This letter is in reaction to your article “Councilman wants more options for factory site” dated May 9. It should come as no surprise to Councilman Joe Sheridan that any hope of process integrity is lost when it involves redevelopment in Keyport. Given the predisposition by some, to put the developers’ profit ahead of the town’s benefit, we continue to find our borough’s future in the hands of so-called professionals that are closely linked to the political playing field.
Your article stated, “To me, it looked very much like a sell,” Sheridan said. “It looked like, this is what we have to offer. If you don’t like it, walk. I didn’t think that was the intent of our redevelopment process.”
“But you know, if it looks like a sell, it’s a sell, I guess,” Christian Bolte said. “There’s people at these meetings all the time, talking with people, telling them what they should want or don’t want. So who’s selling who?”
I don’t know who’s selling who, but it seems like Keyport is being sold!
Mr. Sheridan’s experience on May 1 is very consistent with the behavior of these and other officials – past and present – who have been elected to presumably represent the community in a fair and open manner. The record shows otherwise.
The record shows campaign contributions from myriad developers, planners, and engineers that have swarmed our 1.4-square- mile town. It shows lapses in process integrity at Borough Council and Planning Board meetings. It shows the undermining of authority at the Keyport Business Alliance, where any attempts at frugality and pragmatism have been received with disdain by some in the council.
Mr. Sheridan wanted to explore and negotiate the benefits to Keyport’s taxpayers when listening to the developers’ proposals, and what a mistake that was! How dare he question the possibilities of a “redevelopment” negotiation?
What could have possessed Mr. Sheridan to actually try and negotiate for something that would benefit the community? Doesn’t he know someone’s pockets may be hurt as a result? You would think that after three years in office, Mr. Sheridan would know better than to question redevelopment strategies.
The manner in which Mr. Sheridan has been treated by his peer and the mayor on this issue is deplorable. If they can be this hostile towards a colleague, imagine how they treat the public. Assuming the public is even considered!
I applaud Mr. Sheridan and ask that he keep on pushing for the anti pay-to-play ordinance that was proposed – but seems to have vanished – along with the promise of more accountability to the public. We need it now more than ever. I would urge other council members to do the same.
I strongly feel that if an anti pay-to-play law had been in effect, the responses to Mr. Sheridan may have been starkly different. Mr. Sheridan may have received a reasonable response before he had to depart to a prior commitment, which did not involve a developer.
Angel L. Matos
Keyport