Pose golf course question as referendum in November

Like other Old Bridge homeowners, I received my 2003 third- and fourth-quarter tax bill, and although I expected an increase, I was not prepared for it to be as harsh as it is.

To add insult to injury, we were put on notice that a qualified architect will be enlisted to design the Old Bridge golf course master plan.

I wish to refer to this as a master plan to fleece the taxpayers of Old Bridge. Bonding $8-$12 million to invest in building a golf course will only result in greater tax increases. This is one sheep that will not be sheared without a fight.

At a Township Council meeting in June, the council tabled a request to bond $8 million for this golf course. The township has already spent $55,000 for consultants to speculate on how much revenue will be generated. When I asked how much revenue we will receive for our $8-million investment, I was told the revenue will be astronomical. Not a bad answer for $55,000.

I subsequently requested every council member to add the question of bonding for this golf course as a referendum question. It appears the council does not want the people of Old Bridge to have a say. When the people are left out of such an expensive investment, I can only presume that there are ulterior motives. I ask the question — Who will actually be the beneficiaries of such a risky undertaking?

This golf course project is being justified as a business that will generate astronomical revenue to lead us to the future. In business there is risk, and in the golf business there is big risk.

Government does not belong in the golf business. Members of this council have gone on record as stating that government pays a lot more than private industry for its projects. However, this is basically the same council that voted to start condemnation proceedings on the home of a 91-year-old woman so that it can build an 18-hole golf course instead of a nine-hole golf course.

I am not against a golf course. I am against paying to have it built with taxpayer dollars. Lease the land. Let someone else build and run it. Let someone else risk their $8 million.

It is my intention to circulate a petition to have the question of investing $8 million posed as a referendum on the ballot in November. If the people of Old Bridge want to make an investment of this magnitude, so be it.

I again request that the council discuss the referendum question at its next meeting and consider placing it on the ballot for the people of Old Bridge.

Dominic F. Cicio

Old Bridge