This site is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe this site increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.
While reporting on topics, we will ask the questions some newspapers don't. We will print the questions that some newspapers won't.
All sources of information are confidential.

Email The Fact of The Matter at:

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Coucilman Ciarrocca Diverts Attention Away From Westfield Expert's Design Flaw

Councilman Ciarrocca
In today's Westfield Leader, writer Lauren Barr reported that "Third Ward Councilman Mark Ciarrocca said the town submitted a proposed plan and the County made the decision on the final location of the light." This was reported in a story written specially for the Westfield Leader covering Tuesday night's town council meeting.

What Councilman Ciarrocca does not state is that the original proposed plan/design submitted to the County, a proposed plan designed by Westfield's "expert" engineering consultant Gordon Meth, had placed the mid-block pedestrian crossing at a location that had to be corrected by Union County Engineering because it was not designed far enough away from the intersection of Central & Clover..

Westfield's "expert" made the mistake and the County had to correct the mistake. 

Had the pedestrian light been located at the original proposed location that the Signal Warrant Analysis had recommended, Mr. Meth's "blunder" would not have been exposed.

Although Councilman Ciarrocca is correct that the "County made the decision on the final location of the light," he neglects to reveal that it was because of his "experts" mistake.  Either way, the "mid-block" crossing was a Westfield design and not a County design.


  1. Johnnie CochrenFriday, May 27, 2011

    He is a lawyer, what do you expect. He is good at twisting the truth for a client or against someone he cross examines. in this case the town is the client, they screwed uo, and he is deflecting the blame on someone else. CHEEZY LAWYER

  2. After all these months they are finally telling it like it is. The only problem with that is they are still keeping some of the facts to themselves. The county made the final decision as to where to place the light based only on legalities. It had to be placed a certain distance from a stop sign such as the one at the corner of Central and Clover or the one on Central and Roger to be legal. That was the only place it could have been put if you wanted it off the corner. To bad nobody said wait a minute, it straddles a driveway, that can't be good!

  3. Maria CarluccioFriday, May 27, 2011

    Tom Mineo the county engineer who put the final rubber stamp on this project told me "I'll probably get my fingers rapped for saying this, but I don't object to moving the light" What does that tell all you nay-sayers? Certainly sounds to me like he was put up to this against his better judgment.

  4. I hope she doesn't have any unpaid tickets.

  5. way to go Gregg almost 100k hits on this site...keep up the good work.....

  6. The placing of the light is not dangerous. Yes there are accidents, but there are accidents at any other light just as much if not more. Also, all of the accidents have been with just vehicles, no pedestrians have been hurt. So if you say that the light isn't safe, instead of being very rude and demeaning towards the people who put this light up who can't move it because it's not any less or more safe than any other light and it would cost a lot precious town money, how about you pay for it yourselves. Oh and I recommend those people who stand on the corner who stand there and yell at CHILDREN from time to time don't do that because that is appalling to do that sort of things towards young children.

    1. The number of accidents that have occurred at the intersection of Central Ave. and Clover St. Has increased since the installation of this light. 16 northbound accidents in the 3 years since its installation compared to 9 in the 8 years leading up to the lights installation. The painted roadway markings, blinking signs, an the unfamiliar location of a traffic light mid-block combine to make the location a danger. Be glad that only vehicles have been damaged and pedestrians have not been hit. Lets not forget though, drivers and passengers HAVE been hurt and property damage has occurred. The Mayor and town council COULD move it. In fact, the County had money left over from the original installation to move it to where the expert consulting engineers all recommended the light to be....... at Central and Clover. The current location with all the painted roadway markings, blinking signs, along with the mid- block light which leads motorists to believe they can make a left turn at the light causes unsuspecting drivers to slow down, then speed up, then slow down again to make the intended left onto Clover. This is a danger.
      Lastly, the inventor of the HAWK light ha published statistics that prove the light is safer at an intersection than it is mid- block. The original intention of a mid-block pedestrian activated light was for long stretches of roadway in Tucson Arizona where pedestrians had no crosswalks to cross a road.
      What's appalling is when someone, such as yourself, responds without gathering facts. It's ignorant.

    2. Actually I have heard many of the facts from a reliable source which I will not name in order to keep my privacy and my sources privacy. And I find it interesting that you don't find it appalling that grown women yelling at children constantly because if that was me I would be quite scared

    3. I did not address the "screaming woman" because I can't refute that point you made. Hiding behind your cloak of anonymity diminishes your credibility, The "many facts" you've heard from a "reliable source" has no merit without identifying either.