice town into a house placed in the center of an intersection more like in a middle of an airport. This happened without me suspecting or knowing anything . Not only I but some other neighbors were not notified about the absurd, unusual, unseen , illogical crosswalk, 11 feet sidewalk, one traffic light, one pedestrian light one children crossing sign placed in front of my house. Where else did you see something like that? Nobody could oppose the project because as per the comment of Mike at WP following July 12 meeting, the new location was not discussed in the “numerous outreach meetings”.
2) Since late October five cars entered my driveway confusing it with Clover street. I was not the only one who witnessed it. Many people expressed this concer at the Council meeting and in Westfield Patch comments. So my property is not safe anymore.
3) I or anybody else can enter my driveway or exit it without breaking the law, driving over the white stripes painted on the road.

4) As no signal or light could be observed from my driveway, I or anybody else can exit it without taking a chance to produce an accident. For example on 8/9/11 at approximately 12.30 PM I backed up my car after I made sure nobody was on the crosswalk and on the sidewalk, no car was coming North to South. When I got in the road I froze: the light was red, four 8-10 years old kids and one 15-16 years old girl and on bicycles were 3-4 feet in front of me on the crosswalk. The Mayor wrote me in an e-mail that the safety does not apply to me. If he does not care of my safety is one thing but to put in danger the pedestrians, in this case kids, and to continue to say that this is the safest location for a crosswalk is revolting, is absurd and criminal. Does he want anybody exiting my driveway to kill or heart anybody only because my driveway is between the lights that can’t be seen?
5) My driveway (my property not county’s area) I reconstructed 3 years was damaged and it has not be repaired so far.

Mr Stevens...... now forget about me, let's speak safety for the children. The crosswalk was placed in the middle of the road, in the UNSAFEST location not only for children but for mature people too. This was done without any justification. I have witnessed EVERY DAY near miss accidents. One of the pictures from 6/13/11 I sent to the Mayor and Council Members revealed an SUV in front of my driveway (between the light and the crosswalk) 2-3 feet from the crossing guard and a man on the crosswalk). If the accident on April 25 happened 1-2 minutes earlier the crossing guard and 3 kids could have been run over. On August/11 at 4 pm when some friends from Pennsylvania were leaving my driveway, a young lady wanted to cross the road and she was very lucky that she was not run over by a car that passed 1-3 feet in front of her. On 8/5 a friend who visited me from Europe, and I, tried to cross the street. When the pedestrian light indicated us to proceed we were lucky not to step on the crosswalk because a car turning from Clover flashed by us. Forty minutes later when we returned: the same thing but this time 3 cars passed on red. It is true at any light some cars, probably 1-2%, but at the famous light in front of my house 60-70 % of the cars pass on red because they are confused by the absurdity of the location. If you don’t believe, come and observe it yourself.
Please understand what Thomas Jefferson said: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”

The weather seems nice today. I sure hope my handlers let me out today for a walk and breath of fresh air. Being couped up inside can cause one to go stir-crazy. I think thats why I am in here to begin with but I am slowly recovering. Ever since my computer privileges were given back to me I've made the most of it. If I can cross a busy street without incident, I'm sure a 5 year old could. Leave the light where it is. I don't want to be confused anymore. There Mr. Blake, are you happy I stayed on topic and talked about the light.

Wow..Southy, I wish you would come clean and show your true identity and express why I am deserving of your vicious attacks-Change is important in a democracy and if my views offend you let's debate them in public. I applaud citizens like Mr.Blake and Kasko who have the guts tospeak up and put their real identity behind it . I have no patience for those who throw stones anonymously- including those pretending to be other anonymous posters and low-lifers!

Dear Mr. Slater,
May I temporarily appear to be pandering to you by applauding your succinct dump on "Southy".Your attempt at openess and truth on the BOE is a good example for the Town Council. If they had the ability to consider the possibility of error on their part, we would not have this present controversy.
The Mayor is looking more and more like Mr. McDermott of Parking Deck fame ( or infamy ).One quasi-truth follows another. The "circle-the-wagons" mentality rules and the truth is shoved to the rear. In your milieu,everything is covered by the union's mantra "it's for the children".
I hope the people who supported you continue to believe that truth will result from asking questions and that attacks on the asker do not answer the question.
A.John Blake

It states in the first paragraph of this article, the following: "Mayor Andy Skibitsky emphasized the importance of not giving emotion more weight than objective data."
Had the mayor remembered the importance of not giving emotion more weight than objective data, the light would have been located at the corner where it belongs. But he did give into emotion. Tina's emotion. Provolock emotion.

I caught the council meeting on channel 36 last night. I must admit, at times the Mayor appears to be stumbling over his words. I kind of got the idea he was a little nervous and was not really hiding something but not revealing everything about the light. It really does not make sense where its at. I understand the safety reasons for putting a light there but why isn't it on the corner?

Brian,
You're in the same position as the rest of Westfield.A traffic device of some sort was needed.The placement of the light was the original problem and that was succeeded by the refusal of the Mayor to answer a straight question.He now compounds that with attacks on anyone asking a question rather than just answering..This becomes more and more like Mayor McDermott and the half-truths used by him to promote the Parking Deck fiasco.The public can usually smell when something isn't right. They did with McDermott and they will again.
A.John Blake

A former police officer named Michael Ince, who is a Westfield resident, wrote a very good letter in today's Westfield Leader with regards to the Central Avenue traffic signal mess. Having investigated many traffic accidents as a police officer from 1979-1988 (it's unclear from the letter whether or not he served in Westfield or somewhere else), he believes the current layout to be extremely dangerous and is suggesting that pedestrians and motorists would be much safer if the light/walkway is moved a few feet up to the intersection. For more details, make sure to see his complete letter in today's Westfield Leader page 4. NOTE - Unlike the current police officers who wrote the recent report concluding that all is well at mid-block, this former police officer does not report to the Mayor. Presumably, he therefore has no hidden political agenda and is simply providing his opinion in the interest of keeping people safe.

If people prefer to have the light at a T intersection, then just reopen cambridge st.

I have been there. It seems very safe. I just hope that you do not get it moved and some poor child dies at that intersection. If that happens, I hope they come after you for every cent you have. As far as I am concerned, you personally have lowered your own property value (and that of your neighbors) by bringing this to light of so many others. You couldn't pay me to live near you. I am suspecting that your neighbors will have problems selling their houses. I would be afraid to be anywhere near you. If I cut down the wrong branch you would set up your soap box on my front lawn until the branch grew back.

I have no stake in the matter but Sally-you are a fascist and a worthless waste of space. Whats next- you going to pick on the homeless or maybe the special olympics?

@Sally McBride. Please clarify... So you want the light to stay where it is at mid-block AND you want a child to die a few feet away at the intersection? Would you prefer an instant death? a slow and painful one? Would you like that child to be dragged all the way up the street to South Ave.? Dead on arrival at the hospital or a long and drawn out hospital stay prior to death?

Please folks, let's keep the dialogue constructive and professional. Sally - why do you think the intersection would not be safer than the current mid-block location? Many people (not just Mrs. E, Mrs. C and Mr. Kasko) have written into Patch describing multiple near-hits taking place at the current "mid-block" site from apparently confused drivers. At a minimum, so many people witnessing so many near hits should be reason enough to merit discussion about whether or not the location chosen was the safest of the two options and whether or not our pedestrians and motorists might be safer by moving the equipment a few feet away to the intersection of Clover.

If you don't like Mrs. E, Mrs. C and Mr. Kasko, that's up to you. No one is forcing you to invite them over for Christmas dinner. But, unless you're so closed-minded that you won't believe a word anyone you don't like ever says, you have to admit that there is merit to the MANY comments on Patch from a lot of people (not just Mrs. E, Mrs. C and Mr. Kasko) who have witnessed many near hits.

" Many people (not just Mrs. E, Mrs. C and Mr. Kasko) have written into Patch describing multiple near-hits taking place at the current "mid-block" site from apparently confused drivers"

The thing about the Patch is that you can sign up as many user names as you want and therefore is not credible when discussing people's experiences with the light. The blogger himself, Kasko, probably is half the people on this thread.

I think the town needs to pass a rule about the order that people speak at the town meetings. People that have not had the chance to speak in the last couple of weeks speak first, and then they let the people that speak every week talk if there is time. This way we can give everyone a chance to speak. Everyone for this or do people think only 1 or 2 people should take up every meeting?

Mrs. Enculescu, spock said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA

ANOTHER accident at MID-BLOCK this morning (10/27/11). Move the light to the INTERSECTION. Details at http://07090.blogspot.com Vote for the guy who cares- KASKO.

This "blogspot" site...is just a bit creepy. Reeks of wannabe conspiracy theorists who either have too much time on their hands, and/or have an axe to grind which dements their perspecitve. In either case, weird weird stuff.

Funny...this reply is not my reply...someone just using my name. I suspect it's Mr. Kasko, or one of his minions. Shame, but this is what a vote for him represents. Again, strange and bizzarre.

It is strange and bizzarre that someone is using my name. A name associated with the Westfield Community Players. This reply is not my reply. I don't know why someone chose the same last name as me.

Mayor Skibitsky made a comment last night about the FOUR ACCIDENTS that have taken place over the last SIX MONTHS in front of Mrs. Enculescu's house (from today's Westfield Leader). He pointed out that the signal "was dark at the time of each of the four accidents." The light being dark does NOT prove his point. People are confused when they see equipment and pavement lines they are used to seeing at an intersection in the MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, ***REGARDLESS*** of whether the light is on or off. FOUR ACCIDENTS in SIX MONTHS has to tell you something!

COUNCILMAN DAVE HAAS should be COMMENDED for being open-minded enough to look into it. According to the Westfield Leader, Mr. Haas said that "if the data... is correct, there is a rise in accidents 'above the standard deviation' since the light's installation... which bears looking into." Well said, Mr. Haas.

The equipment should be moved a few feet to the north from its current MID-BLOCK location to the INTERSECTION of Clover before someone gets killed or seriously hurt in a car accident. YES, A LIGHT AND CROSS WALK ARE NEEDED... BUT, IT SHOULD BE AT THE INTERSECTION, WHERE LIGHTS USUALLY ARE INSTALLED AND WHERE MOTORISTS EXPECT TO SEE THEM.

5th ACCIDENT(!) in 7 MONTHS at MID-BLOCK this evening (12/14/11). Photos and details at http://07090.blogspot.com. Move the light to the INTERSECTION to keep everyone SAFE!