I write in response to the recent letter from Gideon and Tracey Gelber of Metuchen criticizing council members Chris Morrison and William Waldron for voting no on a recently proposed amendment to the fire ordinance here in Metuchen. Mr. and Mrs. Gelber should have paid closer attention.
I first want to point out that each member of the council noted during the meeting that they supported the dual goals of firefighter safety and enforcement of zoning laws. The issue came down to whether increasing the scope of regulated buildings and increasing fees charged to business owners (not the absentee landlords the Gelbers railed about) was the right mechanism to pursue the stated goals.
The fire official for Metuchen testified in support of the proposed ordinance. He was unable to provide any supporting data about the existence or scope of the alleged problem. Similarly, he provided no projections for how much additional revenue would be raised by the increased inspections, and could not explain any plans about what would be done with the additional funds. I am not sure about how the Gelbers interpreted this lack of data or reasoning.
Mr. Morrison and Mr. Waldron further pointed out that the proposed ordinance improperly asserted jurisdiction over federal and state buildings (Metuchen has no authority over such properties) and simply (and unintentionally) wrote other provisions of existing law out of existence. I have since learned that there may be additional problems with the proposal, since it sends a fire inspector into a building ostensibly to conduct a fire inspection, when the trigger for sending them into the building is a complaint of a zoning violation. The Gelbers recognize the same when they say that the goal was to have the fire inspector conduct inspections to catch zoning violations. Isn’t that a problem? Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment protect us from government searches under a pretext?
Isn’t the better course to actually have our zoning official enforce our zoning laws?
The public response at the meeting was powerful. Residents and business people objected to the lack of facts and evidence supporting the proposal. Rather than withdrawing the ordinance to try and fix the problems identified by these councilmen and others, a motion was made to adopt the ordinance “as is” — warts and all.
I commend council members Morrison, Waldron and Manley for voting no on the ordinance. And I am proud to say that one more council member, Richard Weber, decided to stand up against his own party and vote against the ordinance as well. It was the right thing to do.
Sharon Taylor
Metuchen