Letters
Chain-saw incident upsets Aberdeen resident

There has been a lot of chatter in the press recently about the subject of eminent domain — the taking of private property by the government for public use. Apparently there are those in the corporate sector who feel they are entitled to the same rights as the government.

I happen to own property adjacent to one of the developments going up in Aberdeen. On the morning of July 9, I received a call from my wife informing me there were landscapers in my front yard taking chain saws to my trees.

By the time I arrived home, I had lost countless branches and half of one tree. Upon inquiry to the township, I was informed if my trees are creating a hazard or causing a nuisance to an adjoining property, the hazard or nuisance can be removed.

Typically a courtesy contact, although not mandated, is in order prior to any such modifications. Not only was there no courtesy contact prior to the alterations, several attempts to contact the builder after the fact have gone ignored.

I think several questions beg to be asked here. First, considering the fact the property is not yet completely developed and there are no inhabitants, how was the question of hazard or nuisance determined?

Second, how do you send someone with a chain saw, no accountability, and no supervision onto someone else’s property? (The gentleman with the chain saw claimed to be working for the sub of a sub of a sub and has no direct contact with the developer. He was only doing what he was told.) Lastly, where does it end? Where do the developer’s rights end and mine begin?

Perhaps the developer feels his ability to acquire this land — which was originally deeded for church, educational or municipal development only — entitles him to some of this eminent domain which is going around. Whatever he feels his justifications are, his actions were anything but neighborly.

Peter Pabon

Aberdeen

Handlin ‘lacks courage it takes to detect corruption’

Will Amy Handlin be able to enforce all her suggestions for ethics reform? Does Amy Handlin’s past performance as a Monmouth County freeholder give her credibility needed to be an ethics reformer? Does Amy Handlin really have the kind of courage which is necessary to enforce ethics?

This little girl has been a Monmouth County freeholder for 15 years, and during that time, she has served as a financial liaison person. The newspapers have stated that a number of obvious irregularities have occurred on her watch:

• Monmouth County freeholders were having monthly meetings at undisclosed places with lavish meals at the taxpayers’ expense

• Malcolm Carton — the Monmouth County attorney — was signing his own vouchers

• Other freeholders and department heads spent excessive amounts of taxpayers’ money on travel that included transportation, hotel and meal expenses

• Amy Handlin has a personal aide that appears to be the equivalent of a no-show job. This aide does not sign in or out and records of just exactly what she does are not very explicit. This aide is paid for by taxpayers’ funds.

An analysis of these irregularities would include that Amy was aware of what was going on and did nothing, or she simply wasn’t aware of what was going on. In either case, it doesn’t sound like the kind of responsibility that is necessary to manage good government.

When the Monmouth County attorney was writing and signing his own vouchers, this should have indicated a bad business practice or procedure. It would indicate Monmouth County was not adhering to or maintaining a well-organized voucher system. This was closer to poor business organization and management than to ethics reform.

One could have all the ethics reform they could think up and still stand by and do nothing. Mrs. Handlin lacks the kind of courage it takes to detect corruption.

Preston Gillam

Belford section

of Middletown

Proposal is an ‘overly complex, ill-conceived nightmare’

(Open letter to the Holmdel mayor and Township Committee)

We recently attended a Citizens for Informed Land Use (CILU) presentation on woodland preservation that was billed as an informal hearing of Holmdel’s proposed tree protection and woodland preservation ordinance. Following several “introducers” who set the stage and told us these ordinances were intended to curb “clear cutting” of lots by developers, Betsy McKenzie spoke about the proposed ordinances. During her opening remarks she warned the audience that she talks a lot and then proceeded to make good on her warning.

Rather than deal with the necessity for such an ordinance and how it would affect residents of the township, she recounted specifics of the proposed ordinances. From her remarks it appears she is the principal author of these proposed ordinances and repeatedly told us these two ordinances encompass more than 30 pages of text. It almost sounded as if she were boasting about the complexity she created. Mentioned were references to specific tree species, calipers, heights, locations, clusters and so on.

During her presentation it came out that the ordinances would also apply to individual homeowners. A Holmdel property owner would have to get prior approval for removal of three or more trees unless they were in certain locations in which case only one tree might require prior approval, unless it was of a particular species in which case the need for approval might be waived if it were under a certain size or diameter, and so on. It also sounded as if the approval process would require payment of a fee, production of a location map of some kind, and a pretty good lawyer. Violations of these ordinances would be punishable by draconian fines. In her generally poor and rambling presentation, she punctuated almost every sentence with a long “Uuummmmm,” during which she appeared to be casting about for something additional to say.

A comment from someone in the audience concerning the large fines drew a response from Ralph Blumenthal in which he said enforcement and levying of fines would involve “the use of common sense and good judgment by the enforcing officer.” We pointed out that at least one Holmdel enforcement officer is renown for both poor judgment and a distinct lack of common sense, to which many in the audience agreed. How can homeowners be protected from the misinterpretation or misapplication of such complex ordinances which would require the engagement of consultants to challenge? We’re not talking about developers with an array of appropriate experts on call and legal counsel on retainer. We’re talking about individual homeowners and taxpayers.

We asked for the specific results of the survey or study that must have been made to determine the necessity of such ordinances before any money was spent to actually put all of those words on paper. Seems as if nothing like that was done. One justification we heard was “it happens a lot.” Unfortunately, “a lot” is hard to quantify sufficiently to justify what is being proposed. Another justification came from someone in the audience who complained a neighbor cut down some trees she liked to look at and felt he shouldn’t have been allowed to destroy her view like that. We wouldn’t call that a very good example of clear cutting, would you?

The bottom line here is this appears to be an overly complex ill-conceived nightmare that several well-meaning people are trying to put through to curb an abuse that may not be severe enough to justify such a drastic remedy. Even assuming the worst case of clear cutting, how many trees were actually removed compared to all of the trees left standing in Holmdel? If the answer turns out to be too high a percentage, then devise a simple ordinance that specifically targets the abusers not the average homeowner. And, by all means, do not give the code enforcement officer(s) the opportunity to misuse discretion or exercise much judgment.

Exercise common sense and good judgment yourselves and either kill this or reduce the 30 pages of boilerplate to a handful that anyone can read, interpret, and abide by. In this day of blatant overregulation of more and more of our lives, the last thing we need is 30 more pages of needless regulations. If you want to prevent the clear cutting of lots in Holmdel by developers, say so and leave the rest of us in peace.

Morton and Evelyn Jean Lipetz

Holmdel

Developers fooling ‘all of the people all of the time’

Local newspapers have been filled lately with articles about the BID/Keyport Business Alliance (KBA) or redevelopment of the Aeromarine property. So here are a few thoughts about each.

The group who came up with the BID/KBA idea did this for one reason — to benefit themselves. Any group that has a budget between $200,000-$300,000 — plus all municipal services, police, fire, public works and anything or anybody else they need at no cost to them — certainly has the best of both worlds. This allows them to pay themselves or hire outside consultants to run all their endeavors. Since the business property owners are taxed for this money in their budget, the ball is in their court to decide whether to maintain, alter, or eliminate this idea.

Over the years, there have been many development projects in Keyport, as any longtime resident will tell you. We have heard the age-old saying “this will be good for the town” — well it hasn’t been. Anyone who believes any developer who wants to redevelop the Aeromarine or any other area of town is doing it for the betterment of Keyport is daydreaming.

A developer has one goal and that’s to make money and as much as possible. A recent flier told us everything except the 500-600 homes they want to build, thereby creating a section of town larger than any in existence with potentially 1,000 to 1,500 voters in a single tract. Now imagine if they vote in a bloc — who do you thing would control the town?

My final thought — Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people sometime, and most of the people most of the time, but not all the people all of the time” — apparently he had never been to Keyport.

Luke Poling

Keyport