LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Dec. 17
No good substitutes for Snowden sidewalks
To the editor:
The Snowden Lane residents’ threatened lawsuit over the proposed construction of a sidewalk on their properties represents the latest example of a growing trend. Disgruntled citizens have begun to sue our local government when they have not been able to achieve their agenda democratically, i.e., when they have personally disagreed with the decisions of our duly elected representatives.
Our local governments have had to defend, with public monies intended for maintenance of the local infrastructure, against lawsuits from citizens disagreeing with the plebiscite position on various public policy initiatives such as decisions to preserve the local ecosystem over preservation of the local deer population, downtown development, library locations and now a sidewalk.
I did not enter into the debate on the Snowden Lane sidewalk, not wishing to offend our neighbors. It was with the expectation that there was no need to do so, assuming our local government would enforce building a long overdue and necessary sidewalk.
After all, while these citizens had a natural reluctance to accept the building of a sidewalk on their properties, Snowden Lane is indisputably an exceptionally hazardous route for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a fast, uninterrupted road from Herrontown Road to Nassau Street, and large portions lack any safe shoulder upon which to walk or bike. There are no good substitutes. It is the most expeditious north-south route for the Princeton area east of Harrison Street, and represents the shortest route to schools, towns and synagogues for the Littlebrook neighborhoods.
How do the Snowden Lane residents defend their objection to the sidewalk? It seems their objection has two main features:
1) They have put forward the absurd argument that Snowden Lane does not, in fact, represent a safety hazard because they can’t recall any accidents.
2) They understandably regret the necessity of cutting down beautiful trees, a lovely feature of the road. However, how does one balance the life of a tree, its aesthetic value notwithstanding, with the life of a single human being and find it equal?
We must trust that our local government will protect us from ill-conceived projects that serve narrow interests at the expense of the public good. And let us challenge our neighbors who use lawsuits to achieve what they could not persuade us to do.
Amy Ellis
Wittmer Court
Princeton
Immigrant deported to wrong country
To the editor:
As if the pain and fear of being swept up with his family by immigration agents at his home one morning, and then languish for two weeks in jail, were not enough, without prior notice to him or his family, on Dec. 13, Jose, one of the Guatemalan immigrants who was arrested in West Windsor on Nov. 30, was taken out of his cell in Elizabeth at dawn, handcuffed and escorted by three immigration agents to JFK airport, to be put on a flight destined not for his country of origin, but for Mexico.
In spite of his vehement protestations that he was being sent to the wrong country, immigration agents ordered Jose on to the Delta Airlines flight bound for Mexico City under threat of indefinite jail time, if he refused to leave.
Later in the day, as his anguished relatives in West Windsor realized that Jose had been deported, and put on a flight they assumed was bound for Guatemala City, they contacted relatives in their hometown, four hours away from the capital, to go pick him up. When Jose failed to arrive, the frantic relatives tried in vain all day to locate him around the airport, and finally went back home in despair.
Jose finally landed at 2 a.m. local time Dec. 14 on a flight from Mexico City, penniless, to find himself all alone in a darkened, empty airport terminal. Thanks to the kindness of a stranger, he was able to make a cell-phone call to a relative who was able to eventually drive over to greet him.
The other three members of the family who were also arrested on Nov. 30 in West Windsor Jose’s sister, her husband and their 21-year old daughter remain in custody at the Elizabeth detention center unable to qualify for bail while awaiting their deportation, their American dream turned into a nightmare.
Maria (Charo) Juega
Chair
Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Grover Avenue
Princeton
Letter misses point on immigration issue
To the editor:
Peter T. Johnson, in his Dec. 10 letter to The Packet, writes that I suggest in my Dec. 3 letter the "…immigrant population is here exclusively for economic reasons." Not true. I wrote that money is the primary reason and that, yes, there are other motives for illegal immigration to this country. Clearly, however, politics is not the major force behind the estimated 4,000 illegals who cross our southern border daily.
That aside, the main point of my letter was to ask why our over-taxed citizenry should pay the added cost of the social services consumed by illegal immigrants. Why shouldn’t the sympathizers and beneficiaries of illegal immigration pay?
Lloyd Gracey
Wright Place
West Windsor
PATRIOT Act is a local issue
To the editor:
I was disappointed that the authors of the letters in your Dec. 14 edition criticized the USA PATRIOT Act resolution passed by the West Windsor Township Council without having bothered to read it with understanding.
I was also disappointed that the authors did not bother to provide constructive criticism as I published the evolving drafts on my Web site over the last several weeks. They did not avail themselves of the convenient feedback form that I provide on my site. They did not even bother to contact me.
Rather than simply "watch democracy in action," perhaps they should try participating in it. And I would ask them why they think the issue did not have a "public forum" when it was passed in a public forum.
I am astounded at any suggestion that West Windsor residents would welcome any erosion of our constitutional rights. I am also astounded by any suggestion that West Windsor residents would oppose our taking every step necessary to protect us from terrorist evil.
I think all of us see our personal safety and personal freedoms as intensely local issues. How much more "local" can an issue be than an issue that affects us personally? That is why I would have voted for the resolution if the demands of my job had not taken me out of state that evening.
This has nothing to do with partisan Democrat or Republican politics. This has to do with fundamental American values regardless of political stripe. The resolution is all about protecting our constitutional rights and protecting our safety. I dare say that this will resonate in an intensely personal way for any West Windsor resident upon due reflection.
Charles Morgan
Member
West Windsor Township Council
Birchwood Court
West Windsor
Privacy less important than protecting lives
To the editor:
Shame on the West Windsor Council and shame on the West Windsor Citizens for Civil Liberties. Both organizations should feel very proud of themselves. I guess it’s easy for many people to forget the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. This attack on American soil resulted in a higher loss of life than the one that took place 63 years (almost to the day) prior to the council’s resolution.
In terms of the USA PATRIOT Act striking the right balance, who are these individuals who make up the West Windsor Citizens for Civil Liberties? How many of these people are World Trade Center survivors? How many of these people lost 75 of their coworkers in this horrific event? If a slight impingement of our civil liberties could serve to avert the next 9/11 event, would it be worth it? When an invasion of privacy could save 3,000 lives, would it be worth it?
How many of these people are veterans? How many of these people have served to protect our way of life? How many of these people were or are willing to fight for our way of life?
I am one of those individuals who believes that the pendulum has swung too far. We are more concerned about the rights of criminals and potential terrorists than we are about potential victims. In the state that should feel proud in pioneering and bringing us Megan’s Law, we have a group who has little to no concern for many of its fellow citizenry, who along with their families, still bear the scars of 9/11.
As a veteran and World Trade Center survivor, I and my family are deeply offended by the West Windsor Council’s action. I respectfully ask that the council members who voted for this resolution not be hypocrites and please stay away from next year’s 9/11 candlelight march and memoriam.
Garry Hundertmark
Clarksville Road
West Windsor
Residents’ review should precede vote
To the editor:
The resignations of both Chairwoman Susan Bristol and Philip Hayden from the Rocky Hill Planning Board are a tremendous loss for Rocky Hill. Both have extensive professional experience with architectural and landscape design, historic preservation ordinances and zoning regulations. Their expertise has been invaluable to the Planning Board and has been especially important during this difficult past year.
The timing of their resignations with the upcoming Dec. 20 Borough Council public hearing on proposed Ordinance 17-04 (called the Schafer Ordinance) is noted. The proposed ordinance is the result of a settlement agreement between the Borough Council and David Schafer and his lawyers to avoid litigation. Mr. Schafer owns the 15.7-acre farmland site on Princeton Avenue called the Schafer Tract, which is located in the Rocky Hill Historic Preservation District. This is the largest remaining vacant land parcel in the village.
Planning Board members have not seen the settlement agreement. At the Dec. 14 Planning Board meeting, members were asked to vote on proposed revisions to the land use portion of the Borough of Rocky Hill Master Plan, which would provide the legal foundation for the borough’s new proposed zoning and development regulations. The proposed Ordinance 17-04 adds a new zoning district Age-Restricted/Traditional Neighborhood Development that is limited to the Schafer Tract. Mr. Schafer proposes to build 34 large dwelling units (2.2 units per acre) to be sold at market value only to buyers 55 years of age and older.
Thus, the borough fair-share obligation to provide affordable housing would be shifted from this property. In the future, residents of Rocky Hill and their governing body, the Borough Council, would have to find a way to pay for meeting the mandated affordable-housing requirements.
Prior to attending the Dec. 20 Borough Council public hearing, residents should review the proposed land use plan revisions and the proposed Ordinance 17-04. Public discourse and community dialogue with the Borough Council will assure that all residents of Rocky Hill continue to have a shared vision for future development in the remaining four large sites in this historic village.
Jeanette K. Muser
Member
Rocky Hill Planning Board
Montgomery Avenue
Rocky Hill
Change composition of Fish and Game Council
To the editor:
State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell should be congratulated for his New Jersey Supreme Court win in stopping a bear hunt.
I truly hope that it will be a beginning of a major change in the New JerseyFish and Game Council’s right to unchecked exploitation of all wildlife. Now we should work with the Legislature to change the composition of the Fishand Game Council.
The Supreme Court noted the inherent conflict of interest of having a hunter-dominated council, and that there isn’t a system of checks and balances for the non-hunting public to have a say in wildlife management.
Upon hearing the court decision, the council chairman, Scott Ellis, referred to non-hunters as "animal rights whackos." It doesn’t occur to Mr. Ellis that the majority of New Jerseyans don’t want wildlife to be arbitrarily and cruelly slaughtered. Mr. Ellis’ unprofessional comment doesn’t speak well for the council, and gives us further reason to reconstitute the obsolete council.
Please contact your legislators and ask them to pass legislation to change the composition of the Fish and Game Council to fairly represent all the residents of New Jersey.
Nancy T. Bowman
Oak Creek Road
East Windsor
Grazefest contributes to quality of life
To the editor:
We are writing to thank the local restaurants, food retailers and farmers who participated in Grazefest Princeton 2004: "A Celebration of Pasture-raised Foods from America’s Small Farms."
Over the past month, through store sampling, special menu items and a five-course wine dinner, area residents learned about the culinary, environmental and animal-welfare benefits of raising animals outdoors on grass. They tasted cheeses, meats and dairy products from pasture-raised animals. And they got to know their local pasture-based farmers, who contribute to the quality of life in our community.
Many thanks to the Bent Spoon, Cherry Grove Farm, Mediterra, Simply Grazin’ Organic Farm, Small World Coffee and the Whole Earth Center for taking part in this year’s festivities and for their year-round contribution to the culinary life of our town. Thanks, too, to the Princeton Public Library for hosting the Grazefest Princeton film and discussion "Old Pig, New Pig, Happy Pig, Blue Pig: The Life, Death and Rebirth of Free Roaming Pigs on America’s Farms." Finally, we extend a special thanks to the sponsors of Grazefest Princeton Natural by Nature Organic Dairy, The Nature Conservancy in New Jersey and the Whole Earth Center.
Grass-fed beef and pasture-raised pork, lamb and poultry are gaining national attention for their superior nutritional quality and flavor. We are very lucky to have several pasture-based farms within a short drive of Princeton as well as a number of enlightened retailers and chefs who put these farms’ products in their stores and on their menus. We hope they will receive ongoing support from the community for their commitment to healthier foods, a cleaner environment and a better quality of life for farm animals.
Wendy Rickard
Fran McManus
Eating Fresh Publications
Seminary Avenue
Hopewell

