Dear Editor:

You try to teach your children right from wrong.

You instill good morals, values and ethics and teach them that most people are good, have a good heart truly do have good morals, values and ethics so in this article I’d like to address the person who stole my daughters Iphone on Tuesday night on upper Longview Avenue. A coral colored Iphone with jewels/gemstones glued onto the back that she so carefully designed on her own and was so proud of.

How could you just take something that is not yours? These Iphones are not cheap and the sad part is you can’t even use it! What is the point of stealing from someone else?? My daughter was devastated the other night when we found out from sprint that someone had taken a picture with the phone when we were on our way to a soccer game at Jannerone Park. I mean how can you do that and not feel one ounce of guilt?

This was her personal possession. Many of her thoughts, her secrets, her pictures with friends and many memories were on that phone. My daughter asked me, “why would someone do that to me?” I told her well they obviously weren’t brought up with good values, morals or ethics. I told her maybe, if they see this, they will bring the phone back with no questions asked. If you have her phone…please call me or text me. That phone meant the world to her. Do what is right please.

My number is (862) 505-0962.

Irene Morrison

Dear Editor:

This administration in complete complicity and overzealous advocated for this unneeded and unwarranted development for the “pending” property owner RD developer; by doing so we have disregarded important aspects, goals and objectives within our own Master Plan. RD developer has deliberately done harm to this community in legal costs and constantly changing their development proposals for the Landscape Block 421, Lot 29.

All aspects concerning its environmental value and resource have been brushed aside for theories and logarithmic falsities in savings concerning tax ratables. No proper thought has been given to long-term accumulative effects of water sustainability, traffic and most of all the forever change that will occur for not just cause to the immediate neighborhood and the region in general.

RD and Parsippany have allowed and encouraged COAH public housing threats to dominate the issue rather than actualities concerning the public housing issue, builders’ remedies including means and ways to better adjust and develop into this new stage of required growth. A scorched earth policy; has been accepted by Parsippany’s administration in order to avoid an expected obligation. There is no real proof that Waterview landscape would fall to such development; only opinions promoted by the Mayor, certain councilman and the Town Attorney. Although vacant land may be condemned for such purpose, many other alternatives exists for Parsippany, for example using present housing available, using redevelopment in already developed areas, including vacant office complexes and other idle developed properties.

In order to rezone a landscape district the following criteria must be met, and substantiated: Before property is reclassified from one zone to another, there must be proof either, (1) that there was a mistake in the original zoning or, (2) the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify rezoning and that public need exists for rezoning. None of these legal standards have been addressed or proven. What evidence exits that would show a change in the character of the neighborhood. There is to this date no evidence of when the property was initially zoned and what exactly was understood by “POD; Office District”. No proper land use maps or land use capability maps with overlays showing the actual character of the landscape to recognize its natural resource value; only developers site plans and environmental reports paid for by the developer, that ignore important matters of existing community environmental sensitive areas.

How did Bell Mead come to obtain the right to sell property in a pre-zoned Office District? This has never been made clear, nor evidence shown; only legal opinions that are skirting the law, being allowed to gain some validity simply because they are being stated by lawyers and officials.

Before the last Mayoral election Barberio promised in front of hundreds of residents he would acquire waterview as open space; meaning as all thought the whole 26 acres, he did not; from COAH Policies 2015, Land that the town plans to purchase within one year for active or passive recreational purposes.

Under Home Rule Parsippany had the legal right, but not the heart of soul to do what was best for all. Instead he divided and conquered the issue according to neighborhoods and the issue of taxes, ignoring and disregarding the very neighborhood it will affect most. Waterview place in the water recharge of our aquifer will surely affect more than just the interval area. Not only did Barberio not keep his word he kept the open space and environmental committees idle and came up with the present deal of paying 3-million dollars of municipal open space tax dollars, to RD for what amounts to the required buffer in the area of their proposal. Proclaiming he would have gotten County open space funds, if certain elements did not petition against it, is blatantly false and delusional on its face.

RD in bad faith and in total complicity with our officials has robbed, crippled and maimed this community. RD created their own hardship by coming into a preconceived and bad faith intention to have their way by any means necessary over the best interest of this community. The administration allowed them the upper hand at every episode, never really fighting back, as a community and their representatives should have. If Belle Mead owns the property and not RD how was such much latitude allowed in their demise of our community and master plan?

Towns can keep unwanted Builder’s Remedy developments from those areas only by proactively finding and designating other appropriate areas for affordable housing. If Parsippany as the Town Attorney announced was ahead of the housing game, why should Parsippany fear destruction of a unique neighborhood or any threat not in keeping with smart growth and our own Master Plan and ordinances claiming to recognize the need for water protections, steep slope protections and not injuring community character?

COAH is not the monster Barberio and dePierro contend, they have more than others deliberately advocated against their community and no longer deserve our support. It appears the Planning Board will simply rubber stamp and fast track the whole process.

COAH has also made some progress in terms of its environmental policies. The Council has a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Planning Commission that recognizes the importance of focusing affordable housing development where infrastructure exists, consistent with the State development and Redevelopment Plan. COAH requires that towns in Planning Areas 4 and 5 (rural and environmentally sensitive areas) plan any new affordable housing sites in designated centers to protect the surrounding environs from sprawl development, and encourages the same for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3 (developed and fringe areas). COAH gives priority to sites with existing sewers and water service over those without existing infrastructure.

The contention that this is somehow all progress is also disturbing and not true. This is a violation of the public trust in that public officials failed in their duty as public servants and sided with a private economic concern of dubious worth over the environmental values of their own alleged community.  Is this really worth any of the meniscal dollars that will be saved, and will it stop COAH obligations? No. Parsippany continues to be its own worst enemy.

Nick Homyak