If town followed law, lawsuit would be unnecessary

The following is in response to an article written by Ed Schwartz in the Dec. 30 News Transcript. Covered Bridge I and Covered Bridge II are two separate entities and not related in any way.

Mr. Schwartz states that [the News Transcript editorial] " ‘Where the Real Power Lies’ has raised many antenna in the senior community..."

I don’t know which community he is referring to. Mr. Schwartz goes on to state that Drew Shapiro and other Democrats of the Manalapan Township Committee listen to their issues and handle things in a fair manner. Hogwash. Other than the Municipal Services Act (MSA) settlement, can he name one issue that the township acted on for the benefit of Manalapan — senior and non-senior?

I agree that a change in administration was needed. This was achieved, but to no avail. It is still business as usual.

Mr. Schwartz states that "Covered Bridge II instituted a very expensive lawsuit to recover what was legally due us under MSA." If the issue had been handled in a fair manner there would have been no need for an expensive lawsuit and Covered Bridge would have gotten what they were legally entitled to.

Why wasn’t Covered Bridge I asked to file a class action lawsuit? Shared legal expenses would have saved the Covered Bridge I association thousands of dollars. Does Mr. Schwartz still think the agreement was settled in a fair manner?

The township knew they couldn’t win this case in a court of law. All legal and court expenses could have been included in the suit, but the decision by Covered Bridge II was not to pursue this course of action. Mr. Schwartz stated it was "not really to our liking."

In my opinion, by not taking this case to court a precedent was set for future settlements with the various condominiums involved.

I don’t know if Mr. Schwartz is familiar with a so-called 1996 ordinance change. This change was printed in May 1998 in an article in the Covered Bridge I newsletter, written by the editor, Gene Ehrenberg, as follows:

"Paving Work. Two years ago (1996) the township of Manalapan (Republican) rescinded an ordinance requiring the township to maintain and repair our cul-de-sacs. The key word written is requiring. The township was in violation of the state law."

For the past couple of years, I and other interested homeowners have been to Freehold trying to research this so-called rescinded ordinance, but to no avail. It is not on record. We checked in the township with the same result. Somebody is lying.

So much for a rescinded 1996 ordinance. Mr. Ehrenberg wrote this article. I now challenge him to provide this so-called rescinded 1996 ordinance.

In reference to the Republican Township Committee, Mr. Schwartz was right when he wrote the following: "We countered that our streets were thoroughfares used by the public, as well as mail trucks, ambulances, fire trucks, UPS trucks, garbage pick-ups, etc."

To refresh his memory, the Democratic majority did the same.

The settlement did not include the paving of streets (cul-de-sacs). The case was settled on their terms. Again, that was Covered Bridge II’s decision.

For the record, I am a registered Democrat.

Sidney Alpert

Covered Bridge I

Manalapan