Letters to the Editor
It's Your Turn
Home Energy Audit A
Money-Saver
To The Editor:
The economy and the environment are often at odds.
But an initiative sponsored by the state-sponsored Clean Energy Program is good for both the economy and the environment.
For only $125, New Jersey homeowners can have their entire home evaluated for energy efficiency. That's a small price to pay for thousands of dollars in potential savings in the long run.
Through the Home Energy Analysis program, homeowners can learn how to make their dwellings more efficient and save up to 30 percent on energy costs. The program even offers rebates on Energy Star products including a $20 rebate on an Energy Star air conditioner and a $25 rebate on an Energy Star dehumidifier.
During the audit, trained and certified technicians will help identify which appliances use the most energy, perform a health and safety check monitoring of carbon monoxide levels and moisture and indoor air quality. In addition, these energy experts will assess insulation levels, as well as check heating and cooling system efficiency, domestic hot water system efficiency and lighting.
A contractor participating in the program will perform air sealing work completely funded by the program. This will help measure the air tightness of a home to identify any air leakage. Afterward, more extensive home improvements can be performed to increase energy efficiency.
Making a home more energy efficient is good for the environment. But it's also good for the economy.
Let's face it: In these tough economic times, contractors need work now more than ever.
By investing in your home's efficiency, you'll not only save money and help the environment, but you'll put a hard-working tradesman back to work and create a greater demand for durable goods in New Jersey.
As a member of the New Jersey Building Materials Dealers Association, I urge you to learn more at www.njclean energy.com.
Neal Herschenfeld
Long Branch
Questions
For the NPS
To the Editor
Having no money to cope with buildings in disrepair at Sandy Hook does not equate with having millions to build a large new dock, particularly when the new dock may have major competition from a similar proposal for Long Branch.
It appears that for the past ten years the National Park Service has cried poverty, yet had an undisclosed agreement with Merri-Makers. Someone spent a reported $1-million to repair the chapel, theatre and another area.
Question: Has Merri-Makers paid Middletown taxes on its income? A comparable situation is at Jones Beach, where Donald Trump built an extravagant dining pavilion, causing the local political entity to enact legislation to tax the profit-making enterprise. A similar situation came about in Middletown at the Arts Center.
This raises another question. If Merri-Makers and the N.P.S. entered into an agreement, how can this happen if the availability of the contract is not advertised, yet is sole sourced. From what I understand, the only way to have this sort of sole-source agreement is in the case of national emergency, such as Katrina or an Act of War. Catering is not a national emergency.
Our slender barrier split of land, home to bayberry, holly and lots of poison ivy is a major fly-by for birds, and it is headed for destruction. It also has been an island in the not-too-distant past.
But where is the environmental impact statement? Seventy-five million dollars in new construction and renovation is a lot. The dock is scheduled to be used by catering ships, which will require additional dredging.
Question: How much more macadam will be required for the additional construction for the stock-market school, where a generous number of parking places will be allotted, and unavailable parking for regular park visitors.
These visitors are already quite numerous: Sandy Hook hosts 2.5 million visitors, mostly in a short three-month season, yet comparable to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which has just 4.5 million visitors for the full year.
Another question: what is the status of the piping plover? Meetings were held, discussions resulted, yet there has been nothing in the press since bridge construction commenced. Are there any piping plovers left? I hear that at Seven Presidents they are all gone.
A recent surprise was the upgraded literature now available from Sandy Hook. For 40 years the visitor center provided only single sheets printed in black on the cheapest paper extant.
Now the N.P.S. will send you a dozen pages with 4-color illustrations, printed on glossy coated stock. For a reportedly poverty-stricken facility, it is quite an upgrade.
Final question: Isn't the N.P.S. mandate to enhance recreation activities only?
The N.P.S. must halt any further construction unless these questions are answered.
Peggy Lyford
Sea Bright
Forced Development?
To The Editor:
The rezoning of several properties in Middletown to meet the state's deadline for its low-income housing plan is a sad reminder of the oppressive policies of Governor Corzine and their effect on suburban towns. Rather than allow the individual towns to control their own destiny, Trenton is forcing development during a time when the real estate market is in a prolonged slump and housing prices have dropped significantly over the past two years. Moreover, the taxpayers are being forced to subsidize this low-income housing at a time when New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country. By forcing towns to create these dense developments, the governor is threatening the very character of the small hamlets that comprise Middletown and that drew people here in the first place. However, we as taxpayers and voters should not give up the fight. I urge everyone to learn which candidates support an end to taxpayer funded low-income housing and reward them with your vote in November. A recent resolution supporting the abolition of the low-income housing program narrowly passed in Middletown. This resolution was in support of a bill introduced into the Assembly that would have ended the COAH program and allowed towns to zone properties as they saw fit, not as Trenton has mandated them to do. With the voters help, we can restore common sense in New Jersey and allow towns like Middletown to protect its precious way of life.
Steve Massell
Red Bank
Gateway Super Has A Lot
To Learn
To The Editor:
The Fort Hancock procurement described by Barry T. Sullivan, the General Superintendent of the entire Gateway National Recreation Area and addressed in his July, 2009 letter to The Two River Times™ is not the Ft. Hancock procurement that I have experienced personally for eight years.
But, first things first: The document signed on July 9, 2004 by the NPS and Sandy Hook Partners is NOT A LEASE/CONTRACT, due to the very significant and important defect of Sandy Hook Partners' offer. That is, a lack of funding which was required of all offerors, on November 8, 1999. Sandy Hook Partners continues still to be deficient in the area of funding a full nine years and eight months later.
Mr. Sullivan's statement that all phases of the Ft. Hancock procurement "have been done in full consultation with government attorneys, government contract specialists and business management professionals" may actually be true. However, based upon how this procurement has been conducted by the National Park Service for an unheard of and unnatural procurement period of over 10 years, I believe that the government attorneys and contract specialists which the NPS used and consulted with, were selected not for their proficiency and guidance, but for their compliancy with NPS objectives. As for the business management professionals which the NPS relied upon, they were, apparently "hired guns" who also would support the desires of the NPS. This practice of selecting compliant consultants who support the paying agency's preselected position is best described by the catch phrase which characterizes their input and reports as: "Upon these conclusions (of the paying agency) we base our facts."
Mr. Sullivan's reference to two federal courts having examined every detail of the process is blatantly untrue. The two federal courts in question never examined the extensive list of defects, especially the procurement errors that were committed by the NPS in this procurement. Why, you ask? Because the courts opined that the plaintiff, Save Sandy Hook, did not have standing, and, therefore the courts need not examine the extensive listing of serious defects and flaws. The courts never stated that the Save Sandy Hook presented defects, and flaws did not exist. They were never ruled on.
As for the Department of the Interior Inspector General's comments concerning this procurement, particularly the numerous procurement flaws which were first brought to his attention in December 2002, the Inspector General brushed them off, ignoring them. That changed very late in the procurement process on November 3, 2008, when in a letter sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the Inspector General finally admitted that there were serious procurement problems and defects that required correction. He even went so far as to provide specific language on how the procurement process needed to be improved, especially in the area of evaluation of offers and cost analysis.
This much-delayed Inspector General admission of the existence, and use by the NPS of a flawed procurement system came much too late, and was ignored by the National Park Service for this procurement.
As for the NPS's transparency of process and consideration of public comment, which Sullivan so touted, these "dog and pony" shows (or should I say public meetings) were held for the sham purpose of giving the impression of being open to change. But no changes which made the procurement process more honest ever resulted from them.
And, as for the "public ceremony" award of the July 9, 2004 purported lease, which Mr. Sullivan so extols, why wasn't Congressman Pallone aware that it had been held? It was done so quietly that Congressman Pallone and his staff were still trying to finalize arrangement for a meeting whose purpose was to arrive at an alternate plan which did not involve commercial development. As for the local newspapers, to the best of my knowledge, they too were not invited to the signing ceremony. So who was there Mr. Sullivan, other than the National Park Service and Sandy Hook Partners?
It was quite telling that Mr. Sullivan did not choose to address how Asst. Superintendent Nellligan in his June 3, 2008 letter to me could possibly state that "SHP use of the Ft. Hancock Chapel is authorized under the July 9, 2004 lease," when on July 6, 2007, the NPS and SHP entered into what was called a "separate lease" for the chapel, theater and 26 Hudson St. If all NPS actions are transparent, open and public, why was Mr. Nelligan not aware of the July 6, 2007 separate lease?
Also, why was Supt. Avrin, Sandy Hook Unit, not aware of the existence of the separate July 6, 2007 lease when I personally asked him on Feb. 20, 2009 if the chapel and theater were being used by SHP under a separate contractual arrangement? How could Supt. Avrin not be aware of the July 6, 2007 purported separate lease given the total transparency of actions reported by Mr. Sullivan? Another good question is: Why did Rep. Pallone first learn of the existence of the July 6, 2007, separate lease which impacted national park land in his district on June 20, 2009 - almost two years after it was signed.
I am not personally aware of how long Mr. Sullivan has served as the General Superintendent, Gateway National Recreation Area. But surely his staff, had access to NPS files and should have precluded him from making so many errors in his July 23, 2009 defense of the Ft. Hancock procurement. It would appear that Gen. Supt. Sullivan has a lot to learn about the 10-year debacle otherwise known as the Ft. Hancock/Sandy Hook procurement if he wishes to be factual, and not just attempt to cover up National Park Service errors.
Peter P. O'Such, Jr.
Fair Haven
