In response to a recent letter on the planned expansion by the Navesink House which suggested "there is some sort of prejudice toward senior citizens in Red Bank," nothing is further from the truth. In a recent article in a local newspaper, Mayor Ed McKenna was quoted as saying, "Red Bank has done its fair share for senior citizens," citing the number of senior citizen facilities within the borough. Mr. mayor, Red Bank has done more than its fair share.

We have five senior associated facilities. This includes a senior community center that’s open to all qualified residents free of charge. And it is harder to find a broader expression of that commitment to those on fixed incomes than the borough’s rent stabilization guidelines. This benefit allows seniors to maintain dignity through an affordable lifestyle throughout the borough. In spite of its limited size — 1.7 square miles — and resources, Red Bank is an exemplary model of a community that takes care of its seniors.

The Zoning Board’s ruling on the variance requested was not frivolous, but the right decision based on hours of testimony and review covering nine months of deliberations. The result was a unanimous decision by the board that the requested variance would currently not be in the best interest of the community. What is most noteworthy in that unanimous vote are the seniors that voted "nay," as well. I listened to one elderly gentleman who explained how he labored in his reasoning and how, in the final analysis, could not vote in favor of the expansion.

By contrast, the Superior Court ruling in favor of The Navesink House (sanctioning the demolition of the adjacent affordable housing to accommodate a new, luxury wing, senior housing unit) is not in the best interest of the community. The court ruling took a general notion concerning senior facilities, "...inherently beneficial use," and erroneously applied it to a specific community. Red Bank has currently reached that point where those perceived "inherent benefits" do not apply as realized by the Zoning Board’s decision.

The board’s decision was a balanced assessment and presented a greater truth and understanding of the internal dynamics of the community. The need of The Navesink House to maintain its competitive edge in the marketplace, the reason given to the board for its proposed expansion, in other words, bottom line profits, cannot be a greater consideration to the community than the community as a whole. It seems the court made its decision without full consideration. And since nothing has changed within the community, the Zoning Board’s ruling is as true now as it was before, making Red Bank’s appeal of the ruling correct.

That brings us full circle, beyond the local level, to the real issue, to the state level, to the doorstep of the existing Gables apartment building (which, by the way, is in fine condition), where some seniors, on fixed incomes, are currently living because they cannot afford to move into The Navesink House’s proposed luxury units once their building is demolished. Will their plight be an "inherently beneficial" outcome to the community? How is it we evict one group of seniors to make room for another?

Finally, those orchestrated letter-writing campaigns pressuring local politicians recently reached their lowest point by using a popular ploy of citing faith-based organizations among the town’s targets of discrimination.

A real cheap shot.

I am ashamed for the people who wrote it and in the context it was used. Hopefully it is only a ploy. Otherwise, they would believe the same distorted logic that some do in the Middle East — that the United States is just using Osama bin Laden as an excuse to destroy Islam.

Robert Sudano

Red Bank