Lewis School
bad idea for area
To the editor:
I would like join William S. Clarke in voicing my opposition to rezoning the land area north of Cherry Valley Road near Province Line Road to accommodate the Lewis School application.
The area is zoned for residential development and should remain so. I believe it would not be wise and responsible on the township’s part to add the burden of additional infrastructure service demands, concerns and costs to residents in the area and at-large resulting from nonresidential type occupancy in that particular area.
Traffic on Cherry Valley and adjacent roads already has made them Route 31-like arteries! I cannot imagine what it would be like in the area with cars, buses and service vehicles every morning and afternoon taking shortcuts and holding up traffic!
Mel G. Melconian
Hopewell
The ‘edifice complex’
To the editor:
There must be a rare, exotic insect that has found its way to Hopewell Valley. Its sting and subsequent impact: the edifice complex.
Last week’s edition described a host of local parents wanting to create a youth center. Now, don’t get me wrong. I support the idea and their leadership 100 percent. For close to 18 years, I have been passing the high school and middle school daily regretting the absence of youth activities on weekends, holidays and school breaks. Now that’s no way to treat such capital expenditures.
The "Y" has been struggling for years building a support base and at the same time delivering effective programming in available space in existing community buildings. Nationwide the movement has long been recognized as a leader in developing broad-based programming to meet community needs. And most recently, a group of senior citizens has mounted an effort to develop age-appropriate activities and subsequently a senior citizen center worthy of the Valley. Their ideas and their leadership are also highly commendable.
They are all providing and stimulating activities that are needed and should continue to do so even without a permanent roof over their heads today.
But, may I make an antidote suggestion in view of this edifice complex malady. The township is on the brink of rising taxes. (Did anyone ever hear of revaluation leading to lower taxes; except as Bill Wolfe wrote last week the tax burden will shift from corporate/commercial ratables to homeowners?) School support groups are also frantically fundraising to ensure the district continues to provide those curriculum enrichment efforts vital to today’s challenging education.
We have a bevy of socially responsible community-spirited leaders in all the above areas. It would seem to me based on my early-in-life experiences that one community center as the result of a capital expenditure would serve all the needs. During the day, senior citizens feel comfortable in driving and would appreciate an available meal function as part of their health, welfare, and recreational activities. At the same time, child care and early childhood education efforts can be developed. After school, evenings, and weekends a variety and range of youth programs can take place. Evenings and weekends, the adults can have their opportunities for recreational and, hopefully, intellectual activities.
In spite of the edifice complex epidemic we may be facing, let us look to true leadership to prevail in such an undertaking.
Norm Goldman
Hopewell Township
Invest in community
To the editor:
On Tuesday, April 18, Hopewell Valley residents have an opportunity to accept or reject the 2006-2007 proposed school budget. If you have been following the issue, you will come to understand the burden our school board and administration have been under in developing this budget.
Let’s face it, no one wants to pay more in taxes but we have to realize that investing in our schools is investing in our community. If the school budget fails, we can expect more cuts. Voting down the budget will not restore programs and services already lost.
Clearly these are difficult times for school districts across the state as education costs continue to rise. Serious discussions and a plan of action at the state level must happen to address the inadequacies of public school funding. In the meantime, I urge you to support our schools and our children by voting yes on April 18.
Heidi Kahme, chairwoman
Citizens for Hopewell
Valley Schools
Teachers’ pensions
To the editor:
This letter is in response to the editorial in the Hopewell Valley News of March 30. In the editorial, you discuss the current situation with the budget for the State of New Jersey and you refer to the "pensions and benefits for government workers and educators." While we cannot speak for other government employees, it is disturbing that very few include the fact that teachers contribute, and have contributed, to that fund for many years. Gov. Christie Todd Whitman "borrowed" from that well-endowed fund to pay for her budget balancing. That money was never repaid.
Both my husband and I are retired teachers who are beneficiaries of the pension system. We have 37 and 29 years respectively in public education and enjoy our pensions, but did not "retire with a small fortune" as you indicated in your editorial. And, we still pay property and income taxes like everyone else and feel the bite that these taxes take from our income.
While we appreciate what has been negotiated and then legislated for teacher pensions, we do feel that there are reforms that could be made. However, in the interest of all of our citizens, we would appreciate fair and informed reporting when it comes to the teachers’ pension system.
Dori Anderson
Pennington
School budget
needs your vote
To the editor:
Vote on the school budget on April 18. Every year we ask our residents to come out and vote for school board candidates and the school budget. This year our school board candidates are running unopposed in Hopewell Valley; so we need you to vote on the school budget.
I personally support the school budget and here are the reasons why.
A) While we are all acutely aware that our taxes are high and consistently seem to be rising, we shouldn’t look to reduce expenses when it comes to our children. I believe it is imperative to view our schools as an investment in our future. Just read a few chapters of Tom Friedman’s book, "The World is Flat," and you will discover that our children are facing an extremely competitive, global marketplace where the top jobs will go to those who are not just smart and bright; but a marketplace where they must also excel in leadership skills, being able to work in collaborative environments, and manage change at lightening speed. Our students must now compete with the best and brightest who live in foreign countries as well.
B) There are many expectations of our schools. In addition to stressing the need for children to attend college, we must also prepare our children for challenging careers, which may not warrant a college education. Careers in the electrical field, plumbing, automotive, construction, etc., can be very rewarding Our schools must be equipped to work with these students to provide a curriculum that meets their needs so they can be productive in the workforce.
C) Next, we must not forget the needs of our special education children. While at times these programs can be cost-prohibitive, our schools are mandated by law to provide an education to these children. These students deserve an education and training for skills as well.
D) Last, having served on a school board previously I’ve often heard residents talk about the school budget. They would complain about the costs; but once you break down the cost structure, it seemed to make sense to them. There isn’t "as much fat as I thought," was often the summary comment. You can say let’s set better priorities; but then you start cutting corners to save a few pennies. Great organizations think strategically about where they want to be in three-five years and how to get there with a clear roadmap.
I would also make the case that the rising values of the homes in New Jersey have a strong correlation with the reputation and student achievement in the school systems. People want to own homes in school districts that thrive. So while you can appreciate how your home has doubled or tripled in value over the past five years, rest assure it isn’t because you added another room or upgraded your landscaping; school systems play a major role in real estate decisions. At the same time your property taxes have increased, so has the value of your home. Ask your neighbors who sold their homes recently; my bet is they were pleased with the equity in their homes.
You will read many editorials about reducing school expenses and how our school expenses are not managed properly. If you believe this is the case, then attend a school board meeting or better yet visit a school yourself. See first-hand what you are getting for your "tax dollars." If you think our children and teachers are not deserving, then vote no. But I believe you will find our children are bright and smart; they are working hard at preparing for the "real world." Please don’t make a decision on hearsay or what "you think the schools should focus on" without learning the facts. Once you see for yourself how our children are learning, you will be impressed. Talk with our teachers who we ask to be educators, role models, counselors, listeners, etc. Show them you care. Make an informed decision based on facts.
I would strongly encourage you to support our schools. Our children and teachers need to have the best education and resources available. By investing today, our children will have a brighter future.
Michael Bruno
Hopewell Township
Back to dark ages?
To the editor:
In a letter to the editor in the March 30 HVN, Mayor Vanessa Sandom responded to "two recent letters critiquing the Hopewell Township Committee agenda meeting…" She provided what she called "clarification" by relating the history of the agenda meeting and how prior to 2004 only a few people typically knew in advance what was to be discussed, namely the mayor, administrator, and clerk.
I believe my letter in the HVN of March 16 was the first of the two letters she described as critiquing the agenda meeting. I give Mayor Sandom the benefit of the doubt in believing that she did not read my letter. A mayor is a very busy person and cannot be expected actually to read a letter to which she may respond. If she did read my letter, I would suggest a good remedial reading course.
There is nothing in my letter critiquing the agenda meeting. I strongly agree with Mayor Sandom that the agenda meeting takes a big step toward bringing us out of what I would describe as the dark ages when duly-elected committee members and the public at large were not made aware of important topics discussed and decided at a committee meeting.
My letter was not about agenda meetings. It was about taking a step backward toward those dark ages of discussing and deciding important issues without prior notice. The resolution to endorse the settlement of the tax appeal lawsuit involving the state and the boroughs was removed from the agendas of both the Feb. 14 and 27 committee meetings by Mayor Sandom. Instead, without public notice, it was discussed and decided at the March 6 agenda meeting. Although, as Mayor Sandom described in her letter, "members of the public and two representatives of the press" attended the meeting, by the time this topic was introduced I was the only member of the public remaining (and only one of the press representatives remained). It was during this discussion that Committeeman John Murphy stated that "public input would not make any difference on how I would vote," and Mayor Sandom and David Sandahl agreed. They refused to reschedule for a regular Committee meeting, over the objections of Committee members Mark Iorio and Judy Neiderer.
When I thought the majority of the current committee was acting as outrageously as it possibly could, I was surprised when it got worse. No further discussion of this topic occurred at the March 13 committee meeting, and none was on the agenda for the March 27 committee meeting. Instead, at the March 27 meeting, under the agenda item of "Committee Reports," normally very brief accounts of events since the last meeting, Mr. Murphy proceeded with a half-hour talk about the tax appeal and settlement. Then Mayor Sandom opened the discussion to public comment, as if this topic was on the agenda! Of course, I was home, as I would guess were others who may have wanted to be part of this discussion. Are we heading back to the dark ages?
Len Ramist
Hopewell Township
NIMBY, CAVE
and WAVE
To the editor:
NIMBY is another way of saying not in my back yard. The school has added CAVE. It is their way of saying Citizens Against Virtually Everything. In fact, we are WAVE in the dealing with the school. It means We Are Victims Everytime.
We were the victims when the school took away 25 acres of a recharge area for the back Timberlane ball fields which resulted in an approximate drop of 15 feet in the water level in our wells. We were the victims when the school wanted to get potentially dangerous perpetual street parking rights for the rare occasional overflow crowd. We were going to be the victims of the proposed location of the backside of 30- foot high bleachers. We now are being subjected to new tactics by the school.
The school wants to put 40 geothermal wells in the back yard’. When we say "back yard," we mean about 100 feet from our rear property line. The geothermal wells will be by design a 500-foot-deep, 30-feet wide and 450-foot- long cement-like structure. Stop and visualize a barrier 500-foot-high, 30 feet wide and 450-foot-long placed in the ground blocking the water from your well. By comparison, if you have a two- story house it is only 25 feet high and this structure is 500 feet high.
The school says it is safe and there is no problem. The school states that the professionals designed it that way. The NIMBYs say the professional may have designed it that way but the school said where to put it and gave the professionals the constraints. No qualified engineer, architect or hydrologist would, by choice, build anything at a location having the potential of seriously affecting the surrounding influence area. In reference, the College of New Jersey installed a geothermal system and it affected several surrounding wells. The result was that most of the wells’ owners chose to receive township water rather than rely on their wells again.
In the construction of the system, the contractors will drill 40 wells. Each well, using the air-blasting method, will be 5 inches in diameter and 500 feet deep. This method of well drilling produces grit and fines as a residue that can destroy and or clog pumps, pollute water and sustain turbidity, rendering the well unusable. The proposed 500-foot wells, most existing wells are only 200 feet deep, may introduce while drilling new unwanted metals into the existing wells. Then there is the final operation whereby the resultant well will be refilled under pressure, with a well-graded slurry. This operation is to ensure that the geothermal piping in the wells will be secure and stable. The same operation, which is very much like mud jacking, will fill all the voids and water-bearing seams potentially stopping the water flow to any nearby well. This is what the NIMBY thinks he will be a victim of. The school says it won’t happen and will not relocate the system.
The school should seriously consider the liability it will incur. In fact, the school has a location that would substantially reduce that threat, that location as suggested by the NIMBYs would be in the middle of the school property far away from any surrounding private wells. This place would be just as far away from the new addition on the north side as it was to the addition on the south side, which does not require a major redesign of the geothermal system. It would also be on the unaffected side i.e., the away side, of the school’s well. Eliminating the pollution and depletion factors mentioned at the other location.
This NIMBY believes the school is being just plain obstinate and wishes to show dominance in the face of reasonable alternate solutions. This is the third resolution of the unacceptable location of the geothermal system. Another reasonable location should be entertained at this stage of the construction. It would be prudent for the school to consider, as it would less costly in the long run. This one way to reduce the school taxes.
Don Mauer
Hopewell Township

