Letters to the Herald

For the March 12 issue.

Council should be praised

for considering layoffs

To the editor:
   
Thank you, Larry Quattrone, the rest of Borough Council, and Mayor Patten, for considering reducing the borough’s police force. That shows uncommon courage.
   You faced a tough room on Friday night. The crowd of police and their supporters, from Hightstown to Cranbury and beyond, filled the council chambers and spilled out into the hallway. Everyone was polite, but many were wearing uniforms, carrying sidearms, and looking stern.
   Civilians and a policeman spoke against workforce cuts and were applauded by the officers. I tip my hat to the brave folks who spoke in favor of cuts, though, who overcame the discomfort they must have felt. I had half a mind to speak myself, but frankly, I was intimidated.
   Thankfully, this discussion is long from over. The mayor and council’s study of police restructuring is going forward. The plans for the mill’s redevelopment, which call for replacing the municipal building, will also keep us thinking about what kind of police force we want in town.
   Of course we all want to feel safe. Of course we want to treat borough employees fairly. And of course we want lower taxes. But where is the best balance? None of us in the audience at Friday’s meeting had the answer.
   How are our neighbors striking the balance? According to the NJ Uniform Crime Report, Hightstown has the second largest police force per capita in Mercer County, but ranks fifth in crimes per capita. If we wanted the same number of police per capita as the rest of the county, we’d have to reduce the police staff by 1.5. If we wanted our police to be as busy (in crimes per cop) as the average police employee in the rest of Mercer County, we’d have to reduce our staff of 18 (14 on patrol plus 4 offering support, according to the UCR) by about 6. For the record, one police employee costs us about $70,000.
   If these differences are merely because our department is oversized, then we should trim it. If they’re because we’re a small town and therefore inefficient, then we should share services with a nearby town. Either way, something’s got to change. And we’ve got to talk about it openly and deliberately.

Quattrone thanked for vision

of Hightstown’s budget

To the editor:
   
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hightstown Borough Council President Larry Quattrone for his principled, courageous comments regarding the 2004 Hightstown budget at last Monday’s meeting. His request to fully explore all options prior to moving forward with this year’s significant proposed tax increase enabled a lively public discussion at this past Friday’s special budget meeting. I consider myself very fortunate to have been a part of this conversation.
   As the Borough Council worked through this year’s crucial budget process, it was dismaying that there was no feedback from the public. As we increasingly realized that there was nothing left in the budget to cut but people, the lack of involvement from the residents of Hightstown increasingly concerned many of the council members.
   While it was clear no one wanted another tax increase of this magnitude (18 cents), did the public prefer a reduction in borough employees and the corresponding impact on services and safety? It was not until Mr. Quattrone suggested a discussion about the financial, service, and safety implications of reducing a number of borough employees that we finally got the public feedback that was necessary for us to better understand the wishes of the community we represent.
   To those within the borough government who used this discussion as an opportunity for partisan grandstanding and "us against them" insinuations, it now seems clear when it comes to our tax dollars, our safety, and our borough’s future, there is no "us and them" — only "we."
   I would also like to thank the residents of Hightstown who have joined in this great discussion, and I hope many more will participate in the coming months and years. As Mr. Quattrone has astutely pointed out, while we are looking at 18-cent tax increase for 2004, we will likely be looking at a 30-cent increase in 2005 and perhaps in 2006 as well.
   Why are we in this situation? Primarily due to reduced revenues resulting from the closure of Minute Maid and depletion our surplus in prior budgets, with no contingency plan to bring new revenues to make up these shortfall in time to affect the budgets of the next few years.
   While there may indeed be some light at the end of this dark tunnel in three to five years (with the planned residential and age-restricted developments, along with the eventual redevelopment of the Minute Maid factory and rug mill), what will be the costs between now and then? Will our senior citizens, who are an integral part of our history, be forced to leave their homes due to spiraling property taxes? Young and lower-income residents similarly affected? A decline in property values due to this ever increasing burden?
   Through the courage and leadership of Mr. Quattrone, it is now clear that a plan to bring in new revenues is not only necessary, but crucial to avoid even larger tax increases in the coming years. Again, I encourage the tax payers of Hightstown to continue an active role in these discussions (there are Borough Council meetings every second Monday at 7 p.m.), and I thank Mr. Quattrone for his leadership. It is only with this public involvement and civic-minded leadership that we all enable a bright future for Hightstown.

The writer is a member of Borough Council.
Pay-as-you-throw plan

detrimental to residents

To the editor:
   
The March 5 edition of the Herald announced the Borough Council’s intentions to raise the water fees and to institute a pay-as-you-throw scheme for yard waste, along with the announcement that there would be yet another substantial increase in our tax rates.
   I already recycle and compost my waste and would ostensibly be a beneficiary of such a plan. I think not. This scheme is just another gimmick, like our water bill, to conceal the burgeoning costs of our municipal government while doing nothing creative about the underlying problems. I will now have yet another bill to pay for a diminished service while my property taxes continue to soar.
   Turning community services into pay-for-use services is a troubling trend that undermines the purpose of community government while maximizing the costs to the taxpayer. Property taxes are tax deductible expenses for which taxpayers receive significant savings, pay-for-use services are not. The treatment of water and sewage, like garbage collection, are necessary community services. They are not, as many of our council member’s are fond of saying, businesses. We mandate these municipal monopolies for the purpose of efficiently and effectively providing socially needed services. We should not think of them as income-making concerns.
   The purpose of these proposals are not to provide more efficient services, rather it is to provide political cover from making hard choices and to help hide the rising tax rate. We can be assured that some time in the not too distant future, some enterprising council person will propose shoring up the budget with a non-tax-deductible increase in the refuse collection rates, as they now propose doing with the water rates.
   The question is just how far do you go with these "pay for use schemes"? Why not have pay-as-you-use schools? We don’t contemplate such schemes because the resulting demise of public education would be at an unthinkable social cost. The same principle applies to refuse.
   I have a summer residence in a township that adopted a pay-as-you-throw scheme. It’s amazing what some people will do to save a few bucks. The highways and parks became littered with garbage tossed by people driving by, all public trash receptacles had to be removed as these became dumps, improper burning and burial of toxic refuse is rampant. The savings to the township are terrific, but at a social cost that I for one find unacceptable. We have public garbage collection and pay for it collectively because we choose to live in a clean and sanitary community. There will always will be individuals who if left to their own devices won’t act responsibly.
   In closing I would like to mention a conversation I had with a neighbor. This neighbor, an avid gardener, used to compost all yard and kitchen refuse for garden mulch. He ceased doing so when he discovered 16 rats living in his composter. What’s next, the plague? Encouraging people to compost is all fine and well, but only if it’s done properly. The borough has the resources to do this while producing a commercially valuable resource, most individuals don’t. How about creating a central collection point were people can bring their yard refuse for proper recycling and selling the material to private companies? There would be savings in collection costs plus income.
   And, by the way, if it costs $1.99 per bag to completely dispose of an estimated 1,200 bags of refuse, where’s the $5,000 to $8,000 in "savings"? According to the math I learned in public school, that comes to $2,388. More smoke and mirrors I guess.

Teacher contracts limit

board’s budgeting ability

To the editor:
   
What is occurring in the East Windsor School District is nothing short of what likely occurs in an insane asylum. This year’s proposed school budget again imposes a hefty tax increase on residents, yet the district’s academic performance continues to lag.
   Perhaps more concerning is that at a time when, by the board’s own forecasts, enrollment is expected to continue increasing rapidly and we are embarking on a substantial facilities expansion, the board is actually considering eliminating teaching positions.
   Prior to the referendum, I specifically raised concerns about inadequate funding for current expenditures and it now appears such concerns fell on deaf ears.
   One of the roots of this district’s financial problems lies in its administrative expenses with blame placed squarely on both the school board and teacher’s union. Indeed, the recently agreed teacher’s contract includes a large real increase in minimum salaries, no significant increase in contributions toward healthcare and strict rules preventing the firing of teachers that under-perform. With teacher salaries in this district averaging $58,000, which is among the highest in the state, we should expect, if not demand, better academic performance for our money.
   One might argue that teachers in East Windsor have significant experience with average tenure at roughly 17 years, but this is precisely the problem. There are too many teachers that have been in the system far too long who cannot be fired and have no incentive to improve performance. The board should have negotiated a more stringent, taxpayer friendly contract that weeds out poor performers and allows for an infusion of fresh ideas with an added benefit of lower salary and benefits costs that then can be directed back toward the curriculum. This strategy may have allowed the district to prepare a budget that contained a net increase in teaching positions.
   Another area of potential savings could have come from switching healthcare carriers as many employers typically do when costs rise sharply. Unfortunately, the board felt it necessary to enter into an insurance contract that deters such a fiscally responsible action with Cigna, imposing a $1.2 million "termination fee" if the district switches carriers.
   The children of this community deserve better. I strongly urge the board to reconsider the 2004/05 budget, taking a harder look at how to better rationalize current expenditures with an eye toward lowering the tax impact and improving academic performance. If the board chooses not to respond, then it is your responsibility to vote down the budget on election day to force it to take a second look.

Nader may have

more support

To the editor:
   
Your editorial of Feb. 27 critiquing Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign makes some valid points, but I urge you to take an overview of the situation.
   There is a small but growing segment of the American electorate that consistently shows its desire for an alternative choice. They send a message that they are dissatisfied being limited to just the establishment parties and candidates when they vote for the best alternative they can find in any particular year, be it a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader or a Green Party candidate or a Reform Party candidate.
   You also should be aware that there is an active movement within the Green Party called "Greens for Nader," the members of which are working to sustain the alliance between Ralph Nader and the Greens. You might find, as the campaign develops, that Nader has more support than he had in 2000, not less, if he reaches out more broadly in 2004 but still retains the support of much of the Green Party. There may even be some Republicans, upset about President Bush’s budget deficits and misguided foreign policy, who won’t consider voting Democrat but may very well cast a protest vote by pulling the lever for Ralph Nader.
   Nader’s theme: "More voices! More choices!"
   I sure agree with that!

Editorial made

Nader’s argument

To the editor:
   
Your creative use of homophones notwithstanding, your editorial concerning Ralph Nader simply serves to illustrate his argument more clearly.
   If Mr. Nader is simply an egomaniac, who should be ignored, why is there such a fuss? With such a clear distinction between the two parties this time, Mr. Nader’s entry into the race surely won’t have any effect on the outcome.
   Ralph Nader could never get elected. He answers questions directly and gives reasons for his answers. He is not indebted to any special interest groups. His career has been dedicated to consumer advocacy. He does not try to align himself with any particular group to curry favor with them. This is certainly not a person anyone would want for president.
   As far as ego is concerned, there is enough of that to go around between political pundits and newspaper editors who profess to know what’s best for the country.
   And by the way, it seems rather ironic that someone who should be ignored rates so many editorials.

Twin Rivers

not democratic

To the editor:
   
A letter written by Bernard Bush (a former Twin Rivers Board Member) published in the March 5 issue of the Herald must be addressed because someone has got to cash his reality check.
   According to Mr. Bush, the board of directors is accountable to the residents and Twin Rivers is, by far, the most democratic community that he had ever lived in or visited. Yet, some of our own documents demonstrate that the board of directors has destroyed many of the vestiges of democracy in Twin Rivers.
   As an example, Twin Rivers has what is called an Alternate Dispute Resolution, which is supposed to provide for a fair and efficient way to resolve disputes between the unit owners and the association. Quite frankly, that thought sounds peachy keen as do the words "all natural ingredients" (until one realizes that arsenic and horse manure are natural ingredients as well).
   This democratic Alternate Dispute Resolution states, in part, that the parties shall attempt, in good faith, to resolve any controversy arising out of or relating to the governing documents or the breach, enforceability or validity thereof. The resolution absolves the board of directors from accountability for its actions because the resolution states that a dispute shall not include issues relating to election issues and alleged non-compliance by the association with its own governing documents or applicable law.
   To me, that seems like the board has given itself license to disregard its own governing documents as well as state and federal statutes as well as disregarding the rights of home owners. This does not sound very democratic to me and it also shows that the board feels that it is not accountable to any unit owner for its actions. A good democratic system is one that should be sensitive enough to hear and admit to its own faults.
   As an example, Mr. Bush seems to forget that there were some proposed amendments to our indenture that were democratically voted down by the members and yet illegally and undemocratically managed to appear in our governing documents as well as in the County Clerks office as approved amendments. Additionally, as Mr. Bush should be aware there are several resolutions that illegally amend the governing documents. However, the board’s attitude is and has always been that "We don’t care, we don’t have to," and indicates that they feel they are above accountability.
   I am just wondering if Mr. Bush will have the courage of his convictions to explain why he feels that illegal actions of the board are considered democratic. Furthermore, I think Mr. Bush should be encouraged to explain why he feels that the board’s failure to want to discuss violations of the governing documents or applicable laws demonstrates the accountability of the board members to the homeowners.

Bush cuts budget

for housing poor

To the editor:
   
I’d like to write to all who are concerned about the increasing number of working families who are becoming homeless. I propose that we write letters to President Bush. His proposed budget surely will add more families to the growing list of homeless. Here is a sample letter readers may copy and send:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
   Your fiscal year 2005 budget that was released in early February proposes changes to the federal housing voucher Section 8 program. These changes are the most radical and threatening in the history of the program. The budget allocates $1.6 billion less than needed to maintain the housing vouchers currently in use. This proposal would drop at least 250,000 families from the program, including an estimated 6,500 of the more than 63,000 New Jersey households currently relying on vouchers in New Jersey.
   President Bush, your proposal would cut funding even more drastically in years to come. By 2009, funding cuts would reach 40 percent, a loss of 25,000 vouchers in New Jersey.
   President Bush, your proposed budget also would remove important protections for poor residents. Public Housing Authorities no longer would be required to serve people with the lowest incomes nor would they be required to keep rent at 30 percent of a resident’s income. Families with extremely low incomes could be at risk of losing their vouchers to families with higher incomes.
   I ask that you reconsider this important issue and protect the voucher program and the people it serves.