for US Congress
NJ 6th Congressional District
"Constitutional Republicans protecting the Liberty Platform"
Monmouth Park is a polluter, and your tax money pays for it
Since at least July 2006, Monmouth Park (in District 12) has been responsible for pollution in the Branchport Creek in Long Branch (district 6) and into the Shrewsbury River which runs all along our district. The pollution is in the form of fecal coliform from horse feces that overflows with rain water from the stables, which are located on the creek, when it rains. For us locals, this issue is well documented in the news so with the summary given, I'll leave you to Google and the "news" papers to get all of the details, but as summary, at least 2 years later (but certainly much longer), their $35,000 fine is still unpaid, no progress, short or long term, has been made or even attempted, and the NJSEA, Monmouth Park, NJ DEP, NJ DOH, and local municipalities haven't done anything, except for waste your tax money.
Monmouth Park. Danger Welcome
This sign,
paid for by tax payers in Long Branch as evidenced by the "order of the
Long Branch Health Department", is located in Branchport Park, a stone's
throw away from Monmouth Park. What you can't see from this sign is that the
sign 5 feet away on the other side of the sidewalk entering the park, indicates
that the park was designed for children age 2-12.
In the now almost two years since this sign has been posted by the Long Branch Health Department, one might think that as a concerned citizen, you can call the Long Branch HD and find out when the pollution will be cleaned up. Maybe more importantly, one might think that they can contact the health department and find out what the "danger" to your health might be, after all, the sign cautions of "danger" and is by the "health department" so there must be a health danger, right? Not so. Since the waterway is not promoted as a bathing area, LBHD has no jurisdiction over the waterway, mind you, they have to pay, which means LB residents pay, for the signs, which is good that we are warned, but bad because we pay for a warning, not the polluter, and the department posting the warning, can't do anything to resolve the problem, strange.
Concerned about my own health, I took the next step and contacted the state department of health (NJ DOH) and asked them the same question "What is the health danger? Why am I 'avoiding contact'? What is the problem?". NJ DOH again noted that this is not a bathing area and is not in their jurisdiction and they have no information. Now might be a good time to note that another of these signs is posted at a public, recreational boat launch in the park. Surely the park is recreational and I can't think of a way to launch a boat without coming in contact with the water, so I can't see how the health department can skirt the issue and claim it's not in their jurisdiction. Fortunately, DOH put me in contact with Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) who is apparently responsible for the area.
NJ DEP is a waste of tax payer money
Being the concerned citizen I am, I contacted the DEP, surely they had to have some answers after so much time. Again, not so. DEP just insists "we're aware of the issue and working with Monmouth Park to correct the problem". No, you're not. Stop lying. Stop wasting tax payer money to monitor the levels of fecal coliform in the river while Monmouth Park hosts the Breeder's Cup and spends MILLIONS to renovate the track, but nothing to solve their pollution problems. Imagine if YOU had an underground oil tank and your underground oil tank had a leak in it; the DEP would fine you so much money you'd be filing for bankruptcy, you would be chased from your own private property for such pollution. Now imagine if you just take your used motor oil down to the river and dump a few gallons into the river - the jail time would seem endless. Yet despite the judgment YOU and I would face, the individuals who are responsible for the corporation that is Monmouth Park and/or the NJSEA, collect HUGE paychecks and profit, while we the public are stuck with their pollution. I'm not opposed to Monmouth Park, in fact far from it - I moved in down the street from Monmouth Park because the facility brings a lot of value to the area, but the value they bring should NOT be a reason to allow them to pollute public property. Curious enough NJSEA is some "thing" created by the NJ State legislature, just as the DEP is some "thing" created by the state, so if the DEP "fines" the NJSEA some money, then you and I, the tax payers, pay that fine through our taxes, really there is no winning here, unless of course the NJSEA has to eat some profits and the individuals who operate the park have to cough up some of their cozy paychecks to afford the fixes needed. Again, if your oil tank was leaking, you don't get a loan from the public to clean up YOUR mess, so why does the state (NJSEA) get a pass from the state (DEP) to pollute at our expense?
Some emails sent back and forth about this issue are below - interesting read if you have spare time, in the mean time, you can ask where "Mr. Environment" Frank Pallone has been for the past several years on this problem. Again, Frank Pallone doesn't really care about the health of children as his S-Chip program might indicate - because if he really cared, he would make sure that parks that children play in don't have "DANGER" signs posted throughout.
In case you're still reading.... again, it's April 11, 2008 - those same signs still are posted in the park, Monmouth Park hasn't paid any fines, no individuals have been held accountable for the pollution, and we the tax payers of NJ continue to pay the DEP to monitor the water quality, but do nothing about the problems. Again, where is Mr. Environment, Frank Pallone to help us with the pollution, and/or save us some tax money?
Since at least July 2006, Monmouth Park (in District 12) has been responsible for pollution in the Branchport Creek in Long Branch (district 6) and into the Shrewsbury River which runs all along our district. The pollution is in the form of fecal coliform from horse feces that overflows with rain water from the stables, which are located on the creek, when it rains. For us locals, this issue is well documented in the news so with the summary given, I'll leave you to Google and the "news" papers to get all of the details, but as summary, at least 2 years later (but certainly much longer), their $35,000 fine is still unpaid, no progress, short or long term, has been made or even attempted, and the NJSEA, Monmouth Park, NJ DEP, NJ DOH, and local municipalities haven't done anything, except for waste your tax money.
Monmouth Park. Danger Welcome
This sign,
paid for by tax payers in Long Branch as evidenced by the "order of the
Long Branch Health Department", is located in Branchport Park, a stone's
throw away from Monmouth Park. What you can't see from this sign is that the
sign 5 feet away on the other side of the sidewalk entering the park, indicates
that the park was designed for children age 2-12.
In the now almost two years since this sign has been posted by the Long Branch Health Department, one might think that as a concerned citizen, you can call the Long Branch HD and find out when the pollution will be cleaned up. Maybe more importantly, one might think that they can contact the health department and find out what the "danger" to your health might be, after all, the sign cautions of "danger" and is by the "health department" so there must be a health danger, right? Not so. Since the waterway is not promoted as a bathing area, LBHD has no jurisdiction over the waterway, mind you, they have to pay, which means LB residents pay, for the signs, which is good that we are warned, but bad because we pay for a warning, not the polluter, and the department posting the warning, can't do anything to resolve the problem, strange.
Concerned about my own health, I took the next step and contacted the state department of health (NJ DOH) and asked them the same question "What is the health danger? Why am I 'avoiding contact'? What is the problem?". NJ DOH again noted that this is not a bathing area and is not in their jurisdiction and they have no information. Now might be a good time to note that another of these signs is posted at a public, recreational boat launch in the park. Surely the park is recreational and I can't think of a way to launch a boat without coming in contact with the water, so I can't see how the health department can skirt the issue and claim it's not in their jurisdiction. Fortunately, DOH put me in contact with Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) who is apparently responsible for the area.
NJ DEP is a waste of tax payer money
Being the concerned citizen I am, I contacted the DEP, surely they had to have some answers after so much time. Again, not so. DEP just insists "we're aware of the issue and working with Monmouth Park to correct the problem". No, you're not. Stop lying. Stop wasting tax payer money to monitor the levels of fecal coliform in the river while Monmouth Park hosts the Breeder's Cup and spends MILLIONS to renovate the track, but nothing to solve their pollution problems. Imagine if YOU had an underground oil tank and your underground oil tank had a leak in it; the DEP would fine you so much money you'd be filing for bankruptcy, you would be chased from your own private property for such pollution. Now imagine if you just take your used motor oil down to the river and dump a few gallons into the river - the jail time would seem endless. Yet despite the judgment YOU and I would face, the individuals who are responsible for the corporation that is Monmouth Park and/or the NJSEA, collect HUGE paychecks and profit, while we the public are stuck with their pollution. I'm not opposed to Monmouth Park, in fact far from it - I moved in down the street from Monmouth Park because the facility brings a lot of value to the area, but the value they bring should NOT be a reason to allow them to pollute public property. Curious enough NJSEA is some "thing" created by the NJ State legislature, just as the DEP is some "thing" created by the state, so if the DEP "fines" the NJSEA some money, then you and I, the tax payers, pay that fine through our taxes, really there is no winning here, unless of course the NJSEA has to eat some profits and the individuals who operate the park have to cough up some of their cozy paychecks to afford the fixes needed. Again, if your oil tank was leaking, you don't get a loan from the public to clean up YOUR mess, so why does the state (NJSEA) get a pass from the state (DEP) to pollute at our expense?
Some emails sent back and forth about this issue are below - interesting read if you have spare time, in the mean time, you can ask where "Mr. Environment" Frank Pallone has been for the past several years on this problem. Again, Frank Pallone doesn't really care about the health of children as his S-Chip program might indicate - because if he really cared, he would make sure that parks that children play in don't have "DANGER" signs posted throughout.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:58:52 -0500
To: jhogan@xxxxxx.com
Cc: Drina.Kostrencic@doh.state.nj.us, Pamela.Beasley@doh.state.nj.us,
James.Brownlee@doh.state.nj.us, droach@ci.long-branch.nj.us,
mmeddis@co.monmouth.nj.us, barry.chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us
Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan)
Dear Mr. Hogan,
Your e-mail regarding the Branchport Creek advisory of "polluted water"
since July 2006 has been forwarded to me for reply. The New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) does not have
jurisdiction over natural bodies of water unless they are promoted as a
public recreational bathing area. In this case the local health
department has identified this water way as polluted and is not promoting
it as a public recreational bathing area. As a result, the NJDHSS does
not have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to either regulate or clean up
the water way rests with either the local/county health department or the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Quality. They can be contacted @ (609) 633-7021.
By copy of this e-mail, I have informed the above-named departments of
your complaint. I hope the information I provided to you will assist you
in resolving your issues.
Sincerely,
Loel Muetter, M.A.
Environmental Scientist 1
N.J.D.H.S.S
Public Health Sanitation and Safety Program
Office (609) 588-3124
Fax (609) 588-4621
Prefix: Mr.
First Name: James
MI: P
Last Name: Hogan
Suffix:
Address1: 618 McClellan St
Address2:
City: Long Branch
County: Monmouth
State: NJ
Zip: 07740
Zip +4:
Country: US
Phone: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E-mail: jhogan@xxxxxxxxx.com
Subject: Monmouth Park_Branchport Creek_Shrewsbury River pollution
Comments:
There have been signs posted by the Long Branch Department of Health
along the Branchport Creek advising of "polluted water" since July 2006.
After researching the issue, it seems that the pollution in a result of
horse feces from Monmouth Park. The Long Branch health department has
been unable to have the problem corrected, can the state department of
health please research this issue and have it addressed and resolved so
that the river is usable and safe for this coming summer? There are
pictures of the signs at:
http://www.txstock.com/DangerWelcome
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:28:12 -0500
From: "Barry Chalofsky" Barry.Chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us
To: jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx.com
Cc: droach@ci.long-branch.nj.us, mmeddis@co.monmouth.nj.us,
"Brian McLendon" Brian.McLendon@dep.state.nj.us,
"Charles Maack" Charles.Maack@dep.state.nj.us,
"James Hamilton" James.Hamilton@dep.state.nj.us,
Drina.Kostrencic@doh.state.nj.us, James.Brownlee@doh.state.nj.us,
Loel.Muetter@doh.state.nj.us, Pamela.Beasley@doh.state.nj.us
Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan)
Mr. Hogan,
The NJ Department of Environmental Protection is aware of the situation =
with the Monmouth Racetrack and has been working closely with the NJ =
Sports and Exposition Authority to correct the problems. While we have =
had some success there is an inherrent problem with the location of the =
acivities at the racetrack that make it difficult to achieve a long-term =
solution. We are committed however, to address those issues and are =
continuing to both monitor the racetrack regularly and to work with them =
to fix their problems. Please be assured that the Department shares your =
concerns and is hopeful that we will be able improve the water quality of =
Branchport Creek.
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:56:47 -0500 From: "James Hogan" jhogan@xxxxxxxxxxxx.com Reply-To: jhogan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com Sender: jim98bata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com To: gregory.schussler@dep.state.nj.us Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan) Cc: "Barry Chalofsky" Barry.Chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us, droach@ci.long-branch.nj.us, mmeddis@co.monmouth.nj.us, "Brian McLendon" Brian.McLendon@dep.state.nj.us, "Charles Maack" Charles.Maack@dep.state.nj.us, "James Hamilton" James.Hamilton@dep.state.nj.us, Drina.Kostrencic@doh.state.nj.us, James.Brownlee@doh.state.nj.us, Loel.Muetter@doh.state.nj.us, Pamela.Beasley@doh.state.nj.us Mr Greg Schussler et al. I received a voice mail from Greg Schussler on Dec 3 regarding my emails and I appreciate the timely responses to my questions. I would have liked to get back to you all sooner but a neighborhood group I wanted to touch base with to discuss this issue, along with a copy of the emails, met for the first time in a month last night. This neighborhood group is in addition to another group led by Robin Kampf, who I was informed is also seeking answers and solutions to the problems, and seems to have a different base of attendants. Since Greg is out of the office today, I thought it might be easier if I just emailed the few questions that we, as a group, had and were hoping answers were available or opinions can be voiced. 1) The email states "the location of the activities at the racetrack that make it difficult to achieve a long-term solution". Is there a "short-term" solution, if so, what does the short-term solution involve? 2) The signs read "Danger / Polluted Water / Avoid Contact". Why? What is the actual danger and is this "danger" only a danger to humans or is it possible that pollutants (E coli?) are picked up by birds and spread to other areas? Is there other wildlife (or domestic pets for that matter) that are "in danger"? 3) Extending from the above question, is there any evidence or reason to believe that Monmouth Park is the source of the pollution or is Monmouth Park getting a bad/worse reputation than they are responsible for? Moreover, is there proof or evidence that eliminates the geese problem at Branchport Park as the real source of the problem and "we"/"they" are incorrectly pointing the finger at Monmouth Park? 4) Have there been any reported or diagnosed human illnesses, directly or indirectly, related to the pollution in the Creek/River? Is there a reason to or has anyone studied any demographics/data/charts from local doctors and hospitals (or maybe the CDC?) that might show a trend, or not show a trend, of illness in the area that could be related to the pollution here (either through fish people are catching and presumably eating or using for bait in other fishing trips) or boating activities? 5) Although not a recreational swimming area, there is a (presumably) recreational boat launch in Branchport Park. What department/jurisdiction is responsible for safety/health at recreational boat launches? If not DEP or DOH, is that department involved? 6) Who pays for water monitoring? If it is paid for through a state agency, what has been the cost to the tax payers to date since the problem was first recognized? 7) If the location of the stables is the problem, are there any existing zoning laws or new zoning laws that would prohibit new future stables being constructed so close to public waterways (either at Monmouth Park or other locations)? Further, we understand as private property owners that some new zoning violations can be ignored by "grandfathered" property owners. However, it is also our understanding that these zoning violations must be fixed if we were to sell our property. If the track were to be sold, are any policies in place that would force the current, or new, owners to address the problem before, or immediately following, the sale of the racetrack? 8) If the location of the stables is the problem, is it feasible for the track to relocate the stable area? While this may be a costly expense for the track owners, we tax payers recognize that IF a state or federal grant was to be used to pay for cleanup or upgrades, then that same money might be better spent, in the long run, to help offset the owners cost to relocate the stable area away from the creek (ie, swap the locations of the stable area and one of the many parking areas). Aside from these questions, it was the general opinion of most of our group that if Monmouth Park is the sole, or majority, source of pollution, that the owners of that property should be responsible for the cleanup and any expenses to address the source of the problem, without tax payer subsidies. Most feel that if a for-profit organization is causing pollution, that the organization should be responsible for the cleanup and not the tax payer. We would like to know more information on what fines and penalties a private property owner might face should they be responsible for such widespread, harmful pollution, for example, what punishments would I face if I owned a house on the river and had an underground oil tank leak into the river? What punishments would I face if I dumped a 55 gallon drum barrel of household waste into the river? Has Monmouth Park paid the $35,000 fine they were cited with earlier this year? Why haven't they been fined again (and again) if the pollution continues? Thank you in advance for taking the time to review my emails and answer these questions. Your work is very much appreciated by my group and I and we hope that through your work, the issue can be resolved and the waterway can become safe and usable this coming year. If you can kindly take the time to reply, I can be reached easily via this email address or on my cell phone - xxx-xxx-xxxx or via postal mail: James Hogan 618 McClellan St Long Branch NJ 07740 -- James Hogan http://www.txstock.com/
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:10:10 -0500
From: "Barry Chalofsky" Barry.Chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us
To: jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx.com
Cc: "Brian McLendon" Brian.McLendon@dep.state.nj.us,
"Charles Maack" Charles.Maack@dep.state.nj.us,
"Greg Schussler" Greg.Schussler@dep.state.nj.us,
"James Hamilton" James.Hamilton@dep.state.nj.us
Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan)
Mr. Hogan,
You clearly have a number of concerns. Please be assured that the =
Department shares many of your concerns and is taking steps to work with =
Monmouth Racetrack on resolving these issues. There are clearly problems =
with the stabling of horses at the race track and contamination of the =
nearby waterway. Many of these issues are due to the location of =
facilities on the site. There are no direct threats to human health since =
the waterway is not used for contact recreation nevertheless we are going =
to work to resolve the pollution issues. Given the structural nature of =
some of the problems it may take some time to resolve some of these =
concerns. Thank you for your concern.
Barry Chalofsky, P.P.
Chief, Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control
NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:27:46 -0500 From: "James Hogan" jhogan@xxxxxxxxxxxx.com Reply-To: jhogan@xxxxxxxx.com Sender: jim98bata@xxxxxxxx.com To: "Barry Chalofsky" Barry.Chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan) Cc: "Brian McLendon" Brian.McLendon@dep.state.nj.us, "Charles Maack" Charles.Maack@dep.state.nj.us, "Greg Schussler" Greg.Schussler@dep.state.nj.us, "James Hamilton" James.Hamilton@dep.state.nj.us, droach@ci.long-branch.nj.us, mmeddis@co.monmouth.nj.us, Drina.Kostrencic@doh.state.nj.us, James.Brownlee@doh.state.nj.us, Loel.Muetter@doh.state.nj.us, Pamela.Beasley@doh.state.nj.us, "rjkmedia@aol.com" rjkmedia@aol.com Barry, Just following up on this issue to ensure that over the past two months, since your last email, some progress has been made or some actions have been taken so that the signs warning of a threat to human health since July 2006, as posted by the Long Branch Health Department, can be removed from Branchport Park in Long Branch NJ. I also made note of this flyer: http://ci.long-branch.nj.us/docs/Health_pet_waste_flyer.pdf which was available for me to see when I recently re-registered and re-licensed my dog. Please provide more information on the consequences, if any, of me disposing of animal waste in the river as that would be a convinient route for me as I routinely walk my dog near the river and would certainly like to take advantage of the free and easy disposal of my dogs waste into the river if possible. Thank you to the DEP for taking the time and commitment to resolving the pollution problem and organzing, at the tax payer's expense, the Municipal Stormwater Regulation Program to further address the issues. -- James Hogan http://www.txstock.com/
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:50:39 -0500
From: "Bruce Friedman" Bruce.Friedman@dep.state.nj.us
To: jhogan@xxxxxxxxxxxx.com
Cc: "Barry Chalofsky" Barry.Chalofsky@dep.state.nj.us,
"Brian McLendon" Brian.McLendon@dep.state.nj.us,
"Ed Frankel" Ed.Frankel@dep.state.nj.us
Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Feedback to NJDHSS (Hogan)
Mr. Hogan -=20
=20
Barry Chalofsky has asked me to respond to your latest inquiry directly. =
The Department continues to meet with Monmouth County Race Track on a =
regular basis to find a long term solutions to the problems associated =
with horse boarding at that facility and proper manure management. We are =
encouraged by the progress and believe that we will ultimately be able to =
negotiate capital improvements to mitigate the pollution issues and =
improve water quality in the receiving water body. However, as previously =
stated, since the solutions require capital building projects, you may not =
see results right away, but that does not mean we do not share your =
concerns. Signs posted by the Long Branch Health Department will be =
removed from Branchport Park as soon as water quality monitoring shows =
consistently low levels of bacteria in the water (below 200 colonies/liter)=
. Unfortunately we are not at that point yet.
=20
Regarding your additional questions on pet waste, we are encouraged that =
you received the Pet Waste brochure when you renewed your pet license. It =
indicates that Lang Branch is doing what is required under their Municipal =
Stormwater NJPDES permit and that residents like yourself, are taking the =
time to read it. You should follow the advice in the brochure and either =
dispose of your pet's solid waste in the trash or flush the unwrapped =
waste down the toilet. While we currently have problems in Branchbrook =
Creek as outlined above, throwing your pet's solid waste directly into the =
water body would exacerbate the water quality problem and would be in =
violation of Long Branch's Pet Waste Ordinance.
=20
We appreciate your concerns over the State's water quality and please be =
assured that we are doing whatever we can to ensure that New Jersey's =
residents have clean and plentiful water.
=20
Bruce Friedman, Supervisor
Municipal / General Stormwater Permitting Unit
Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Bruce.Friedman@DEP.State.NJ.US
(609) 633-7021 Fax (609) 984-2147
In case you're still reading.... again, it's April 11, 2008 - those same signs still are posted in the park, Monmouth Park hasn't paid any fines, no individuals have been held accountable for the pollution, and we the tax payers of NJ continue to pay the DEP to monitor the water quality, but do nothing about the problems. Again, where is Mr. Environment, Frank Pallone to help us with the pollution, and/or save us some tax money?