Letters to the Editor, April 27, 2006

Let school budget stand
To the editor:
   
Voters in the Hopewell Valley have rejected the proposed school budget, which now must be sorted out by our three municipal governments. While the negative vote last week is disappointing and sobering, I trust that our local officials will put aside temporal pressures and allow the budget to stand as presented by our school board.
   The budget increase over that of the previous year is driven by circumstance: property tax reevaluation and a continuing increase of school enrollment, demanding additional teachers as well as staffing increases for special education and custodial services. Certainly none of us wishes for a tax increase, but does the public defeat of the school budget really serve the best interests of our community? I think not.
   Why do we value our existence in the Hopewell Valley? The question is both rhetorical and obvious: quality of life, of which our value of family, rural tranquility and public education top the list. Without the latter, we all would be the poorer. A good education enables us to make wise choices that not only affect the informed individual but all others as well. Furthermore, a good education is egalitarian. It levels the playing field. It offers the same opportunities to the child of a janitor as it does to that of a corporate CEO.
   To put it personally, were it not for my superior public school education of decades ago, today I would still be trapped in the desperate poverty of an East Texas family. As gratitude for those teachers who lifted me into enlightenment and self-determination, I have cheerfully paid my school taxes in Hopewell Township for more than 30 years, even though I am not married and have no children. We all are beneficiaries of a good education. We have a moral obligation to provide our children with no less.
Bynum Petty
Hopewell Township
No to Lewis School
To the editor:
   
While I would like to applaud the teaching of specialty schools that address the needs of those with learning differences (our son went to one in Pennsylvania), I would like to express my serious questions of locating a school on Cherry Valley Road, Hopewell Township. The Lewis School has expressed the desire to put part of their students into what is a rural area near Province Line and Cherry Valley roads. The people who live in this area moved here because it was country with open space. Of great concern is the added traffic that a school would generate. Province Line, Carter, Nelson Ridge, Aunt Molly, and Cherry Valley are already a serious problem during the morning and evening commute. A school in the area would only add to the existing overloaded roads.
   I am also concerned about the increase of water usage. One has to only read the paper to know that water is a real issue in New Jersey. Can the wells in this area survive if they are to serve the additional load of a school use?
   There is also the question about the long-term use of the property. What will happen when the present owner of the school and property retires? Will what has been farmland and residential become a different school or a development? I feel that changing the complexion of this area is counter to why we all moved to Hopewell.
   Serious thoughts should be given by Hopewell Township officials before a drastic change to area land is allowed. Please help to keep the area as it is. I look forward to the meeting at the Hopewell Township offices on May 3 at 7:30 p.m.
Barbara B. Bromley
Hopewell Township
Attend May 3 meeting
To the editor:
   
With regard to the Lewis School of Princeton — which is expected to bring a matter before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 3 at the Hopewell Township Municipal Building at 7:30 p.m. — the school, which seeks to develop a campus on Cherry Valley Road in a residential neighborhood of Hopewell Township, may not yet have fully considered the appropriateness of its chosen location.
   As described in our township Master Plan, Hopewell Township has chosen "to deal with the pressures for growth responsibly and conservatively, channeling development to appropriate areas with available infrastructure." The plan further states that "an efficient circulation system that promotes important circulation linkages, retains the character of the rural road network and provides for safe, vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements should be maintained."
   The reality is that the potential negative impacts put upon our local community by the Lewis School’s proposal are substantial. In addition to creating an intolerable increase in traffic congestion on Cherry Valley Road and its surrounding feeder roads, this development would put stress on local aquifers in an environmentally sensitive area with no access to public water or sewer, threatening the limited resources on which current and future generations will rely.
   The Zoning Board must examine this application very carefully with regard to the Master Plan, and determine if this development is consistent with its guiding principles. I would encourage anyone who has concerns about this critical and precedent setting issue to attend this important meeting on May 3.
Janet Rollings
Hopewell Township
Use Martin tract

for agriculture
To the editor:
   
I am writing in the interest of protecting the viability of agriculture and farmland preservation in Hopewell Township. As an active farmer in the area for over 25 years, I have been involved in preserving hundreds of acres in the township.
   Hopewell Township has disproportionately allocated in excess of 90 percent of its open space funds toward the acquisition of land for conservation and public recreation purposes. The best solution for Hopewell Township is to strike a balance between all three legitimate open space purposes: farmland preservation, open space conservation and recreation.
   Currently at the center of debate is the disposition of the Martin Tract. The Martin Tract started out with a clear objective – acquire the land fee-simple, permanently preserve the land under a combined agricultural and conservation easement, receive funding from the SADC (which has already been approved), sell the property at auction and reinvest the funds in an effort to preserve additional Hopewell Township prime farmland.
   Here we are three years later and this project has been repressed by special interest groups and the inability of the Township Committee to move the project forward as originally slated. This has burdened Hopewell Township taxpayers with an unnecessary financial expense and the loss of state PIG Grant funds to preserve additional Hopewell Township farmland.
   It is important that we work toward encouraging agriculture in Hopewell Township particularly in light of fossil fuel shortages, health aspects of locally-grown food and the many environmental benefits of small family farms versus the industrial-style factory farms to preserve the Martin Tract under an agricultural conservation easement.
   Township residents also may not yet recognize the hidden benefits of using public funds to preserve farmland like the fields of the Martin Tract for active farmland. Here are some points to consider:
   — Balance: Hopewell Township residents voted in favor of preserving farmland and open space. To date, Hopewell Township has fallen far behind our neighbors, East Amwell Township and West Amwell Township, in being directly involved in preserving land for agricultural purposes.
   — Tax revenue: Farmland preserved under an agricultural easement provides ongoing tax revenue to the township. Land preserved for conservation purposes becomes a tax burden, including conservation land that remains under private ownership. The difference is that "not-for-profit" land trusts use the "nonprofit" status to become exempt from paying taxes. In contrast, when a farm is preserved under an agricultural easement, the township receives full tax revenue from the dwelling, all structures (including barns, outbuildings, etc.) and the farmland.
   — Development impediment: Fertile farmland that is best suited for an agricultural easement is also the most desired by housing developers/speculators because it is the easiest to transform. Land best suited for conservation easements is the least sought after by land developers due to wetlands, streams, poor soils, etc. For this reason, the township is unintentionally placing land in the sights of developers by the fact that Hopewell Township has put forth virtually all of the township’s open space funds toward the acquisition of land least suited for future development.
   — Liability/maintenance: Under an agricultural easement, liability and maintenance of the land remains the responsibility of the owner. Conversely, taxpayers bear the burden of the expenses associated with liability and maintenance when land is preserved under a conservation easement held in the public domain.
   — Deer management: It is necessary for a farmer to engage ongoing deer management hunting practices. Owners of land preserved for conservation purposes do not have the same need as farmers to deploy deer management hunting practices, including the inherent conflict between hunting and public access activities. To further compound the issue of deer over-population, proponents of public access conservation easements prefer to terminate any farming activity in favor of letting the land go "fallow". The over-population of deer in Hopewell Township is contributing to increased health risks for township residents, hundreds of automobile accidents, the depletion of forest undergrowth and, in many instances, made it impossible for farmers of neighboring land to grow any crops due to destruction by local deer herds.
   — Public access: Public access on land preserved for conservation or recreational purposes serves a legitimate role in the public interest. Farmland preserved under an agricultural easement, which does not provide for public access, also serves a legitimate role in the public interest. Hopewell Township is inconsistent with other townships that have succeeded in balancing their open space objectives between conservation and agricultural easements.
   — Threat to agriculture viability: Owners of privately held land must insure the continuance of farming activities in order to keep the land under farmland tax assessment. It is not uncommon for landowners to financially subsidize farming activities in exchange for the benefit of keeping the land qualified under farmland tax assessment.
   The Township Committee has the opportunity to balance its open space initiative by preserving the Martin Tract ownership in perpetuity for agriculture. Our township is running the risk of losing its prime farmland to development and, with it, any chance for sustainable agriculture to exist in the township.
Richard A. Weidel
Hopewell Township
Not about money
To the editor:
   
Thank goodness the Hopewell Valley school Budget was voted down. Now maybe someone will listen to us. For me and the dozen other parents I spoke to it was not about the money, it was about how it was being spent.
   Safety busing for my children has been cut. My 5-year-old will have to walk over one mile on a curvy road with no sidewalks to wait alongside a heavily traveled, 50-mph road. By the way, New Jersey is ranked number two in the nation for pedestrian fatalities.
   And although there are some savings in cutting safety busing, the board has had to hire traffic consultants to figure out how to deal with the traffic increase because concerned parents will now drive their children to school. This increased traffic will require additional expenditures for signs, crossing guards, and road changes due to these cuts in busing. The savings versus expenses will surely be a wash only to put our young children in danger.
   In the meantime, football is now funded by our tax dollars, in spite of being voted down several years ago by residents. The arts have been cut. Teachers aides have been cut. Award-winning music programs are threatened. They want to install security cameras and more security guards (a hefty sum) in our sleepy-town schools.
   Judith Ferguson stated that no one has complained about the budget at her meetings. The two board meetings I attended were rife with complaints — complaints primarily about the allocation of funds. Perhaps she wasn’t listening.
   C’mon guys, wake up and smell a big reason the budget was booted. You’re putting the money in the wrong places. Let’s get our children to school safely, provide quality educational programs and then worry about nice-to-haves, such as football, security cameras and well-paid consultants.
Rhona Wulf
Titusville
Pays enough taxes
To the editor:
   
In a recent editorial in the Hopewell Valley News ("Drinkers should face increase in sin tax, too") the writer made some statements and assertions that I would like to respond to.
   She makes the statement that "the proposed proposed hikes (on alcohol) are nothing compared to what is planned for cigarettes," but that is simply not true. The "sin" tax increase the writer is speaking of increases the total tax revenue per pack of cigarettes to $2.75 from $2.40 a pack. That 35-cent increase correlates to a 15 percent increase in taxes per pack (and may, in fact, cause the tax burden on cigarettes to exceed more then half the retail price of a pack of cigarettes). Compare that 15 percent tax increase with the 42 percent increase in the taxes on a gallon of beer the state is proposing (from 12 cents to 17 cents a gallon) or the 14 percent increase proposed on wine (from 70 cents to 80 cents a gallon). The taxes on a gallon of (hard) liquor is only being increased by 2 percent (from $4.40 to $4.50 a gallon), but given the current burden imposed on (hard) liquor that makes some sense.
   Think about that cigarette level — $2.75/pack equals $5.50/day for a two pack a day smoker, and who pays that tax? Are they really best served by increasing the taxes on cigarettes?
   Were the taxes on beer to be raised by the near 300 percent proposed by the writer, the net impact on the price of a six pack of beer (which approximates one gallon) would be to raise the price by about 35 cents – can anyone really say with a straight face that underage drinking is a problem that is 35 cents a six-pack away from being solved (or even impacted in any meaningful way)? Underage drinking is already illegal, and the purchase of alcohol by a minor is also illegal, but I suspect that now just as before, underage drinkers pay a premium over the retail price for alcohol (by paying someone’s "cool older brother" to get them some beer), making them insensitive to the actual price of the alcohol.
   Alcoholics drink because they are addicted, not because it is affordable.
   The causes for the recent alcohol-related issues the author asks us to "take for example" have causes unrelated to the price of alcohol. Did the teens at the March 18 drinking party on Prospect Street get together because beer was affordable – I suspect not (the writer does include mention that a 16 year old was left alone in the house). Was the house in Elm Ridge park that was invaded in late 2003 caused by affordable beer? No – in my opinion, the key that was left outside the house, coupled with a group of children that thought it was OK to do it were the real causes. And without knowing what actually happened to that poor freshman at TCNJ, it is premature to assume that an increased tax burden on beer could have saved him.
   The purpose of taxes is to fund the operation of the government to provide required services to the community, not for influencing social behavior. Let’s try increasing the level of parenting and teaching some responsibility to the children in our community — personally, I feel I pay enough taxes.
Ken Hansen
Hopewell Township