I would like to comment on Examiner articles pertaining to the proposed middle school site and the Rock/IDI warehouse development plans in Upper Freehold Township. Initially, I thought I was alone in my belief that the "tone" and structure of these articles was somewhat off base, but having spoken with several areas residents, I learned this was not the case.

The July 20 "Borough holds up U.F.'s new middle school project" and the July 27 "Public not pleased with new middle school delay" depict Allentown Borough as the "bad guy." The borough had nothing to do with creating the problem at hand. This fact seems to have been lost to the media. The public (and the press) must hold the regional school board accountable.

One article leads the reader to believe that the middle school referendum passed and then pesticides were discovered on the proposed school site. This seems to be an ongoing theme, but it has already been documented that the school board knew of the contamination beforehand.

The articles suggest that borough officials have done everything in order to block the construction of the new middle school. To my knowledge, the borough has no jurisdiction regarding the location of the middle (or any other) school. Factors such as state planning and legislation enter into the equation. In reality, why should borough officials support this construction? Public officials must act in a manner that promotes public safety. Is it so wrong that they are speaking out against building on the proposed site? The land is contaminated and that fact will not change.

Some Upper Freehold officials have decried the building of the school on contaminated land, but it appears that, in the view of the press, borough officials should not be afforded the same rights.

Much effort and borough taxpayer expense went into obtaining a village designation. Regardless of the legal issues involved, extending the borough's village designation to a contaminated site (and to a township that has no regard for Allentown's borders) would be nothing short of an impeachable act. Despite that, how would the designation jump over the Four Seasons development and Byron Johnson Park without including them in the designation?

Although implied otherwise, Allentown officials expressed their opposition to the Rock/IDI warehouse development plan long before they became aware of the proposed middle school site contamination.

To date, no one has indicated the cost of liability insurance for the contaminated site. This taxpayer-funded cost will go on forever. Still unanswered: What other sites did the school board consider for the new middle school and why did the board dismiss them as nonviable? Will area Realtors be required to inform prospective home buyers that the middle school grounds are contaminated? Perhaps the school board or NJDEP [New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection] will create an insert for Realtor sales packages (at taxpayer expense). Included, of course, would be a note that the board took out liability insurance (again, at taxpayer expense) just in case.

While I in no way absolve the school board of their deceitful actions, the public at large is partially to blame for this mess. Prior to the ballot, did anyone who supported the referendum ever question the school board as to the viability of the proposed middle school site?

The fact remains: other viable sites exist. Officials must step up to the plate - before it is too late.

Wayne R. Smith

Allentown