Letters to the Editor, April 26

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, April 26

School budget review process explained
To the editor:
   
The following is an open letter to Montgomery residents:
   
This is to address some questions and possible misconceptions about the Montgomery Township Committee’s review of the school budget.
   The defeated school budget was delivered on April 21 to the Township Committee. The independent auditing firm of Hodulik & Morrison P.A. is reviewing the budget with township staff and a bipartisan subcommittee of the Township Committee, made up of John Warms and Mark Caliguire.
   By law, the Township Committee must act on school budget reductions by Thursday, May 19. We expect to take this action at our business meeting scheduled for May 19 at 7:30 p.m.
   Also by law, the Township Committee must consult with the school board so that it has an opportunity to provide input. These consultations will occur primarily through subcommittees after the township’s initial review of the budget. The Township Committee’s subcommittee will report its progress at our working session on Wednesday, May 4.
   Like all Township Committee meetings, the May 4 session is a public meeting and comments from residents are welcome. The meeting will be held in the courtroom of the municipal building, and the subcommittee’s progress report probably will begin around 8 p.m.
   The Township Committee will be taking a hard look at the school budget. While we will seek information and input from the Board of Education and administration, the responsibility for deciding where to cut lies with the five of us. We take that responsibility very seriously. We will explore every opportunity to reduce expenditures without sacrificing the high-quality instruction that is at the heart of our excellent schools.
Montgomery Township Committee
Louise Wilson, Mayor
Hollow Road
Karen Wintress, Deputy Mayor
York Drive
Cecilia Birge
Adams Drive
Mark Caliguire
Hunters Path
John Warms
Brookside Drive
Montgomery
Voters thanked for support of schools
To the editor:
   
On behalf of the Princeton Regional Board of Education, we want to extend our gratitude and appreciation to the Princeton community for supporting our 2005-2006 budget and second question.
   Education has always been a priority in Princeton. This is reflected in the excellence of our public schools, which at the same time contributes to the fine quality of life and high property values we enjoy here. The board particularly appreciates the serious consideration given our budget requests and the thoughtful participation of many Princetonians throughout the process of budget development.
   We want you to know we did not approach these requests lightly. The board spent hours with administrators and staff carefully crafting a plan to address critical academic programming, personnel and safety issues. Your support allows us to move forward with these areas of vital need. Many of these programs will have a very public face, ones that will be readily apparent to our parents and students. These programs include science specialists in the elementary schools, early intervention teachers, an expanded pre-K program, after-school tutorials, elementary guidance and additional safety monitors among others.
   We appreciate that this vote came at a significant cost to many in our community. On an individual level, we, too, are struggling with our own increased property tax bills as well as increased gas and utility expenses. We recognize that this places an even greater burden on the board and district to use our resources effectively. Our goal is to make the Princeton Regional Schools a place where all students thrive and achieve to their highest potential. Thank you for giving us the support necessary to make that happen.
Princeton Regional Schools
Board of Education
Anne B. Burns
President
Baldwin Lane
Charlotte Bialek
Vice President
Jefferson Road
Alan Hegedus
Chair, Finance Committee
Armour Road
Princeton
Neighbors treated with condescension
To the editor:
   
After attending the Princeton Township Zoning Board of Adjustment’s recent meeting on the jazz club application, I was frankly appalled at the behavior and some of the remarks of its chairman, Carlos Rodriques, and attorney, Robert Casey.
   In the face of legitimate and heartfelt grievances from the public about this application, both individuals were generally condescending, frequently sarcastic and occasionally hostile. At one point, Mr. Casey threatened to have a citizen removed or arrested for speaking out. Whether these officials serve pro bono or are salaried, they abuse their positions, in my opinion, by acting in this manner.
   In response to criticism about the effect of the jazz club on people’s lives, Mr. Rodriques abruptly sought to silence everyone by saying, "This is a zoning board application. This isn’t anybody’s life. Enough!" But Mr. Rodriques speaks in error. This is about people’s lives. This is no ordinary zoning board application.
   For the past nine months, my neighbors and I have organized a grassroots response to the jazz club, involving scores of residents from Princeton Township and Borough. Many of them were at the zoning board meeting on April 20. From these citizens, we have raised and spent nearly $25,000 for our legal defense and to hire a professional planner — all necessitated, sadly, to defend ourselves against our own zoning board. These donations have been both large and small — many as small as $25 or $50 — but all have been given by people who hardly can afford to do so. People have sacrificed their monetary resources because they understand what the impact of this jazz club would be on their lives. It is an affront by Mr. Rodriques to dismiss this concern.
   In 2004, when the zoning board hastily issued a split variance for this jazz club, Mr. Rodriques said the site plan review would be the time to hear public concern. Judge Linda Feinberg, in rejecting the lawsuit of the plaintiffs, of which I was one, said essentially the same thing. That was hardly the tenor or the organization of last week’s zoning board meeting. Instead, the public was kept at the margins and would have been limited to one-half hour to speak, were it not for our sheer numbers. And the township’s paid staff of experts, though represented in numbers, hardly said a word all night. What we got was a meeting largely orchestrated and controlled by Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Casey.
   One can only hope that subsequent meetings on this vital subject and the threat it represents to our community, beginning with the next hearing on May 2, will be conducted differently. Perhaps other members of the zoning board will prevail on their leadership for this change. If not, and if Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Casey persist where they left off, then, perhaps, it is time to call into question their continued service. Again, this is no ordinary zoning board matter.
Kathleen Hutchins
Duffield Place
Princeton
Appalled by defeat of school budget
To the editor:
   
I am truly appalled by the defeat of Montgomery’s school budget. Apparently many people seem to think that this town, filled with rich people, ought not to be spending more per student then, say, Arkansas.
   I hope the people who voted against the budget will think about the message they have sent not only to the board members, but also to the young people in this community.
   I have not had any children in the school system for several years. Nevertheless, I have always supported increases in the school budgets. I believe we have an obligation to provide a quality education to the children in this community. And, frankly, I find it hard to complain about a $1,000 increase in taxes for next year when my house has increased in value by many times that amount since last year.
   I can understand why some of those people in our community who live on modest, fixed incomes would vote against the budget. We undoubtedly need tax reform. What I cannot understand, however, is how anyone with children in the district could have voted no. If I am willing to pay my fair share to educate their children, why aren’t they?
Ingrid Yurchenco
South Wiggins Lane
Montgomery
Voters’ message had better be heard
To the editor:
   
Judging from the self-serving responses made by existing members of the Montgomery Board of Education to the budget results, it is clear they didn’t get the message. The public has reacted to the board’s apparent attention to legacy building rather then responsible cost containment.
   The fact that Mr. Hyncik was not returned to the board is an expression of anticipation and expectation accompanying the new members as they assume their responsibilities. The voters clearly expect their efforts, as well as those of the existing members, to focus on eliminating or curtailing budget line items not directly influencing the quality of education, while at the same time maintaining the high educational standards we have enjoyed. Unfortunately, this will require a very hard look at the extracurricular activities and excesses in other areas as contemplated in the original plan.
   If the board members and the members of the Township Committee cannot make the distinction between need and want, the voters will make that distinction for them in subsequent elections.
Gerald K. Donnelly
Spring Hill Road
Montgomery
Hollow ‘victory’ for Montgomery voters
To the editor:
   
The Montgomery School District budget was defeated last week by a 2-1 margin, even with the controversial laptop question as a separate issue on the ballot. There are a lot of people who must be pretty proud of themselves. If you are one of these people or interest groups sitting around patting yourselves on the back and congratulating yourselves for "winning," let’s take a moment to review your "victory," shall we?
   If you voted no because you were feeling a little miffed that you hadn’t been consulted about the new time schedules (which would create a plethora of problems, including health and safety issues, and the inconvenience of multiple trips to the bus stop), your protest vote now puts the school board in the position where it will have to cut expenditures. One of the things that might get cut are staff positions — fewer teachers, larger class sizes. Did you think 21 kids to a teacher was a lot? Next year, it might be 30. Think of the quality time your child will receive from a teacher in a class that size — a teacher, by the way, who, after taxes, has a net salary pretty much near what the federal government guidelines consider poverty level, taking into account the area of the country we’re in. Give yourselves a hearty pat on the back.
   If you voted no because you don’t want to pay more taxes and you don’t have school-age kids anymore, remember when your house was worth much less — now you could sell it and have a nice little nest egg to enjoy somewhere warm. Just remember that the property values in Montgomery have skyrocketed precisely because the majority of your new neighbors were attracted to the excellent schools. If the quality of the schools go down because of overcrowding and lack of services, guess who will be the first to move? What will your house be worth then? Go ahead and give yourself a nice pat on the back.
   The vote Tuesday was not about the kids, it was about the adults. It was about some adults not getting their way — so they got even. And it was about some adults who felt they shouldn’t have to bear the burden of responsibility. But the burden has to be carried by each successive generation, just as it always has.
   You may have "won," but you did it at the expense of the children. And the lesson you taught them on the road to this victory — as far as not having to be responsible to and for one another — is shamefully stunning. Congratulations to all of you.
Maria Larkin
Bolton Circle
Montgomery
Mayor is doing an excellent job
To the editor:
   
For the past year, the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Task Force has worked closely with West Windsor Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, meeting once a month during the school year. As a member of this group, I feel that the mayor is very eager to receive ideas and opinions from townspeople.
   First of all, he started our group in order to get teenage viewpoints on current events and issues in the town. We have been preparing for forums for other high school students in an effort to hear more thoughts and receive more feedback from this typically underrepresented age group.
   Secondly, the mayor has been open with us about all of his plans, such as the redevelopment of the train station and plans for the installation of the new Alexander Road bridge. He has even encouraged us to share this information with our parents and peers, since he believes that every citizen should know what is going on in the town.
   Overall, I believe that it is absurd to claim that Mayor Hsueh fails to include West Windsor citizens in his plans and decisions. Rather, he would love to hear input from any person who has an opinion. He is also willing to answer any questions that citizens may have and to clear up any confusion over town matters.
   At this time, our township needs consistent leadership. A mayor has not held more than one term for a significant period of time, which makes it difficult to achieve tasks. Our current mayor is doing an excellent job and really moving our town along. In order to see continued improvement in West Windsor, the citizens should forget about voting for a new, inexperienced mayor. Rather, they should re-elect Mayor Hsueh, who will listen to the town and act according to the needs and wants of the community.
Kelly Nigh
Radford Court
West Windsor
Miller, running mates backed in West Windsor
To the editor:
   
As a lifelong resident of West Windsor, I have always been devoted to my community. That is why I am excited that Alison Miller will be our next mayor.
   I have witnessed West Windsor change from a rural township with a handful of villages into a developed suburban municipality. Our local government is much more sophisticated and complex than it was when I was a child and my great-uncle, Fred Earl, took turns being mayor with the other two members of the then three-person Township Committee.
   I have known Alison Miller for many years and I have always respected her honesty, extensive knowledge base of local issues and her straightforward, unselfish commitment to West Windsor. She knows that everything that happens in town affects everyone else in town eventually, particularly through taxation and traffic issues. Therefore, Alison seeks out others’ opinions, listens to everyone who has something to say and then makes an informed decision that will best serve us all.
   The key to effective leadership in West Windsor is informed and decisive action by a mayor and Township Council majority that speak in a clear voice to West Windsor residents.
   Please join me and vote for Alison Miller and her running mates, David Siegel and George Borek.
Susan Connolly Parris
Washington Road
West Windsor
Leadership, character make Hsueh best choice
To the editor:
   
Shing-Fu Hsueh’s laudable accomplishments as mayor of West Windsor are a matter of public record: The quality of life in our community has improved. Mayor Hsueh’s commitment to public service, his knowledge of government, analytical skill and engineering experience and his sense of teamwork made it happen.
   Mayor Hsueh is also a man of impeccable integrity, known by our community for his sound judgment and practical advice. Ten years ago, the Princeton Chinese Language School conducted elections for the school’s leadership at a critical time in its history. The parents of the school sought Shing-Fu Hsueh as an impartial and trusted observer of the election proceedings to ensure their fairness and accuracy. The election was very successful and the results were embraced by the school community, largely because of Dr. Hsueh’s role as observer.
   A well-rounded man, Mayor Hsueh has cultivated a variety of interests, a character trait that enables him to handle better our township’s issues from a variety of perspectives. For example, on the one hand, he was appointed by several national professional and research organizations as a member of their technical review committees. On the other hand, Dr. Hsueh is also an amateur artist and has created a number of artworks. Mayor Hsueh has fostered and participated in many of the cultural celebrations held in our ethnically diverse community and supported various sports events here.
   Dr. Hsueh has a strong commitment to teaching. He has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers in environmental science and engineering since 1987, providing younger generations with the benefits of his technical knowledge and insight.
   Combined with his strong belief in balance in one’s life, Dr. Hsueh has applied his commitment to teaching by leading tai-chi classes in our community every weekend for more than 10 years. An expert in this ancient martial art, Dr. Hsueh teaches class attendees how to integrate exercise through graceful movement, mental acuity via concentration on posture and form, and serenity that reduces stress.
   Shing-Fu Hsueh is a father and grandfather. He and his wife of 33 years, Sue, have two productive and well-respected children. Their son, Steven, graduated from Princeton University and operates an investment management business in our area. Their daughter, Susan, graduated from Rutgers and teaches Chinese at Grover Middle School. Steven and Susan are credits to their parents, who have nurtured them to become the fine adults they are today.
   Shing-Fu Hsueh is not only the right person as mayor of West Windsor Township for the quality of his leadership, but also for the quality of his character.
   Please vote on May 10.
Nord F. Winnan
Lorrie Lane
West Windsor
Stick with a winner in West Windsor
To the editor:
   
There is no doubt in my mind that West Windsor Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh should be re-elected for a second term. I came to this conclusion, after reading the mayor’s re-election Web site, www.Hsueh.org, particularly the section titled "Accomplishments."
   I was truly impressed by the Web site’s completeness and detail. I could not believe all the things this man has accomplished in the past four years. He needs to be given the chance to continue and complete what he has initiated. He certainly has created the momentum and has the energy to get things done.
   There are three main reasons that I have focused on regarding my decision of support:
   1) West Windsor had the lowest percentage property tax increase in Mercer County this year;
   2) The number of sizeable non-taxpayer funded grants for major township improvements is astounding; and
   3) The mayor is community supportive and involved in recreation, the arts and social, youth and senior activities.
   As the saying goes, "When you have a winner, stick with him." Join me in voting for Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh and the Community Vision Team, Linda Geevers and Heidi Kleinman for Township Council, on May 10.
Paul Eland
Coneflower Lane
West Windsor
Take pictures of town, before it disappears
To the editor:
   
If anyone is interested in historical Plainsboro, they should take their pictures on Founders Day this Sunday because the town has decided to turn the heart of the old village into hardcore downtown. They have chosen the ambience of Perry Street over Palmer Square.
   About 20 years ago, the State Historical Preservation Office wrote that Plainsboro Village could be a historic district, like Cranbury, because so many of the buildings that were here two centuries ago are still here. A visitor from 1800 would have no problem recognizing "downtown" Plainsboro. The epicenter of Plainsboro history is the intersection of Dey Road and Edgemere Avenue with Plainsboro Road.
   This summer, the township will spend at least $600,000 (one-third from your town dollar, two-thirds from your state dollar, 100 percent from your dollars) to change the look from village crossroads to urban downtown. Plans were unveiled to the local homeowners after the plans were finalized.
   The residents advocate a 25-mph residential speed limit and a four-way stop, so each driver will have their turn to a safe right-of-way. Instead of listening to them, the town insists the speed limits will be kept high and the numerous lights, poles and the other urban beautifiers that go with a major intersection will be installed.
   To make room for this intrusive equipment, trees, lawns and landscaping are to be removed from what little private property surrounds the old houses. After that, whatever space is left over between the houses and streets is to be paved over with cement sidewalks so the historic houses will have as much curb appeal as all the old buildings in any inner city.
   It is sad (or is it arrogance?) that the planners were not interested in the input of anyone from the neighborhood who has observed conditions and behaviors at that intersection for years and even decades. The residents’ suggestions for expediting left turns, through traffic and pedestrian safety, were ignored or rebuffed. The experts deemed such amateurs had nothing to contribute except their real estate. It’s tragic that the town put the interests of those who drive through town above the interests of those that live in it.
   The worst part is that the town’s changes will affect property values in the area negatively and they seem unaware or uncaring that such a slide spreads. That’s why Cranbury is Cranbury and Camden is Camden, so take your pictures of Plainsboro as it is before it disappears.
Peter Pfister
Plainsboro Road
Plainsboro
Trade agreement will be harmful to Guatemalans
To the editor:
   
Our current administration says it favors encouraging freedom, justice and democracy, but its actions do not appear to support its words. Consider the Central American Trade Agreement soon slated to come before the U.S. Congress for approval.
   CAFTA benefits American business and those in power in Central America, not the average Central American trying to feed and protect his or her family. If this agreement is approved, it will perforce bring many illegal immigrants to America. When families cannot provide for themselves in their own countries, they are desperate to go where they can make money to send home; they pay "coyotes" to help them get to America, risking their own safety all during the journey, and even more than safety, if they are women.
   Recently, tear gas and water cannons were used against a massive protest that indicated the Guatemalan public’s opposition to the approval of CAFTA by the Guatemalan Congress. Because of the protests, the Guatemalan Congress was forced to postpone voting to approve CAFTA. Guatemalan opponents maintain that the treaty would hurt local farmers and workers through competition with powerful foreign companies.
   One example of the damage CAFTA will cause is to local farmers. These farmers grow corn, a staple of the diet in Guatemala. Guatemalan farmers cannot possibly compete price-wise with corn from American agribusiness, supported by lavish U.S. government subsidies that greatly reduce the cost of growing corn.
   Coincidentally, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has promised $3.2 million in aid to Guatemala. This aid is ostensibly for assisting in the training and modernization of Guatemalan armed forces. In the recent past, the Guatemalan army committed human rights abuses; at least 120,000 people disappeared before a peace accord was signed in 1996, over 30 years after the civil war began. It seems to me that there is a logical connection between these two issues: CAFTA and our government’s largess in proposing military support to a government that ignores the economic health of its people in favor of a damaging treaty. Under CAFTA there will be little freedom, justice and democracy for the vast majority of Guatemalans.
Elise Murray
Cherrybrook Drive
Montgomery