Letters

Residents ask U.F. to reconsider field location

The petition signed by a variety of taxpayers residing by the property located on the corner of Jonathan Holmes and Wygant roads in Upper Freehold Township does not state that those who sign are against the location of ball fields or recreation. Rather, it respectfully requests that the Township Committee evaluate carefully the use to which this land should be put. To quote the petition:

“Prior to converting this land to any recreational use, there are several points to consider. This acreage has historically been farmed. The soils may be particularly suited to farming and, as stated in Upper Freehold’s Land Use Ordinance and encouraged by Upper Freehold’s Country Code Policy Statement, agriculture is an industry to be supported. We would appreciate your giving further consideration to allowing the 30-acre parcel to continue to be farmed, with the opportunity for this piece to be used as for more passive recreation.

“In addition, before playing fields are placed in any part of the township, the recreational needs of the community should be thoroughly researched. A similar study was conducted prior to the development of the Byron Johnson Memorial Park with the result a balanced and fair recreational plan. In view of the remarkable population growth in the township, demographics should be further studied in order to consider all of the recreational needs of the community.

“Such a plan should consider the wisdom of randomly locating playing fields throughout the township on a haphazard basis wherever vacant ground presents itself. Such a careless action may cause further stress on the township’s ability to stretch its resources to meet the needs of these fields. Moreover, locating playing fields in primarily residential neighborhoods presents many concerns, including traffic patterns, noise level and the use of overhead lights. A traffic study should be prepared. Wygant Road is directly adjacent to this parcel. In fact, Wygant Road dissects the entire farm, dividing the 30-acre piece from the 80-acre piece. A gravel road, it is narrow and little traveled. The placement of playing fields at the corner would no doubt cause some traffic to use the entire length of Wygant Road. Wygant Road at the opposite end is narrow, winding, hilly and not conducive to a heavier flow of traffic. We ask the committee to consider how it will protect Wygant Road from additional traffic burdens. In addition, with playing fields come microphone announcing systems and, eventually, field lighting. These features of recreation are completely out of sync with historically residential neighborhoods. Most residents have moved to this neighborhood in appreciation of the rural peace it offers; to shatter this with public address systems and lighting arrangements is wrong. To gaze into the night sky on a rural Upper Freehold road is a wonderful experience, one for which local homeowners have paid a premium. The locating of even the most unobtrusive lights for playing fields is unacceptable in such an environment. We respectfully request that the committee review our concerns carefully and plan for our community responsibly.”

Clearly, it is not unreasonable to ask the committee to plan for the future responsibly and objectively, not just react to situations in an impulsive manner. No one is “against the kids,” as is often accused. We are simply for smart planning.

Al and Barbara Trenton

Mark and Lissa Soffer

Upper Freehold Township

Resident says it’s time for mayor to ‘bow out’

In a recent article regarding the proposed recall of Mayor Neil Marko in the Borough of Roosevelt, Mr. Marko took great pains to assert that this action is based on his involvement in the local synagogue, that it is founded in bigotry, and that the Recall Committee was unfair in not including specific reasons for the recall. He also referred to action by “a select group.” The religion-based claims are a smoke screen. As a person involved in the recall, I assure you that the mayor’s claims are simply wrong. Within a week of circulating the recall petition, it was signed by approximately half of the town’s registered voters, far more than are required by law, and twice as many as voted him into office. This is not a “select group.” It is a unified town.

The recall petition does not give a specific reason for the recall for a simple reason. This highly diverse group could not agree which of Mr. Marko’s alleged actions were the most important for his removal.

Mr. Marko has alienated the Borough Council, destroying relationships necessary for the governance of the town. He routinely exceeds his authority at meetings and has attempted to acquire unauthorized powers reserved to the council. He has been rude to members of the public and has been nonresponsive, contradictory and evasive. For reasons of his own, he has withheld applications for membership in the volunteer fire department from the council. He has held private and secret meetings with outside organizations on topics affecting the borough, and has misrepresented to others the council’s clearly stated positions, inserting his opinion instead.

He has had at least the appearance of impropriety in several matters. He has attempted to force the school board, a fully autonomous body which is not under his authority, to do things “his way” and he has denigrated the board and its individual members in the local newspaper when it did not comply with his will.

Faced with opposition, Mr. Marko demonizes those who do not agree with him. This is particularly evident in “the yeshiva controversy.” The attempt by the mayor and his supporters to portray Roosevelt citizens — a good percentage of whom are Jewish — as bigots and anti-Semites would be laughable if it were not so repulsive.

Finally, the impetus to recall Neil Marko began many months before the latest self-manufactured controversy and it is certainly not a campaign of secret intimidation; he has repeatedly been asked to resign in private conversations and in public meetings. While Mr. Marko has fortitude, it is clearly time for him to accept the inevitable and bow out so that we may all get down to the business of the Borough of Roosevelt.

Jeff Ellentuck

Roosevelt

Reader deplores N.J.’s proposed bear hunt

I object to the Comprehensive Black Bear Management proposals agreed to by the Fish and Game Council to institute annual bear hunts for the next five years. I also object to the following: extending bear hunting into southern N.J., where bears have been relocated by Fish and Wildlife; extending the length of the proposed hunts to kill more females; misallocating $1 million in scarce resources for tagging bears for inaccurate “estimated” population counts used to justify hunting — instead of using resources for aversive conditioning and strict enforcement of garbage violations to prevent human-bear interactions. The Fish & Game Council states in this report the current bear population can support a “recreational hunting season,” and that is what this is all about — a trophy hunt.

Carol Rivielle

West Orange

Does a high school belong in a residential area?

Sept. 19’s special meeting of the Roosevelt Borough mayor and council meeting led me to wonder if interpretations of our land use laws are being twisted to fit the current high school operation at the synagogue rather than the reverse.

I read a book just this month from the 1950s. It’s amazing how definitions can change in a mere 40-plus years. Imagine how they change in centuries. In this book, the detective stated that he felt gay, meaning happy, and I laughed. Today the word has a different definition, yet a good word. In the encyclopedia one of its meetings is “merry.” Times change.

So, too, in pre-Christian time, the word “synagogue,” which meaning also includes in the encyclopedia a place of “religious learning,” had no schools then as we interpret the meaning of school today. Likewise, a church can be defined as a school — religious instructions occur there as well. The word “church” a translation of the word “synagogue”? It may have come from the Greek language, but is used so as to differentiate from “synagogue”? They are both places of worship within which religious instructions are given. Many words are used for places of workshop, all offer religious education.

Doesn’t the state of New Jersey require people up to the age of 18 to receive a given formal curriculum? By their own admission, the gentlemen of this high school have stated that there would be students of high school age. You may call it a yeshiva; I’ll refer to it as a high school from now on. You can call it whatever you want to in any other language you wish; in the English language, it is a private high school.

Our own mayor is a member of our local synagogue — not so long off its board, not so long ago its president. Mayor Neil Marko couldn’t give us a “yes” or “no” as to whether there is a school there? He is hiding behind the mask of our borough attorney’s guidance; he doesn’t have to be forthcoming with information. What nonsense! Is he laughing at his public and thinking his subjects stupid as we chase our tails? Councilman Jeff Hunt was more correct in stating that he felt as if he were in a philosophy class during these discussions.

We have a code enforcement/zoning officer who has just been hired. He has had no formal training for a professional position that is handling this most important issue — that is, all of our land use laws and local ordinances. It is very pathetic to put such power with someone who is ignorant of the law while in the birth of his learning process, by which he’s being self-educated with the help of our municipal attorney. I have every faith that he will do very well with time, but right now he is a novice.

I now ask, why our borough attorney? We have a perfectly qualified land use attorney who can answer a hypothetical question regarding zoning/planning, who can give a qualified opinion/interpretation and guidance of our land use law to the council and Robert Francis, our code official.

Those of our governing officials, not knowing they can turn to their planning/zoning board for an interpretation, are skirting the obvious issue here by dwelling on inspections rather than the main concern of whether a high school can exist is our residential zones. They can ask that board for an interpretation. High school: full-time formal education, not part-time occasional religious instructions. Can one exist in a residential zone according to our land use laws? If not, then a variance may be sought. Making the inspection issue more important than the use issue is merely procrastination.

Nancy Warnick

Roosevelt

Resident wonders, what benefits will yeshiva bring?

Was the front page story that appeared in the Aug. 11 Examiner meant to quell the residents’ concerns? It would seem so at first glance. It also raises more questions, speaking for myself.

The yeshiva is going to revitalize the synagogue, which is a good thing. OK, I’ll agree with that. I’m not Jewish, but I don’t have to be to encourage it, do I?

According to how I read the article, the residents “might be pleasantly surprised at all the positive things that would come” bringing the yeshiva to the community. Like what? Could someone affiliated with either the yeshiva or the synagogue board elaborate on that, please? While I found the article informative, it was conveniently absent of details regarding what good it will bring the town. I would really like to know what the benefits will be.

According to the article, “The most appealing aspect of the proposed yeshiva plan to the congregation, Shapiro said, is the services it would provide and the boost in membership the school would bring. It then goes on to say that people who follow a more liberal “Reformed Judaism,” their allowed entrance would be up to the yeshiva and it might not work here.

If the residents want to attend the synagogue and aren’t “allowed to,” how is that going to boost membership from within the town? Please someone clarify this, since it has been asked many times since the inception of this idea.

The article also reports that anyone is welcome. Can I come and attend services without becoming a member and not be turned away? I’m just curious and trying to understand. I know that to walk through the doors of my place of worship, there is no password, secret handshake or even a list of members being checked before entering. The way I read this plan is, you’ll need membership or, as we’ve seen in town already, you are welcomed with a gun or physically removed.

In the Aug. 11 issue of the Examiner, Shapiro said, “That’s what’s so appealing about the potential yeshiva plan. They are willing to put a huge amount of money into the infrastructure of the synagogue.”

Ahh! After that statement, it seems to become much clearer now. Finally, one of my unasked questions has been answered.

If the synagogue and yeshiva have a contract that is truly in the community as well as the synagogue’s best interest, I’d be happy to believe that. According to the article, they (meaning the synagogue and the yeshiva, of course, and nothing more to be read into the use of the word “they”) are making sure that properties remain on the tax rolls. Whew! That was my main concern all along.

Valerie R. Skillman

Roosevelt