Letters to the editor

Smith vote flouts habeas corpus

To the editor:
   
Let’s take a quick look at how our neighboring New Jersey members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the federal detainee bill recently. Frank Pallone (D-6th) and Rush Holt (D-12th) voted no to torture; Chris Smith (R-4th) voted yes to torture. Does that mean that the people who live in Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer and Burlington counties, whom Mr. Smith represents, are different from the rest of the residents of this state?
   The elimination of the writ of habeas corpus was bundled into that voting session in the U.S. House took two weeks ago. I think most of the citizens of Monmouth County, including those who live in the 4th Legislative District in Ocean, Mercer and Burlington know that habeas corpus rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That would be the same Constitution that Congressmen Pallone, Holt and Smith swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office.
   Thanks, Chris Smith, you’re doing a heck of a job.
   Fortunately, Rush Holt and Frank Pallone, neighboring congressmen (from, shall we call it, "the North?") voted against torture and to uphold the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Mr. Smith’s opponent, Democrat Carol Gay, can make New Jersey’s 4th Legislative District more congruent with her northern neighbors Pallone and Holt.
   
Edward J. Zipprich
Red Bank
Think outside the big box

To the editor:
   
After a summer of observing events in Upper Freehold, I am compelled to write regarding a series of pent-up concerns, which I believe are shared by a lot of our residents. Many have been empowered to speak up with regard to the Breza Road warehouse issue. In discussions with numerous residents, however, I find that their concerns are of a much wider range than this particular situation. The Township Committee and Planning Board have not done anything for years to significantly slow or control growth except talk, more talk, study and not act.
   It would appear that the planner is determined to portray the future of the township solely in growth terms. The representatives of state Office of Smart Growth were brought in to bolster this new textbook approach. Unfortunately, Smart Growth appears neither to be smart nor a deterrence to growth. This constant assault on the one true industry of Upper Freehold, namely the equine/agriculture complex, will drastically change our landscape forever. The semantic differences between town center and village center merely disguise the underlying impact similarities, traffic, accelerated school requirements, sewer plant installations and the secondary impact of their lines and the affordable housing element. All taxpayers will assume the burden of the differential in the tax levy on low and moderate housing when purchased. I believe the new COAH ratio is one for eight (one affordable housing unit required for each new market value unit created).
   Do the math. This concept of centers being pushed and touted appears to be a not too subtle attempt at rural eminent domain.
   Such proposals by the pseudo-intellectuals and the professionals who rely on their book solutions never take into consideration the desires of the people. Board members are constantly given statistics and case examples while emotional arguments are discounted. Emotional expressions, however, are a part of true public input and usually point to actual feelings being dramatically expressed. Why not spend the cost of a mailing to have a true poll (not a push pill) done on major issues?
   I trust our residents to provide true and intelligent responses. The way we are being led indicates that we are on the verge of seeing the rescinding our treasured County Code Ordinance. We will become one of the many New Jersey municipalities which do not take time to look and learn. I would hope that the new residents who came here within the last 15 years or so get this message and express themselves. This is no time for a silent majority.
   There have been back and forth comments regarding our Middle School crisis. Actually it doesn’t matter how, who or why we have gotten to this point. The situation demands that the current leadership in the township, borough and school board get over the history, attitudes and turf and sit down to jointly work out the problem. This is what people elected you all to do.
   This piece is not an attempt at conversion but a plea to really think outside out box which is full to overflowing with complex and intertwined issues which need fresh and broader thought. An individual’s happiness and quality of life are becoming more elusive. There are the true areas which need preservation and restoration.
   
Fred Kniesler
Upper Freehold
Breza Road needs win-win

To the editor:
   
Like many of you I too want to see us make right logical responsible decisions around smart growth in our township. In reviewing two current projects underway it seems most folks are concerned with the traffic and appearance issues for the Breza Road warehouse and the high cost of remediation for the proposed Ellisdale Road middle school site. Through my observations I’ve concluded a few realisms that many folks aren’t talking much about.
   First, the uncontrollable growth in neighboring towns will force us to deal with increased traffic issues and to pay for road improvements regardless of whether we approve the Breza Road warehouse project or not. I’ve already seen increased traffic as result of the Hamilton Market Place and the Robbinsville warehousing projects. In fact, the Breza Road warehouse in question is hundreds of yards from existing commercial space in Robbinsville. So, in reality; this is already a commercial location. The real issue now is how are we going to pay for these costly road improvements — the kind that will be done right to preserve our beautiful appearance. We have two primary sources of revenue – property tax and commercial ratables. Not sure about you but I’d prefer the latter. With limited commercial land along Interstate 195 and the New Jersey Turnpike, the township needs to diligently consider how to best use this precious resource. We need rateables, folks. What is our plan?
   Second, moving the middle school to "commercially attractive" Breza Road is definitely an option. Having two children myself I want nothing more than a safe contaminant-free school for them to attend. And from what I read we need it much sooner than later as overcrowding is already compromising the quality of education. One fact to consider, building a school on Breza Road will eliminate a very attractive commercial land ratable for the people of Upper Freehold Township. Can we truly afford this?
   Lastly, we’ve spent ample time and taxpayer money reviewing both projects. We owe it to ourselves to explore every creative idea in attempt to mitigate the issues at hand and to create a win-win opportunity for everyone. Our Ellisdale Road school project has an estimated remediation cost of $950,000, which is largely why we are now looking at the Breza Rd option. Has anyone considered asking the Rockefeller Group to be a corporate partner or for an educational grant to help defray this new and unfortunate expense? This would definitely help keep the township focused on its original goal. Plus this would be an excellent opportunity for Rockefeller to demonstrate its commitment in becoming a vital part our town’s smart growth.
   In closing, I hope more people begin to realize that we can not stop neighboring towns from growing nor can we put up walls to prevent them from using our roadways. We need to act rationally and responsibly to the real issues that front our communities. If we fail to recognize what our neighboring towns are doing it will definitely not be "Communities United".
   
Brent Munster
Allentown
Resident rebuts board member

To the editor:
   
The following letter is a rebuttal to last week’s letter, "Board member answers criticism," written by Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education member Christopher Shaw. Mr. Shaw’s letter was in response to statements made by Upper Freehold resident Thomas Battaglia

   
Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for the clarification concerning your decision-making process. It is always beneficial to have a window into our elected officials’ thought processes. In my original correspondence I described your appearance as either disinterested or resolute and I thank you clarifying your position as "resolute." Although, considering the "month’s worth of thought and research" which led to your decision, I would have expected that, after all that effort, you would have lent the school board and those in attendance the benefit of your findings.
   Several other points raised in your letter require attention. My three children certainly do attend a religious school (a curriculum that the district does not offer). I am unsure how this disclosure impacts the validity of my original editorial. I would hope that you are not asserting that my opinion should be discounted in some way because of my decision on how to best educate my children. I pay the same tax rate for school services as every other resident. Should I be expected to forfeit my opinion simply because I choose not to utilize that service? Has the UFRSD become a "members only" club where only residents with enrolled children need concern themselves with the boards decisions? Rest assured, should this district somehow manage to regain its footing prior to my children’s high school enrollment, Allentown High School will certainly be a top contender.
   In reading the rest of your diatribe, I am at a loss as to how any of it pertains to my belief that the board made an error in judgment in not appointing Mr. Cheff, or that there are serious issues in the District that have taken far too long to address. Did I provide campaign finance advice to Upper Freehold Township Committeeman Steve Alexander in 2003? Yes. Does my wife currently provide that same service? Yes. Did I support school board member Jeanette Bressi on Sept. 21? Unapologetically yes. Did Ms. Bressi campaign against you in 2005? I don’t know, but if she did I am sure her decision was based on an evaluation of the qualities that she thought would best serve the board going forward, just as yours was. Do any of these points factor into a meaningful discussion of my original editorial? No.
   As for your assertion of political maneuvering and blatant manipulation, perhaps you would be better served looking to your own missive. Your inclusion of irrelevant facts and associations to distract from my original opinion is thick with them.
   
Thomas Battaglia
Upper Freehold
Official’s response just fuels fire

To the editor:
   
I was appalled to see the response to critics ("Board member answers criticism") by school board member Christopher Shaw printed in the Oct. 5 edition of The Messenger-Press. Mr. Shaw has a right to respond to recent criticism of how he handled himself at a past UFRSD meeting; however, next time he has the urge to respond, he should follow his own advice and not respond.
   I have two points.
   First, Mr. Shaw is guilty of political maneuvering within his own letter and has potentially added fuel to the fire for the UFRSD.
   In my opinion Mr. Shaw went a little too far in attempting to discredit the criticism from a member of the community and unfortunately I fear that the ability of all the local leaders to work together for the best resolution may be hindered.
   Mr. Shaw’s conduct at a Board meeting was called into question and he responded within the first paragraph of his letter. That should have been the end of the letter, but Mr. Shaw had to discuss the what he had "learned" about the political associations of the critic and comment on the families personal life. Low blow, Mr. Shaw.
   Second, Mr. Shaw implies in the same letter that residents who do not send their children to a UFRSD school should not have a voice or should not worry about the school system.
   This is very arrogant. Speaking for myself, I am very concerned about the quality of education provided by UFRSD even though my children do not attend a UFRSD school currently.
   Why do I care?
   Because it is very likely that one or all of my children will attend a UFRSD school in the next 12 years; because the children of my friends and neighbors do attend a UFRSD school; because the excellence of a school system is a reflection of the entire community; and because I want to know that my tax dollars are being spent wisely by my elected officials.
   The UFRSD has many challenges and difficult decisions to make in the near future and everyone will not be happy. But, if we all put the kids first and have open debates with facts over the issues the best path should become clear. The political stuff needs to stay out of the UFRSD.
   
Jerry Madaio
Cream Ridge
Historic preservation takes planning

To the editor:
   
Lately, there has been some confusion regarding the term "historic preservation." Decades ago, it only meant restoring buildings controlled by regulation. That’s changed.
   Today, it means creating an environment where buildings and districts preserve themselves due to economics by careful planning. Maintaining demand and property values for buildings for their intended use is critical. The clustering of districts is properly balanced by their green surroundings called the "setting" of the district. It is important to keep new construction out of sight so older buildings don’t look out of place. The size of new buildings is supposed to be similar to the historic ones. New construction on the main roads is called a "visual intrusion".
Damage to a historic district is defined by federal standards. Some examples include visual intrusions, loss of the green setting of the district, change in use of buildings (particularly residential to commercial), and damage to the environment including noise, traffic, or air quality.
   In order to prevent buildings from being torn down, two techniques are used. The first technique is planning so buildings won’t need expansion. An example is planning areas for new churches, post offices or other services as the larger community grows. The other technique is a combination of demolition and maintenance ordinances.
   If we are to save Allentown, the Allentown Borough Council needs to enact ordinances such as height and maintenance. In addition, Upper Freehold Township needs to alter its planning to preserve Allentown.
   That will require a sea-change in thinking.
   Ann Garrison
Allentown