Upper Freehold needs more new faces in township government Iread with interest the article in the April 24 edition of The Examiner titled "Two Republicans vie for one nomination in U.F." I became quite annoyed after I read the comments by candidate Robert Frascella. I guess he thinks we've all been sleeping the past year and not following the Upper Freehold master plan revision process. Here's a guy who sat on the Planning Board last year during the master plan revision process and openly admitted the town does not have a site for affordable housing and his Planning Board did not attempt to identify sites. He also said Upper Freehold will need to provide affordable housing sites because of state mandates, but then he voted for the plan anyway. So, he basically rubber-stamped a faulty master plan. Does this mean he would continue to do this as a member of the Township Committee when other important ordinances come forward? Mr. Frascella also touts the master plan he voted for as one that saves farmland and open space by using density transfers. What he does not tell you is that even with density transfers, a landowner does not have to participate and may develop a parcel independently of density transfers. This potentially causes more sprawls in addition to "little cities" popping up in the countryside. What Frascella does not tell you is the Planning Board he served on spent more time worrying about the equity of large landowners as opposed to the concerns of the majority of Upper Freehold residents, which is reducing growth and concern over the health of our groundwater supplies. Frascella was given the ultimate tool to reduce growth - the nitrate dilution study. Using the 2.0mg/liter nitrate dilution model, Upper Freehold would have a buildout of a mere 351 homes. However, Frascella decided to rubber stamp the master plan revision and approve a 5.0mg/liter nitrate dilution model, which results in a buildout of well over 1,000 homes. Why? When I asked the question ex-Planner Mark Remsa at a public hearing during the revision process, the answer was "because it is more equitable for the large land owners." Again, I'm glad Frascella is more concerned with the finances of the large land owners than the health and quality of life of the majority of Upper Freehold residents. With regard to Frascella's comments about traffic in town, he seems most concerned about the northwestern part of the town but gives no tangible solutions for the entire town. He mentions our traffic problems are the result of regional through-traffic, and we need to work with the county to make our roads safe. Wow, how enlightening. Residents in the south part of the town have been saying this for over a year now, but the difference is they have been looking for a solution that will benefit the whole town, not just a few. In my opinion, Frascella represents the administration in Upper Freehold that was recently ousted last year and that will continue to be diminished once Dave Reed leaves office. More of the "same old, same old." Upper Freehold needs new faces in government. Being a Democrat, I cannot vote in the upcoming primary as no Democrats are running. However, I am urging all of you to vote for Bryan Scheff. I've known Bryan for two years and I know that he is truly committed to making this town the best place it can be for all of us. He's not just doing this because he "wants to continue service to his community." Bryan truly believes in what he stands for - no town centers, no sprawl, reduced development, protection of our groundwater supplies, a traffic solution that benefits the entire town and working towards a master plan revision that benefits large and small landowners alike. Please show your support and vote for Bryan Scheff on June 3 in the Upper Freehold Republican primary. Marc Covitz Cream Ridge section of Upper Freehold