LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Jan. 14
By:
Take a new look at PHS ‘wish’ list
To the editor:
Plans for the redesign of Princeton High School were based in part on a wish list developed by the community. Focus groups assembled. My children sixth-graders at the time and I were asked to attend and answered "what would you like to see in a new school" and "what would be really cool." At no time did anyone ask what would you be willing to give up, what would you trade for those "wishes."
With the bond referendum passed, it seemed a legitimate approach, but when the designs were unveiled, some facilities, like athletic fields, were missing or reduced, some "wishes," like new science labs and air-conditioned classrooms, could not be considered. Then the bids came in too high and the project had to be pared down. Results were publicized last Tuesday.
The magical paring by the architects saves $14 million, shaves a year off construction time and moves the new gymnasium to space not occupied by any current or planned structure, all without losing a parking spot or dropping an athletic team. We also retain, from the original wish list, a courtyard with outdoor performing space and a sculpture garden in addition to a black box theatre with coat room and concession stand. How did they do it?
Two soccer fields are being squeezed on the area formerly used for the discus throw and shot put, an area that up until now was deemed unsuitable (because it’s the retention basin for the entire PHS site) for even one above-water soccer field. Tennis will go "somewhere" and let’s hope so after the boys team won the state tournament this year. On one plan option, the tennis courts hug the slope of the embankment near the football field and overlap the field hockey field.
My children will be entering PHS as freshmen this fall and would take back their "wish" for a pool (the pool is going in) to get the fields back. Playing fields for most sports will be out of commission during the scheduled construction and many will only reappear afterward as child-sized practice areas. There won’t be many Princeton High grads taking advantage of Title IX if they can’t learn to play the length and width of a regulation field. High schools that place students in competitive colleges pay attention to trends in athletic policies at both the peer level and the next. So should ours.
Thirty-eight million dollars will seem like a lot spent on a few luxuries. I personally think of the old theater, redolent of productions past, as an anchor grounding the school in tradition and pride. Perhaps it can be refurbished, rather than the technology dependent science labs. I grew up in the legitimate theatre business and, trust me, special effects are for Hollywood. Plus, theatres can be borrowed in this town, but fields and gyms can’t; ask any youth sports director. And as we know from Hillier’s downtown project, libraries can be located above ground level, so how about above the new gym rather than in the beautiful old theatre? Maybe there is space for everything.
Ashley Formento
Hamilton Avenue
Princeton
Eagle sighting should stop bypass
To the editor:
My e-mail of Oct. 31, 2002 was mentioned in your wonderful article regarding the eagles at Lake Carnegie (The Packet, Jan. 3). Here is my original e-mail that Mr. Hollister received:
For the past year I have been observing what appeared to be several immature eagles along the towpath at Lake Carnegie. This morning at 11:30, I observed a pair of Bald Eagles between Route 27 and Lake Carnegie. I was able to look at one of the eagles very closely and know it was a Bald Eagle. This area is their nesting area!
How long has it taken nature to bring these eagles back to our area? And how much build-out of their habitat will they tolerate before moving on?
The Penns Neck/Millstone Bypass project will directly affect the area these eagles (along with the fabulous long-necked cormorants) live in. It seems obscene to destroy this very prized bit of real estate especially since the New Jersey Department of Transportation even suggested in its most recent report that a no-cost change to the traffic patterns might eliminate the traffic problems at Route 1.
It is unconscionable that we would even consider a multi-million-dollar project like this one without first trying some (or all) the no-build alternatives listed in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Karyn Milner
Nassau Street
Princeton
Bigger isn’t better in downtown Princeton
To the editor:
I’ve lived in the township for over 40 years and in New Jersey most of my life. Both my husband and our children grew up in the borough and township. I have served on the Traffic Safety Committee on two different occasions.
During these past weeks’ discussions and proposals regarding the current Princeton downtown development project, I have continued to ask myself the following questions:
Doesn’t the Borough Council’s proposed project appear to be a bit heavy with bigness big thinking, big bucks, big building of all sorts in a part of town and in an area and state where bigness seems to be already choking us to death with volume and velocity and pollution of one sort or another?
Is this what we, the citizens, really want in Princeton? If it is not, then shouldn’t the residents have the right of an individual citizen vote on a referendum of this very important and large fiscal and social concept; and/or have the right of a local recall election of the present members of Borough Council?
Don’t we really want our peace and our small shops (not chain stores) and safe walking and safe biking for our residents and visitors, including our young people and seniors? (Oh yes, we have our little boutiques and "grandma" shops and ice cream stores, but other towns of our current size and accessibility do, too.)
If this apparently mega- and manic idea of Borough Council and friends is undertaken, won’t we eventually end up as another inaccessible Morristown or New Brunswick or Somerville? (And who goes into these once historical towns now, unless they really have to?)
Instead, shouldn’t we, and our Princeton Regional Planning Board, be working for National Landmark Designation in the center of our town; and vehicles of over 5 tons off of our local road systems and onto state and federal loop-highways out of our town? (Why do you think people continue to visit and live in New England towns the original "home" of loop-roads and of connecting corridor highways outside of their towns?)
Instead, shouldn’t we in Princeton also be working for keeping the so-called Millstone Bypass out of town (if we could only have a desperately needed north-south corridor loop-highway west of Route 287/206 linking it with Route 287 and thence Routes 78 and 80, all in northern New Jersey); along with diversion of heavy vehicles out of town and off Route 206 with the apparently very overdue building of a state or federal loop-highway (shades of the now-deceased Route 92), running north-south just west of here, connecting Routes 78 and 80 in the north with Route 95 and 295 in central New Jersey that is between Routes 78 and 80 in the north (with their present connection to Route 287), to Routes 95 and 295 in our west (with their present connection to Route 195 just south of here, thus also keeping much heavy vehicle traffic off Route 1)? And even right now, isn’t continuing to ever-widen Route 206 just south of Somerville and Hillsborough already a disaster?
Presently, then, probably two basic questions remain about our town’s present and future:
Isn’t Princeton still a unique walking and biking town?
Wouldn’t bigness and additional height and "more accessibility" keep it that way?
Mary Farrar Bonotto
Clover Lane
Princeton
Bring state laws out of dark ages
To the editor:
As one of scores of boys sexually abused as a student at the American Boychoir, I filed a lawsuit against the school. Last week my case against the school was dismissed. In his ruling the judge wrote:
"…this court is constrained to hold that (New Jersey’s Charitable Immunities) Act insulates charitable organizations from liability for any degree of tortuous conduct no matter how flagrant that conduct may be. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ contentions that employees and agents of the American Boychoir School acted willfully, wantonly, recklessly, indifferently even criminally do not eviscerate the School’s legal protection."
I am stunned by the judge’s ruling. How could it be that the American Boychoir is not responsible for the willful, wanton, reckless, indifferent and even criminal behavior of its employees? Scores of children name more than a dozen different employees of the American Boychoir as abusers over a period of decades. How could the boychoir not be held responsible?
According to Judge Sabatino, the state’s Charitable Immunities Act relieves the boychoir from a legal obligation to protect its students. As far as his interpretation of New Jersey’s law is concerned the school can allow children to be starved, raped and tortured without being held accountable.
Parents of students enrolled at the boychoir count on the school to protect children in their charge. However, when someone is hurt while in its care, the school claims that it is not responsible by declaring that it is immune from prosecution.
The school can and did hire pedophiles for years and years; more than a dozen staff members have been named as abusers by students who attended the school in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. The school has consistently neglected to oversee the activities of students as recently as 1999, the school was involved in a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by a student attending the school in recent years. Several students have talked about "the institutionalized sexual environment" of the school in the early 1990s. All of this was reported by The New York Times last April. Yet the state’s Charitable Immunities Act provides the school with carte blanche to allow any wrongdoing or abuse on its campus.
Institutions covered by the Charitable Immunities Act can promise parents that children in their care will be safe, but how can parents be guaranteed their children will be safe when organizations like the boychoir cannot and will not be held accountable?
Surely, it is time to change New Jersey’s law and to rid the state of the Charitable Immunities Act. It is time to bring the laws out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. I urge you to write your state legislator. Victims ought not be revictimized by unfair laws that prevent them from redress.
John Hardwicke
Carea Road
White Hall, Md.
In-county tuition saves student money
To the editor:
When recently signing up for classes at Mercer County Community College, I was happily surprised when I was informed that, as a Plainsboro resident, I was eligible for reduced tuition rates.
Thanks to a policy introduced by Bill Baroni, chairman of the college’s Board of Trustees, Plainsboro residents are now eligible to receive in-county tuition rates at the college.
I personally saved $85 this semester due to the reduced tuition rates for Plainsboro residents. In these difficult economic times, encouraging residents to pursue higher educational opportunities is a terrific idea. Bill Baroni’s work on behalf of the residents of Plainsboro deserves all of our applause.
Kevin Fitzgerald
Knox Court
Plainsboro
End ‘pay to play’ through legislation
To the editor:
Recently, there has been heightened awareness over the correlation between political campaign contributions and the awarding of government contracts. This practice, known as "pay to play," undercuts confidence in government and ultimately, raises the cost of government for all New Jersey taxpayers. Clearly, large campaign contributions’ costs are recovered through the prices paid under the contracts. Now is the time to enact legislation to curb "pay to play."
Since 2001, I have worked with New Jersey Common Cause to champion reform. In June 2002, the Senate passed legislation I sponsored (S-978) which would sever the link between government contracts and political contributions. This measure would limit and, in specific instances, ban contributions from professionals, contractors and other service providers. In so doing, it will help to restore the integrity and the cost-effectiveness of the public contracting process.
Unfortunately, my legislation has stalled in the General Assembly. In a bold procedural move, the sponsor of this measure in the Assembly, Assemblyman Tom Kean, was able to get this bill relieved from the committee which had not acted on it for nearly a year. It is now poised for a vote by the full Assembly.
A broad coalition of groups seeking government reform including labor unions, environmental and senior organizations, have called on lawmakers from both parties to support enactment of my legislation to end the abuse of "pay to play."
New Jersey is experiencing unprecedented economic difficulties. It has never been more important to ensure that government operates efficiently and honestly. The taxpayers of this state deserve no less. Contracts must be awarded on competitive merit, not on the basis of "pay to play."
Initiatives to ban "pay to play" at the local level are gaining momentum. Ordinances have passed in Washington Township and Hopewell Township and are being advocated in South Brunswick. Sadly, in Hamilton Township, an ordinance banning "pay to play" was rescinded by the current council.
Pending Assembly action, I proposed adding "pay to play" amendments to the governor’s tobacco securitization legislation and the legislation aiding municipal aggregation for energy purchases. Additionally, I am seeking "pay to play" provisions in the "Fix DMV" bill.
While these are steps in the right direction, more than a piecemeal approach is necessary. "Pay to play" is pervasive and undermines confidence in the objectivity and integrity of government. It must be eliminated. S-978 will indeed change the way business is conducted at the State House. It will restore openness and fairness in the awarding of contracts and save tax dollars.
I urge you to contact Assembly Speaker Albio Sires, (609) 297-7065, and ask that he post this legislation for a vote immediately.
Peter A. Inverso
Senator, 14th District
Nottingham Way
Hamilton

