Shade Tree Commission Update

After five years of training and discussion about how best to save more of the shade trees around town from being needlessly cut down, the Shade Tree Advisory Board may soon have a better shot at getting some enforcement powers.

At the Borough Council meeting this week, Councilman Douglas Singleterry stepped up to join a council subcommittee that will work with the shade tree folks to work out the details and (hopefully) figure out ordinance language that the whole council will accept. Councilman Bob Hitchcock – already the Council liaison to the shade tree board – is the other member of the subcommittee.

Here’s hoping five years of push and pull will now be resolved and lead to some meaningful new ways to stop the destruction of the shade tree canopy, which lost at least another three trees along Walnut Street last week, when the Board of Education hired a private tree removal firm to take down three mature pin oaks with no consultation with or notice to either the Shade Tree Advisory Board or the Borough Council. The reason? The roots were causing the sidewalk to buckle – a problem for which the shade tree folks have numerous possible remedies short of tree removal, but they were never asked for their input.

Thanks for your leadership on this issue, Councilmen Singleterry and Hitchcock.

Friends of the Carpenter

News from the Borough Council meeting: Friends of the Carpenter, a North Plainfield group that rehabilitates homes for low- to moderate-income homeowning families – is working on a partnership agreement with the town, to parallel a similar agreement between the town and Somerset County Community Development department.

The arrangements will allocate local (through the upcoming municipal capital budget) and county funding to help North Plainfield meet our affordable housing obligations under COAH.

The current income guidelines (pegged at 80% of the median income for Somerset County) are maximum household income of $53,600 (family of 1); $61,300 (family of 2); $69,000 (family of 3); $76,600 (family of 4); up to $101,200 (family of 8).

Rev. Brooks Smith of the Watchung Avenue Presbyterian Church coordinates the program with other local clergy and laypeople, and reported to the council that over the years, Friends of the Carpenter has rehabbed 85 homes, built 13 townhouses and several single family homes.

Well done.

Firehouse Renovations…

…moving right along.

Although I know there are many who think the town should have built new or renovated some other, larger building, I actually like that the town council decided to expand the current building. Reading that North Plainfield book by Caruso, Ryno and Kohler, I learned that the oldest part of the building was constructed in 1896, the next section was added in 1937, leaving a large courtyard right at the corner, which was filled in to add still more room in 1958.

It’s a neat imagination puzzle, kind of like the Russian Matryoshka dolls, to think about the building within a building within a building, adapted to the needs of each subsequent generation. Plus I just love glimpsing the tile rooftop from a few blocks away, reminding me of photographs I’ve seen of the red tile rooftops in Tuscany and other European cities.

Ice Cream! Yum…

A warm afternoon at Unique Sweets on Somerset Street…

Options

This afternoon I had an interesting conversation about Villa Maria with Ben Price, Project Director in the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s Corporations and Democracy Program.

Mr. Price said that North Plainfield citizens who want to prevent corporate development of the Villa Maria parcel have three options at this point:

1) We can do nothing, and the Planning Board will approve Town & Country Developers/Watchung Hills at North Plainfield/Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus, Inc.’s plans to rip out the trees and buildings on the hillside and build the condo community.

2) We can continue to oppose the plan as much as possible, through the regulatory process. However, “Once they’ve got the paperwork right, they’ve got the development.”

The reason: “Zoning doesn’t let you say no to development. It only let’s you say where. And since there’s only one ‘where’ left,” Mr. Price said, our options through the regulatory process are minimal.

3) We can change the terms of the debate, from being about development to being about rights, by pushing our Borough Council and Mayor to pass an ordinance that would prohibit corporations from land development activities within the borders of the town, with an exemption for local, family-owned corporations that build one or two houses at a time. A sample of such an ordinance is here; we would have to adapt it to fit our particular town’s circumstances.

Option 3 is not a guaranteed win for the townspeople, but it’s well worth a try, because it has worked in other towns.

“I’ve seen it happen. It’s remarkable what happens when people get organized,” Mr. Price said.

Here’s the background. Under state law, corporations are regarded as having the same rights of persons, and zoning law is (as pointed out above) mostly about having local governments simply regulate the details of development. This is probably why our Borough Council has argued for years, rightly, that their hands are essentially tied, and why our Borough Attorney has probably offered our Borough Council the advice to simply bite the bullet, limit the project as much as possible, and get over it.

However, if our town’s council passes a local ordinance saying to the State of New Jersey (paraphrasing by Mr. Price): “We know you want to pre-empt us. We know you think we don’t have any rights of self-determination. We disagree,” then we will force the corporate developers to take us into court and argue in public that their corporation is a person with more rights to decide what gets built in our town than we, the people who live here, have.

“They’re reluctant to do that, you can imagine,” Mr. Price said.

I think it’s time to take this step, and work to change the laws that give all the advantage to the corporations and leave no say to the townspeople. As Mr. Price put it: “That’s what we do if we’re a democracy.”

If you want to get involved with this effort, especially if you’re one of the 60-150 people that have turned out for every public hearing on this issue to passionately urge the town’s leaders to protect Villa Maria, or if you’re a member of the Borough Council or Planning Board looking for ways to respond to the wishes of the people, contact me. I’m putting together a core group to meet with the folks at CELDF and we’ll go from there.

UPDATE: I gave copies of the following proposal to the Borough Council this evening (5/29/07). It’s a first draft, subject to extensive discussion, debate and revision, and it builds on the hard work of dozens of local activists who have successfully delayed the razing of the site since 2002. However, it could mark the beginning of a turning point toward community control of the terms of the debate, if enough townspeople decide to either back the proposal generally or step up to work with a core group to do the research on all the issues and continue building pressure to move the proposal along.
——–

“The Commons:” proposal presented at North Plainfield Borough Council meeting May 29, 2007.

I. INTRODUCTION

Since late 2001 or early 2002, when news emerged that the nuns of the Franciscan Order of the Holy Child Jesus planned to close the Villa Maria, many North Plainfield residents have opposed the planned development of the former Villa Maria nursing home complex for residential housing. Despite vigorous citizen opposition, based primarily on concerns about deforestation and loss of open space, flooding, traffic, and pressures on the school system, the Borough Council and Mayor have helped move the proposed development forward.

Town officials have apparently been motivated by three main factors: first, the town’s relative lack of political power when confronted with developers backed by state laws regulating zoning and real estate development, which renders the Council and Planning Board virtual rubber-stamp bodies regardless of their individual ideas and views as legislative bodies about the best interests of the town; second, the town’s need for property tax revenues; and third, the town’s need for housing to accommodate an aging population, many of whom wish to “age in place,” (as noted in the 2002 Master Plan) by selling their large homes and properties, and moving into low-maintenance housing in North Plainfield, such as age-restricted condominiums.

The purpose of this document is to outline the procedural history to this point, and propose an alternative legal framework for the situation, along with an alternative development and funding plan for the Villa Maria site, more responsive to the larger context of the public’s concerns, particularly the need for open space and community facilities for gatherings of residents young and old. I believe that, working cooperatively, stakeholders including town officials, residents, property owners, and other public, private and nonprofit organizations, can find creative, practical and sustainable ways to meet many of our community’s needs.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1938/1939 – German nuns affiliated with the Franciscan Servants of the Holy Child Jesus purchased a 17-acre property for $18,000 in North Plainfield. For more than 60 years, they operated it – tax exempt – as a retirement/nursing home for elderly nuns.

2001/2002 – The nuns announced they would close the nursing home, leave North Plainfield, and pursue plans to develop the land for residential use.

2003 – In May or June 2003, Borough Council member Heather DeGeorge proposed a zoning ordinance to create an “age-restricted condominium” zone, presumably to allay citizen concerns about the potential school and tax impact of children in the 75 to 80 single family homes that could be built on the parcel. By September 2003, attorneys for the Villa Maria nuns, who reportedly will only work with Town & Country Developers of Woodcliff Lake (C.E.O. James J. Bovino of Whiteweld, Barrister & Brown investment firm) had drafted an ordinance to convert the zoning on parcels larger than 12 acres from R-2 single family residential to R-2/high-density, permitting up to 360 age-restricted condominiums on properties at least 12 acres in size. At a fall public hearing on the proposed ordinance, residents argue that the town should buy the land for open space; town officials tell residents “the property was never for sale to the borough;” the proposed ordinance fails.

2005 – On May 2, 2005, the rezoning issue is brought up again, with a proposal to change all areas in the borough zoned residential R-2 to R-2/age restricted, allowing up to 250 units at Villa Maria. 150-200 residents attend a public hearing, vocally opposed to the plan. The hearing and vote were postponed due to inadequate notice to Green Brook residents. In October 2005, the rezoning issue is brought up a third time: a new plan which would create a new R-9 zoning designation to permit construction of up to 285 age-restricted residential units on the site. Even supporters of the zoning change seem reluctant, describing it as the best option available to limit schoolchildren, traffic, ecological damage, since nuns do not want to help the town use the land for open space or community purposes. Opponents continue to argue that impact studies for traffic and flooding have been inadequate, and see no reason for the town to change ordinances to benefit the nun’s profit margin. On Oct. 17, 2005, the Borough Council votes 4-2 to pass the proposed R-9 Zoning Ordinance 05-22; the measure appeared to fail, because the seven member council was short one member (due to a prior resignation) and a technical quirk requiring a two-thirds majority whenever nearby property owners have submitted a valid petition opposing the zoning change. More than 100 residents attend; all but one speaker opposed the zoning change. However, on Oct. 21, 2005, the Courier-News reported that the 4-2 vote on the Borough Council may have been a 2/3 majority or “yes” vote after all, if the lack of a full seven-member council is deemed irrelevant. By Nov. 14, 2005, the Borough Council accepted the opinion of Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein that the 4-2 vote constituted a 2/3 majority sufficient to override a valid citizens’ petition against the zoning change and declared that the zoning ordinance had therefore passed Oct. 17; it was then signed into law by Mayor Janice Allen.

2006 – On Jan. 9, 2006, the Borough Council reviewed a set of amendments to Zoning Ordinance 05-22, to set a maximum of 225 units, maximum building heights of 45 feet, building setbacks, and other development limits. The council tabled the proposal when officials from neighboring Green Brook pointed out they hadn’t been properly notified of the plan because of a clerical error- they were sent copies of the earlier zoning ordinance. About 60 residents attend this public hearing, again, mostly opposed to development. Bill Campbell, a Green Brook resident who lives near Villa Maria, reported he’d filed a challenge to ordinance 05-22 in NJ Superior Court. More than 60 residents attend the meeting; all who speak criticize the development, and castigate the council for not curbing the size further; for not responding directly to their questions; and for not demonstrating how the new development will benefit the borough.

2007 – As of February 10, 2007, the property was still owned by the Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus, Inc., represented by Sister Dominique Ritta. In April 2007, attorneys for prospective buyers and/or developers Watching Hills at North Plainfield LLC, a real estate development corporation 100% owned by Robert McNerney of Glen Rock NJ, in cooperation with Town & Country Developers () submitted a complete application for demolition and condo development at the Villa Maria site. The NP Planning Board reviewed the materials and set the first public hearing for May 9, 2007. On April 4, 2007, the Somerset County trial court released its decision in Campbell v. Borough of North Plainfield (SOM-L-1784-05, SOM-L-567-06 ), ruling that the 4 to 2 vote to pass Zoning Ordinance 05-22 in October 2005 did not constitute the required two-thirds supermajority of the Borough Council. Quoting from Superior Court Judge Victor Ashrafi’s decision:

This decision addresses only the precise legal issue that defendants have raised in support of their motion for summary judgment – whether a 4-2 vote constitutes a 2/3 enhanced majority when there is a vacancy on a seven-member municipal council. The answer to that question is no, five votes are needed. What a governing body cannot do when it is full, that is, make a zoning change with only four votes, it cannot do because of a fortuitous vacancy. The defendants’ motion as to adequacy of four affirmative votes is denied.

On May 9, 2007, Attorney Brian Chewskaskie and Civil Engineer Calisto Bertin, on behalf of Town & Country Developers, presented architectural and site plans for The Watchung Hills at North Plainfield, a complex containing nine condominium buildings, to the Planning Board, seeking preliminary and final approval to build. The Planning Board called for additional hearings on June 13 and June 27 to continue plan review. Forty to 50 residents attended the hearing, and repeated their objections to the plan, based on concerns about open space preservation, flooding, traffic and other issues.

III. PROPOSED CONDO DEVELOPMENT

The condominium development proposed on May 9 by the attorney and civil engineer for Town & Country Developers calls for the destruction and removal of all the existing buildings on the site and at least 32 large, full-grown trees on the site. These are to be replaced with nine three-story condominium buildings, paving to accomodate roadways and more than 172 automobiles aboveground, with an additional 284 underground parking spaces beneath the condo buildings; a swimming pool, clubhouse, gazebo and water detention basin, surrounded by a walking path.
Although the Borough Council has access to these documents through the Planning Board, I have reproduced two pages from the May 9 draft site plan at the back of this proposal, to highlight the degree of change to the character of the neighborhood contemplated by the developers.

IV. RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

- Declaration of Independence

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

-New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 2(a)

See “The Regulatory System Regulates Us“

See Draft Ordinance in Appendix A.

V. PROPOSAL FOR “THE COMMONS”

Description – The Commons would comprise the entire 14-17 acre parcel now under review for condo development. This multi-use facility would be created after demolition and removal of all the existing Villa Maria buildings, due to asbestos contamination, unless a small portion of the historic buildings could be preserved as a historic landmark or museum. No large, full-grown trees would be removed, and riparian trees such as willow and cottonwood would be planted at the northern edge of the property, to help prevent flooding in the town below.

As Annie Dillard wrote, in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, about trees:

There’s a real power here. It’s amazing that trees can turn gravel and bitter salts into these soft-lipped lobes, as if I were to bite down on a granite slab and start to swell, bud and flower. Trees seem to do their feats so effortlessly. Every year a given tree creates absolutely from scratch ninety-nine percent of its living parts. Water lifting up tree trunks can climb one hundred and fifty feet an hour; in full summer a tree can, and does, heave a ton of water every day. A big elm in a single season might make as many as six million leaves, wholely intricate, without budging an inch; I couldn’t make one. A tree stands there, accumulating deadwood, mute and rigid as an obelisk, but secretly it seethes; it splits, sucks and stretches; it heaves up tons and hurls them out in a green, fringed fling. No person taps this free power; the dynamo in the tulip tree pumps out ever more tulip tree, and it runs on rain and air…We know nothing for certain, but we seem to see that the world turns upon growing, grows toward growing, and growing green and clean…

Two large buildings and one medium-sized community greenhouse would be constructed on the footprint of the former buildings, including a single assisted living/independent living apartment building with at least 30 apartments (one and two bedrooms each); a Youth Center with a large multi-purpose room that could be used for indoor sports, dances and catered banquets, a catering/community kitchen, restrooms and several smaller activity rooms.

Each building would have up to 32 parking spaces in underground lots; large windows for natural light during the day; rainwater collection devices to irrigate the property; and solar power, geothermal power and other renewable energy supplies sufficient to keep the buildings heated, cooled, lit and functional for cooking “off the grid,” with a link to the grid for emergency use only.

Outdoors, again without disturbing the land or removing trees, two play structures for children (ages 2-5, and ages 5-12)would be constructed, along with a paved walking path around the perimeter of the parcel. The rest of the sunny land between the shade under the tree canopy would be reserved for small community garden plots, comprising, in aggregate, a small community farm. Fruit trees to create a small apple or peach orchard and berry bushes could also be planted.

Collaborative Partnership/Potential Funding Sources – Demolition, construction and management would be funded and managed by a partnership between private, public and nonprofit organizations, including but not limited to:

the Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus;

the Borough of Plainfield, including town officials and taxpaying citizens;

the NJ Department of Environmental Protection Brownfields to Greenfields program, which, under PL 1997, Chapter 278, provides funds for up to 75% of demolition and clean-up costs for toxic sites that will be converted to green uses

the Edison Wetlands Association

the Somerset County Open Space Preservation fund

the Somerset County Eldercare program;

the NJ Department of Agriculture ;

Growing New Farmers ; and

local architects, engineers, contractors and construction laborers.

Advantages – The proposal for The Commons provides numerous advantages over the corporate proposal by the current developers, including, but not limited to:

Meaningful home rule: community management of land and resources located within the community;

Preservation of scarce open space; flood control; and protection of forests and waterways within the Borough of North Plainfield, in keeping with Master Plan Goals and Objectives 2, 4, 7, 8;

Creation of additional community facilities and services, especially for youth and young working families, in keeping with Master Plan Goal and Objective 3;

Creation of affordable senior housing, integrated within the community, permitting the town’s elders to continue to influence and experience the daily life of the town without exceeding the carrying capacity of the land, in keeping with Master Plan Goals and Objectives 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11;

Use of renewable energy technologies, cutting operating costs for the facilities; Providing a leadership to other municipalities grappling with energy costs, open space, housing concerns and related issues;

Preserving the traditional healing, caring character of the Villa Maria land;

Creation of community gardens, increasing community food self-reliance and fostering supplies and markets for sustainable local agriculture;

Potential for increased visibility for the town through this unique community asset, and some income through occasional facility rental for banquets, weddings and outdoor wedding photography.

VI. PROJECT SEQUENCE

1) Borough Council instructs Planning Board to withhold preliminary and final authorization for the Town & Country condo development. Borough Council, with citizen groups, drafts, reviews, revises and passes ordinance prohibiting corporate development within the boundaries of the town, thereby halting the condo development process. TIMEFRAME – 2-4 weeks.

2) Borough Council commences discussions with the Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus Inc., to begin applying to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for up to 75% of the costs of demolishing the asbestos-containing Villa Maria buildings and removing any underground storage tanks, with the understanding that Chapter 278 state funds are only available for projects designed to expand or preserve open space. Borough Council, Planning Board and citizen groups begin community discussions to map out the contours of the community farm/youth center/elderhousing project. TIMEFRAME – 1-6 months.

3) Borough Council and citizen groups continue to identify funding streams, including interested private financial or in-kind donors and volunteers. Villa Maria buildings safely demolished and removed. Borough Council continues to negotiate terms of land ownership and/or management with Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus. TIMEFRAME – 1-6 months.

4) Borough Council, Planning Board and citizen groups finalize a construction schedule of building projects, paid and donated materials and labor. TIME FRAME – 6-9 months.

5) Construction and garden bed preparation commence. TIMELINE – 9-12 months

6) Construction and first garden harvest completed. TIMELINE – 12-18 months.

7) First North Plainfield elders move into their new senior housing. First Youth Center event. TIMELINE – Nov./Dec. 2008.

VII. CONCLUSION

It may well be true that, since 2002, the town’s hands have essentially been tied. Here, however, is an opportunity for the Borough Council to help loosen and untie those bonds, and work with – rather than against – the community at large, to shape North Plainfield’s future in ecologically-sustainable and community-centered ways. I hope you’ll take this opportunity, and I look forward to working with you in any way possible to facilitate your efforts.

Sacred Geometry

Community gardening is finding a home in North Plainfield as well. Drew Smith – a teacher in the Plainfield public schools and newly elected to the NP school board – is creating a combination community garden (in the shape of the sacred spiral) and personal garden at his home on Parkview, using permaculture techniques.

Among his many, many interesting and inspiring ideas for sustainably shaping the future of the North Plainfield community – including planting of riparian trees, like willow and cottonwood, along Green Brook, to control erosion and flooding naturally – Drew said he’d like to see the town pioneer a K-12 horticulture program, teaching children about gardening and care of the earth through in-class work and hands-on garden creation around the town’s five schools. That’d be AWESOME.

Villa Maria Timeline

According to “North Plainfield,” a photographic history book available at the library, written by Mario Caruso, Bruce Ryno and Joann Kohler, the Villa Maria complex was built by Justice H. Cooley as the Brookside Sanitarium, in 1876. “For several years, it served as the Arthur Pitney Home for aged and invalid,” according to the caption on the photograph from page 91, reproduced above. Most of the following information was culled from the NP GOP site archives of Courier-News and Star-Ledger coverage, and the Courier-News archives.

Information formerly located here is now at the “Fact Sheets” page, above, under “Villa Maria – Fact Sheet.”

Villa Maria Questions

1. Do the town residents want open space (a potential increase for property values) or increased residential tax revenues (a way to possibly alleviate tax pressures on current residents)?
2. What are the various federal, state, county and local factors and forces that have combined to drive taxes and property values up so sharply during the last decade? How will revaluations of the currently undervalued homes affect tax revenues? Will that change help or hurt average middle-income homeowner/taxpayers? How does North Plainfield compare – both in tax rate and rate of tax increase – with other Somerset County towns?
3. If the town wants open space, are there methods (local ordinances, recall petitions/ ballot initiatives, county open space funds, eminent domain) that can and should be used, to profoundly restrict residential development in North Plainfield and thereby obtain Villa Maria for open space? Is there a potential funding source for park maintenance?
4. Are the schools overcrowded, and could added housing stock create or worsen overcrowding? Is age-restricted housing a guarantee of no more children in the schools? Does the town want to expand the over-55 demographic disproportionate to other age groups? Are there many older people in North Plainfield especially eager to sell their homes and move into an age-restricted condominium community?
5. What are the dollar figures showing reasonable estimates of how much tax revenue would be raised from a fully-bought condo-complex and how much additional municipal cost (emergency services, flood clean-up, etc.) would be caused by the condo community, over, say, the next 10, 20 and 30 years, both with and without schoolchildren in the condos? How is the likelihood of selling the condos related to the many homes currently on the (cooling) housing market in North Plainfield? How can North Plainfield best meet the requirements of COAH?
6. Does the town need and/or want a youth center? Are there plans to buy land or buildings, to build or renovate, to create a youth center? Are there county, state or federal funding streams to build/renovate and then operate youth centers?
7. Why is North Plainfield apparently not a town-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, when more than 500 other American cities and towns are, and the state of New Jersey has also signed on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative? Would the cutting of trees, paving of grassy areas, construction of condos and addition of several hundred cars help or hinder local and state efforts to cut human-caused carbon emissions?
8. How bad is traffic, especially at rush hour, in the area around Grove St., Interhaven, Somerset Street and Route 22? How will the addition of several hundred cars to the area impact traffic?
9. Do the current trees provide vital flood protection for North Plainfield by soaking up water coming down the hill from Watchung, and will cutting some or all of the trees to build housing result in soil erosion and increased flood risks, given flood history in the town?
10. Are the Villa Maria buildings likely to qualify for historic preservation? Could the town apply for historic status for the buildings, even if the owners have no interest in applying?
11. How bad is the asbestos contamination in the buildings? How does the cost of remediation to reuse the buildings compare with the cost of demolishing the buildings?
12. Where are the current owners, the nuns? Why are they so committed to exclusively working with the current developers? Why are they so resistant to hearing and/or considering all other proposals? If, as is widely believed around town, the nuns are making decisions based solely upon greed – maximizing their profit from sale of the land for real estate development without regard for the well-being of the individuals and natural places who together comprise the North Plainfield community – what are the views of local Catholic authorities on the matter?
13. Is Villa Maria development a partisan issue, or is it a potentially unifying issue on which many Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the town agree, although they have been (as yet) unable to overcome their differing perspectives to work together to protect the land from well-organized, well-funded outside land developers who will experience none of the potential problems of development and none of the potential benefits of open space preservation or other community use?

Azaleas and Irises

K.I.N.D.L.E.

There was a presentation of the Gifted and Talented/KINDLE program at last week’s School Board meeting by Cathy Kobylarz, Principal of Stony Brook and supervisor of the department, and teachers Kathy Porter, Cynthia Crawford and Janet Darvin.

It was interesting to learn that North Plainfield is far ahead of many other districts in the area of enrichment and accelerated learning, because our town’s program uses a three-pronged approach. Every child in kindergarten through sixth grade is part of a classroom enrichment project once each week, when one of the KINDLE teachers comes into the classroom to do logic puzzles, creative thinking exercises and other enrichment activities. Smaller groups of children, recommended by their teachers as likely to benefit from more such activities, are pulled out of their classrooms once a week for small group activities. And other small groups of children in each grade, identified by testing, go once a week for KINDLE programming at Somerset School.

A few weeks ago, during the school budget talks, I noticed that some of the district’s special needs children attend special schools, some costing up to $43,000 per year in tuition. The juxtaposition reminded me of In Defense of Elitism, a book by William A. Henry III, recently loaned to me by a friend. I didn’t find the arguments in the book especially persuasive; I thought Mr. Henry argued that, because there are hierarchies of power, wealth and education, those hierarchies are morally justified, which seems very circular to me. One of the topics he got into is education, and how educational resources are spent disproportionately on special needs children with learning disabilities, thus (he argued) depriving children with special intellectual abilities from getting extra resources to fully reach their potential.

On this one, I tend to agree with my husband that the scarcity is more or less imposed by poor policy decisions at the federal funding level. Special needs kids with learning disabilities should absolutely get all the support and services they need. But if that costs $43,000 per year, then it would be good to spend that amount on small schools, well-paid, well-trained, well-rested, well-supported teachers, and abundant project supplies and field trips for each and every child in the public school system, so that all children receive the same large investment of time, energy and resources to find and nurture their unique interests and abilities.

If you want to learn more about the G&T/KINDLE Program, there will be an orientation this Thursday evening, May 24, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at the Somerset School Cafeteria. You can learn about whole class group programs, pull-out programs and small-group programs; see the KINDLE Project Gallery, play games and try some of the logic puzzles and other activities your kids are doing with the KINDLE teachers. Plus, find out what KINDLE stands for! RSVP to attend the meeting at 769-6063.