LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Feb. 21
By:
One-sided view lets readers down
To the editor:
I advertise through two businesses on a regular basis Princeton International Properties Inc. and P.J.’s Pancake House. Your paper has run a survey in which P.J.’s has been named the Best Pancake House in Central Jersey for all the years that there has been a survey and by an extremely wide margin. So I write this letter with great difficulty.
You have let your readers down with a one-sided view of the current situation regarding the garage-apartment complex. Your distortion of the news is wishful thinking. Most townspeople and businesses are against this plan. You quote the three people who are for it but not the dozens who are against it and the others too afraid to speak.
Mayor Reed’s demeaning remarks about the mom-and-pop stores are false. We have competed successfully for decades against all competition as long as we had a central parking area like Wal-Mart and Home Depot. They don’t have garages; neither does Lowe’s. Why? Because surface parking is a boon to shoppers.
The utter destruction will take place when the second parking lot by the Record Exchange is torn down and replaced by apartments. Businesspeople and townspeople practically begged Mayor Reed to stop at a meeting held at Princeton University. At that same meeting, Mr. Koontz, head of the Democratic Party, screamed at us and said we were nothing more than publicity-seekers.
There is no attempt by your paper to fairly represent all groups who are negatively affected, i.e. blacks, Latinos, the poor, the lower middle class, the Sept. 11 heroes firemen and policemen, the current renters, the taxpayers, etc.
Why don’t you fight for your constituency, i.e., the people and small businesses that support you with advertising dollars versus the chain stores, which rarely appear in your newspaper and are never at any of the town meetings? Poor business and poor ethics.
The use of a thin questionable statute to avoid a public vote is transparent and embarrassing. Redevelopment funds are meant for poorer towns so that they can get a piece of the pie, not for rich towns to build expensive apartment complexes and drive those less fortunate away.
Why don’t you question Princeton University’s role in this project? Are the apartments being built for them? No ordinary person can afford the $3,000 a month rental.
Did you ever go to PSE&G and ask them about the environmental problems we will encounter later?
Newspapers used to be muckrakers, championing the people’s causes. Why didn’t you spend more time talking with the whole merchant community and more of the regular townspeople? How could you write an honest editorial without doing so? A neutral stance of favoring a referendum would, at least, have been a fair stance for this massive project.
Your reporting and editorials are an abrogation of your responsibility and are not in the best tradition of your fine newspaper.
Herb Tuchman
Owner, P.J.’s Pancake House
President, Princeton Int’l Properties Inc.
Member, Concerned Citizens of Princeton Inc.
Princeton
‘Myths’ look more like the reality
To the editor:
It has been suggested that those who oppose the downtown development plan are the victims of certain "myths."
Myth 1. The massive buildings in the development will ruin the small-town character of the town even though some of the buildings there already rise to five stories. What is ignored it the fact that quantity destroys quality. The several current buildings do block out sunlight as the storekeepers on Spring Street can confirm. However, they still are sparse enough not to obliterate the openness of the sky. Add a few more and Spring and Witherspoon streets will appear as dark alleys on winter days.
Myth 2. The development will encourage the building of many more tall buildings. Indeed. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, as I read some time ago, did vote to allow buildings on Nassau Street to increase their heights.
Myth 3. The development will increase the borough property owners’ taxes. Indeed. The promised return of $450,000 from the garage is the equivalent of what was collected from the Park & Shop and other outdoor lots. The payments on the garage construction bond will have a first claim on this money, leaving us most likely with a large hole in our pockets (and, hopefully, not in the ground as well).
Myth 4. The local merchants will be hurt by the absence of the outdoor lots and the disruption caused by the construction. Indeed. A number of our old-time beloved stores cannot wait for several years to make up for current lost revenue. Mayor Reed was quoted in the Daily Princetonian as favoring upscale stores to the current mom-and-pop stores, which cannot compete.
Myth 5. The opponents claim that the state redevelopment law used by the borough requires that the area to be redeveloped is "blighted." This word was removed from the law. Whether or not this word was removed (undoubtedly at the urging of developers) from the law, the original intent of this law was to facilitate construction in inner-city blighted areas. It was not meant to be applied to prosperous communities like Princeton, whose citizenry prides itself on its "social conscience."
The vision of the Borough Council members (except for Roger Martindell) is of Princeton as a Forest Hills or the "renewed" (ruined) charming Morristown, now another "all-American town." Chain stores, apartment buildings galore and more and more automobiles will be its main "attractions."
Money is the spur behind this project. All the rest is mythmaking.
Miriam Yevick
Pelham Street
Princeton
Club’s project to aid Afghan chldren
To the editor:
The Interact Club (junior Rotary) at Princeton High School is participating in the BluePack Project, an initiative to provide 200,000 specially made backpacks filled with basic school and hygiene supplies to Afghan children. The BluePack Project was created by the Academy for Educational Development.
Each BluePack costs $10. A portion of the cost will go to teacher training and other initiatives to help rebuild Afghanistan’s capacity to educate its children.
Currently in Afghanistan, few schools are intact and education supplies are virtually nonexistent. According to UNICEF, only about one-third of all school-aged children in Afghanistan are in school.
The BluePack Project will produce and distribute the blue backpack directly to students. AED’s goal is to raise a total of $2 million, as much as possible of this by March 8, when the new year begins and students go back to school. Each backpack contains basic school supplies such as pens and notebooks, chalk and a chalkboard.
In order to help AED buy these backpacks, Interact is holding a silent auction Feb. 26 from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Davis Conference Room at Princeton High School.
For those who are unfamiliar with how a silent auction works, each person writes his or her name and the price he or she is willing to pay for an item. People may continue bidding for items until 8:30 p.m.
Please come and support the endeavors of many Princeton High School students. If you would like to make a donation of an item for the auction, bring it to the main office at Princeton High School by Monday. We would also appreciate monetary donations. Checks may be made out to Interact PHS and can be delivered to the high school.
This should be a fun event. We already have some wonderful gifts lined up such as dance classes, a DVD player, a bread basket and more.
Musical entertainment will be provided by Rhythm Royale of Princeton High.
Hope to see you Feb. 26.
Tali Amir
Miranda Robertson
Co-Presidents, Interact
Princeton High School
Moore Street
Princeton
Board, superintendent must define their roles
To the editor:
The West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education is responsible for ensuring the superintendent and its administration develop an educational program to achieve the district’s mission. Unfortunately, the current board has often sought to manage, as opposed to govern, the district, thereby negating the knowledge of the professionals hired to run our district. By becoming involved in the daily operations of the district, the board has also lost its ability to focus on long-term planning. Consequently, its decisions primarily address immediate concerns, and are not part of a plan to address the long-term challenges facing the district. Due to concerns about its decision-making process, I am seeking a position on the Board of Education.
The board and the superintendent have lost confidence in each other. As a result, the board has become embroiled in the daily management of the district rendering it unable to focus on the long-term challenges presented by the growth within our communities, community involvement and improving the processes by which the district provides its services. However, with the retirement of the superintendent in June, the board has the opportunity to create a better relationship with the new superintendent and their administration.
The most important decision of the upcoming board is its selection of a superintendent. A superintendent must be found who has the experience necessary to oversee a district the size and quality of ours, will command our respect and is both a good communicator and listener. Once such an individual is hired, the board must step aside and allow this individual and its administration to run the affairs of the district. At the same time, the board must hold the new superintendent accountable, on an educational and fiscal basis, to the achievement of the district’s mission. By working together, the board and superintendent can be responsive to the desires of the community.
The board’s involvement in daily operations has limited its ability to do critical long-term planning. Without a comprehensive plan to address future growth in enrollment, the board is continually forced to address crowding issues by redistricting in small increments. Similarly, it must prioritize capital projects for inclusion in the budget during its development, absent a long-term plan to address the district’s plant and equipment needs. Absent long-term planning, decisions in the best interest of the district may not be taken, resulting in future problems and costs.
In addressing the long-term issues confronting the district, there are no easy answers, and if not handled appropriately, these issues can polarize our community. The board, with guidance from its administration, must make decisions on the issues that are in the best interests of all of the students and residents of the district. It is only decisions taken on such basis that will be respected by the community and inspire trust in the board. The best decision may be politically unpopular, but the board must stand above politics as it holds in its trust the education of our children and the ability to unite or divide our communities.
Michael Newman
Hamilton Drive
West Windsor
Where are the flags supporting a war?
To the editor:
Try to imagine a mother and father scared to death in their apartment as they try to protect their families as the bombs begin to fall in Iraq. Surely there must be another way to solve this problem. This was the basic message of the worldwide protests that will continue as long as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair continue their passionate march toward war.
We do not see American flags flying supporting this war as we did after Sept. 11. In an effort to persuade the public, the administration is distorting the truth with weak "intelligence" and attempting to link Iraq and al Qaeda when our own CIA says there is no connection. Mr. President, please respect our heroes who died on Sept. 11 and not wage war in their name.
Now that the UN has a peaceful plan for Iraq, the administration presses for war. Peace is not only up to Saddam Hussein; it is also up to us. We say we want a peaceful solution but we are struggling to end inspections and prevent the UN from doing what we agreed it should do. I am ashamed to hear our government beg and plead with other nations to approve a war in Iraq when a peaceful solution may be possible. What is wrong with letting the inspections proceed now that Iraq is surrounded by foreign troops and is clearly no threat to anyone? Why have we not focused on the War on Terrorism for the last year and a half with the same intensity as we have gone after Iraq? If we had, perhaps al Qaeda would have been destroyed and we would not have to worry about them receiving weapons of mass destruction from any rogue nation.
The nations objecting to our approach are our friends and, as friends, they are advising us that there is another path. Now we are criticizing them because they will not agree with our approach for an immediate war. Many of the nations that have begrudgingly agreed with the U.S. position, in defiance of their own people’s wishes, will receive large aid packages. Are we buying support?
It is very frustrating that we can not write to our representatives, since they surrendered their right to object to this war before the November 2002 election. I do acknowledge Rep. Holt and Sen. Corzine for voting against the resolution authorizing President Bush to wage war. I am grateful to the millions all over the world who have been demonstrating and expressing an alternative approach to war, including many of our friends in the UN. I also want to complement those New York City policemen with whom I interacted in the Feb. 15 demonstration. They were highly professional and understanding.
In the two years of the Bush Administration, we have become an arrogant and belligerent nation with the attitude "might makes right" while we have insulted our friends with our unilateral ideas. Let’s return to world leadership and work with our friends to find a peaceful resolution to the many crises in the world.
Robert J. Farrauto
Lavender Drive
South Brunswick
Star performer dimmed by state budget cut
To the editor:
Reports indicate that the McGreevey administration is poised to cut the funding to a very worthwhile program from Advanced Materials via Immiscible Polymer Processing. Researchers at AMIPP have just completed work building a bridge over the Mullica River. The building material of the bridge is a blend of recycled materials. The 56-foot bridge is strong, durable, light and inexpensive. It could be a prototype for building and/or replacing New Jersey bridges as well as such infrastructure in other states.
Yet by July, AMIPP and its researchers could be victims of funding cutback decisions to balance the state budget.
The decision seems pennywise and pound-foolish because AMIPP is scheduled to be self-sufficient at the end of three more years of getting its funding from the New Jersey Commission of Science and Technology. In addition, AMIPP brings in another $1.5 million in federal grants and some industrial money. NJCST’s goal is to bring technology, jobs and investment to New Jersey. In this regard AMIPP is a star performer whose funding should continue until it can fulfill its mission in the Rutgers University School of Engineering research center and become a valuable independent player in the economy of New Jersey.
Elise Murray
Cherrybrook Drive
Montgomery

