[ back ]
COMMON GROUND - 10/01/2008
(by Anita Yarossi - OpEd Columnist - October 02, 2008)
Asking the right questions
At the last Ringwood Borough Council meeting, I asked the acting borough manager about a public notice that had appeared in the Suburban Trends the day before. The notice advertised that the borough would hold a public hearing on Oct. 2 at 8 p.m., the purpose of which was to consider proposals for an application under the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program. The borough’s application would be for $400,000 for Small Cities funding along with the required matching money for the acquisition and demolition of substandard housing structures for the purpose of open space development in targeted areas of the community.
I asked Borough Clerk Kelly Rohde to explain to the public what this was about and which properties the application was referencing for acquisition and demolition. She explained that it concerned three properties in Upper Ringwood. In fact the properties of concern are located at 23 and 27 Van Dunk Lane where the residents had been displaced from their homes because the land on which the homes sit was deemed unsafe by the borough. And it also concerned Roger DeGroat, whose yard had been swallowed in 2005 by a large sinkhole, which to date has not been remedied, despite the fact that it is a clear and dangerous safety hazard. She explained that the borough was in direct negotiation with the residents. She indicted that the borough was talking to their banks and their mortgage companies and that the homeowners were being represented by their legal counsel.
I asked where the matching funds for this grant would come from and she could only comment that we would have to come up with the matching money. I also asked how this would create open space and she explained that they would fence in the areas that would be demolished and this would be the open space.
I came away from this very confused, but much has been clarified for me in the last few days after I attended the citizens meeting last Thursday night where I heard from and spoke directly to some of the residents who were being affected by this application and these “negotiations.” The residents told members of the citizens group that they were spoken to by borough officials with Borough Council present in the borough offices. But they were alone without any representation and were made offers that didn’t come close to replacing what they had already lost or might lose if relocated. I wonder how the borough is able to negotiate with their banks or mortgage companies without specific releases from these residents, with respect to their own private financial information, which none of them have signed.
The guidelines and rules for this grant clearly require that this process be handled with utmost fairness and transparency at every step of negotiations and should include the active participation of the residents affected with proper representation and clear understanding of their rights and entitlements in this process. If the borough does not comply with these standards, it will raise moral, ethical and legal concerns.
The lives and futures of these residents have been teetering on uncertainty for several years now. None of unfortunate circumstances that have befallen them could have been foreseen by them, nor could there be any blame assigned to them. Whatever resolution the borough may come to in this matter must above all make every attempt to make them whole again.
[ back ]
