The editorial "Slapped silly" I found regrettable. It demeans the efforts made by a group of residents who reacted to a development plan proposed by a big developer. Their involvement has resulted in the Court's enforcing covenants which were already in place and which the developer was ignoring.To start with, there exists a covenant on the township land that protected it from private development and stated that it should remain for public use only. To make his development bigger the developer wanted to incorporate this protected land into his development. When the proposed private use of the township land was challenged by residents, the court ruled that the covenant which protected the township land must be enforced.
Accordingly, developer could not incorporate the Township land into his private development. Perhaps this was the beginning of what has been characterized by some residents as interfering in the process. However, in fact, it was done to protect the whole township from any missteps by the developer.
What is silly about asking the court for a ruling?
What is silly about acting to cause the enforcement of covenants?
What is silly about trying to protect the township park?
What is silly about individuals exercising their right of free speech and getting sued for it?
What is silly about individuals taking the time to contact their county and state representatives seeking advice and help in enforcement of government-imposed covenants?
What is silly about individuals who care about what is happening when the largest development plan to date is proposed for their township?
What is silly about being sued on baseless claims designed to intimidate?
What is silly is to do nothing now and complain after the fact.
Eileen C. Mallouk