Letters to the Editor, April 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, April 8

Another tree falls in name of ‘progress’
To the editor:
   
As I walked up Witherspoon Street into town this morning, I paused in the cold shadow of Reed’s Folly to watch a few men with chainsaws dismantle in a day what nature had taken a century to build — a magnificent old-growth tree. I suppose this tree, which peacefully stood in a corner of the cemetery, arrogantly vied with the erudite dignity of the new Princeton Public Library. Perhaps it distracted readers. Or maybe some urban planner realized that shades need no shade.
   Witnessing yet another needless act of civic progress, I had an epiphany: There’s a sinister agenda afoot in Princeton. Like a detective who strings together seemingly unrelated misdeeds in a murder mystery, I saw years of arboreal butchery flash before my mind.
   I remembered walking through newly "renovated" Pyne Hall on the Princeton campus, my eyes frantically scanning for the beautiful birches that once shaded the courtyard. The only thing that courtyard looks fit for now is a firing squad. Or the lovely little maple outside Firestone Library’s front door. How I loved to sit and read beneath it on a spring afternoon. An exquisite barometer of the seasons, it humbled the sculpture beside it. Now it has been humbled. And the sweet copse of trees between Nassau Street and the Chancellor Green Student Center; when you stood on the corner of Nassau and Tulane and looked over at campus, those gentle giants conferred the charming difference between town, with its busy pavements, and the mild-mannered university. But mild manners gave way to bulldozers. The sweet copse was replaced with a meaningless clapboard house that begs for a strong wind. And the list, which begins to aggravate my ulcer, goes on.
   In my epiphany, I realized that the mindset behind this methodical deforestation runs something like this: "Face facts, Princeton is urban whether residents want to accept it or not. People in this town still think we’re back in the ’50s. Well, welcome to the 21st century! Besides, we’ve been spoiled for too long — it’s completely unfair that people in Princeton should enjoy so much green and comfort while the rest of the state is overpopulated and overdeveloped."
   Official party line, of course, professes the opposite. Every tree that either the town or the university hacks down "facilitates improved services" or "improves accessibility." Every plot of grass paved over with bleached slate or asphalt enables you and I to "enjoy" a more "pedestrian campus." Soon, a "functional footbridge" (as opposed to the merely ornamental variety) will straddle Washington Road. But it’s no mere bridge; it’s "not only a gateway to the campus, but it’s also a gateway to the town." Somehow I’ve managed to get in and out of campus and town all these years without it. I wonder: Will there be a toll?
   I’ve lived here a long time. I’ve watched the changes. There’s the rhetoric and the reality. And now there’s one less tree in Princeton.
Margaux O’Nolan
Witherspoon Street
Princeton
Investment in schools rewards taxpayers
To the editor:
   
Princeton residents and taxpayers properly agonize over the property taxes which, at about 50 cents of every dollar, go to support their schools. Annual increases, which in recent years have outpaced inflation, are not sustainable in the long run. There is reason, however, to view this reality with other than alarm.
   Few taxes (none come to mind) represent as real and near-certain return on investment as does our local school tax. Princeton property values in recent years and for some time have escalated at an even greater rate than our expenditures on our schools. A school budget average increase of several hundred dollars per residence typically is matched by a property value appreciation measured in the thousands. In other words, a multiple of the tax increase is returned in the same year; who wouldn’t be delighted to make such investments in any other investment arena? Granted, this entire increase may not be due to our schools, but surely the academic excellence we enjoy is a primary driver to underlying demand for real estate in the area.
   Our recent investment of over $80 million in our schools, overwhelmingly passed by the voters four years ago, is just now being enjoyed as excellent learning space, enhancing the educational experience for all of our children as well as their teachers. This is a strong statement that we will not relegate education to a secondary priority through under-funding. Again, this investment surely will come back many times, first in an excellent learning environment for our children and then in property values. Princeton is seen as a highly desirable community in which to live and raise families; premier schools are an absolute and vital necessity to sustaining that reality.
   We are blessed to have such a long-standing record of academic achievement in the Princeton schools. Please acknowledge this with your continued support by voting on April 19 for the continued investment — yes, investment — in our children and in our community.
Alan K. Hegedus
Chairman
Finance Committee
Princeton Regional Board of Education
Armour Road
Princeton
‘Just say no’ to school budget
To the editor:
   
I have two children in Princeton schools and I found your editorial about school taxes (The Packet, April 1) disingenuous.
   When you say "name one" family that moved due to property taxes, I have to say people don’t share that information. But since you asked, we are considering moving due to high property taxes. Moving is expensive, we are looking at it long and hard. And some people who are moved because of their company might sigh with relief as they drive out of town.
   Property values are soaring all across New Jersey, yet your paper continues to publish the ruse that the value of the average borough home is $349,000. This valuation does not include any of the soaring going on. Princeton Borough will reassess its houses within two years. Won’t people be surprised when the four-bedroom they bought five years ago for $400,000 is now worth nearly a million dollars and their taxes double overnight? If you moved here six years ago, you’ve watched your taxes double with the budgets of the Borough Council and school board.
   You say, "Most people are more than willing to accept this tradeoff (high taxes now for property valuations that are only on paper)." No, I think some are "more than willing," while most are frustrated by the poorly managed budget, but stuck — their option is to vote no to the budget and second question.
   The school board should be putting the "program enhancements" in the regular budget. Either these programs are vital or they are not. And "safety and related matters" should be in the maintenance portion of the regular budget. And I understand they want a bus to "improve the middle school athletic program." Is this an after-school bus that would take kids home, or a sports bus? A bus that takes a few from the school to sports isn’t benefiting the majority of the students. A school budget should be to provide public education — that is, to educate the kids, not provide subsidized augmentation to a few students’ private goals. Wouldn’t it be better to provide more intramural programs that more kids can walk to than to support the relatively few highly focused athletes?
   It is my argument that school taxes that rise at a rate well above inflation are not an investment that adds value. They are a symbol of a school board that thinks it can do anything and have total approval from the town.
   "Just say no" — the same way Alan Hegedus tells Borough Council. If taxes rise at the current inflation rate (2 percent) or even CPI (under 4 percent, which is considerably less than the 11 percent increase the board is asking for), the school board should still balance the budget. And if we had the courage to just say no to any increase, we’d still have a sterling program, if not a gilded one.
   Just say no — to the budget and to the second question.
Charlotte O’Connell
Patton Avenue
Princeton
School spending is out of control
To the editor:
   
In your editorial, "School taxes are an investment that adds value" (The Packet, April 1), you assert that those who object to high school taxes are akin to "Chicken Little." The general points of your treatise are that you see no evidence of people fleeing the region to escape the taxes, and property values are rising faster than taxes. You conclude that the main problem with property taxes is that they are not tied to income and it would be fairer to fund public education though a more broad-based tax.
   You dismiss the significance of the admitted problems with taxes with the comment, "Most people can afford to pay these taxes." This implies that it is acceptable to abuse a minority of the residents as long as "most" people are not driven into poverty by real estate taxes. Unfortunately, the minority that you dismiss includes many desperate people.
   For example, consider the senior, empty-nest couple who came to the area 30 or more years ago. They have a fixed, inflation-eroded income and own a modest home on an oversized lot. Inflated land prices have caused their oversized lot to become a tax burden. Their family and friends are nearby. Further, even if they wanted to move, the cost of selling and moving would offset tax savings. So they stay, and ask for help with the taxes. Their younger child graduated from high school 18 years ago. They have paid school taxes for 30 years and face continued escalation of taxes in the coming years.
   To make matters worse, if they confront the rubber-stamp school board on any issue, they are told that they should leave things to the professionals — and then are scolded by the editor of the local paper for being "Chicken Little."
   The history of the new Montgomery High School makes it difficult to believe our school taxes are wisely and prudently used. The laptop-computer proposal (with unsupervised access to the Internet), while credible studies have found that computers in the classroom are of little value, defies logic.
   People like those in the cited example, and with the young, local people who have not achieved the income levels needed to afford our school taxes, are the clearest victims of runaway taxes. Further, attempting to relieve school taxes by increasing income and sales taxes is not a viable solution. The New Jersey Legislature is already mangling the recommendations of the constitutional convention commission.
   The problem with school taxes is uncontrolled spending. The annual school budget exercise is nothing but an effort to justify increasing spending to the state non-cap. As long as these budgets get approved, we can expect the plight of the tax victims to worsen. I intend to vote no on the budget and any supplemental funding questions. I also will vote for any non-incumbent candidate for the school board who espouses fiscal control.
Daniel E. Huttar
Tall Cedar Court
Montgomery
Board unresponsive to parents’ concerns
To the editor:
   
There is a lot to be proud of in Montgomery’s schools, especially the many dedicated teachers and the outstanding performance of many students. But there is also a troubling problem, which your recent editorials have disregarded or dismissed: the unresponsiveness of school administrators and school board members to the needs and concerns of parents.
   In your editorial on March 11, you claimed that parents who objected to the school board’s approval of new school schedules "simply weren’t paying attention when they should have been." In fact, numerous parents were paying close attention. More than 50 parents signed a petition that was presented at the Board of Education meeting on Feb. 22. In the petition and in statements at the meeting, parents made several serious objections to the new schedules, including the negative impact of earlier starting times on the health of young children and the expense of additional after-school care caused by earlier dismissals.
   The board did not present candid public responses to those criticisms. Instead, it tabled the issue, ostensibly postponing a decision to the meeting on March 8. However, before the March 8 meeting, the Board of Education News published a formal announcement of the new school schedules. And at the March 8 meeting, parents’ objections were brushed aside on the ground that there was no time to continue the discussion. Thus, while you disdainfully asserted that complaints about the board’s decision-making process were "sheer nonsense," parents actually had a valid grievance: The operating assumption of the board was that parents should simply accept and adjust to the plans developed by the administration before the nominally open public discussion.
   Like many members of the board, some administrators have displayed indifference and even contempt for parents’ views. The superintendent declared that the administration’s job is only to provide the best education for kids, not to provide "conveniences" for parents. This shows an utter lack of understanding of parents’ perspectives. Parents’ deep concerns about the impact of the new schedules on the health and scholastic performance of their children are not merely matters of "convenience."
   Finally, your editorial on April 1, which derided "people who rant and rave against increases in school budgets," failed to note the connection between the arrogant unresponsiveness of school board members and administrators on one hand, and rising public distrust on the other. I know many Montgomery parents who are considering voting against the school budget because they think it is time to send a message to the board and administration that their disregard for parents’ views is absolutely unacceptable. Many of these parents and taxpayers will assert their right to be consulted at the next session of the Board of Education by meeting outside the high school media center at 7 p.m. on April 12.
David S. Foglesong
Chicopee Drive
Montgomery
Don’t be misinformed, vote for school budget
To the editor:
   
The Montgomery school budget is coming up for vote on April 19. Vote yes to maintain the quality programs that past and present school board members have worked so diligently to implement, and preserve our already prestigious school district.
   Beware: Parents are being misinformed. If we vote to defeat the budget, the board will be mandated to eliminate items from the budget. This will impede the district’s ability to hire necessary teachers and result in larger class sizes at every grade level. Also, new programs, which we as parents look for in a school district such as ours, will need to be eliminated. This will directly impact the educational and extracurricular opportunities for our children.
   Montgomery has rightfully earned the reputation as an excellent school district, and a vote of yes will maintain these high standards.
Nancy Bueschen
Opossum Road
Mary Anne Treacy-Ryan
Meadow Run Drive
Suzanne Calabro
Route 518
Montgomery
Time for change in Montgomery schools
To the editor:
   
As a Montgomery Board of Education employee, I know life is about choices. The choices we make define us as the people we are. The same is true for groups. The choices groups make define them — good, bad, effective, ineffective, evasive.
   Take, for instance, the Montgomery Board of Education and administration. There may be some good people on the board (frankly, I don’t know), but their decision to change the school times and the busing plan is a poor one. The manner in which they handled it was equally poor.
   What is worse is the message the board and the administration is inadvertently sending to the Montgomery residents. By not being responsive to and considerate of the parents’ and the district bus drivers’ ideas, thoughts and concerns, the board and administration have sent a message. I am afraid that the message is this: You are not important, your concerns are not important, your kids are not important, our drivers are not important — but, hey, your checkbook is important.
   The half truths and misconceptions are piling up. It is time to take notice and take action.
   I personally do not like to be treated like a sheep, or a mushroom, and there is little doubt in my mind that is exactly what has happened here. The township taxpayers and parents alike need to band together, gather their resources and send a clear and concise message about which there can be no misconception. Board of Education members and school administrators can be replaced. Throwing money at a problem is not necessarily going to solve the problem if the root of the problem is not dug out. Seems to me like it is a good time for spring weeding.
Lorri McColgan
Amwell Road
Hillsborough
WW-P school budget meets district’s needs
To the editor:
   
Preparing a school district budget is not an easy task for the nine members of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education. Working with the administration, it is our responsibility to review district expenditures and propose a reasonable spending plan for the following school year. We study enrollment figures, student-teacher ratios, class size, program offerings, capital projects and myriad other areas to create a budget that serves the needs of the students of the district without placing an unfair burden on the taxpayers.
   Over the past four months, the Board of Education has analyzed expenditures, developed enrollment projections and discussed budget guidelines. Through this process, the board has reviewed the importance of maintaining school facilities and providing comparable opportunities for all students in kindergarten through grade 12. I believe we have succeeded in all these areas and the 2005-2006 budget reflects an increase of 4.6 percent, or $5.9 million, over last year’s budget, which is under the state-mandated cap.
   There are some specific items in the budget I would like to highlight. Growing enrollment is affecting the high school population, and the proposed budget includes three additional teaching positions at the high school level as well as two additional guidance counselors. With stable enrollment at the middle level, we have no new positions in grades six through eight. At the elementary level, we have reassigned staff to meet the number of students expected in the next school year. In the budget, we allow for increases in tuition costs for special education and the addition of two special education teachers. In this area, we have controlled costs with an expansion of our in-district special needs program for kindergarten students and middle school program. Bringing our students back into their "home" district allows us to serve them better as well as manage tuition expenses. In the budget, we are able to control energy costs through a program of maintenance and review. We foresee an increase in transportation costs as we add more routes for our growing number of students.
   In the current year, we allocated funds for track repair, tennis court renovation and greenhouse replacement at High School South. In the 2005-2006 budget, we have made a concerted effort to increase funding for capital projects. This budget allows for $1.5 million, up from $1.2 million, for capital projects, including a roof at Community Middle School, gym floor and parking lot repairs at Wicoff Elementary School, carpet replacement at various schools, maintenance of the track and tennis courts at High School North and pool repair, exterior door replacement and renovation of space at High School South.
   We know you care about education. More than just money and taxes, the school budget is a reflection of community goals and values. The West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District continues to provide an outstanding education for students. The district has achieved a county, state and national reputation for excellence. Please mark your calendar for April 19, and be sure to vote on the 2005-2006 school budget.
Hemant Marathe
President
West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education
Clarendon Court
West Windsor
Kaye, Tucker are choice in West Windsor
To the editor:
   
In the upcoming Board of Education election, West Windsor voters are faced with choosing two board members from among three qualified candidates. I am writing to express my support for Randall Tucker and Richard Kaye, the two candidates I have come to know over the past several years.
   I have known Randy Tucker since he and his family moved to our neighborhood in West Windsor over 10 years ago. Randy is an intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful individual, someone who will do his best to learn all sides of an issue and make informed, fair decisions. His background in engineering operations and management provides him with a deep understanding of finance and facilities, two important issues in the district right now. His company has also participated in mentorship programs with their area high school, which provides a possible model for increasing community-school partnerships within our district.
   Randy has volunteered in the community in many ways in the last decade, including school and sports activities with his two children, giving him a broad knowledge of both the people and the concerns in the district. Randy recognizes the commitment involved in being a member of the school board and is willing to make that investment of his time in order to give back to the district for the benefits his family is receiving from our schools.
   I had the opportunity to get to know Richard Kaye through my term on the school board. He often attends board meetings and shares his insights on various curricular as well as budget issues. Richard agreed to serve on the Strategic Planning Core Team and was a tremendous asset to that group; several times he was able to help everyone reflect on the points under discussion through his commentary and then to help the team move forward in the decision making. I expect that he will bring that same talent to the board.
   Richard also provides a valuable balance in perspective to the board, as his professional experience was in education, as a teacher and a principal, and he now lives in Village Grande and is quite aware of the fiscal impact of the school budget on our community.
   Under the continued leadership of our superintendent, Dr. Robert Loretan, with the full support of the board, we have a very fair budget that takes into account the needs of our older buildings as well as the financial constraints faced by taxpayers. I encourage the citizens of West Windsor to show their support for the work of our district leaders and our excellent schools by voting in record numbers on April 19.
Diane Hasling
Jacob Drive
West Windsor
Kaye will be advocate for excellence in education
To the editor:
   
A great opportunity exists to enhance the education of students in West Windsor-Plainboro by voting for Richard Kaye to the Board of Education. He has the credentials, experience and dedication to be an advocate for excellence in education.
   Please vote and we hope it will be for Richard Kaye.
Janet and Perry Zevin
Honeyflower Lane
West Windsor
Kleinman backed for WW council
To the editor:
   
I have worked with Heidi Kleinman on the West Windsor Planning Board for the past several years and know that she will be a great Township Council member for West Windsor Township.
   Heidi has volunteered as a member of the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, the township’s review committee prior to applications being heard at the planning and zoning boards. Her expertise as an architect through thorough questioning has improved the quality of many applications. Her voting record shows her commitment to preserving our township green belt.
   I enjoy working with Heidi on the Planning Board and know that she will make a hardworking and caring Township Council member for West Windsor Township.
   I will vote on May 10 for Heidi Kleinman for West Windsor Township Council.
Simon Pankove
Cartwright Drive West
West Windsor
Girlchoir benefit draws broad community support
To the editor:
   
The Princeton Girlchoir hosted its annual spring benefit concert on Saturday, April 2. "Absolutely a cappella" showcased the talents of two award-winning a cappella groups — Princeton-based "Key of She" and New York City-based "Pieces of 8." The enormously successful evening brought together community members and Princeton Girlchoir friends and families to enjoy fabulous a cappella music and help raise money for our tuition assistance fund.
   This year marks the 16th anniversary of the Princeton Girlchoir, a nonprofit community choral organization serving more than 180 girls in grades 3-12. Girls from more than 26 schools in central New Jersey and Bucks County, Pa., participate in the organization’s choirs each year.
   We are deeply grateful to everyone who attended the concert and to all who made it possible. We would especially like to thank our corporate underwriters and sponsors. These include: American Express Co., Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, The Times, Innovex, Mayflower Cleaners, Mercedes Benz of Princeton, Dahlia’s Flower Shop, Document Depot, Main Street Catering, Princeton Day School, Shop-Rite Liquors of Pennington and Webb Mason. We also would like to thank Anne Fahey, John Baker, John Kunz and Andrew Babick.
   Many thanks to the Princeton community for your wonderful support.
Deborah McCourt and Robin Persky
2005 Benefit Co-Chairs
Princeton Girlchoir
Nassau Street
Princeton