LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Dec. 9
By:
Arts Council issue is all about size
To the editor:
This is a shortened version of a letter I plan to send to the Princeton Regional Planning Board and copy to the Princeton Borough Council regarding The Arts Council application.
I have difficulty understanding why the concerns relating to the increased size and overall bulk of this application can’t be understood and addressed in a realistic manner. The additional traffic, the additional use by The Arts Council itself and outside groups who rent this space will mean major changes to this residential neighborhood. It seems to me that current zoning should dictate the use of this site because this is such a densely populated neighborhood; there are one-way streets throughout; it already has businesses that utilize parking on the neighborhood streets; and any variances for this application makes it that much more difficult to refuse future applications requesting zoning variances in this neighborhood.
I do believe that The Arts Council has tried to address the parking, traffic and drop-off concerns not to the satisfaction of many, but they tried. I don’t think too many improvements could be made in those areas because of the location itself. But that should tell us that this might not be the best site for this particular application when you take into consideration the overall increase in size and bulk that is being requested.
I don’t think the neighborhood objects to The Arts Council being at that location. It understands that code violations must be abated, that there must be Department of Community Affairs compliance, etc. The neighborhood does object to the application in its current form that runs counter to the best interests of the neighborhood. Meetings promised to the neighborhood by The Arts Council with specificity to myriad questions that have been asked over the years have yet to be held. There have been many meetings, but answers to specific questions have not come from any of those meetings.
The issue is not the service that The Arts Council provides to the Princeton community and beyond; the issue is not the need for The Arts Council to grow and expand; the issue is not that the current site is not a good location in many ways for Princeton. But let us be realistic about the size of the site upon which this massive expansion is proposed almost double the current size in bulk. That is what this issue is about.
Mildred T. Trotman
Member
Princeton Borough Council
Witherspoon Street
Princeton
Children’s safety is adequately protected
To the editor:
After attending the November meeting of the Princeton Regional Board of Education and reading the letters that have appeared in the press, we’re concerned that some parents are asking the impossible of the board and the administration: namely that the school construction occur with no impact on the children.
Since the start of the construction, various safety concerns have been raised by parents and these have been promptly addressed by the administration. The recent concerns of the parents mostly focus on environmental concerns dust in the air, vapors from adhesives, fumes from construction vehicles, etc. Unfortunately, it is difficult for a layperson to assess the risks these environmental factors pose. The standard that some parents apparently advocate no exposure of the children is impossible to achieve with any reasonable budget.
Let us take the example of toluene, which is used in some industrial adhesives including, apparently, the roofing adhesive used in some of the elementary schools. The material safety data sheet lists several scary-sounding health warnings for this chemical. So how worried should parents be if their children are exposed to fumes of toluene? Well, this will depend entirely on the level of exposure.
There are two reasons to think that any exposure that has occurred did not affect the health of the children: 1) Several household products containing toluene are readily available. For example, a quick look the cupboards in one of our homes turned up lacquer thinner and furniture wax both containing this chemical. Our occasional use of such products has exposed us to some level of inhaled toluene with no evident adverse effect. 2) The workers who apply the adhesive are exposed to much higher doses of the fumes both because they are closer to the point of application and because their jobs likely entail repeated exposure. The MSDS spells out the health consequences of this much higher exposure and may not be so relevant to one or two incidents where some fumes could be smelled in the classrooms.
In addition, we have a third reason not to worry. We trust that the construction is being carried out in a responsible way and the history of the construction so far has reinforced this trust. Unfortunately, a small number of parents have made it clear that they trust neither the school administration nor the construction firms (nor even the local and state health and safety officials responsible for overseeing the project). To these parents we would say: You are right to be concerned about your children’s health and you should continue to voice your concerns over the construction project; but please also 1) compare the environmental risks of the school construction project to the many other minor risks that your children run every day at home, on the road, in the playground and participating in sports, and 2) note that all the safety concerns that have been raised so far have been resolved with, as far as we’re aware, no confirmed cases of damage to the children’s health.
As far as we’re concerned, we’re happy to see the Princeton schools get much-needed capital improvements, and we’re happy that our chil- dren are continuing to get a great education at Riverside School.
Jane Murphy
Charles Karney
Prospect Avenue
Jackie Rea
Peter Rea
Castle Howard Court
Princeton
Wonderful book digs into Princeton’s past
To the editor:
Recently a wonderful gift has been given to the town of Princeton. It is the updated edition of "Princeton: On The Streets Where We Live Revisited," by Randy Hobler and Jeanne Silvester. Although Jeanne passed away in 2001, Mrs. Hobler, a resident of Princeton for almost 60 years, was still itching to keep "Streets" up to date. So she produced this sequel with the help of Nancy Ford.
The book is more than a dry compilation of how streets got their names. It also takes you on a virtual journey through 300 years of history of Princeton. Mrs. Hobler’s book presents not just the local color of town and gown, but also of people and events of great import in the state, our nation and world. In a broad sense, this book (and its predecessor) provides a town genealogy.
I’ve been a volunteer in the public schools in my town for almost 20 years. Students study the town history in different grades and are encouraged to use several resources to learn about the town: books, the Internet, pamphlets, old photographs, cemeteries, monuments, parks and interviews with people.
So when I was reading the updated edition of "Streets," I got an idea. Why not use this book in the curriculum for K-12? (Actually, why not also use it as a resource at the college level and beyond?) So many gems are waiting to be unearthed and shared. Wouldn’t it be fun to introduce students to people like Vladimir Zworykin, Paul Robeson, Thornton Wilder, Benjamin Franklin Bunn and Nathaniel Fitz Randolph (Mrs. Hobler is a direct descendant)? How about traveling back in time and, as the book says, "Imagine the racket when wagons rolled over Canal Street (now Alexander Street) when it was planked in the 1850s." Think of the great opportunities for students to create skits, art, puzzles, radio shows, videos, board games or walking tours about their hometown.
I encourage all educators (that includes parents) to don your professorial gowns and dig into Princeton’s past with "Streets" tucked under your arm. Who knows? Perhaps, one day more street names will celebrate the lives of Princetonians, including my mother, Randy Hobler.
Mary B. Hobler Hyson
Wolf Hill Road
Cheshire, Conn.
Gun haters’ logic shot full of holes
To the editor:
Whether or not Jonathan Perlman considers himself a gun hater (The Packet, Nov. 14), his letter continues the gun haters’ usual barrage of distortions and tortured reasoning.
As Mr. Perlman notes, the goodness or badness of guns is not the issue. Neither is "reasonable controls on their ownership and use" the issue. The issue is control of people who commit violent crimes, irrespective of the tools they use to commit their crimes. Focusing on the tools instead of on the criminals explains the persistence of violent crime and the persistent battles between the law-abiding gun-owning population and the population represented by Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Corzine, Rep. Holt, Sarah Brady, Bryan Miller and the marching mommies.
Yes, gun-rights advocates fight nearly all restrictions, just as human-rights advocates would fight similar restrictions on, say, child-bearing. One hundred percent of violent crimes are committed by the children of women, but women don’t have to be licensed to bear children. High-capacity women are not banned. Women don’t need to be fingerprinted and get permission from the police and FBI before having a child. The government doesn’t tell them how many children they can have. They are not prohibited from taking their children out in public. They are not banned from having children who look too "military."
Mr. Perlman says gun-control advocates are looking for reasonable ways to reduce the death and maiming caused by handguns. Yeah, and Hitler was just looking for reasonable ways to reduce ethnic enmity. Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Corzine and Rep. Holt are simply trying to curry favor with voters who fear or dislike guns by imposing their own bigotry about guns on the population at large. They are trying to look like they are doing something about death and maiming while not really doing anything about it.
Mr. Perlman claims that no one is trying to deprive hunters and other "legitimate" users of guns of their weapons. Either that is a bald-faced lie or else Mr. Perlman is colossally ignorant about the activities of the gun-grabbing movement. Even if his patently false claim were true, it would provide little comfort to gun owners. Imagine telling mothers that we’re not going to deprive them of their future doctors or preachers but that we’re going to impose "reasonable" controls on the other types of children they can have.
Mr. Perlman’s last claim, his most damning, is this: "The real danger is the notion of ‘self defense’ in our society of police and laws." What does that mean? The best interpretation I could come up with is: "We don’t need to defend ourselves from violent attack. The police, lawyers and politicians will protect us."
To this contrary-to-nature proposal I offer only a short rebuttal. There were 20,308 homicides in this country in 2001 and 5.7 million other crimes of violence. Where were the police, lawyers and politicians when those nearly 6 million people needed defending?
When the politicians have tired of rescinding our constitutionally guaranteed rights and have turned their efforts to rescinding fundamental laws of nature like every organism’s right to self-defense then we’ll know it’s time to exercise what Abraham Lincoln called the people’s revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow the existing government.
Terry Wintroub
Trafalgar Court
Lawrence