[ back ]
COMMON GROUND - 06/25/2008
(by Anita Yarossi - OpEd Columnist - June 25, 2008)
‘Good intentions?’
Lately the Ringwood borough council meetings have been over quickly with very little commentary from the public and most of the council business swept through in the consent agenda without opposition or discussion in front of the public. Last night, June 19, was an exception.
The tree removal ordinance was tabled pending further investigation into the amount of the licensing fee to be collected from tree removal companies who wish to do business in Ringwood. The borough attorney explained that the review process to determine whether a company had proper credentials, equipment in good repair and an understanding of the waste removal and recycling regulations would require both clerical and legal overview, and that was very costly. They also wanted to make sure that a copy of the ordinance was received by the business as well. However, members of the public audience felt that it was their responsibility to make sure that such businesses were properly credentialed and that the opportunity to get competitive bidding would be impeded with a licensing fee of $200. I don’t believe as Councilman Marsala does that a tree removal company would come in the middle of night and do removal in order to avoid regulation. The image is ludicrous. I would think that most businesses would want to know what the individual municipal ordinances and regulations that affected their businesses are, in order not to be fined. That is the nature of this kind of work. The licensing has good intentions, but a very high price tag. The introduction of a salary ordinance for the Director of Public Works was also tabled, and the council could not reveal who the Director of Public works might be, pending the settlement of an employee grievance in that department.
By far the biggest bout of contention came during the hearing on the possible “open space” sale of a piece of property owned by members of a certain developer’s family. This large developer in the borough has defaulted on his paving and road improvement obligations and owes the borough an enormous sum of money, which they have been unable to collect because he has declared bankruptcy. While the public has no objections to spending money on open space preservation, they have strong objections about passing any of that money back to some-one who has abused his privilege of doing business in this town by sticking the taxpayers with the bill for his obligations. The performance bonds which could have covered at least some of these obligations were purposefully lowered by council decision during the period of their effectiveness. It was brought up that several members of the current council and the new deputy borough manager were members of the council while these means of collecting funds were allowed to slip away and while the developer was allowed to continue building. Now we must spend money litigating to try to recover what is owed to the borough.
And finally Mr. Roger DeGroat came up to the podium to once again plead with the borough council to remediate the sinkhole in his yard that has been a dangerous safety hazard now for three years. The Governor’s office had promised him that the money would be there to do that, but when the money came through the Department of Community Affairs in the form of a Small Cities Grant for $238,000, it was spent by the borough on other emergent repairs. Mr. DeGroat has received numerous promises by the borough that they are doing everything in their power to get the funding to make the necessary repairs to this safety hazard.
In sharp contrast, a retaining wall along Lakeview Avenue that collapsed just recently deemed part of the Borough right of way and considered a potential safety issue, has already been awarded a design contract and has funds for its repair included in a recent bond ordinance for other borough improvements of nearly one million dollars. This bond ordinance also includes the acquisition of yet another utility vehicle for use by the borough administrative officials.
At the recent CAG meeting, the group decided to contact the Governor’s office directly to invite them to the next meeting to discuss the funding for the sinkhole. Let us hope that someone is listening.
[ back ]
