The Alternative Press
NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SUMMIT, BERKELEY HEIGHTS AND NEW PROVIDENCE
To submit a letter to the
editor,
please e-mail your letter to letters@thealternativepress.com
Please include your name,
address, and phone number for verification.*
Letters to the Editor,
January 2008
January 29, 2008
BHPD
Conditions
Dear Editor:
As a resident of Berkeley
Heights for 25 years, I have often wondered
why surrounding towns with a similar demographic and tax base have municipal
facilities that are much more updated and well maintained.
The January 27th edition of the Star Ledger reported the following:
- The structures which house the Berkeley Heights Police Department
do not provide a safe, secure, efficient workplace.
- This is the second time that Union County Prosecutor Romankow has asked Mayor Cohen and the Township
Committee/Council to address this issue.
- Berkeley Heights
has been cited by OSHA for flooding, a leaking roof, visible mold and a fetid
odor.
-The NJ State Association of Chiefs of Police cited Berkeley
Heights on the issue two years ago and
nothing was done to remedy it.
Despite these horrible working conditions, and the terrible
obstacles they must present, the Berkeley Heights Police Dept., under the
guidance of Chief David Zager, still managed to
achieve accreditation through the New Jersey State Chiefs Association, and was
nationally recognized by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies.
Our police department is known as being one of the best in
the state. Berkeley Heights
has enjoyed the lowest crime rates in Union
County for many years. All the
credit for this goes to Chief David Zager, most of
his officers, and his staff. None of the
credit goes to any elected politician.
In the Star Ledger
article, Mayor David Cohen speaks of his long-term vision. How long-term,
exactly, is his vision? Is it myopic
vision? He has been on the township committee/council
since 1999. He was mayor in 2002, 03, 05, 06, 07 and now 08. How many years does it take to address
unhealthy work conditions for those who have sworn to protect and serve? Instead of long-term vision, not taking care
of our “finest” seems more like tunnel vision. It’s certainly not 20/20.
While campaigning for mayor, Mr. Cohen began a
self-congratulatory speech by saying, “People are talking about Berkeley
Heights…”
Yes, thanks to Mayor Cohen, they most certainly are.
Rosemary Hazan
Berkeley
Heights, NJ
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 25, 2008
Neighbors
Express Their Opposition to “Tuscany Hills”
Dear
Editor:
A growing number of Berkeley Heights residents are voicing their opposition
to the planned development termed “Tuscany Hills” - a new subdivision that will
decimate a virgin woodland within the township’s block #2402 and create crowded
group of oversized houses and a “flood waiting to happen.“ A majority of
the residents who would be negatively affected by this development have signed
a letter sent this week to the members of the Planning Board to express their
concerns. The entire text of that letter is included below. Last month a group
of these residents gathered to protest this proposed development and it’s “massive 18 foot wall.” Photographs from that gathering
which illustrate their point were included with this letter (also sent to the
Independent Press). On Monday, January 28th, the Planning Board will
hold its second public meeting to consider the proposal for Tuscany Hills. At the first meeting (November 19, 2007), the board noted the large turn-out of concerned residents.
For the upcoming meeting, they may need a bigger room.
Robert M. Crowl
Berkeley
Heights, NJ
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2008
Dear Members of the Planning Board,
We are writing to express our deep concern about the proposed Tuscany Hill
development. The entire neighborhood (some 42 families) that surrounds this
proposed development will be significantly affected.
Our most pressing concerns include the following:
1) Storm water runoff and the potential for flooding neighboring
property. The area of the proposed development is on a hill, and the plans
depict the cul-de-sac at the highest elevation – the crest of hill. From that
point, all water flows downward toward the circle of surrounding properties.
For decades, the mature trees and other native vegetation have served the
function of retaining the water runoff and thus prevented flooding to adjacent
properties. However, with the proposed development and the destruction of over
150 mature trees, the natural drainage and retention system is to be replaced
by a very large area of impervious surfaces – asphalt driveways and rooftops.
The only proposed protection against flooding will depend on 2 detention basins
and 23 dry wells. Both systems have the potential for failure and for flooding
adjacent properties. For example, Debra Hwang (Block 2404 Lot
15 at 47 Overlook Drive)
will be in danger of catastrophic flooding. [See Lett
er from Somerset-Union Soil Conservation District to
Stephen Parker, Oct.11, 2007, RE: Tuscany Hill, Item 3. Conduit Outlet
Protection, specifically points out that the proposed installation is
unacceptable.] The Berkeley Heights Environmental Commission also raised
this critical concern, as summarized in their letter to the Planning Board
(dated 10/23/07). The
plans for storm water management submitted by Parker Engineering are based on
estimates and assumptions, and thus cannot predict with certainty the risk of
flooding onto adjacent properties. If flooding does
occur due to the failure of the planned water detention system - resulting in
damage to an existing property – who is accountable? This critical
issue of liability needs to be addressed.
2) The excessive number of variances and the significant number of
waivers for RIIS – that, if granted, will result in a substandard development
and adversely affect all property values in the immediate area. It is
understood that variances are granted to overcome hardships to an applicant –
yet, in this case, the proposed development will actually cause hardships to
the existing home owners by way of the problems summarized in this letter.
What are the hardships that justify the 15 to 20 variances requested by the
applicant?
3) The massive 18 ft. retaining wall will have a negative impact on
the homeowners whose property abuts the proposed walls. For example, Debra
Hwang (Lot 15) will never view a sunrise again from her
home as one portion of the walls (18 ft. high and 50 ft. wide) will be directly
in front of her small back patio. We have included photos that illustrate just
how massive that wall would be. And, due to the proposed retaining walls, Sai and Venkat Venkatachalam (Block 2404 Lot 14 at 37
Overlook Drive) will also have a significant disruption
of view corridors and scenic vistas. Please note that the Township
already has an ordinance Section 3.1.11.C.2 meant to prevent
developers from disrupting view corridors and scenic vistas.
These walls present an unnecessary danger to our children, who may be
tempted to climb them (“fencing” not withstanding) could fall and suffer
serious injuries.
4) A serious traffic hazard would result from the proposed
(substandard) entrance into the Tuscany Hill development, especially when cars
and other vehicles (landscapers, etc.) are parked on this narrow (24 ft)
roadway, as well as on Hillside Ave
(50 ft). The existing traffic hazard on Hillside Ave,
due to insufficient visibility caused by the steep slop of the road, is made
worse by the presence of the new intersection at the crest of the hill, as well
as by increased traffic. This hazard affects not only those of us that live
nearby, but it also impacts anyone who drives (or walks) on Hillside
Ave. This serious safety issue was the subject of
a letter to the Planning Board (dated 11/19/07,
RE:Tuscany Hill Subdivision)
from the Berkeley Heights Volunteer Rescue Squad: “This is not only a
problem for emergency vehicles but a safety issue for the residents.”
We are encouraged by the recent accomplishments of the Planning Board – in
terms of saving land from development and your stewardship in guiding our
community as it continues to grow – particularly as it relates to ecological
balance. We look forward to having the opportunity to speak with you and other members
of the Planning Board to discuss our concerns and fears as to what it will mean
for us all if this development is approved.
Sincerely,
Neighbors For Saving
The Woodland From
Development
(names and signatures on attached page)
Distribution: Mayor David Cohen, members
of the Town Council, members of the Planning Board
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 24, 2008
Tuscany
Hills Sub-division
Dear
Editor:
"Saved
from Development!" proclaims the sign on Snyder
Avenue at the site of the future Berkeley
Heights community center. Last November the Independent Press was
trumpeting changes made by the Berkeley Heights Planning Board that reduced the
maximum height of downtown buildings and standardized a substantial setback
requirement. The message is clear--our town is not about development for
development's sake. The officials, elected and
appointed both, are in favor of protecting the character of Berkeley
Heights and improving quality of
life for all of its citizens. Why, then, are residents forced to fight to have
current zoning laws enforced in our neighborhoods? What is the point of having
zoning laws if variances to them are regularly granted, allowing oversized
houses on undersized lots to disrupt the character of our residential
neighborhoods?
A
proposed major sub-division, called "Tuscany Hills," is currently
before the Berkeley Heights Planning Board. This proposal will divide each of
the four lots along the west side of the crest of Hillside
Avenue in half. The present modest dwellings along
the street will remain, while four new houses will be built on a sub-standard
cul-de-sac behind them. Although these houses are labeled on the plans as
"typical," they range in size from 4500 to 7100 square feet, in a
neighborhood consisting mostly of houses in the 1800-2800 sq ft range. That
definition of "typical" isn't in any of my dictionaries!
The
proposed site is the very top of one of our Watchung Mountains—it
is the peak of a watershed that extends all the way down to the Passaic
River. The crest of the hill is
presently wooded, with hundreds of trees, around 150 or which are over 8 inches
in diameter. Most of the trees will be removed (and those that remain will be
seriously threatened by the construction activity). Today those trees
effectively handle the water runoff down the slopes into the backyards of
thirteen houses that immediately surround the area. These trees also beautify Berkeley
Heights, create oxygen, remove
carbon dioxide, and provide shelter to birds and other wildlife, including a
pair of red-tailed hawks. The saplings that replace them will not be able to
duplicate this, so an expensive-to-maintain system of detention basins and dry
wells will be installed instead. Why allow nature to do what it does perfectly,
when we can spend money, disrupt eco-systems, and use materials and energy that
we are rapidly running out of, to end up with a system that is not as
effective?
If
you don't want to end up with this sort of development sprouting up in your
backyard, please join me and my neighbors in letting our Mayor, Township
Council members, and Planning Board members know. Ask them to continue to keep
the good of the entire township in mind when making decisions about development
in our residential neighborhoods.
Diane
Skoss
Berkeley
Heights, NJ
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 23, 2008
Dr. Bonacci’s Inaccurate Count
Dear
Editor:
As
I read Dr. Bonacci's account of the 1/1 and 1/8 town council,
it surprised me to read that he believes he is representing the majority of Berkeley Heights voters. He does not.
In fact 2/3 of the voters that day voted for the other two candidates on
the ballot. It is unfortunate that he
feels so self important to the town that he tries to answer all the questions
asked of other council members at the meetings.
He speaks of everyone having their own voice, but yet he does not let
the council answer for themselves, instead he takes over. I am hoping that he is truly trying to better Berkeley Heights, but to be a true
leader, one must listen to the people he represents and calmly address their
concerns. When he can professionally address
the township, perhaps someone will start listening.
M.
Sanchez
Berkeley
Heights
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 8, 2008
Mike
Neavill and the Independent Press
The
authors of the following letter to the Independent Press requested that The
Alternative Press publish it.
To the Editor:
We had the experience of bearing witness to an unfortunate "rant" at our January 1, 2008, Town Council Meeting by one of your reporters,
Mike Neavill, whose performance reflects poorly upon your newspaper. During that episode, Mr. Neavill made long rambling,
inappropriate accusations against Dr. John Bonacci, our beloved, twice-elected Councilman, which revealed his strong bias against Dr. Bonacci.
As a Berkeley Heights resident, Mr. Neavill should be an active participant in his local government. His position as a reporter of
Berkeley Heights political news events for the "Independent Press," however, should relegate him to an unbiased observer at such Town Council
meetings when he is doing his reporting. On January 1, 2008, he made a complete fool out of himself, and his ranting and raving revealed his bias
for all the town to see!
Over the years, your newspaper has been a flack for the Cohen Administration, and we hope that this editorializing of the news ends. The
independent thinking voters of Berkeley Heights, this past November, chose Dr. Bonacci over both the Democratic and Republican "machine"
candidates by a large margin, and approve of his efforts toward bettering the Town Government. We are tired of the slant you have consistently
taken in your newspaper. As we begin a new era in Berkeley Heights, we hope to see a new beginning in the "Independent Press." That is, we
hope to see a press that is ALSO truly "Independent!"
Howard and Karen Searle
Berkeley Heights
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to
submit letters to the editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 6, 2008
Pay to Play and MusicFest
Dear Editor,
Pay
to Play, the practice of companies making monetary contributions to political parties,
usually the one in power and being awarded lucrative professional contracts
seemingly in return, is one of those outrageous situations that Gov. Jon
Conzine promised he would tackle during his tenure.
Though legislation has been attempted on more than one occasion over the past
couple of years what has resulted has been watered down and containing
loopholes. Interestingly the principal players have managed to find some
intriguing ways to discreetly continue to do what they always have been doing.
Reviewing the list of “sponsors”, obtained through OPRA, for the Freeholders so
called free concert for county residents, MusicFest
2007 proved to be a veritable who’s who of the county’s
vendor list.
Case in point:
- In 1998 the Westfield Leader
reported that the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders awarded a $3.4
million contract to Correctional Health Services, Inc. of Verona, to provide health
services to inmates at the County
Jail and detainees at the
county’s juvenile detention center, they would be helping the county
switch from public to private management of the two facilities.
- Citing reports of other
counties utilizing CHS then County Manager Michael Lapolla predicted the
savings would be at least $350,000 over the following two years. Union
County has awarded contracts
to CHS since that time to provide medical/health care services at the
jail, detention center and also the children’s shelter, for the term of
January 2004 thru December 2006 at a cost not to exceed $3.6mil for yr. 1,
$3.7mil for yr. 2 and $3,968,940 for 2006.
- According to reports filed
with NJ Elec., Correctional Health Services, Inc. of Verona had awarded
contributions to the Union County Democratic
Committee in excess of $60,000 for the period from Sept. ’98 thru
October’04.
- Double checking the NJ Elec
website showed that indeed, the last contribution to the UCDC was in
October of 2004 however lo and behold Correctional Health Services pops up
as a MusicFest sponsor to the tune of $5,500.
- Coincidentially just this
month the all Democratic Freeholder board authorized the County Manager to
enter into a month-to-month contract with Correctional Health Services,
Inc., Verona, New Jersey, to provide
medical/health care services for inmates and residents of the Union County
Jail and the Juvenile Detention Center for
the period of January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008 in the amount of
$2,249,373.
Some other MusicFest sponsors doing business/having done business with the
county include: Schoor DePalma Engineers, Pennoni Engineers, 4 Connections,
Maser Engineers, Waste Management, Ricci Green
Architects, Access Systems and Spruce Industries who contributed a combined
$35,500 to the event thus giving the incumbents an actual stage to appear on
before thousands of county residents without them having to spend a single
campaign dollar.
Patricia Quattrocchi
Garwood, NJ
Editor’s Note:
Ms. Quattrocchi was a Republican candidate for the Union
County Freeholder
Board this past November.
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to submit letters to the
editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com
January 1, 2008
Things
that make you go hmmmm
Dear
Editor,
The Union County Watchdog Association has
requested an investigation by the Union County Prosecutor’s Office into the
malfunctioning of the recording equipment during the December 20, 2007 freeholder meeting. The
county recently spent $110,000 on updating and installing new video equipment.
The
UCWA routinely requests a copy of the meeting recordings and then has them
converted to be available to the public on the Internet. An Open Public Records
Act request for a copy of this meeting was returned “no document to provide”.
Also not available to the public is a written statement which was read by the County
Manager regarding the county’s
response to the recent prisoner escapes.
During this meeting there was input from the public on many important subjects
both on and off the agenda. It is the county’s habit of taking care of messy
business such as retroactive pay raises at their end-of-the-year meeting. This
meeting was held 5 days before Christmas.
Although
the announcement hadn’t been made yet regarding the done deal of Richard Childs
becoming the new County Public Safety Director the freeholders were asked
repeatedly what qualifications Childs had for this position considering he was
currently a part-time investigator in the County Counsel’s office and why a
national search wasn’t performed to fill this position as was being done to
fill the Jail Director position. The new Jail Director will be reporting to
Childs.
No
explanation was given or public statements made regarding this all-important
position of public safety. There is no record of this position being discussed
during public or closed session meetings of the freeholders.
Consider
that Childs will now be in charge of a department with about 400 employees,
including 74 County Police
. The Public Safety Department also includes the operations of the county's
Divisions of Correctional Services, Emergency Management, Medical Examiner,
Weights and Measures, and Health. Childs will also be responsible for the
supervision of the Bureaus of Domestic Preparedness, Hazardous Materials, the Fire
Training Academy
and Fire Investigations Task Force, and the Office of Consumer Affairs.
The
UCWA is requesting an investigation because we believe there may have been
statements made during this meeting that could aid the current investigation
into county management’s role in the prisoner escapes as well as past practices
in the jail. Namely, prisoner health care, politically connected prisoners
being given preferential treatment and the lack of cameras inside the facility.
Other
important business during this meeting was the creation of 6 new Captain
Positions in the Sheriff’s Department. This will bring the total number of
Captains to 11 and will allow for 6 Sergeants to be promoted to Lieutenant
including the Union County Democrat Chairman, Charlotte DeFilipo’s
daughter-in-law. Sheriff Ralph Froehlic’s step-son will be promoted to
Sergeant. There are also 7 Lieutenants and 10 Sergeants under 1 Sheriff and 3
Undersherriffs (one undersheriff is an assemblyman and another is the son of an
assemblyman). The main function the Sheriff’s department is to guard the
Courthouse which doesn’t include the prison. The freeholders were asked why six
new Captains were needed. No explanation was given. These new Captain Positions
and the other promotions will cost approximately $300,000 annually. Also
created were 3 new Lieutenant Positions in the County Police Department.
Raises
for the County Manager,
who is appointed by the freeholders and is Senator Raymond Lesniak’s nephew,
and the freeholders were also on the agenda and voted on as well as raises for
all constitutional officers.
The county allows citizens 5 minutes to speak. Freeholder Chairwoman Bette Jean
Kowalski repeatedly tried to keep me from speaking on all of the above, and I
repeatedly asked her why I wasn’t allowed to speak the truth. Kowalski
eventually had me escorted from the meeting by a county police officer. Now the
recording of the meeting isn’t available. hmmmm
Union
County government takes
approximately ¼ of our property taxes and can not be held accountable to the
public. Citizens of Union County
should be very concerned about their public safety as well as their Democratic
freedoms as dictated by the county freeholders.
Tina
Renna, President
Union
County Watchdog Association, Inc.
Agree or disagree with an item posted on The
Alternative Press? Spot an inaccuracy?
Want to write your own take on an issue?
The Alternative Press welcomes all residents to submit letters to the
editor or Opinion pieces at letters@thealternativepress.com