Stabilize taxes via commercial ventures other than warehouses

I read with interest a letter written by James Petrillo in another local weekly newspaper. In his letter, Petrillo incorrectly states that those opposed to the Rockefeller warehouse proposal in Upper Freehold are NIMBYs ("not in my backyard" people). Recently, Communities United (CU) sent a petition against the warehouses to over 2,000 households in Upper Freehold, and more than 600 people have responded thus far against the warehouses. Over 50 percent of them are from outside the location of the proposal. I live on Burlington Path, which is nowhere near Breza Road. Furthermore, members of the CU e-mail information chain are folks from all over the region who are truly concerned about maintaining the rural character and quality of life in Upper Freehold and the surrounding areas.

I ask Mr. Petrillo to give me a few examples of communities that have been able to maintain their rural character while permitting warehouse development. I guarantee he will be unable to document any. No one against the warehouses is saying Upper Freehold will become a "tax-burdened, overpopulated and polluted slum" as Mr. Petrillo suggests. Instead, we are saying that communities with warehouses and extensive commercial growth have been unable to gain a tax benefit from these developments and have been led into the ratables chase. Also, there have been negative impacts directly associated with warehouse development. One doesn't need to look far for examples of this, as Hamilton, Washington and South Brunswick townships are but a few.

I invite Mr. Petrillo to read the 1998 study titled "The Cost of Community Services in Monmouth County" by the American Farm Trust. The study concluded that on average, tax bills were the highest in towns with the most commercial and industrial activity. This is supported by the finding that towns with more taxable property value have higher expenditures. Therefore, commercial development increases property taxes over time because it creates jobs that attract new residents, which results in higher municipal expenditures for services. Commercial development does not appreciate as rapidly as open land - and, in fact, can depreciate. Also, once a certain point of development is reached, new facilities are required to continue the same level of service to residents, and often these expenditures may not directly benefit residents.

Finally, the study found that the permanent protection of land should not be looked at as precluding a more lucrative option, but rather as protection against a more expensive one.

Mr. Petrillo also stated, "What good is a rural community if you can't afford to live there?" I couldn't agree with him more. However, why must we erode our rural character with warehouses? Since when is a warehouse a "clean ratable" (as Mr. Petrillo suggests), and one that will maintain the Upper Freehold country code? Mr. Petrillo admits in his letter that we will have more noise and pollution with the addition of warehouses. Even Committeeman [Stephen] Alexander (who up until now has been the most creative person on our Township Committee with regard to finding ways to maintain our rural character and decrease growth in Upper Freehold) has said that we need to look at commercial ratables that "fit in" with our rural character and support our largest industry - agriculture.

Let's continue the creativity and look toward commercial ventures that fit in with what we have in Upper Freehold such as farm markets, flower shops, bookstores, delis, equestrian-related business, and small plazas for offices and shops. That, coupled with ordinances and changes to the master plan to help slow growth in Upper Freehold, should keep our taxes relatively stable. I hope Mr. Alexander will continue to push for zoning increases and other measures in order to accomplish this.

Lastly, Mr. Petrillo says that the Matrix project has had very little impact on the beauty of Upper Freehold. Although he has lived here for six years, maybe he is unaware that the project isn't even half finished. There is still more than 2 million square feet of warehouses to be built right across the street from his neighborhood. I would like to hear his comments about the beauty of that area once the project is completed. He also comments that Lynwood Estates residents were only trying to move the entrance of the Matrix project back in 2002, not stop [the project] completely.

One of the reasons I voted for Committeeman Alexander in 2003 was because of his passion against the Matrix project and the fact that he was willing to take on Matrix without the support of any local officials. His passion spanned further than moving an entrance. Other Lynwood Estates residents spoke out against the Matrix complex. In the Aug. 29, 2002, edition of the Examiner, Anthony Muscente said, "A planned community requires a mix of uses, not just stinking warehouses; we'll turn into an industrial center in our neck of the woods." In the Nov. 21, 2002, edition of the Examiner, Lynwood resident Dale Tantillo said, "We thought golf courses, a small strip mall, a day-care center, not warehouses."

Sorry, Mr. Petrillo, this doesn't sound like the sentiments of folks only concerned about the entrance to Matrix.

Mr. Petrillo, you and your neighbors were right in 2002, and Upper Freehold and Washington townships should have listened to you. Let's not make the same mistake now and be like every other nondescript town in central New Jersey. Let's all work together to find a use for the Breza Road property that fits in with the rural character, country code and high quality of life of Upper Freehold.

Marc Covitz

Upper Freehold