The last part in this series will put the focus back on the issue that needs the most attention right now – those affected by the lack of response to flooding.

The July 14 flood was scary. Whether you were waiting for a loved one to come home from work, frantically moving household items out of your basement, or checking in on friends and neighbors, the night and days that followed were filled with anxiety and stress.

After the Governor visited for yet another glossy “we are here for you” photo op, on a street almost no one even knew existed (no offense, Russo Place residents, I learned something new that day), what followed was… odd. A few days after the flood, the Township produced a working document regarding its Storm Damage Assessment.

Having a general interest in how bad the damage in Berkeley Heights was, I printed the report to review.

What initially caught my eye was a small, dead-end, single-lane street with approximately five homes, with over $200,000 allocated for repairs. So, I took a detour on my run to see it for myself. Damage, yes. Impassable or dangerous, no, not in my opinion.

My interest was piqued, so I took a deeper dive.

Over the course of six days, I spent multiple hours driving, walking, and running through streets and neighborhoods represented in the Township’s Damage Assessment Report. I took pictures and published a report that directly referenced the information provided by the Township in its assessment.

I also included streets, sidewalks, and driveway aprons that had visible damage, most of which were underwater, that were not included in the report. I noted the lack of clear criteria for determining why some areas were included for repairs and others were not.

What followed was an unnamed Township employee responding on behalf of the Township to a Facebook posting of my article, stating that the report was “conjecture” and “harmful to the community.”

I directly reached out to the Mayor, Council members, and the Township Administrator to identify the author of the post and to request an explanation regarding the comments. After 24 hours of no response, I resent my request.

The Township Administrator admitted she was behind the comments and offered to explain them, in person only. My experience with closed-door meetings is that things can, and often are, twisted, so I continued to request details in writing regarding the assertion that what I published was “conjecture” and how it was “harmful to the community.”

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Ms. Viana refused to put anything in writing, including any inaccuracies, despite multiple offers to correct anything that was not accurate.

Keyboard warriors do exist, and I am perturbed as well as disturbed when anyone, especially paid Township employees, is quick to cast judgment, make allegations to disparage community members, and then refuse to provide details or an explanation in writing.

Following this, we received documents from an OPRA request connected to the assessment and projected costs. Unfortunately, what we uncovered was more confusion, as the line items specified in the report do not align with the spreadsheet budget we received.

Without any insight or response from the Township, it’s difficult to understand the process or reasoning behind these projects.

Silence speaks volumes.

Email Exchange

Read All Articles Connected to the 07/14/2025 Flood “Emergency” Bond

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism