School board member proud of planning role
To the editor:
Ron Dunster’s letter in your paper last week was divisive, politically-motivated and mean-spirited.
Mr. Dunster, during my five years on the board, I am proud of the major strides that were made to address the district’s inadequate educational facilities caused by uncontrolled growth in Upper Freehold. The impact of this growth to our school district had been ignored for far too long. I played a significant role in the planning and the successful passage of the 2001 high school referendum and 2004 elementary and middle school building referendum.
Our students and staff have already benefited from the completion of additions to the high school, annex and elementary school during my years on the board. Taxpayers have already benefited from more than $10 million of state funding that the board secured before the funding was depleted.
Mr. Dunster, if you attended school board meetings you would understand that what you referred to as my mistakes and poor judgment were, in fact, unanimous decisions by the board based on recommendations from our professionals.
As board president, I ensured that officials from Allentown and Upper Freehold were invited to be members of the land search team. In fact, these officials were invited to meetings with landowners and were included in our meetings with the Department of Smart Growth. I ensured that every homeowner in Upper Freehold and Allentown was invited to multiple board presentations on our land selection process.
The decision to site the school on Ellisdale Road was made after an extensive land search. The board’s professionals recommended Ellisdale Road as their first choice after establishing that the site met with the criteria established by N.J. Smart Growth. The board unamimously voted to site the school on Ellisdale Road.
Indeed, the Upper Freehold mayor and the state Department of Smart Growth have both acknowledged that the board sited the school in the correct location. Additionally, the current site remediation plan was unanimously approved by the board after recommendation by the board’s professionals and input from the DEP.
Mr. Dunster, I am curious about your sudden interest in building the new middle school and the welfare of our teachers, students and taxpayers. You clearly did not support the middle school referendum. Do you recall your interview in the Asbury Park Press (Dec. 10, 2004)? "But Dunster suggested spending less money by using trailers, which are ‘beautiful classrooms.’ ‘The teachers will just have to learn to adapt,’ Dunster said. ‘So will the kids.’ Another option for parents is to send their children to private school if they do not like local schools, Dunster said."
No, Mr. Dunster, I will not remain "silent" as you so rudely instructed. I will continue to fight for our children’s education. Trailers do not make beautiful classrooms, parents should not be forced to pay for private education because of local school conditions and the school will not cost less, it will ultimately cost more.
The middle school delay is not due in any way to my mistakes or bad judgments. If Mr. Dunster is willing, I am happy to debate the reasons for the delay with him in a public forum. I am equally happy to share my qualifications with him.
Jeanette Bressi
Member,
Upper Freehold Board of Education
Mistakes were made in school site selection
To the editor:
I understand all the concern for the over-crowded situation at the current Elementary/Middle School in Upper Freehold. We desperately need a new middle school. That is why the former school board leadership originally rushed the referendum through the electoral process. Unfortunately, it is obvious that mistakes were made in their haste to provide a much-needed new middle school.
I am on record writing that the school board should never have been in the position of site selection. The township leaders should have seen the need and set aside preserved land for such a school.
With that said, it is obvious that mistakes have been made in this site selection. Shortly after the school referendum was passed, I attended a meeting at the state Office of Smart Growth. There were representatives from the school board, Upper Freehold and Allentown elected officials, members of the community and representatives of state agencies that the Office of Smart Growth asked to attend.
After the school board stated its needs from the Office of Smart Growth and explained the locations problems, a representative from DOT asked, "How could you go to referendum, ask the voters to approve this site and new school, without these issues already resolved?" I immediately said, "that is why we opposed the referendum; the location has problems and the school board rushed to referendum." Little did I know at the time that there were so many more problems that would crop up shortly after that meeting.
For the same reason why the well-intended school board rushed to get this referendum pushed through the kids is the same reason why the new leadership of the school board needs to look at other locations.
The Ellisdale Road site will never have a school built on it. Not because of the soil contamination, which is an issue in itself; but because of the sewer permits that will never be issued by the state and the county for a new sewage treatment plant.
The school board already determined that the other solution, Beacon Hill Sewage Treatment plant, was not a good alternative. Heritage Green and Four Seasons already have problems with the current plant and expansion is not a good option. Revisiting that will only cost valuable time that our kids don’t have.
Our kids deserve better and a faster solution to getting this school built. There are some new, very viable, locations that must be looked at that were not available the first time around. Now is the time to start the process for a new referendum to move the site to a new location.
John Nanni
Allentown
Scholarship fund to recall Linda Nehil
To the editor
We would like to extend an open and heartfelt thank you to everyone who provided support, prayers and condolences during the three years of Linda McLure Nehil’s disability and her passing away in August.
In Linda’s memory, a scholarship fund has been set up to assist a deserving student pursuing a healthcare education.
If you would care to donate, please send checks payable to "Linda Nehil Memorial Scholarship Fund" and mail to LNSF c/o Coffey, 43 Brookside Road, Clarksburg, NJ 08510.
The Nehil and McClure Families
Warehouse approval would wreak havoc
To the editor:
I was recently asked by a reporter why I now oppose the warehouse development on Breza Road when, in 2004, I was quoted in the newspapers as favoring it.
The following is basically how I replied:
Life is a learning process. I naively used to think that warehouses were like giant boxes to which things were delivered and then shipped out. It never occurred to me that so much went on, e.g., repackaging, fabricating, general back-office functions, and the like.
I did not realize the extent to which trucks and workers would crowd our roads or the extent to which pollution of all kinds such as light, noise and toxic chemicals would corrupt our bucolic environment. In addition, the demand on township resources as a result of the warehouses would overwhelm our police, fire, and emergency medical response capabilities stretching them beyond the breaking point. I now know that warehouses are not the clean and benign ratable I thought them to be.
Almost as important, I believe that we cannot build our way out of high taxes. The lure of warehouse ratables as net positives for the town has been shown to be false. As Committeeman Reed indicated, farmland is the best ratable and I support initiatives that will protect more Upper Freehold acreage from development.
These are the reasons that I have changed my mind and no longer support warehouse development. I believe that the facts made available during the hearing process have allowed me to better understand the impact of warehouses on the surroundings. With this knowledge, I am now able to arrive at a more educated and informed opinion: namely, I oppose warehouse development in Upper Freehold Township.
I hope that our Planning Board and Township Committee members, who favorably view warehouse development in our town, think long and hard about the permanent havoc this will reek on the environment, the residents, and the tax rate.
Gerald L. Nathanson
Upper Freehold Township