It sounds like the fix is in-If the mall goes through , this will mark a low point in the history of Mahwah-The will of the people should not be ignored and they will not forget the political circus surrounding this contentious issue.

What happens if two suits proceed (and were not defended against, since the township council now has reversed its prior "pro" stance) - and a judge declares the zoning change ordinance invalid?

Then the planning board could find that the plan is NOT in compliance with zoning ordinances?

Hi Jessica - thanks. So - those opposed to the Crossroads Mall (and who successfully got the council to rescing the zoning change) would need to petition the council to instruct the township attorney not to defend against the suit by CSMM and Suffern.

It seems pointless to have Mahwah spend legal resources to defend ordinances that it susequently reversed. This would be consistent with the council's (and mayor's) "new" stance, that the OLD zoning should be restored (at least until the results of the non-binding referendum can be considered).

Steven, I understand your point and you may be correct.

If the township were to make no motion to dismiss, and instead plaintiffs make a motion to enter a summary judgment...?

The idea behind this maneuver would be to have the original ordinance declared invalid - which would effectively "predate" the developer's otherwise timely application. If not - then we'll have the mall in 3 years.

I think it was completely inappropriate for Mayor De Puzzo to make this announcement at a Tea Party event, rather than to the Township Of Mahwah resident population at large. This most decidedly casts a political profile on a mayor who is supposed to head a non partisan Council.

The infamous and disingenuous about face of Dapuzzo, Roth and Larsen was orchestrated by Wilke and Jaworski two kill a few birds with one stone... They (our councilmen) had no real change of heart (that's not possible from heartless people); they're just out-smarting us. As for the referendum, remember that it is a NON-BINDING expression of our sentiment... it has no place in a court-of-law and is probably a great source of amusement for the Mega Mallers and their (or should i say 'our') backroom dealers.

They should rezone just enough land for a Costco, Five Guys Burgers and a decent Chinese Buffet.

I did leave a comment yesterday, and it appeared in print, but mysteriously vanished by last night. Hopefully, some of you got to read it. I find it completely inappropriate for Mayor DePuzzo to have made his announcement at a Tea Party Candidates meeting that the site plan submitted by the developer had been approved by Gary Montoy. This announcement should have been made to the Mahwah resident population at large. Our Mayor and Council has always been non-partisan, and this announcement by our mayor at a Tea Party event definitely adds a political aura to this issue. What do the rest of you think?

This would seem to me to be a violation of civil rights - freedom of speech. Who makes the judgement as to what is inappropriate?

LHart - and Apollo didn't land on the moon!

a) the gone-missing comment by Phyllis WAS commenting on Mayor DaPuzzo - thus has nothing to do with the other candiates! Nice try, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

b) if the 3 Stooges of Mahwah pursue their attempts to post messages that intentionally include deragatory names in an attempt to damage someone's person (rather than attack their stance on the issues) - then these messages quickly offend a sufficient number of righteous folks that are interested in discussion of the facts. They will promptly report such messages accordingly.
As explained by Patch personnel a few weeks ago already, then, after a sufficient number of patch users report a message as offensive within a certain time period, the system's "auto-pilot" will temporarily "hide" that message until a staff member can review it to see if the message is in line with the Terms of Service and should be "released".
So if the 3 Stooges actually WERE interested in discussion of the facts, all they need to do is contribute to the subject matter - instead of trying to be offensive to the public. As they prove every week, they are NOT.

Phyllis - as far as freedom of speech/civil rights - you are not required to read the Patch or post any comments. This is a free, but private, membership service. If you would like to exercise free speech without your government stifling you, the you absolutely are entitled to do so on public property.

Hello All -- I just wanted to clear up some things about the commenting policies on Patch. The only time Patch editors, myself included, remove comments is if they violate our Terms of Service (which you can read at the bottom of the site). Andy, your guess was correct...comments get automatically removed if a certain number of readers flag them as inappropriate. I can then go back to re-post the comments if they have not violated our Terms of Service. For example, Phyllis - I believe the comment you were talking about is now back up. The system is in place so that users can let us know if there is something offensive on the site. I actually rarely remove comments from the site, as I have found that Mahwah Patch users are generally respectful when voicing their opinions. Any other questions about comments, please feel free to email me. I'd like to thank Patch users in advance for both commenting respectfully, and allowing other users to do the same.

"James" (Allan), "LHart" (John) - the acceptable use policies can be found here:

http://mahwah.patch.com/terms (scroll down)

The very first sentence states:
"Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others."
It also states:
"Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive;"

Since a large amount of the messages you attempt to post about other candidates DO violate your agreement to the Acceptable Use Policy, because they ARE NOT respectful, ARE defamatory and ARE abusive - you naturally will NOT see these messages remain online.

It's a simple matter of following the rules on a private service. Some people can - and are rewarded. Others can not - and are treated accordingly.