DETAILS OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST CLEAN

August - November, 1999- As a non-partisan organization, Skylands CLEAN does not endorse or oppose individual  candidates or political parties.  What we do is research and educate on issues of importance to residents. We've done so every year since our founding in 1987, whether there was an election or not.

Regrettably, the most recent elections were used for a campaign to discredit Skylands CLEAN and to mislead the public.  In this effort, the Ringwood Regular Republican Committee, Mayor Scott Heck as spokesperson for the Republican Campaign Committee (he was not running), and others, inundated the public with distortions regarding CLEAN's positions on important issues.  Actual events and facts were totally misrepresented.

First came several negative letters to the editor from Republican former Freeholder DuHaime.
Myths:  DuHaime claimed that CLEAN "never gives credit to Republicans" for environmental work; that open space means "lost development opportunities", a "sacrifice" resulting in "tax burdens" for watershed host communities.
As though a new idea, DuHaime "challenged" us to support a  "very interesting proposal" to add a watershed surcharge to the bills of water customers who get their water from upper Passaic County watersheds, so that funds could provided to the host communities. (DuHaime letters 7/6, 7/28, 8/15)
REALITY:
Not only did CLEAN have Congresswoman Marge Roukema, a Republican, cut the ribbon for us at the opening ceremony for our new office, we also presented her with a certificate of recognition for her efforts to help preserve Sterling Forest.

• The "burden and sacrifice" myth is a false assumption based on the discredited ratables myth.  For decades, studies have clearly shown that open space is one of the least expensive uses of land.  Development, especially residential, is one of the most expensive uses of land from the standpoint of the cost to the average taxpayer, who ends up footing the bill for costly infrastructure, municipal services, and schools.
• We believe that open space for watershed is a benefit and an asset to host communities.  How else did Ringwood come to be credited by New Jersey Monthly magazine as one of the top 25 towns in New Jersey?  Certainly not for high-density development or malls.  Nonetheless, we have supported such a water surcharge, known as Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT), for years, as a way of recognizing this vital service which watershed communities provide, and as an incentive for communities to host and help protect watershed property.  We even mentioned this idea to DuHaime some years ago.

CLEAN's staff began working this past fall with local residents to convince Pequannock Watershed municipalities to pass a resolution urging the State "to develop a method of compensation" for host communities.  We hope to expand this effort.

Then there was a letter from incumbent councilman Larsen.
Myths: Larsen put forth the story that an "uncompromising" Planning Board "dominated by CLEAN sympathizers" (he named three individuals) was to blame for "forcing" Bert Van Orden to sell his land to the Braen quarry family by
not letting Van Orden build a few houses.  "The extremists on the planning board said no", Larsen wrote, concluding that Van Orden sold to Braen "because quarrying was the only commercial use the board could not stop. Had the planning board compromised then, there would be no quarrying going on in Ringwood now."  (Larsen letter 8/14/99)
REALITY:

• Only one of the three people named by Larsen was even on the Board when Bert Van Orden presented his idea for the houses during an informal, "conceptual" review.  And that person was an alternate, not regular, member.  The minutes of the meeting show that every Board member responded yes during an informal straw poll on Van Orden's proposal.  Van Orden was told to map any wetlands on the site - this is required by State law.  Van Orden never returned with a formal application.
• Van Orden's property, where the quarry is now located, is zoned for residential use.  No commercial use is allowed.  Quarrying is prohibited in Ringwood.  Anyone who claims that, prior to Ringwood Borough adopting its first zoning ordinances in the 1960's, a particular property was used for something that is now prohibited, must seek approval as a "non-conforming use".  As far as we have been able to determine, Van Orden never sought, nor did he ever obtain, such approval for his small sand and gravel operation.
• We have a quarry in Ringwood because the operator has long had political allies here.  When residents first began approaching the Council for relief from the impact of the quarry, then-councilman Lou Serafini suggested as a solution that the residents sell their homes to Braen.  The quarry was awarded unjustified status in 1996, when Mayor Heck and his fellow councilmen chose to drop the demand by a prior Council and Planning Board that Sam Braen prove his self-proclaimed "right" to quarry in a residential neighborhood.  Despite the lack of such proof, the Council gave Braen a license for an operation they admit they cannot control.  This was followed by three years of failure by the Council to make sure there were adequate inspections and enforcement.  It wasn't until an election year, intense pressure from CLEAN and residents, and quarry violations uncovered by CLEAN, that the Council finally took action against the quarry.  This took nine years.

Then came press releases from the "Ringwood Borough Council Republican Campaign Committee", and various statements by councilmen at the public hearing on the zone changes.
Myths: Mayor Heck and Councilman Larsen claimed that nitrate dilution models are relevant to the Pinelands but not to Ringwood. (article based on press release, 8/19/99)  Councilman Ted Taukus stated "We don't have a problem [with nitrates] in this community today" and "I discount the 'slope' part of this argument" (that steep slopes affect nitrate concentrations due to runoff). He also said that the nitrate dilution study referred to by CLEAN's consultant was not based on soils we have in Ringwood.  (public hearing, 8/25/99)
REALITY:

• Nitrate dilution models help determine methods for controlling nitrates, a potential pollutant of groundwater.  Such models are an important part of zoning strategy, especially for an environment such as Ringwood's.
• The role of such models is supported by the DEP, which intends to include them as a key component of the State's new watershed management planning, designed to help protect New Jersey's drinking water supply.
• Ringwood's own planner told the Planning Board that nitrate dilution is the most commonly used model to set minimum lot sizes.
• The role of such models is supported by Ringwood's own Master Plan, and models for nitrate control played an important role in defending Ringwood against one of the lawsuits by local developer Pat Wallace and his partner.

 Quoting from the 1991 Master Plan:
"Several years ago, the Borough of Ringwood's development status as a "Conservation Community" was challenged in court.  The case of Countryside Estates (Wallace & Czura) v. Borough of Ringwood was decided favorably to the Borough of Ringwood by the Honorable Stephen Skillman, J.S.C.  In sustaining the Borough's conservation status, one of the significant proofs offered by the Borough was a report prepared by Robert Hordon, PhD., a Rutgers University Professor.  The nitrate dilution model discussed in the report prepared by Robert Hordon, PhD., was introduced into evidence by the Borough and was one of the significant proofs considered by Judge Skillman in reaching his decision favorable to the Borough.  The nitrate dilution model recognizes the relationship between reasonable development and soil types.  The study produced recommended minimum lot size standards predicated upon a pollutant concentration limit for nitrates in drinking water at 10mg/l."

Since that study in the 1980's, new research has concluded that even lower concentrations of nitrates need to be maintained in areas without municipal water or sewers, in order to protect drinking water (meaning larger lot sizes than either the 1996 or the 1999 ordinance call for).

An analysis recently conducted by CLEAN's planning consultant, using an updated version of a nitrate dilution model developed for the State Planning Commission, was indeed based on the soil types found in Ringwood. His report supports the modern standards for keeping nitrate concentrations lower than considered acceptable in the 1980's.  Just because nitrate concentrations do not appear to be showing up presently at levels of concern, this does not mean that they never will.  It is recognized that they do pose a potential threat and need to be controlled.  Shrugging off this issue, as is being done in Ringwood, doesn't change reality.

Next came a guest editorial by Mayor Heck in The Bergen Record, where he criticizes CLEAN and the 'Slippery Slopes' editorials in The Record.
Myths: Heck claims that the 1999 version of the R40-V zoning ordinance will "decrease" development and "will not change the character of the community."  He claims that "every lot in the Borough must have a flat building envelope of at least 7500 contiguous square feet.  Construction cannot take place outside of that envelope".  Heck called CLEAN "extremist" for promoting what he refers to as "something called the nitrate dilution model".  (guest editorial, 9/13/99)
REALITY:

• While the ordinance describes an 'Area For Development', or AFD, which must be 7500 square feet, there is no requirement to build inside it. Indeed, the Borough's own planner publicly confirmed that a house can be built outside of the AFD.
• This ordinance allows slopes up to 25% within the AFD (even though the State defines steep slopes as anything over 15%).  This hardly qualifies as "flat".
• The borough's own planner stated that, on the one subdivision (Wallace's Kensington Woods) for which he tried to determine how the new ordinance would affect the number of lots, the developer probably would come out with about the same number of lots, not fewer.
• Our planning consultant, after review with our staff and other professionals intimately familiar with Ringwood, has concluded that the 1999 zoning ordinance is more of a blueprint for maximizing development than a zoning strategy for protecting the Borough's fragile landscape and natural resources. The Borough's landscape is worthy of a far more effective approach to protecting these natural resources.

Next came a fake newspaper (the "Ringwood Record").  There were no bylines to identify who wrote the fictitious "articles", nor was any editor or editorial board named as the author of the self-serving "editorial".  The only entity that was identified is on what appeared to be a full-page political advertisement (though not labeled as such) for the four incumbent councilmen, on the back page.  At the bottom of the political ad was printed "Paid for by the Ringwood Regular Republican Organization".  The return address for the fake newspaper stated only "Sender: P.O. Box 203, Ringwood, N.J."  This turned out to be the P.O. Box for the Ringwood Regular Republican Committee.  The paper repeated many myths and came up with some new ones.

"Balance" Myth: There is a "wonderful balance" being maintained by the Borough between safeguarding the environment and allowing development in Ringwood.
REALITY:

• As far back as 1992, Scott Heck objected to a Planning Board appointment which he saw as a threat to "growth and development".
• As of 1993, the Council began to destroy any "balance" which existed on the Boards.  Each January as terms expired, they systematically purged the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and Environmental Commission of anyone not acceptable to Wallace or who voted against any of his projects.
• The Council tried to impose censorship and keep sewer opponents off of public access t.v. (ch. 19) during the sewer referendum in 1994.  CLEAN had to go to court to re-establish the right of public access here in Ringwood.

Long-term planning and careful land-use regulation are basic for any town to make wise decisions about development.  And they are essential for sound fiscal policy.  But the policies currently being promoted in Ringwood will serve to maximize development, encourage sprawl, invite projects inappropriate for Ringwood's landscape, and address potential environmental impact by merely saying "that won't happen here".  There is a lack of planning and preparation for the type of future residents want to see.

Quarry myth: Bert Van Orden operated a "quarry" in Ringwood "for decades."
REALITY:

• 'Van Orden Sand & Gravel' was just that - a sand & gravel pit, never a quarry.  It was small, quiet and seasonal, a two-truck, father-and-son operation.  Van Orden's land, we have been told by long-time residents, was once a dairy farm.  There is a world of difference between what Van Orden did and Braen's very large, noisy, intensive rock quarry with hundreds of trucks traveling Ringwood's rural roads.

Quarry half-truth: Negotiations with Braen regarding the regulation of his quarry, during his first lawsuit against Ringwood (begun in 1992), included "also a representative group from the neighbors", Councilman Jerry Holt has stated.
REALITY:

• While residents were involved in some discussions, they were not included in the important, closed-door negotiations which resulted in the Council caving in and agreeing to settle out of court with Braen and give him a license.

R40-V zoning myths: The 1996 ordinance was a "good" one; the 1999 version places the "environment in the forefront".  "We believe that [the 1999 ordinance] is absolutely the best thing we could have done", Councilman Walt Davison has stated.
REALITY:

• The 1996 version was so poor that the Borough's own planner says he will never defend it.
• Mayor Heck and his fellow councilmen ignored the clear decision by Ringwood's voters (who overwhelmingly said no to sewers) in 1996 by allowing densities that Borough professionals had said could not and should not be permitted without regional sewers.
• Wallace has been the primary beneficiary, getting twice as many houses on the slopes off Skyline Drive as he could have before the Council made the changes.
• The 1999 version still permits higher densities than were allowable before 1996, and far higher than is appropriate.
• The 1999 ordinance omitted key elements, such as nitrate dilution.  Also ignored were recommended companion ordinances to protect slopes, ridgelines and to control storm water more effectively. (see our response, above, to Heck editorial)

Then came the campaign pieces, on behalf of incumbents Larsen, Holt, Davison and Van  Eck, and statements from the incumbents themselves.  Much of the material read just like the script the public had been hearing from the local developer and his political allies for decades in Ringwood. There have been attempts over the years to break Ringwood's conservation status, bring in regional sewers and build high-density housing.  Opponents of inappropriate development are attacked with name-calling and with preposterous claims.  Below we address a few of the claims from the political material.

70% myth: Since 60-70% of Ringwood is open space, Larsen said, we don't need to worry.
REALITY:

• What happens to the remaining 30 to 40% of undeveloped land in Ringwood will have a dramatic, irreversible impact on not just the environment in general and watershed in particular, but also on the essential character and quality of life here.  Simply repeating how much parkland and open space we have is not a substitute for careful planning for how the remainder is used and what the future environment of the community will be.

"Control" myth: "CLEAN wants all local planning and zoning laws administered by the state" and to take away property rights and home rule. "CLEAN's agenda is to control everything from population to senior housing."
REALITY:

• This is shear nonsense.  CLEAN has never advocated any such thing.  And the State Plan is not set up to take these choices away from municipalities.   It's the type of rhetoric one hears from those developers who want absolutely no controls over what they do.

commuter rail myth: "CLEAN opposes commuter rail service to northern New Jersey."
REALITY:

• We support such rail service to areas which are already developed and have infrastructure.
• Just as with sewers and roads, rail lines are a great idea but are not necessarily appropriate everywhere.  What we cannot support is the expansion of rail into rural areas.  Just as with regional sewer expansion and new highways, extending rail lines into rural areas brings tremendous development pressure and suburban sprawl.  And for communities without existing facilities, extending a line would mean clearing a large area for a station and commuter parking.  Many communities have seen their cherished essential character and quality of life lost due to tremendous growth brought on by a new highway.  Rail lines can have a similar impact.  Where rail service might be appropriate in our Highlands region must be very carefully considered.

"Fronting" myth: "Three of the four Democratic Council candidates are controlled by CLEAN and are merely fronting for their organization."
REALITY:

• Actually, two of the candidates were volunteer members of our Board. Another candidate, the wife of a Board member, has never been involved with CLEAN on any level.
• CLEAN does not endorse candidates for office.  That's our policy.  Our volunteers are free, of course, to be politically active outside of their time spent on CLEAN projects, and even to run for office if they so choose. That is their right.
• CLEAN's Board did not participate in anyone's decision to run for office. These were all independent decisions on the part of individuals, and CLEAN will continue to play no role in the campaigns.

"No Sprawl" myth: "This concept of sprawl, urban sprawl, is in my opinion far fetched, to say the least", Councilman Allan Van Eck stated.
REALITY:

• Every level of government, including New Jersey's Governor, is concerned about the impact of sprawl - the long-term tax burden to pay for municipal services, as well as traffic, congestion, air and water pollution, crime,  overcrowded schools, and so on.  The negative impact of sprawl, and the threat to communities exactly like ours, is well documented.  Unless Ringwood starts planning well and adopting good ordinances, we will remain vulnerable to sprawl's irreversible impact.

Senior housing myth: "CLEAN tried to derail Ringwood's senior housing plan."
REALITY:

• What CLEAN has opposed is Wallace's reappearing high-density housing scheme, which he most recently tried to make more acceptable by saying it was for "seniors".  Wallace and his partner started trying to bring high-density housing into Ringwood in the early 1980's.  Their efforts have included several lawsuits against the Borough.  This type of development requires regional sewers, which in turn are a pipeline for further sprawl. Ringwood residents have organized and opposed both high-density housing and sewers repeatedly over the decades, knowing that such development would destroy the essential character, quality of life and environmental features they love about this part of the Highlands.  That is why we opposed his Skyline Drive projects.
• CLEAN did not go in front of either the Office of State Planning (OSP) or the Council On Affordable Housing (COAH) to address any "senior housing plan".  The position we took with OSP and COAH related to Ringwood's request for a waiver from being required to have a designated "center" under the State Plan.  Our position is that the site owned by the Franciscan Sisters is appropriate for a limited center, or "hamlet".
• CLEAN played a key role in developing an affordable housing plan for Ringwood to submit to COAH, involving assisted living and affordable housing, some of it age-restricted, on the Franciscan Sisters' tract.

CLEAN was called "wacky" and "extremist" for our policies, especially concerning land use regulation.  Yet every one of the above writers claims to embrace the environment.  This has not been borne out in actual practice.

Even as Skylands CLEAN was attacked, some of these same individuals were taking credit for Ringwood being written up by New Jersey Magazine as one of the top 25 places in New Jersey to live.  But if the power plant planned for
one of Wallace's tracts, or the regional sewers and the type of development that Mayor Heck and his allies have long advocated, had not been repeatedly and strongly opposed by CLEAN and individual residents, Ringwood would
hardly have been considered one of the top 25 towns.  And phrases such as "scenic beauty", "distinctly rural makeup", or "very little development here" would be no more than quaint expressions.