Letters
Contract should be rebid to avoid appearance of ‘pay-to-play’

The following is a letter I recently sent to Peter Harvey, New Jersey attorney general; to date, no answer has been received. I wanted to know if a contract let out by a municipality is required to be rebid if drastic changes have been made in the original specifications. If this is not a requirement, I would suggest that our Assembly member introduce such a bill. This would level the playing field for all contractors considering bidding on a project.

This letter is written to learn if a project, which was let out to bid, should be rebid after the original specifications were drastically changed.

Specifically, the project in question is the East Brunswick Golden Triangle project that is intended to create a transit village on the property bounded by Route 18 and Tices Lane, where Sam’s Club is located.

The bid was let out specifying that the residential development would contain no more than 204 age-restricted residences and that the maximum height of buildings would not exceed 60 feet. Toll Brothers won the bid with an offer of $35 million. Then the township and Toll Brothers started negotiations. To date, the project has been changed, eliminating the age-restricted residences and allowing 405 nonage-restricted residences. The height of buildings has been changed from 60 to 120 feet. These changes, in my estimation, allow Toll Brothers the opportunity to profit by an additional $10-$16 million.

It’s been reported in the newspapers that Toll Brothers has contributed $35,000 to the political party in power. Considering the contribution and the extensive change in project restrictions, there is an appearance of favoritism in the bid process.

I believe that this project should be rebid in order to avoid any appearance of “pay-to-play.” Is there a law that requires a rebid when large-scale changes are made in specifications?

Frank J. Coury

East Brunswick

Commercial facilities, not cranberry bogs, are source of flooding

This letter is a response to your article “Flood of ’05 Still a Topic of Concern for Officials” that appeared in the Dec. 29 issue of the Sentinel.

The towns keep blaming the cranberry bogs for the overflow of water, but the water is just coming through the bog. The origin of the water is commercial and warehouse construction in Monroe.

I have lived here for 33 years, and the road never flooded until these two facilities were built. I have even had to lose a day’s work months after the flood because my street and yard were under water.

I have also yet to see one of the so-called experts down here to examine where the water is coming from. I hope this letter will help in our quest to be dry again.

Brian Hluchy

Monroe

Resident wants to set the record straight

I was quite surprised to open the Dec. 22 issue of the Sentinel and see that my words and my character were totally defamed in regard to the continuing discord between the Park Savers group and those in favor of building a new high school on 35 acres of Thompson Park in Monroe.

Why was I surprised? The biggest reason is that the letter to the editor written by Jennifer Dressel (“Disputes Point Made About Funding for School”) was addressing a comment that appeared in the Sentinel on Dec. 8. The writer of that article chose to write a summary of the ending of my speech. Perhaps a quote would have been better so when the article went to print, those attendees who were not paying specific attention could not misconstrue my comments.

I arrived at the land-diversion hearing at 2:50 p.m., giving myself plenty of time to sign up to speak. While I was waiting for the hearing to begin, I had many opportunities to listen to people around me discuss the land diversion. Some were for it, and some were against it. Some had correct information, and some did not. I jotted down the information that I knew to be incorrect, and before the meeting started, I made it a point to speak with the Board of Education president to make absolutely sure that the correct information I was about to give was indeed that. She assured me that it was.

Here is what I stated in my speech: “I have heard members of the opposition say that the money given to the Monroe Township school district by the state of New Jersey to build a new high school had been used. I want to assure you that this money is sitting in a fund at the hands of the state, untouched.” I also stated, “There has been no resolution passed to have a second referendum in March for more funds to build a high school.”

I do not need a mathematics lesson, nor do I need to be told to attend meetings. I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable about the Monroe Township school district. My energies are pooled into positive ways to help the children of this community. I put my family first, but my responsibilities as president of the Woodland-Mill Lake PTO come in a very close second. Most weeks I am in one or both of these schools, attending meetings at the Board of Education office or running my own PTO meetings.

So, Ms. Dressel, I’ll tell you the same thing you told me. Get your facts straight before you publicly accuse people of wrongdoing.

Stacey Brennert

Monroe