The Township Committee is about to present another budget. That translates into: they tell you how they are spending your money. And, of course, they can, because some of you elected them. It will look very nice, and your committee will pass it with precious little discussion.

The result is not substantive talk about how they as a committee save our residents added tax dollars, but about how do we sell residents on the idea of spending on land purchases (we really don't need) and make it sound like we are saving them money? Just remember that county and state taxes are also paid by us.

Let's just do a little math on last year's 20-year bonding of $10 million in debt, some of which is from our school land purchase. At an interest paid of 4 percent, we and our kids will have paid back $18 million. Not much in the larger picture. We have a surplus that comes from the interest on school taxes not transferred to the school. We should be reducing debt with that money, not spending it.

Let's get some clean ratables, you say? Oh, how about the new idea of changing the zoning so we can get in huge ratables from low-impact warehouse space (currently under consideration)? The problem is: one, you are changing an entire portion of our current zoning plan to accommodate one applicant. Two, the warehouse space may rent in 10 or 15 years and we may get tax money from it then. We have one complex in Millstone now about 10 years old and still not fully complete. But why look at the current competition in neighboring towns, closer to very adequate access to major roadways, where empty space is in excess? Where would you go if you were a business owner - to a town that embraces business and has the infrastructure to accommodate it, or one that trashes every opportunity (unless it is their idea)?

Now, we should mention the zone change increases density, because the applicant could not live with our plan. Oh, did you know this was an Economic Development Committee idea to change the zone, or was it the Planning Board? Just in case there is a backlash from the community. Some changes are good; not this one. It has the lowest producing tax ratable per square foot and increases density with minimal if any benefit to the community, based on a potential 10-year build-out. However, a high-per-square-foot, low-community-impact ratable is being stalled in a current zoning board process because the applicant is not in with the "in crowd." The health department controls anything a veterinary clinic does which might create concern. Stop the insanity! If you ask the tax assessor, he will tell you medical-type facilities are assessed at $130 to $140 per square foot, and flex or warehouse facilities are assessed at $30 to $50 per square foot. Wake up, Millstone!

Why is no one doing anything about this foolishness? Well, people do try, but the truth is, you are the culprit if you sit home and ask what good it does to vote, they only do what they want anyway. If you vote, you will have an impact.

There are still courageous people who speak out about the truth. Just look at our recent school board election: 900 or so total votes of a possible 6,000 for a board which controls 75 percent of your taxes. Wake up, Millstone! The top vote-getter, Mr. [Tom] Foley, wanted to be the board president, asked residents who thought he had good ideas like getting the state under the gun to do something about school funding methods. The rest of the board methodically made personal attacks on him publicly during the reorganization meeting because they received e-mails from residents at their personal e-mail address. It was a disgusting display, and it is why the "in crowd" concept is in control of our tax dollars, and you are the only solution to the problem. "Top vote-getter does not back down" should be the headline, as Mr. Foley is a true servant of our interest. I do not speak for him, but I am confident I could give you his personal e-mail address and he would make a point of thanking me without a public personal attack.

Frank Cotter

Millstone