LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, May 30
By:
Positive campaign deserves praise
To the editor:
Democratic mayoral candidate Reed Gusciora should be commended for bringing some political life into this one-party town. I am also pleased that Joe O’Neill, who rose to council the old-fashioned way (by appointment), has been on the campaign trail as well. For once, the candidates have been forced to address the issues and meet with voters; Princeton Borough benefits greatly from this sort of discourse.
I happen to favor Reed, who, unlike Joe, has not served on the Planning Board or council. Reed can bring a new perspective to Borough Hall, particularly in light of all the development projects that have been approved in town. In any event, these two public servants deserve our praise for engaging in a positive campaign and I appreciate hearing from them.
Areta Sargentini
Lytle Street
Princeton
Gusciora offers fresh leadership
To the editor:
Borough citizens who worry over conflicts that might arise if our next mayor also holds a seat in the state Assembly would do well to eschew attack-ad rhetoric in favor of reasoned analysis.
The borough’s mayoral position, although it carries weighty responsibilities, is defined as part-time and is paid the nominal salary of around $12,000 per year. It follows that candidates not independently wealthy must have another job to provide a living wage.
Luckily, in Reed Gusciora, we have a candidate who is professionally committed to public service. If elected mayor, he will bring fresh leadership to the borough while continuing to represent our interests at the state level.
Anita Garoniak
Harris Road
Princeton
O’Neill has record of strong leadership
To the editor:
Under Joe O’Neill’s soft-bitten professorial exterior is a man who has an extraordinary record of community and academic leadership.
As chairman of the Princeton Regional Planning Board, he saved the Institute Woods by negotiating a 10-year moratorium on development with the board of trustees of the Institute for Advanced Studies. This gave the community enough time to raise the funds to buy the development rights to the property.
As a member of Princeton Borough Council since 2001, he has, with his colleagues, made the hard decisions about downtown redevelopment. He listens carefully to all sides, brings to bear his own knowledge and attempts to achieve consensus. And then makes up his mind.
In his academic career, as principal research scientist at ETS from 1988 to 1994, he directed a $10.3 million program involving 75 projects to improve leadership in North American churches and synagogues.
Prior to that, he was executive director of the Commission on the Future of Independent Higher Education in New Jersey, and previously chief executive officer of a national association of 130 independent colleges and universities. He was the founding president of Hudson County Community College.
This leadership experience will work to our benefit both as he leads the borough as mayor and in his dealings with Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary and Westminster Choir College of Rider University.
His financial expertise is demonstrated by the many grants he received and administered, including $3.4 million from the Lilly Endowment while he was at ETS. In addition, from 1972 to 1987, he obtained a total of $3 million (current dollars) from many of the top foundations in the country. He has also written numerous books and articles about financing higher education.
His natural instinct is to think through the long-term alternatives and the future consequences of current decisions. This was demonstrated in his work on the Planning Board, where it is extremely difficult to make changes once something is set.
It is his combination of leadership in both the public and higher-education sectors, financial acumen and thoughtful persuasiveness that will serve our borough well. I urge you to vote for him as Democratic candidate for mayor.
Niels H. Nielsen
Moore Street
Princeton
Borough can reap double value
To the editor:
I have recently seen a few letters to the editor from Princeton Borough residents who discount the ability and value of Reed Gusciora being mayor while also being our state assemblyman. I am very surprised by this, as I find most people in the borough to generally have a better sense of value than most.
By having Reed as our borough mayor, as well as our state assemblyman, we would be reaping a double value. If some borough residents enjoy paying more taxes and getting less than they could, perhaps they might refrain from voting June 3, so the rest of us can cash in on this deal.
Some would argue that performing one role diminishes the capacity to perform the other. This argument fails to recognize the vast synergies to be reaped by having one person perform both roles. Synergies are the very reason that companies merge they can do more things while also being more efficient. Technology ensures that we have better service when this happens. Cellphones and e-mail have expanded the capacity of our governmental employees to do more work, and to do it better.
In this time of governmental cutbacks, let us allow our government to modernize, so we are better served. I ask my fellow borough residents to leap into the 21st century and join me in recognizing and welcoming the valuable synergistic benefits being offered to us now.
Shawn Moore
Maclean Street
Princeton
Candidate suffers from selective memory
To the editor:
In a recent letter from Princeton Borough mayoral candidate Joe O’Neill, he bemoans the rising property taxes because of school renovations, the new library and downtown development.
Excuse me, but was it some other Joe O’Neill whose vote enabled the costly projects? Mr. O’Neill seems to suffer from selective memory.
Joel Pacheco
Jefferson Road
Princeton
Birds and deer should coexist
To the editor:
Tom and Margot Southerland’s letter (The Packet, May 20) is a much-needed warning about the disappearing New Jersey bird population. It’s truly deplorable that millions of birds have to die to satisfy our insatiable lust for millions of acres of asphalt and manicured lawns. The killing of birds by cars, cellphone towers, high-rise glass buildings, pesticides, worldwide fragmentation of forests and loss of habitat is truly a tragedy.
Then the letter takes an ugly turn. The Southerlands bring up the Institute Woods and what is happening to the deer there and throughout Princeton. All of a sudden, we stop seeing the word "killing." Rather, the deer are "culled." The Southerlands resort to a euphemism to avoid an honest description of the cruel slaughter being visited on the deer. The deer are either being shot or netted in groups. When they are netted, each deer watches its family members getting their heads bashed in, one by one, until its turn comes. The Humane Society witnessed this and called it gruesome and barbaric. Too bad the deer can’t read The Packet. It would have given the deer such relief to know that they, their mates and their companions aren’t being killed, but only "culled."
And what purpose has the slaughter of deer served? The Southerlands contend that the Institute Woods has gained a few acres of brush where some bird species may breed. However, the vast majority of the Institute Woods isn’t brush, but rather deep woods, where there is no understory. To save a few individuals of a bird species, another species living, warm-blooded mammals is being sacrificed.
Even if some ground-nesting birds do breed, the newborns are unlikely to survive for long, since there is so much human destruction as described by the Southerlands. Killing deer doesn’t get at the source of the problem, which is human indifference. It is disappointing that the Southerlands, who are well respected in the community, don’t have some constructive suggestions for meaningful change. But they must realize that it is hypocritical for them to talk about bird conservation when they support the killing of other wildlife.
Regrettably, our state has plenty of people who think of open space as a resource to be profitably traded away until it’s all gone, and of wildlife as a nuisance to be exterminated. These people are delighted to see bird lovers and deer lovers, who should be working together, at odds over a small remaining scrap of turf in the Institute Woods. All people who want to preserve wildlife should join forces to stem the powerful tide of suburban sprawl.
Princeton’s Environmental Commission spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours pushing the deer slaughter over the objections of half the township, in order to preserve a few bird nesting sites. During that time, all over New Jersey, millions of bird nests were destroyed so that thousands of acres could be paved or covered forever with asphalt.
Charles and Nancy Bowman
Oak Creek Road
East Windsor
Humans, not deer, are destroying habitat
To the editor:
We agree with most of the recent letter from Tom and Margot Southerland (The Packet, May 23). Uncontrolled human sprawl throughout New Jersey is the primary cause of the loss of all wildlife habitat. As long as the most densely populated state in the country continues to outdo itself by forcing wildlife from their traditional habitat and by further degrading our natural environment and resources, all species will suffer, including humans.
What we fail to understand is the Southerlands’ parting shot at deer, as if this species has not suffered enough from Princeton’s nasty brutality, especially from the politicians of Princeton Township and their loyal supporters. When deer used to visit our home before the recent annual massacres, we were always impressed by the number of birds of so many varieties that accompanied these deer. Our back yard looked like an absolute paradise. Now, we seldom, if ever, see deer, and, yes, we see far fewer birds.
While the Southerlands correctly blame rampant over-development in New Jersey as the primary cause for wildlife habitat loss, we do not believe that deer have contributed at all to the loss of bird habitat in Princeton. Aside from the invasive sprawl of humans in every direction, has anyone studied the impact of suburban pesticides on the loss of local birds?
The white tail deer has been native to this part of New Jersey for as long as there have been humans here to observe them and, yes, to kill them. Humans, not deer, are destroying wildlife habitat, as well as the rest of our environment, throughout this state at an alarming rate. Haven’t the deer suffered enough at the hands of those who make the decisions for us in Princeton Township, in Trenton and at Cook College? Now that so many deer have been so cruelly killed by Princeton Township government, isn’t it time to refrain from accusing them of causing every woe that presently besets us in the 21st century? The many deer that have been netted and bolted in the brain can no longer cause the Southerlands and their friends any harm. Isn’t it time to leave the deer alone for even a moment and to focus instead on all of the many, real problems that face us in this community today?
Frank and Virginia Wiener
Loomis Court
Princeton
Township destroying its image and history
To the editor:
I wonder why our beloved township feels the need to erect a mammoth new sign for Woodfield Reservation? As our roads crumble and no action is taken to improve them, how can the township justify using our tax dollars to pay for two signs that are not only unattractive but also unnecessary?
It seems that the township has gone on a sign-making frenzy since the inauguration of the Township Hall. When will this end?
Woodfield Reservation has always been a rustic trail system, however the new signs on The Great Road West and Drakes Corner Road make it look more like the McManors, which now surround it.
Why is our town destroying its countrified image and history?
Jason Fill
Drakes Corner Road
Princeton
Rocky Hill takes more than it gives
To the editor:
I am responding to comments made by Thomas Roshetar (The Packet, May 23) regarding the Rocky Hill park issue. Mr. Roshetar talked of the "unrestrained, explosive growth over the last 10 to 15 years," which culminates in a dire need for more playing fields in Montgomery. Mr. Roshetar goes on to say that most of the Rocky Hill residents do not want any playing fields in their town.
I have been involved in volunteer youth sports in Montgomery for over 20 years. For as long as I can remember, Rocky Hill children have been welcome to participate in a large menu of activities offered in Montgomery. Over the years, scores of children have been accommodated. When and where would it be appropriate for Rocky Hill residents to step up and assume a collective responsibility to assist in offering facilities for the greater good?
Jack Roberts
Platz Drive
Montgomery
Malpractice reform aims at wrong target
To the editor:
Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the letter from Gary S. Carter of the New Jersey Hospital Association urging Assembly passage of medical malpractice reform (The Packet, May 16), as a certified trial attorney and registered pharmacist I do question some of his information, which is clearly erroneous.
While it is true that the high cost of malpractice insurance in the state has resulted in "doctors having to make tough decisions about providing crucial services or staying in practice," Mr. Carter’s contention that "runaway jury awards and settlements have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance" is wrong.
The real cause for the spike in insurance rates is not the legal system or jury awards. Just look at the facts. Five years ago, there were approximately 2,200 medical malpractice suits filed in the state of New Jersey; last year, there were approximately 1,600.
The real cause for the increase in premiums is the insurance system itself.
Insurers make most of their profits from investment income, and today’s declining interest rates and investment losses are the real reason for insurance premium increases.
According to statistics from the advocacy group Americans for Insurance Reform, the amount of the insurance premiums (in constant dollars) that doctors have paid to insurers over the past 30 years has risen and fallen in relation to the state of the general economy driven by interest rates and investments while medical payouts have approximately tracked the rate of medical inflation.
To Mr. Carter and all others who seek real medical malpractice insurance reform, I say: Let’s base reform on the facts and place the blame for high premiums where it truly belongs with insurance companies and their strong lobbying tactics.
Let’s stop using doctors as pawns to evoke sympathy and fear from consumers. And let’s not forget the brain-damaged babies or quadriplegics whose suffering will be compounded if currently proposed legislation is enacted.
Larry L. Leifer
Millburn Avenue
Maplewood

