Resident unhappy with committeeman’s votes

John Pfefferkorn has consistently remarked that his votes are representative of the needs and wants of the residents of Millstone Township. This is reflected in a quote from the Jan. 8 Examiner, "I’m up there to work for the citizens. Dirty politics, backroom deals don’t exist with me."

Mr. Pfefferkorn appeared to live up to this credo, until this year. He voted down a "pay-to-play" ordinance because he felt the ordinance was not strong enough and would allow contributors to have violations to the ordinance removed by asking for a return of contributions within 30 days following a general election. In the Jan. 29 Examiner, he is quoted as saying, "I have a major concern with the way this is watered down."

However, in August 2003 he voted for a pay-to-play ordinance drafted by Common Cause of New Jersey (a nonpartisan organization), and responded to Mayor William Nurko’s comment "I want to see the big boys belly up to the bar first" (referring to the state of N.J.) by saying, "Let’s raise the bar and set the example (in Millstone)."

Most recently, he voted down a proposed amendment to an ordinance that would have required developers to set aside 65 percent as opposed to 50 percent of land for open space in cluster developments. Let’s remember that this was the initial ordinance created in the master plan presented to the public last year and finally approved in June 2003. The open space allotment was decreased from 65 percent to 50 percent in September 2003 when the Township Committee, despite the Planning Board’s objections, accepted the change in a 3-2 vote. Oddly, Mr. Pfefferkorn was one of the two committeemen who voted down the change. He disputed the build-out projections and referred to the change as "assistance for builders." I take this directly from the Sept. 11, 2003, Examiner article, "Changes made despite Planning Board’s Objection." In this article, Mr. Pfefferkorn expressed that the change to the plan would add to the "actual number of homes built in the township and lead to increased taxes through a higher demand for school and township services." Pfefferkorn called the ordinance a "builder-backed document."

If Mr. Pfefferkorn were "up there to work for the citizens," why would he vote down a pay-to-play ordinance? Why would he vote down a cluster provision amendment that allows for the building of more homes and an increase in taxes? I don’t know why Mr. Pfefferkorn has stopped working for the citizens. It is obvious, though, that his votes no longer represent our needs.

John, the residents of Millstone Township want and need you back.

Michelle Orlick

Millstone

Editor’s note: The Millstone Township Committee never introduced a pay-to-play ordinance in August 2003. Committee members split 3 to 2 in an informal poll about whether to place the legislation on the ballot at a future meeting. Committeeman Pfefferkorn was in favor of pursuing the ordinance.