News from Skylands CLEAN, Inc.

Expert contradiction
Nowak's Notebooks
West Milford and Greenwood Lake News
July 31, 2008

By Ron Nowak

The TCR case, I think, illustrates what's wrong with the system. In the lower court decision, the judge noted that none of the testimony from TCR's "experts" was contradicted. He gave that fact a lot of weight, implying that had some of TCR's experts been challenged on some key points like water and sewer, he might not have been so adamant in favor of the Valley Ridge project.

Well, who is there to contradict developer-funded "expert" testimony before the planning board? Certainly the township's planner at the time. But, I guess the contradiction never happened. The engineer at the time? Who then?

Well, if the planning board was so concerned about Valley Ridge, and none of its professionals at the time spoke up to contradict testimony, the only ones left had to be members of the public. I've been to enough planning board meetings to know that when the public testifies it hardly makes a dent, particularly in "expert," developer-funded testimony because the lawyer for the developer objects that members of the public are not certified as "experts."

So what's a planning board to do when confronted by the TCRs of this world? Well, at this point we know what they shouldn't do -- simply allow marginal "expert" testimony to go unchallenged. If the board's own professionals don't, or won't, speak up, then the board should hire its own professionals, specifically to refute developer-funded "expert" testimony. That's basically what the system is telling us, at least with regard to TCR and Valley Ridge.

Why the township's pros didn't do their duty when this development first rolled into town in 1997 boggles the mind. Oh, I remember, in 1997 we were still chasing residential ratables. Why nothing more was done to make a case for the township after the Highlands Act was passed is even more puzzling, particularly in light of the water studies that show we ain't got much.

That's another thing, the judge was perfectly willing to go along with TCR's experts but brushed aside the township's rather pivotal ground water study.

What happened here is a perfect example of the technicalities inherent in the law overriding land use common sense, and judges who don't know the difference between a well and a whereas. Who knows what would have happened if the previous planning board(s) had done more than just listen to the developer's "experts."