Thanks for help
in benefit drive
To the editor:
Members of the Allentown, Upper Freehold, and Washington Township Branch of NGA, or New Garments Always, Inc., would like to thank everyone who contributed to the success of its recent In-Gathering and Luncheon. Area residents collected 1,715 articles of new clothing and toiletries and distributed them to Womanspace, Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, Anchor House, The Children’s Home Society, New Lisbon Developmental Center and The Mt. Carmel Guild.
The success of this year’s event was due in particular to help from the Allentown High School National Honor Society, St. John’s eighth-grade CCD class, girls and leaders from Girl Scout troops 1457, 1858, 1701, 607, 1153, 1132, 1692, 1345 and 431, and the Children’s Choir from St. John’s, which provided the entertainment.
Ann Marie Horner
Allentown
Scope of law
isn’t the point
To the editor:
I attended the Washington Township Council meeting on Nov. 10 and participated in the public discussion on the ordinance restricting residence of convicted sex offenders in Washington Township. I applaud the council’s openness to hear public opinion, regardless of where the members stood personally on the issues. That exemplifies good government in action.
The fact is that some areas of town would offer no restriction to residence by convicted sex offenders and my home may be one of those, but that is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. I understand and share that concern with the others in the same situation as me but do not see it as a reason to fail to establish protection for children whenever possible. The purpose of this ordinance is to keep sex offenders away from those areas where children are most likely to congregate and which could cause the most temptation for them to relapse.
It is unconstitutional to restrict 100 percent of the town. If it were legal to cover all of our town, the ordinance would have been written as such. Hamilton’s ordinance covers 99.5 percent of the town because it has a much higher number of schools, parks and daycare centers compared to Washington Township.
The point is not whether your neighborhood is protected by this ordinance or who falls into the approximate 80 percent and who falls into the approximate 20 percent. The point is that 100 percent of our children will have that additional layer of protection while at school, a park or day-care center. That’s really what this is all about. The alternative of doing nothing is to open the doors of our township to offenders from surrounding towns where such laws are already in effect.
I’m confident that our Township Council will do the right thing for the children of our town by voting to pass this ordinance on Dec. 8.
Maxine Fox
Robbinsville
Editor’s note: The proposed pedophile ordinance does not specify, in terms of percentages, the exact scope of protection in Washington Township. While the 80 percent coverage figure has been mentioned in public discussion, it is not supported by the ordinance and has not been verified by the council.
At Municipal Building,
three separate problems
To the editor:
By now, many of you have read or heard about the problems we in Washington Township face with our Municipal Building on Route 130. I would like to take this opportunity to review where things stand.
We have three separate problems, none of which can be addressed in isolation. For years, we have heard from our Municipal Court judge about space and security concerns in the Municipal Court. Second, our heating, ventilating and air conditioning system is not operable due to its age, and condensation leaks that had been a nuisance became a daily occurrence this summer. Finally, in the early days of my term, our administrator interviewed the staff about working conditions in the building, and a few employees reported health problems that could possibly be linked to mold. Before spending funds that had been allocated to recarpet the clerk’s office, we decided to test for mold and learn more about leaks and flooding in the building.
The initial investigation by Environ International of Princeton revealed many signs of water intrusion. Then, before the first test results were back, a flood caused a 1-foot-square area of mold to appear on a wall that had apparently been painted in June after an earlier water leak in this area. Tests from this area showed "massive" (according to the Environ report) levels of mold.
This fact alone raised obvious concerns that required immediate attention. As we proceed, it’s essential that any money spent on an 85-year-old building buys us more than a few years of use. It makes no sense to rip open walls and not address other problems, such as housing our computer server somewhere other than a basement stairwell. At a minimum, we must know before returning that we can stop water from getting in. It’s like owning an old car if it’s constantly in the shop, eventually it makes sense to get a new car. If we know that the HVAC and mold remediation alone cost at least $200,000 and renovations to address the space problems start at $1 million, eventually one has to ask is it worth it?
I believe the prudent and cost-effective approach is to bring in a facilities expert to look at all options. Does it make sense to renovate? Or should we sell the building and go to a less desirable location? We must consider that our current facility sits on a busy commercial corridor; if rebuilt as a ratable, it could generate $100,000 a year on taxes.
Right now, I want to rent enough space to allow the sale of our construction office. We should not rush into anything because I remain committed to stabilizing our tax rate over the next three years. I hope you will all bear with us while we go through this difficult period. Every effort will be made to serve you well.
Dave Fried
Mayor
Washington Township

