Letters to the editor

For the June 9 issue.

Voters reject budgets for a variety of reasons
To the editor:
   The ongoing effort by our regional school officials to explain why the 2005-06 school budgets were rejected amazes me. (Note: It would amuse me but organizations whose funding is over 70 percent of my property taxes are not amusing.)
   First we were told that the budget was rejected because voters were unhappy that the state support had remained flat and now we are being told that defeating a budget with a decrease in taxes was a mindset: "In my opinion, it’s a general consensus that we are going to vote no. We need to think hard on why that’s happening." (Register-News, May 19, 2005).
   I do not claim to be knowledgeable of why Mansfield voters rejected the school budgets; however, here are some factors which might gave entered into their reasoning.
   Thirty-four percent of Mansfield homeowners are senior citizens who learned in Civics 101 that voting is a duty, not a privilege or right.
   Average inflation rate for past two years was 2.5 cents, Social Security average pay increase was 2.5 percent, the military, who put their bodies in harm’s way, average pay increase was 3.5 percent and education employees had an average pay increase of 5 percemt.
   Co-payment Family Health Care: Medicare recipients $1,500 to $4,000; military and federal employees $400 to $2,400; education employees $0.
   Hours of Employment. Prior to their retirement, the majority of senior citizens worked a minimum of 40 hours per week, 48 to 50 weeks per year, military personnel work a minimum of 40 hours per week 48 weeks per year; however, in a war time environment, who knows how long and education employees work an average of 40 hours per week with a maximum of 183 days per year.
   Management. This district school board promoted a principal to assistant superintendent and hired an additional principal with an increase in administrative cost of over $100K dollars and eliminated an activity bus which cost $55K per year stating that with budget reductions they could not fund the activity bus.
   Voting in the school elections. The four sending townships had an average of 14 percent voter participation. It appears the school board and administrators failed to sell the voters, especially the parents, on the necessity to approve the budget.
   Out-of-pocket tax impact. Chesterfield $2,522,470 (18.4 percent), Mansfield $6,640,552 (48.5 percent), North Hanover $1,861,652 (13.5 percent) and Springfield $2,669,991 (19.5 percent). This proposed distribution would have resulted in a tax increase of 10.2 cents per hundred dollars for Mansfield taxpayers. Mansfield districts 4 and 5, which consists of senior citizens, rejected the budget proposal by a 392-92 vote proving while they are senior they are not senile. After all, who would vote themselves a hefty tax increase?

Open space should be town’s greatest priority

To the editor:
   After reading the June 2 Register News article coupled with a similar article in another Burlington County newspaper on the issue of redevelopment and a town center in North Hanover Township, it was reported that the township’s Economic Development Advisory Committee and the Joint Land Use Board have completed a plan to designate more that 200 acres as a redevelopment zone and they voted at its May 25 meeting to recommend the plan to the Township Committee for final approval.
   It was reported via the Register-News article that the Township Committee could make a decision on the plan at the June 2 meeting; however, since this item was not on the agenda, I questioned when the committee planned on discussing the idea of declaring the substantial 200 acres as a redevelopment area and the reason why two workshop meetings would be held at Northern Burlington County Regional High School (Mansfield Township) in late July instead of being held in our township and the reason for having to register to attend a workshop with a maximum of 50 residents.
   Although two members of the Township Committee are members of the Joint Land Use Board and one is a member of the (EDAC) board, the answers from the mayor indicated that he was not aware of the workshop meetings being scheduled or when they plan on publicly discussing the subject at a township meeting. As another member of the (EDAC) board was also in attendance at this township meeting, he explained the reasons for the workshop meetings; however, if these are going to be public meetings, can the committee institute and restrict the meeting to 50 residents without violating the State’s "Open Public Meetings Act".
   I also question why the other three members of the Township Committee who serve on other committee’s were not aware of the particulars on this subject. I can appreciate the reason to include the Dix Plaza area in a redevelopment plan; however, to include 200 acres around this plaza seems to be extreme.
   If the plan is to increase high density residential (5 to 7 homes) per arce which requires sewer service, if the members of these committee’s would review the Star Ledger newspaper’s independent study on the theory that new houses and business expand the tax ratable base, and therefore lower property taxes, they may be surprised that the results of the independent study actually showed the exact opposite.
   Property taxes increased at a greater rate in communities that are heavily developed. Bigger can mean more demand on services, schools and infrastructure and that means a bigger tax burden. Although this type of a large redevelopment would appear to benefit the township financially, the cost of increased traffic and environmental impacts can far outweigh any possible benefits. Burlington County has enough traffic hot spots and we should not be trading our open space and quality of life for the benefit of developers. In a primarily rural township like North Hanover the most important issue and priority should continue to be open space preservation.

Traffic problems receiving attention from county
To the editor:
   The following is a copy of a letter sent to Joseph Caruso, county engineer.
   Mr. Caruso, thank you for your correspondence to my letter and for installing the signs, and the proposed lane and signs, that will make a left hand turn for residents much safer as they attempt to enter the Mansfield Center Office Complex.
   I am concerned with residents attempting to make a left hand turn traveling east on Route 543. The large trailer trucks still seem to be confused on their venture to get to the truck stop located in Bordentown Township even though the directions are quite clear as they exit Route 295. Many of these trucks stop and make a U-Turn at the intersection of Petticoat Bridge Road or any other place they can find before they enter the Village of Columbus.
   Another problem is with the large trash trucks leaving the Burlington County Resource Recovery facility, obviously ignoring the posted signs clearly indicating that they are to utilize I-295 and not go though the Village of Columbus. Are these violations enforceable and subject to a fine?
   You, your department and staff members, are to be commended for the prompt and expeditious response for attempting to make the intersection of Sheffield Drive and Route 543 much safer for all of the residents.

Committee thanks many for Memorial Day tribute
To the editor:
   The Mansfield Township Committee would like to extend their thanks and appreciation to Pearl Tusim and Lou Wargo as well as other persons and organizations, too many to name, for their contributions to the Memorial Day Tribute that was held on May 22, 2005.
   

Church anniversary kickoff was a resounding success



To the editor:
   I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for covering the initial celebration of the St. Andrew Church’s Quasquicentennial Anniversary. The kickoff breakfast was a resounding success with a tremendous turnout despite its coincidence with a warm holiday weekend. There are so many people to thank that I don’t want to miss anyone specifically who helped make this a success, however, I do need to mention a special "thank you" to Fr. John Czahur and Deacon John Hoefling for their spiritual leadership, Mrs. Eileen Hoefling for her dedication and guidance and to Mrs. Helen Sipos and Mrs. Elaine Mealy for jumping right in and helping with the food preparation.
   We are planning a few exciting events for the rest of the year. If anyone is interested in helping out during any of the celebrations of our 125th year, please let us know! Keep an eye on the church bulletin for upcoming events, including a picnic in late summer and a school supply donation drive for several needy families in the northern Burlington County area.