Letters

Barry Carol’s comments regarding the proposal to build a new rail line to serve western Monmouth, Middlesex and Ocean counties, as well as more general transportation issues (News Tran-script, Letters to the Editor, June 14) is well thought out and should be required reading for our transportation planners.

However, the expense of the proposed rail routes is not a reason why they should not be built. New routes are needed to take cars off our roads and provide practical travel alternatives. Witness our current rail system, which is already in place but still requires subsidies.

Yet without it, one can only imagine how much additional road congestion and wasted gasoline and travel time would exist.

The German rail system receives a higher subsidy than the American system, but the result is an efficient and effective system that benefits Ger-man rail travelers, takes cars off the roads and reduces the pollution.

Moreover, Carol’s suggestion for a second railroad tunnel into New York Penn Station is also too expensive, but very necessary.

Furthermore, his suggestion to increase road tolls is unfair to toll road drivers and could have a negative impact if the drivers take longer alternate routes, thus clogging nontoll roads.

Instead, tolls should be eliminated because they are the epitome of waste and mismanagement.

Tolls cause accidents, driver confusion, road rage, additional driving time, wasted gasoline, additional pollution, a loss in matching federal highway funds (which toll roads do not receive) and a huge toll collecting expense.

E-ZPass alone cost about half a billion dollars, along with a very high operating cost. One need only speak to someone who was forced into an E-ZPass lane or dropped 35 cents into a 70-cent basket and then went to court to fight the fine.

What a waste in time and money that New Jersey drivers can do without.

Bob Ahlers

East Brunswick

Resident suggests school tuition payments

Recently there were two articles in the News Transcript that caught my eye. The first informed us of a future Latino festival to be held in Freehold Borough. It further indicated that 40 percent of the borough’s population is now Latino.

The second article provided information on the overcrowded schools in Freehold Borough and ideas of how to assist in expanding the schools. New Jersey schools are funded mainly with our property taxes, which continue to increase.

We all know that “overcrowding” of residences is rampant in Freehold Borough and that our schools are populated with 60 percent Latino children. Do the math. Two or three families living in the same residence, with two or three children each are not paying their fair share to educate their children.

I would like to see a referendum introduced that would require nonproperty owners with more than two children to pay some level of “tuition” to educate their children. Why is it the property owner’s respon-sibility to take on the burden of expanding our Freehold Bor-ough schools?

Marie N. Chapman

Freehold Borough

Citizens must speak out on Village plan in Manalapan

Something deadly serious is happening in Manalapan that should snap each one of us out of our comfortable existence and get us all down to town hall in droves.

The five-person Township Committee that runs Manalapan was designed to assure our quality of life. The committee only works when good people make decisions for the good of the town. It doesn’t work when personal agendas are followed for political reasons. When members of the committee advocate predetermined positions instead of using public hearings to determine what is best for the town, the entire process unravels.

We all assume that the process will ultimately work and that we can all go about our business. In the case of The Village, or Mega Mall, the system has broken down completely. Here are some examples I have witnessed by attending Planning Board and township meetings recently regarding The Village/Mega Mall.

• For political reasons, the Township Committee, not the Planning Board, will be making the vast majority of the key decisions on determining variances, zoning changes, etc. Marlboro had this arrangement and we know what happened there.

• Secret meetings were held with committee members Andrew Lucas and Joseph Locricchio and (Richard) Brunelli, the builder’s representative. The only thing we know about these discussions (other than they were held without the knowledge of the rest of the Township Committee) was that Mr. Brunelli promised the kitchen sink in return for necessary permits, variances, etc., to move ahead with this project. We know this because Mr. Locricchio told us so at the last Township Committee meeting. Mr. Brunelli promised a pool, a teen center, a new EMS building and more. Later, however, according to a front page article in the News Transcript, Mr. Brunelli said that “the items listed by Locricchio as amenities to Manalapan are not in writing at this time.” Why in the world should there be any secret meetings at all with Mr. Brunelli? What purpose does that serve, and whose purpose does that serve?

• The Village/Mega Mall has grown from 500,000 square feet to 850,000 square feet, and currently stands at 1.2 million square feet, completely ignoring Manalapan’s master plan for controlled growth. The number of residential units climbed from 82 to 274, yet the developer claims approximately 30 children will live in these units.

Does this make sense to anyone? One of the committee members lives in a townhouse and has two children. If each unit also had two children, there would be well over 500, putting a tremendous strain on our already crowded school system. Why isn’t this fact pointed out instead of being ignored?

There was planning involved that incorporated neighborhoods, existing and new. Why is this master plan being tossed in the trash? The board has an option to acquire 50 acres from the developer’s site. The committee has stated that there is no interest in purchasing these acres at this time. Why? Is there ever an end to the developer’s overdevelopment plans for this project? Every time this project reappears at town hall, it gets bigger and bigger. Right now it’s approaching three times the size it is legally allowed to be. What’s next? High-rise apartments?

The developers are by no means blameless in this process. But the developers are acting in their own self-interest. They want to get the most out of their piece of land. They want to make the most money possible. It is the town’s job to see if this suits what is best for us. What is being proposed is certainly not in my best interest. I left the city and moved here for a suburban/rural feel. I know I’m not the only one in Manalapan who feels this way.

The developer stated three times that they want to get this approved as soon as possible before the November election because people who get elected might not be as friendly to the project. How do they know how the votes are lining up right now? Have decisions been made already? Is that the way the process is supposed to work?

We know what is in this for the developers. What is in this for the committee members who seem to be advocating this project? Why are they pushing this plan when the town has previously decided that it should only be one-third of the size?

People are not showing up to these meetings because they think it is a done deal. It is not. You can make a difference. Please attend either a Planning Board or Township Committee meeting or visit www.nomegamall.com before our town turns into something that you never dreamed it would be.

Steve Kronenfeld

Manalapan

Research shows committeemen’s idea is unworkable

I am a land use attorney and a resident of Manalapan. I recently read about a proposal made by a member of our Township Committee for a six-month moratorium on building in Manalapan. I was sure this proposal would be illegal under all but the most extraordinary health related issues.

After doing some very brief research, I found that I was indeed correct. I took up this issue with the Township Committee at their June 22 meeting, where their attorney agreed with me.

In addition, the committeemen who proposed it indicated that they didn’t know if the idea had any real merit or not. They were just proposing a new idea.

It is my opinion that ideas which may affect the lives of thousands of people should not be brought to the public’s attention at least until a bare minimum amount of study is done on the subject. Otherwise, people in this town may get the impression that some of their representatives are primarily concerned with grabbing headlines.

Richard Cohen

Manalapan

Public urged to ‘take back the memorial’ at trade center

I write today in support of the 14 9/11 victims families organizations that are seeking to take back the memorial planned for the site of the World Trade Center.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I watched from my office directly across the river on the waterfront in Jersey City as Tower One burned after the jet crashed into it. I watched with growing horror and shock as the thick black smoke poured from the upper floors of the building, and I saw the hole created by the plane.

I tried repeatedly to reach my sister who was at work in Cantor Fitzgerald, with no success. I knew instinctively she was trapped above the crash site; I couldn’t imagine anyone being able to get below the hellish, gaping hole I saw from my office.

I watched as the second plane came in and crashed into the second tower, not knowing my nephew was in there. He didn’t work in the World Trade Center, he just happened to be in the wrong place at most definitely the wrong time.

Two weeks after the attacks in New York, I, along with my brother, his wife and daughter, were escorted by a friend — a New York City police captain — into the still-burning ruins of the World Trade Center. We had gone there thinking we could find some peace, some unattainable solace, by being close to the place where our sister and my nephew were killed two weeks earlier. Looking around at the wreckage of the World Trade Center, the only thought I could conjure was that I was in hell.

At my back was a temporary morgue, to my right and left, and everywhere in front of me crushed, ruined buildings. Nothing was recognizable — not furniture, a phone, a pencil — except for the twisted and burned steel skeletons of the buildings, nothing had survived the collapse of the towers.

These images — as well as those from 9/11 — will be forever embedded in my mind.

My family, along with so many others, did not bring home a body we could lay to rest — my sister’s remains have either not been recovered or cannot be identified. My nephew’s few remains were laid to rest in April 2002.

Where the World Trade Center once stood is hallowed ground. The ashes of those who were murdered and who were cremated in the fires that burned for so long after the attacks are scattered throughout that land. In excess of 20,000 remains, the remains of our loved ones, were recovered from that site. The World Trade Center site should be used for nothing other than a memorial to those we lost, and to tell the story of the courage, the suffering and the loss everyone in America experienced on that day.

Americans need to speak and let their elected officials know they want and expect a fitting and dignified memorial to 9/11. We shouldn’t have an International Freedom Center that — for an admission fee — will teach visitors about atrocities committed in other places, during other periods in history. What happened on 9/11 in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania is the story that needs to be told for our future generations. Please support the efforts to take back the memorial at the World Trade Center.

Visit www.takebackthememorial.com, sign the petition that is circulating throughout the country and send a message to your governing officials. Let them know through your participation that they have been elected by us and they need to be supportive of what we want and expect, and not the other way around.

Matthew Lang

Keansburg

Test scores should be sent to parents through the mail

Recently, the Marlboro K-8 school district posted a notice on the home page of its Internet Web site advising parents that, rather than mailing the standardized test results home to them, as had been the practice for several years, scores would be sent home with the students.

The rationale stated that the recently failed school budget and subsequent belt tightening had identified a savings of over $2,100 (postage for the mailing) that could be better utilized for instructional purposes. Although sounding logical, this rationale was neither logical nor in the best interests of children, as determined by the Board of Education.

Several years ago, as a member of the board, I raised the issue of how the district notifies parents of standardized test scores. The issue was discussed at several public board meetings. I and other board members expressed concern over sending home the test results with children, who might look at and compare their scores, without fully understanding how the scores should be interpreted. The board concluded that this practice could have the unintentional result of lowering some children’s self-esteem.

The board determined that mailing the test scores to parents at a cost of about $2,000 in postage was in the best interests of children. At that time, the board directed the superintendent to mail the test scores home to parents, and since then, money has been appropriated in every year’s budget to cover the postage expense.

While I know that the superintendent, Dr. David Abbott, always has the children’s best interests in mind, I believe that this decision, made without consulting the board at a public meeting, put budgetary savings before what the board determined was best for children. The budget for the 2004-05 school year, which ended on June 30, included the necessary funds for mailing the test scores home to parents. Sending the test scores home with the children in June was an overreaction by the superintendent to the failed school budget. In addition, printing and distributing over 5,000 copies of a letter containing this message was an unnecessary waste of paper.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that the superintendent’s recommended cuts to the failed 2005-06 school budget, which were accepted by the board, did not contain any recommendations to change the way test scores are delivered to parents. If the superintendent believed that such a change was necessary, he should have discussed this with the board at a public meeting, and followed the direction given by the full board.

Given the recent failure of the school budget, school officials need to find ways to better communicate the positive things going on in the school district rather than trying to underscore the effects of the budget failure by making impromptu decisions that are not necessarily in the best interests of children.

Mark Orenzow

Marlboro